Jury finds Jennifer Crumbley guilty of manslaughter in son's school shooting

18-24-61-B-17-17-4@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 434 points –
Jury finds Jennifer Crumbley guilty of manslaughter in son's school shooting
abcnews.go.com
217

You are viewing a single comment

Shame it didn’t go this way for Rittenhouse.

I think rottenhouse was charged with 1st degree only and not 2nd degree, which was ridiculous. Trying to prove he had a premeditated intent to kill that night was a bad strategy by the prosecution. They would have gotten a conviction if they charged 2nd degree or even manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, or whatever.

Its hard not to have conspiratorial thoughts when realizing that the only reason rottenhouse got off scott free was because he wasn’t properly charged. They could have charged him with 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter and let the jury decide, but for whatever reason they only charged 1st, even though they couldn’t prove intent.

From the moment that trial started I was so frustrated because I knew they wouldn’t be able to prove intent which was necessary for the charges. I’ll never understand why they didn’t properly charge him.

So that's why the guy went free ? I did wonder but never bothered to research it

He wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's nonsense. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. Here's the wiki.

I watched almost the entire trial live, and it was clear as day that his actions were textbook self defense. The prosecution had essentially no evidence - at one point they argued that Kyle had a desire to shoot people because he plays Call of Duty. I'm not making that up.

Everyone I've talked to about this incident who believes he should've gone to jail were unaware of what actually happened. The media lied about what happened and smeared his character leading up to the trial, so I'm not surprised that people think he's a murderer. I am extremely disappointed though that the media blatantly lies this way in order to push a narrative or agenda, and people who consume it do little to no research to check it's accuracy.

Edit: Clarity below

Incorrect. The Wikipedia article is not specific on what type of murder charges he faced.

All murder charges come with a degree. He had 6 charges, all first degree. Search for Kyle Rittenhouse Charges and the first result should be the AP article.

First degree charges require that intent and/or premeditation be proven.

I agree he wasn’t guilty of intent, but they would have had a conviction if they went with a lesser murder charge. By entering a riot with a loaded open carry firearm, against curfew ordinances, crossing state lines with a firearm he was not allowed to possess, they could have easily proven 2nd degree homicide, not premeditated.

They were trying to prove intent because that is what they charged him with.

I also watched every moment of his trial.

I'm sorry, looks like I got that wrong. I didn't realize the wiki omitted that.

The NPR article I found that explained this also says that the jury was asked to consider lesser charges but still acquitted. I'm not sure what lesser charges exactly, but I assume it was second degree accounts. For first degree intentional homicide, Wisconsin law lists "mitigating circumstances" that downgrade first degree charges to second degree charges if proven true. It's 940.01, found here.

No worries, the case was complex for sure.

The lesser charges were 2nd degree intentional homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide.

For the 2nd degree intentional charge, the prosecution would still have to prove intent. The key difference is that with 1st degree intentional, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. With 2nd degree intentional, they would have to prove that he had the belief that he was acting in self defense but that his belief was unreasonable.

For the 1st degree reckless, they would have had to prove ‘utter disregard for human life’, which I don’t believe is what happened in this case.

The lesser charge that the prosecution asked for but was ultimately denied was ‘2nd degree reckless homicide’. It is my personal opinion, having watched the whole trial, that they would have gotten a conviction on that charge.

Without an intention to kill, and without an utter disregard for human life, he recklessly put himself into a situation where he believed he was acting in self defense, but that belief was unreasonable. 2nd degree reckless homicide, 25 years.

The judge denied that lesser charge because he said that he thought it would be overturned on appeal… not really his call but that’s the way it played out.

Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.

I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn't live in and got away with it.

What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom's house),to help protect his family friend's business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.

This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.

And he wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.

Edit: He was charged with first degree accounts, the wiki doesn't state this. However, the jury considered lesser charges and still acquitted. Here's an NPR article that goes into more detail.

Thanks for this. I knew some of this but for some reason just adopted the "Rittenhouse bad" brain worm. Maybe it was things like how quickly he fell into the arms of the alt-right crowd and seemed to be fine embracing them. Who knows. But thanks for the refresher. I think I needed that.

He'll get what's coming to him

edit: jeez guys I was just trying to lighten the mood but yeah you're all spot on

I mean, has George Zimmerman gotten anything that's "coming to him?"

Seems like he's been in a total shit storm of events, but suffered consequences for nothing.

Rittenhouse will have his nose so far up the maga go fund me grift should anything ever happen, he'll never know anything more than a minor inconvenience.

Last I looked he was in financial ruin which is why he had to sell the gun on ebay. He filed multiple failed lawsuits that were dismissed. His wife divorced him. Accused of intellectual property theft.

He does seem to have an "uncanny" ability to avoid criminal liability though.

and what, pray tell, is "coming to him"?

money and celebrity status and whatever he wants to do with that basically. kill some libs and get away with it and you're a hero to conservatives

i wonder how you feel about the guy that literally approached him with his gun out? or the guy that tried to smash his head in with a skateboard? are they 'heroes' to liberals? how are they any better if so?

Interesting stance, because his first victim wasn't armed, and Rittenhouse testified that he knew he wasn't armed.

He did rush a deranged person running around looking for an excuse to shoot people, that's true though.

Now, after Kyle murdered that dude, would you say other people in the area might be right to fear an armed murderer, and consider him a viable threat to their and others safety?

the kid was out looking for people to shoot, and had just shot someone. the pistol came out in an effort to get the assault rifle out of the kids hands.

ok so you didn't pay attention to anything that happened, nor did you listen to any of the testimony given from either side. i now understand you're arguing from a place of feeling not logic or facts. have a good day.

I watched the whole goddamn trial as they streamed it in real time

so you have selective hearing?

go back to Reddit

you're the one that's twisting shit to fit into YOUR narrative, not the actual court proceedings. but ok.

You're not saying anything. You're just telling me I'm wrong. your words are completely empty. this is not what I would call an interesting discussion. I probably wouldn't like you in real life.

Have you seen any pictures of him lately? I saw some last summer and he looked like shit. Put on 40 lbs and his face was flushed red. Looked like a young Alex Jones in the making.