General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

L.W. Paradis
Dr. Todd Grande
comments

Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Kyle Rittenhouse Update | What is the Meaning of the Verdict?" video.

@Aunt Shawna You can never use lethal force to defend inanimate property, only to defend life or to prevent serious bodily harm. If you do not know that, you have a lot to ponder.
42
@LordMephilis If you are on private property to defend that property, and it is not your own property, and you are armed, you are supposed to be a licensed security guard, and you are not supposed to leave that property unless there is some clear necessity for you to do so. At least that's the law in most states, including Illinois. I have no idea WHAT they allow in Wisconsin.
16
@vee5294 The characters of the deceased men was not an issue in the case. They were not on trial. The lack of police or national guard protection had nothing to do with "defunding."
14
@LordMephilis The gun charged was dropped because it was confusing. The rule of lenity, like the rule of presumption of innocence, should apply to any unclear law. That is fair. The people (adults) who gave him the gun are being charged anyway. We'll see what happens to them.
11
@jackdispennett744 I don't understand why people don't know this. It is a perfect statement of a VERY clear legal principle.
11
Too bad his commentary was politicized as well.
9
A generation after Columbine and states still have not managed to draft reasonable, constitutional laws to govern firearm use by minors, or anyone. Do YOU want to live in a society where a minor can strap a (I better not call it assault-style) rifle across his chest and strut his stuff?
6
@kristis4147 Ignoring the sworn testimony of someone who stated under oath that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, and concentrating on Huber is NOT unbiased.
5
@cglenn1457 Non sequitur. No one suggested a jury cannot ignore a witness. They have every right to discount any testimony they consider lacking in credibility. The issue is why Grande is speculating on matters never entered into evidence, when actual evidence on that very question exists. Don't you ever wonder about things?
5
What are your thoughts about a minor going to an area of civil unrest with a large rifle strapped across his chest?
5
@madcapper6 How dare you suggest anyone celebrated that poor woman's death.
4
@madcapper6 No, I did not know. I tend to follow real lawyers, like Glenn Greenwald. He never suggested any such thing.
4
Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not.
4
@cglenn1457 Does "bias" mean disagreeing with your pet prejudices?
4
@cglenn1457 So what? If someone asked him whether Rittenhouse hit a girl, should he answer? I don't think so. You're apparently interested in psychobabble, since all you do is denounce people whose views upset you. "Projecting . . . hysterical . . . Blame shifting" Does going ad hominem first mean you win a prize?
4
@cglenn1457 This appears on your thread? Hit the Mute button. Good grief. If you write stuff, others have a right to respond. You can mute them, and ignore. I will do that now for you. You just insult people. It might be interesting to see all the standard insults and slogans in one list. "Grievances." "Agenda." "Projecting." Got it.
4
That's funny. A living person testified he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Another living person testified he was an innocent bystander in the line of fire when Rittenhouse first opened fire, before anyone had touched him. In fact, that person, McGinnis, was a journalist from a conservative publication that had a generally positive view of people like Rittenhouse. Huber's filthy house was not in evidence. You are easily led.
4
@covidfactchecker756 The discussion was about the law concerning the use of lethal force to defend property. Of course you can use lethal force when necessary to defend human life.
4
McGinnis's testimony appears to have been ignored. Juries do not like to send white boys to prison. We all know why.
4
The notion that anyone wrongly identified Rittenhouse as an active shooter because of fear of guns or misunderstanding of guns is laughable. Two people went after him after he shot Rosenbaum. Therefore they were not afraid. Rittenhouse was acquitted because those people all went after him.
4
@loslingos1232 I agree he was in the wrong to have a gun. Absolutely. That this is up for discussion at all is catastrophic.
3
@Candycane00000 I agree there was insufficient evidence of intentional homicide. There were recklessness charges brought as well. The jury instructions, the 36-page document, are available online in pdf, and are fascinating. The due process instructions are a civics lesson.
3
Rittenhouse was reckless when he fired the first four shots, with McGinnis, an innocent bystander, in the line of fire. With bystanders around, the question whether four were necessary for self-defense is immediately raised. Grosskreutz testified he believed -- rightly or wrongly -- that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Sworn testimony is evidence. Huber's filthy house is not. Having said that, I always oppose charging minors as adults. This kid was misled and ill-served by many adults around him, and did not finish his junior year of high school. He did not get that weapon on his own. He didn't come up with the idea to be in Kenosha on his own, either.
