All the legal experts tell liberals not to get their hopes up, because the chances of a civil rights case against Kyle Rittenhouse are really slim. No matter how upset Democrats are with the jury’s decision in the young patriot’s self-defense trial, there isn’t much they can do about it.
Experts tell libs ‘give up’
All the legal experts agree that Democrats should simply quit while they’re behind and give up. Kyle Rittenhouse has been acquitted of every single charge against him and there’s not a darn thing anyone can do about it. He followed the golden rule and did unto others before they could do unto him.
That didn’t stop alleged lawmaker Jerrold Nadler from trying to order the latest Attorney General to do something about it.
“This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ,” Nadler tapped out on November 19.
Some handy legal experts told Western Journal that “any prosecution by President Joe Biden’s Justice Department claiming Rittenhouse committed civil rights violations while defending himself would almost certainly fail.” They can forget about a civil suit too.
Rittenhouse was attacked by lawless anarchists while the police were otherwise occupied. The one who lived admitted on the witness stand that he pointed his own illegally possessed gun at the accused before he was shot. Experts are convinced it’s legally cut and dried.
“On its very surface, this suggestion is detestable. The idea that the jury failed to carry out justice simply because a powerful Democratic member of Congress personally disagreed with the verdict is ridiculous.” They can barely stop laughing at the idea.
Correctly followed the law
After the jury heard all there was to know about what happened, presented by all the experts on both sides, they were convinced Rittenhouse only pulled his trigger in self-defense.
That’s exactly why the Second Amendment is there in the first place, whether liberal gun grabbers like it or not. “By all evidence, the jury in Kenosha correctly followed the law in Wisconsin.”
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley is well recognized as one of the top experts on the subject. He took out an opinion page to set the record straight. “Nadler’s personal distaste for self-defense does not change the laws as they are written.” He points out that “Rittenhouse was acquitted on state charges by a state jury.” But wait, there’s more.
“Moreover, while some have called for reducing self-defense protections, the jury applied the law as it currently appears on the books. It is not allowed to simply ignore the law to seek our own criminal justice rules.”
Constitutional law experts like Turley don’t like to see the system threatened by the reigning administration. “The Rittenhouse jury faithfully applied the Wisconsin law and came to a well-founded verdict of acquittal. It is a dangerous precedent to investigate jury decisions simply because you disagree with their decisions.”
Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson agrees. “There is no obvious basis for a civil rights prosecution against Rittenhouse. The videos are the videos, and the testimony already is under oath from witnesses and alleged victim Gaige Grosskreutz.” A civil case would go down in flames too. “In a civil case you just have to prove negligence,” explains University of California Hastings College of Law professor Rory Little. The Democrats can’t even start to prove that.
