Replies to post #391663 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[brooklyn13]

Re Rittenhouse, to quote Dickens, "the law is a ass....."

No one else was shot or murdered at that demonstration / riot. So he brought a rifle to defend himself from an event that the didn't have to attend. It's not like they were attacking his home. He was the instigator and not entitled to an innocent verdict based on self defense.

I put it on the judge, if he wasn't a senile white nationalist himself, the outcome might have been different. One can only hope that the civil cases to come will wipe the smirk off Rittenhouse's fat face.

[fuagf]

Obviously that point was a journalistic error. A bad one.

What We Know About the Shooting of Jacob Blake

[...]

The prosecutor concluded that a case against Officer Sheskey would have been hard to prove. He said it would be difficult to disprove an argument that the officer was protecting himself from Mr. Blake, who Mr. Graveley said had admitted holding a knife.

Mr. Crump reacted on Twitter, writing, “We are immensely disappointed and feel this decision failed not only Jacob and his family but the community that protested and demanded justice.”

More than nine months after that decision was made public, the Justice Department announced that it would not pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against Officer Sheskey, saying there was insufficient evidence to prove that had willfully used excessive force.

“Prosecutors must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an officer ‘willfully’ deprived an individual of a constitutional right, meaning that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids,” the department said in a statement.

“This is the highest standard of intent imposed by the law. Neither accident, mistake, fear, negligence, nor bad judgment is sufficient to establish a willful federal criminal civil rights violation.”

https://www.nytimes.com/article/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha.html