3
A generation after Columbine and states still have not managed to draft reasonable, constitutional laws to govern firearm use by minors, or anyone. Do YOU want to live in a society where a minor can strap a (I better not call it assault-style) rifle across his chest and strut his stuff?
3
Yeah, well, read the New Yorker for a more nuanced view. This was an underage kid from an impoverished, troubled background whose older sister participated in BLM protests. (That was why Rittenhouse said he agreed that BLM. In other words, and to sum it up, he's a kid.) These are exactly the kinds of kids that you do not shove into the arms of the far right. I really recommend those articles. Then Glenn Greenwald's analysis will make sense.
3
@chuckstable165 This is a tiresome discussion. Grande clearly did not read the jury instructions or understand them. The McGinnis instruction (innocent bystander) had sufficient evidence to convict. As for the speculation about the state of mind of the deceased concerning the good-faith but mistaken belief that he was defending people from an active shooter, there was actual evidence on that point -- the testimony of a living person, Grosskreutz. This is evidence. Huber's filthy house is not. There is no way to know why Huber did what he did. Let me put it this way: if Grande had speculated about whether Rittenhouse shoved his ex-girlfriend, or went to a bar with known gang members, what would you think about that? I would think it has no bearing on the case. It's extraneous. Huber was shot to death. Why is he fair game? The facts brought forward about him have no bearing on anything. And you have testimony from a living person to analyze, if you really think that it's important to determine whether bystanders believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter. The notion that they wrongly identified Rittenhouse as an active shooter because of fear of guns or misunderstanding of guns is laughable. They went after him. Therefore they were not afraid. Rittenhouse was acquitted BECAUSE those three all went after him. Poor performance.
3
@cglenn1457 Oh. You again.I didn't realize it was you, who bitterly protested that you don't want to converse with me! 😂
3
@Love and Tennessee If you're going to come this late to the party, use a proper name, not a pronoun. No idea who you're talking about -- who "she" was and who these "lefties" are, who are as rare as hen's teeth in the US anyway. Whereas having no soul is becoming the norm.
2
@Love and Tennessee No shame or soul describes everyone running for president on a major party ticket in the last two elections, at a bare minimum.
2
Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not.
2
@Tentaculat I didn't say Huber's belief was relevant to the self-defense claim. Grande nevertheless discoursed on it at length. (Why?) McGinnis's testimony did NOT undermine self-defense, but only whether that self-defense was executed recklessly, and put third parties in danger. You didn't READ THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS. I can tell because you either misconstrue my point, or deliberately misrepresent what I said. You probably misconstrue. I don't think you understand this case.
2
@dositless9554 Imagine if they didn't. How is this relevant? Someone's false beliefs about another person's right to self-defense are not relevant. So why the analysis of a dead person's possible beliefs? But if we're going to go there, we have real evidence on that point, in the trial.
2
@bluefalcon1674 You are persuaded way too easily.
2
@anonymousperson3023 Grande speculated on Huber's beliefs, when much better evidence as to the beliefs of those who intervened after Rosenbaum was shot is available. It was tendentious, and made no sense, either. McGinnis was relevant to one charge. Read the jury instructions, which state the law the jury was charged to apply. Of course the jury could still conclude Rittenhouse was not guilty of recklessly endangering innocence bystanders. Which is what they concluded. But McGinnis was very relevant. McGinnis is exactly what they had to consider before deciding to acquit.
2
There is absolutely no reason to bring in a deceased person's character and dwell on it like Grande did. It tells us nothing about what his motivations were at the time, just like Rittenhouse's character is not relevant to his self-defense claims. Neither one is evidence of anything. There was actual evidence concerning what people present at the shootings believed about R being an "active shooter," rightly or wrongly, reasonably or not. That's because they testified under oath. I don't think that how the mass media talks about guns or mischaracterizes guns had anything to do with Huber's perceptions, or anyone else's. Ridiculous. These are moments of extreme tension and instinctive action.
2
@loslingos1232 Because he was a KID with poor judgment. This should have been a case where the bona fide left opposes trying juveniles as adults, and demands a thorough investigation of what the police (and various provocateurs?) did that night. A generation after Columbine and Wisconsin's legislature was incapable of drafting a reasonable and constitutional gun law with respect to minors and others. Kyle was born after Columbine, as was his older sister. The adults in this picture are to blame. And still are (CNN, MSNBC, FOX).
2
@cyndara88 Rittenhouse was a minor and should not have been tried as an adult. In a low-key juvenile proceeding, he would have been under court supervision until age 21 and probation at least four more years. As matters stand, he doesn't have to finish high school and can go out on Monday and buy a bigger and better gun.
2
@derangedhermit7981 You cannot use lethal force to defend inanimate property. Your firearm is to protect yourself and others. In your own house, you can have a gun, everywhere in the US, with a few exceptions made for convicted felons and so forth. If you come to your empty home to find a kid fleeing your property with your new television set, computer, or your child's favorite toy in hand, you will understandably feel like shooting him, but as long as he is fleeing you, you cannot. If you are at home when someone breaks down your door, you can.
2
@randolphtimm6031 Felt? "Inappropriate?" Is that even a question? To paraphrase Zizek, who does not want to live in a society where we debate whether rape is wrong, torture is wrong, etc., I don't want to live in a society where we debate whether a minor should strap an AR-15 style rifle across his chest and run the streets. You don't have a liveable country. Is that a tragedy, or richly earned? That's the hard question. Take the last word, I don't plan to have anything more to do with this channel. It's appalling.
2
Exactly. It was completely tendentious. We had the sworn testimony of Grosskreutz that HE believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter -- rightly or wrongly. Was HIS belief reasonable? This testimony was evidence in the trial. The garbage at Huber's house was not.
2
@phoenixrising1675 It is true that Rittenhouse was smeared by the MSM, and that is unconscionable. But is it serving to make you take HIS side? Why? The smearing would be evidence in a civil defamation suit, which I support Rittenhouse if he decides to bring one. But it is not evidence in this trial. He was reckless when he fired the first four shots, with McGinnis, an innocent bystander, in the line of fire.
2
@darknes5inside True
2
A generation after Columbine and Wisconsin's legislature was incapable of drafting a reasonable and constitutional gun law with respect to minors, or anyone. In Wisconsin, open carry is not considered a provocation. That's simply how their law works. Rifles belong only on private property or in areas zoned for hunting during hunting season. Or disassembled in a trunk. The laws are lunacy.
2
@noellerebekah9653 I do not believe convicted pedophiles who present a danger to children should be released from prison, and I worked to keep one in prison. (In Wisconsin, as "luck" would have it.)
2
I also resent talking about the pasts of the deceased. It is irrelevant.
2
@cglenn1457 I'm glad you think so. If you knew what I really thought . . .
2
@anonymousperson3023 Are we forbidden to critique Todd "Joe Rogan took horse dewormer" Grande? His take was ridiculous. And gun laws are ridiculous.
2
In 2018, NPR gave a history of the ArmaLite rifle: "A Brief History Of The AR-15," February 28, 2018, and where it has been used and how.
2
@pinebarrenpatriot8289 He should be arrested immediately.
2
Did anyone else get shot that night? Not that it matters for purposes of the trial. Do you think it should be legal for a minor to strap a large rifle across his chest and enter a public way at night during civil unrest? It's your country, you decide.
2
Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not.
1
Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not. Did you miss that?
1
@samcoates8944 No one cares anymore. That's the tragedy. How do you fix that?
1
This is about as fair as his "Joe Rogan took horse dewormer" video.
1
@Tentaculat If you want to hear a real lawyer comment, look up Glenn Greenwald's video. He is very pro-defense, so he won't upset you. I don't agree with every word, but he's great.
1
@anonymousperson3023 So the jury got wrong instructions, and Todd Sees Dead People. LOL
1
@dositless9554 I didn't say he should have been convicted. I would not have brought this case. I would never have tried Rittenhouse as a adult, if I had tried him at all. My comments pertain to Grande, of "ivermectin is horse dewormer" fame.
1
@cglenn1457 Wow, I see why you brought up meds. Reported.
