![]() But we watched the trial closely, hoping it would bring us closure. We did not attend the trial because we could not bear to sit in a courtroom and repeatedly watch videos of our son’s murder, and because we have been subjected to many hurtful and nasty comments in the past year. Rittenhouse’s other victims, Joseph Rosenbaum and Gaige Grosskreutz. There was no justice today for Anthony, or for Mr. "We are heartbroken and angry that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted in his criminal trial for the murder of our son Anthony Huber. The full statement from Huber's parents is below: We ask that you remember Anthony and keep him in your prayers." ![]() "He is a hero who sacrificed his own life to protect other innocent civilians. "We are so proud of Anthony, and we love him so much," they said. The parents said Anthony Huber was shot in the chest trying to disarm Rittenhouse and "stop his shooting spree." Rittenhouse nor the Kenosha police who authorized his bloody rampage will escape justice. "Make no mistake: our fight to hold those responsible for Anthony’s death accountable continues in full force," they added. It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street."īloom and John Huber called for others to join them in rejecting that message and demanding more of laws, officials and the justice system. Today’s verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son. ![]() ".We watched the trial closely, hoping it would bring us closure," they said in a statement released through attorneys. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, R-Ga., called Kyle Rittenhouse “one of good ones,” while New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said calling the verdict a “miscarriage of justice is an understatement." Resolving these competing views is precisely what juries are for.Rep. Indeed, in a very real sense, two competing views of the equities of the situation can coexist: the protesters/victims could have believed they were lawfully, even heroically, chasing down an active shooter, and Rittenhouse could have believed he was justified in firing his weapon the first time and was then being chased by an angry mob against which he defended himself by continuing to discharge his weapon. In reality, the viability of a self-defense claim doesn’t turn on subjective views of the relative righteousness of the conduct of Rittenhouse versus that of the protesters. Because none of those conclusions satisfy the extremely high evidentiary burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think my client is “very likely guilty” again, you must vote not guilty. If you think my client’s “probably guilty” you must vote not guilty. That means if you think my client “might be guilty” you must vote not guilty. In many criminal cases I tried, defense attorneys would tell the jury: Ladies and gentlemen, you must be satisfied that the evidence proves my client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's before the judge’s (let's call them) peculiarities. ![]() One thing’s for sure: Disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when there is video showing the victims acting aggressively toward, and, arguably, even assaulting Rittenhouse as he was firing his weapon, made a conviction difficult. Let’s hope the jury’s decision was based exclusively on the evidence introduced during the the trial. Only the jurors know why they had reasonable doubt about Rittenhouse’s guilt. This latter view paints the shooting victims as heroes who were chasing down and trying to disarm an active shooter after Rittenhouse fired his assault-style rifle at the first victim. Though Rittenhouse’s victims were white, there are others who label him a young racist with an itchy trigger finger who opened fire without cause on people protesting police abuse. Some people hail Rittenhouse as a vigilante hero of sorts, a free-agent crime fighter determined to protect property and promote order in a city taken over by lawless rioters. The jury’s resolution of the charges may also have been complicated by the wildly divergent views of the case: based not on facts but on the politics or ideology of the person following the case. This was inarguably inappropriate judicial conduct. Or maybe the acquittals had something to do with Schroeder on Veterans Day inviting everyone in the courtroom to join him in a round of applause recognizing the military service of a defense witness about to testify.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |