Well, I haven’t seen anything to make me think the verdict itself is bullshit based on the evidence presented, and the way these things work is that the court’s duty is to establish a relationship between charge and evidence. Can’t comment on any evidence that was held back, or comment on whether the rules for doing so are sound.
The judge strikes me as a dick, as do an assortment of parties on both sides of the equation, though I wouldn’t draw moral equivalence between them. Some mis-reporting undoubtedly helped the defence.
I don’t think it’s a good thing that there were no charges brought that could stick. I do think there is good evidence that he was defending himself, and I also do think it is ridiculous that he was there in the first place.
Going forward - I don’t think this is a good result. Given the specific charges and the legal environment, I don’t know enough to say how a better result would have happened.
I don’t find Rittenhouse a likeable character, but that is not the purpose of criminal trials. Nor, however, is it the purpose of criminal trials to act as a cathartic morality play for dealing with a host of related concerns.
He’s an idiot, and it’s a shame nothing more can be done on that count legally speaking. I’d hope he has the smarts to properly realise the consequences of his actions and deal with the effects of that. I hear he had some ambitions to be a paramedic, and I wouldn’t begrudge him some path towards redemption. Though I’m not that hopeful on that count.
That’s about my lot.
words are a salad and I'm the vinegar.