1
@dositless9554 He shouldn't have been running around with a gun. One of the first lessons in gun safety is to know any firearm may be used against you. So, e.g., be sure a burgler can't get it.
1
@williams7576 When there is testimonial evidence in a trial on this issue, from the living? If so, a good reason not to listen to him.
1
@noellerebekah21 He could have done that with real evidence. But he didn't. You just like his conclusion. Question: If someone says, "let's look at this calmly and logically," does that mean that the rest of what they say is calm and logical? Must be. 😅
1
I don't pay attention to school shootings any more. Have we had any lately?
1
@cyndara88 He will probably get the counseling because he suffers from trauma.
1
Afraid? Are you kidding? Rittenhouse is being lauded as a hero. He never finished junior year high school and a Congressman is talking about giving him a job in DC. Find out what his GoFundMe stash amounted to.
1
@Kavewolf1989 I see. Oh Lord, to paraphrase Dave Chappell, YouTube is not a real place! 😂
1
@Kavewolf1989 You said you saw YouTubers afraid to say they agreed with the verdict. I said YouTube is not a real place. Grande's "analysis" is poor. A living person testified he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Another living person testified he was an innocent bystander in the line of fire when Rittenhouse first opened fire, before anyone had touched him. In fact, that person, McGinnis, was a journalist from a conservative publication that had a generally positive view of people like Rittenhouse. Huber's filthy house was not in evidence. But Grande discoursed on that, to no purpose. Well, no legitimate purpose.
1
@Kavewolf1989 You never heard Dave Chappell say "Twitter is not a real place?" He's so funny.
1
@Kavewolf1989 Yes he did, against Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum did not make contact with him. After Rittenhouse fired those four shots, a number of people attacked him, including Huber, and injured him. He was attacked before Grosskreutz accosted him.
1
@Kavewolf1989 The point is that there is absolutely no reason to bring in a deceased person's character and dwell on it like Grande did. There was actual evidence concerning what people present at the shootings believed, reasonably or not. And I don't think that how mass media talks about guns had anything to do with Huber's perceptions or anyone else's. Ridiculous.
1
@derangedhermit7981 Parts of your comment are quoting someone else.
1
@LordMephilis I'm not Canadian. You are confused.
1
@derangedhermit7981 Speculation about suicide-by-vigilante, now? You think that had a place in this trial? Your attempt at finding a contradiction in what I stated was even more misplaced. And then you mixed in another comment -- a very good one, but not one I can take credit for. I decided in 2019 to emigrate by 2025, to where the rest of my family lives. Needless to say, the pandemic affected my progress, but also provided a reason to push that date up. I am not alone by any stretch. Open your eyes.
1
@LordMephilis I stated the law correctly.
1
@LordMephilis Are you a lawyer?
1
@joeshmoe7967 That's NOT what THIS thread is about. Gee whiz . . . We had a side discussion when one person early on endorsed defense of property, not life or limb, with lethal force. That is not legal.
1
@joeshmoe7967 You can find some commentator to say anything, including Rittenhouse For President, 2048.
1
@randolphtimm6031 Duh
1
@randolphtimm6031 Now I really don't know what you mean.
1
@randolphtimm6031 Read more. It gets better.
1
@randolphtimm6031 I said nothing about weapons making anyone feel anything. I said armed and licensed security guards carry them to protect life, not property. I said no one can legally shoot in defense of property and not life or limb. Yeah. Read more. Ditch the video life.
1
A generation after Columbine and Wisconsin's legislature was incapable of drafting a reasonable and constitutional gun law. Ponder that. Rittenhouse should have been tried as a juvenile in a low-profile proceeding, and been placed under court supervision, including a remedial education plan. He never finished junior year high school. Now he is free to go out and get himself a much bigger gun.
1
@cglenn1457 Did YOU read the jury instructions? Did you notice the McGinnis instruction? Know why it was there?
1
@cglenn1457 And the reason to speculate on matters not in evidence would be . . . ? When evidence exists? Did you download the 36-page instructions and read them? They were great. A civics class.
1
@cglenn1457 Excuse me, I did not call you names or characterize you as "hysterical" or anything else. Are you okay? You accused someone else of being uninformed, and told them to refrain from commenting. You appear not to be well informed either, which was why I asked.
