U.S. judge in Rittenhouse trial says jury can consider teen provoked attack
Source: Reuters
November 12, 2021
3:10 PM CST
Last Updated an hour ago
United States
By Nathan Layne
4 minute read
KENOSHA, Wis., Nov 12 (Reuters) - The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.
The ruling is a boost for prosecutors because it opens the door for them to argue that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, which would raise the bar for the teenager's effort to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.
. . .
Ahead of the trial, some legal experts told Reuters that prosecutors faced a formidable challenge in bringing a successful prosecution.
"Now it's a fair fight," said Patrick Cafferty, a criminal defense attorney in Wisconsin, referring to the lift the ruling would give the prosecution. "Without that instruction they would have zero chance."
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-rittenhouse-trial-will-not-allow-jury-consider-lesser-charge-shooting-2021-11-12/
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)you are trying to intimidate and provoke just like the cops in their riot gear and guns. The little fascist put himself in danger.
Baitball Blogger
(46,682 posts)That's all we were asking for. A fair trial.
bucolic_frolic
(43,044 posts)but with that instruction maybe he was giving the defense every benefit of the doubt. If they don't prevail, they really have little comeback.
elleng
(130,732 posts)so incorrect headine, NOT a 'U.S. judge.
H2O Man
(73,506 posts)that Judge Schroeder said this.
33taw
(2,436 posts)This is not a federal trial.
Is to the Reuters World News site. It's meant for an international audience.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)For an international audience.
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,783 posts)The victims responded to his aggressive and reckless behavior.
They likely would had ignore him if he was just walking without the AK.
If he had stayed at the business he claimed asked him to protect he would had been away from the action. The business owners deny requesting protection. Doubt they would had requested it as insurance company likely would deny claims. As KR was underage and in illegally in possession of a firearm. It wasn't illegal because he was underage but it was obtained illegally.
Instead he was romping down the streets
Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Aussie105
(5,327 posts)Society will be better off with KR off the streets for a long, long time.