1
@cglenn1457 You're the one calling me names. Not vice versa. You can go back and look. My comments are pristine, and do not confuse the issues. You may be angered by the fact that someone else is less emotional than you are, and you may lash out at them with insults, accusations, and slogans like "word salad," that clearly do not apply. This is common now. This is for you to think about, if you choose.
1
@cglenn1457 A living person testified he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Another living person testified he was an innocent bystander in the line of fire when Rittenhouse first opened fire, before anyone had touched him. In fact, that person, McGinnis, was a journalist from a conservative publication that had a generally positive view of people like Rittenhouse. Huber's filthy house was not in evidence. Is there some reason to focus on facts not in evidence, when actual sworn testimony exists? Sure there is: bias, for one. Not sound analysis, not logic.
1
Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not. This analysis was highly tendentious, while feigning fairness. Typical of American media. It's how you get subscribers.
1
This was awful. Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not. You liked it, that's all. Grande pandered to what he pretends to oppose.
1
Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not.
1
That's funny. A living person testified he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Another living person testified he was an innocent bystander in the line of fire when Rittenhouse first opened fire, before anyone had touched him. Huber's filthy house was not in evidence. You are easily led.
1
@SteveK139 America's a video country.
1
@SteveK139 The story that people rushed at Rittenhouse, who they believed -- rightly or wrongly -- was an active shooter, because the media uses terms like "assault rifle," and scares them, and not because, say, Columbine, or Sandy Hook, is beyond laughable. You can think whatever you want of Grosskreutz, but at that moment HE believed he was saving lives, not interfering with self defense. A high school sophomore knows more psychology. A generation after Columbine and Wisconsin's legislature was incapable of drafting a reasonable and constitutional gun law with respect to minors. They get paid because . . . Tell me again.
1
He didn't cross state lines WITH that weapon. MSM reported this case badly, allowing the right-wing to react as you're seeing. A full generation after Columbine and Wisconsin's legislature was incapable of drafting a reasonable and constitutional gun law, not even as it pertains to minors. Grande's commentary was tendentious. We had a living survivor testify he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter -- and after all, Rittenhouse did shoot four times at the first victim before anyone touched him, with McGinnis, an innocent bystander, in the line of fire. McGinnis testified as well. Testimony is evidence. A dead person's dirty house isn't.
1
The weapons charge was dropped because it is badly drafted.
1
Sigh. The MSM reported a lot of false things here, which people still believe, and which allows the extreme right to seize upon what you said to undermine your main point. KIDS do not belong on the streets with rifles strapped across their chests.
1
@Frugustin I'm arguing evidence. And I care far less than you think. I'll be emigrating by 2024, to join my family in a lovely Mediterranean coastal city. COVID has slowed my plans.
1
@Frugustin Point out the hypothetical. Grosskreutz testified, McGinnis testified. Did Huber? Ha.
1
@Frugustin I didn't say it wasn't self defense with respect to the assailant. I said it was very likely a reckless execution of self defense with respect to an innocent, and sympathetic, journalist who was a bystander. Read the jury instructions.
1
@exhaustguy Not according to the jury instructions, which state the law, and are also a great civics lesson in due process. Anyone can download them. Sheesh.
1
@exhaustguy From Columbine to Rittenhouse. As long as America starts no new wars . . .
1
@maggiewillowstine3353 Grosskreutz testified. McGinnis testified. Huber's dirty house did not.
1
@precambrian.rabbit Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Rittenhouse identifies as white. You're right, I don't recall that anyone asked him.
1
@rmooreg Juries convict innocent people all the time. Hold outs are brow beaten all the time. My remark was flippant, obviously; too flippant, even in light of the OP I responded to. Yours is uninformed. To be serious for a moment, are you suggesting a guilty verdict of recklessly endangering innocence bystanders would have been a "tainted" one? No. It would have been well supported by the evidence. It is not unusual at all for juries to look for ways to acquit certain classes of people, thus tacitly acknowledging that prison is a very harsh and dangerous place where human beings go to be destroyed. FWIW, I oppose trying juveniles as adults. So I disagree with everything that happened here, start to finish. This was a kid in dire need of court supervision and help in attaining a high school diploma, among other things.
1
@rmooreg Who are you arguing with? Not me.
1
@rmooreg Read the jury instructions, in particular with respect to McGinnis. Obviously you don't know what I'm referring to. As for howling voices, I don't know whether Rittenhouse has the stomach to sue for defamation, but considering what some MSM said about him, he certainly could maintain a case, and win. I'd welcome it. Tgeir lying has got to be punished, they are doing it for money at this point. The howling voices on the other "side," however, that endorse vigilantism and think it's fine for minors to strut around with AR-15 style weapons strapped to them, and proclaim Rittenhouse a "hero" (and this clown here seems to think nomenclature is the issue, and that nomenclature creates fear of guns -- when two people approached Rittenhouse to try to disarm him after he fired four shots, and many other shots were heard as well, no fear there), well, I see that as a far bigger problem going forward, and much more likely to harm me directly. Do you really imagine we have the largest incarcerated population in the world, with the large majority non-white, because those other people are Bad People? Do you think they are committing vastly more crime? Really? Anyone who thinks so needs a good dose of Chris Hedges. As for the racial implications of this case, have you considered the analysis of anyone who disagrees with your anodyne view, like Briahna Joy Gray, a Harvard-trained lawyer turned journalist? You should. If I can listen to Grande, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, etc., you can listen to Hedges and Gray.
1
@rmooreg Have you ever looked at who the various Innocence Projects free? Of course all kinds of people. But check how long DNA exonerations are taking, and for whom, when the science is over a generation old.
1
Two died, not three. Not that lives count for much.
1
@maggiewillowstine3353 Why not 15?
1
@noellerebekah9653 Why not 12? Certain types of laws must have bright lines. For example, the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing anyone who was under 18 when they committed the crime they were convicted of. One day short of their birthday, and capital punishment is off the table.
1
That's funny. A living person testified he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Another living person testified he was an innocent bystander in the line of fire when Rittenhouse first opened fire, before anyone had touched him. In fact, that person, McGinnis, was a journalist from a conservative publication that had a generally positive view of people like Rittenhouse. Huber's filthy house was not in evidence. So much for objectivity. Omissions of salient facts can mar objectivity, too.
1
A living person testified he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Another living person testified he was an innocent bystander in the line of fire when Rittenhouse first opened fire, before anyone had touched him. Huber's filthy house was not in evidence. You are easily led.
1
Thank you for reminding me why America is unlivable for decent people. I had forgotten.
1
@maggiewillowstine3353 That is why a minor child without three full years of high school had to come in, with a large firearm strapped to his person? P. S. I stopped paying attention to school shootings. They are not my problem.
1
There is no such citizen's arrest law in Wisconsin. Had Huber survived, and killed Rittenhouse, could he have claimed self-defense/defense of others based on his reasonable belief he was disarming an active shooter? Very possible.
1
That's not even a correct statement of the law in effect at the time Ahmaud Arbery was killed. It says nothing about "hearsay," which is a term of the civil procedure concerning introduction of evidence, and has nothing to do with whether an alleged victim reported a crime.
1
@djanitatiana "Common law?" Kindly cite a case.
1
@djanitatiana The reason Grosskreutz is not facing first degree intentional homicide charges is because he didn't kill or shoot or beat or even touch anyone.
1
@djanitatiana Where did you go to law school? What bar(s) are you a member of?
1
@chuckstable165 Glenn Greenwald on his own channel gave an analysis and a media critique that was great. He is very pro-defense, but he's a real lawyer. I don't agree with everything he says, but you can count on solid logic from him.
1
Anyone who did not read the jury instructions and did not take into consideration the McGinnis instruction, should not comment on the verdict. McGinnis, an innocent bystander, was in the line of fire during the first FOUR shots Rittenhouse fired, prior to anyone touching Rittenhouse. Reckless endangerment was supported by the evidence. Grosskreutz also believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter. He testified to that belief. Was he also unreasonable?
1
@Frugustin That was not what McGinnis testified, nor what the evidence showed.
1
@Frugustin Self-defense is not a complete defense if executed recklessly, to put innocent third parties in danger. McGinnis was a journalist from a conservative publication that had a generally positive view of people like Rittenhouse. McGinnis was put in danger.
1