Napolitano: Rittenhouse Put Himself in Harm’s Way, But that Doesn’t Negate His Right to Self Defense

NAPOLITANO Hello my friends ░░░░░░░░ Andrew Napolitano here Welcome ░░░░░░░░ Judging Freedom Sort of ░░░░░░░░ different segment today if ░░░░░░░░ will It s just ░░░░░░░░ and me I m ░░░░░░░░ to talk about a ░░░░░░░░ that s been dominating ░░░░░░░░ news of lately the ░░░░░░░░ Rittenhouse trial and I ░░░░░░░░ talk about the laws ░░░░░░░░ were implicated and how ░░░░░░░░ why the trial ended ░░░░░░░░ in my opinion the ░░░░░░░░ it did Then I ░░░░░░░░ going to run some ░░░░░░░░ from the president of ░░░░░░░░ NAACP who has a ░░░░░░░░ different view of this ░░░░░░░░ I do and then ░░░░░░░░ ll comment on what ░░░░░░░░ said and then I ░░░░░░░░ going to read some ░░░░░░░░ from some of you ░░░░░░░░ have delighted me and ░░░░░░░░ m thrilled the reply ░░░░░░░░ them The essence of ░░░░░░░░ Kyle Rittenhouse case was ░░░░░░░░ lawyers call self defense ░░░░░░░░ we all know what ░░░░░░░░ defense is Somebody takes ░░░░░░░░ swing at you you ░░░░░░░░ Somebody lands the swing ░░░░░░░░ punch back Somebody points ░░░░░░░░ gun at you and ░░░░░░░░ have your own gun ░░░░░░░░ make a split second ░░░░░░░░ decision to save your ░░░░░░░░ life That is human ░░░░░░░░ And because it s ░░░░░░░░ nature the right to ░░░░░░░░ defense protected by the ░░░░░░░░ Amendment to the Constitution ░░░░░░░░ a natural human right ░░░░░░░░ right doesn t come ░░░░░░░░ the government like the ░░░░░░░░ to vote or the ░░░░░░░░ to drive on a ░░░░░░░░ roadway That right comes ░░░░░░░░ your humanity from within ░░░░░░░░ And the Supreme Court ░░░░░░░░ held that the right ░░░░░░░░ keep and bear arms ░░░░░░░░ a modern natural extension ░░░░░░░░ the right to self ░░░░░░░░ So that brings us ░░░░░░░░ the essence of the ░░░░░░░░ Rittenhouse case which was ░░░░░░░░ he shoot in order ░░░░░░░░ stay alive And the ░░░░░░░░ found that he did ░░░░░░░░ s how it works ░░░░░░░░ a defendant is charged ░░░░░░░░ murder as Rittenhouse was ░░░░░░░░ then can remain silent ░░░░░░░░ doesn t have to ░░░░░░░░ anything to the government ░░░░░░░░ he can tell the ░░░░░░░░ through his lawyers he ░░░░░░░░ a defense The defense ░░░░░░░░ It wasn t me ░░░░░░░░ wasn t there or ░░░░░░░░ defense is Yeah it ░░░░░░░░ me I was there ░░░░░░░░ I was defending my ░░░░░░░░ life It was self ░░░░░░░░ He raised that second ░░░░░░░░ self defense Once he ░░░░░░░░ a prima facie showing ░░░░░░░░ self defense a basic ░░░░░░░░ explanation that he made ░░░░░░░░ decision in order to ░░░░░░░░ himself then the obligation ░░░░░░░░ addressing self defense shifts ░░░░░░░░ the defendant to the ░░░░░░░░ The prosecution then must ░░░░░░░░ self defense beyond a ░░░░░░░░ doubt Now that is ░░░░░░░░ the law in every ░░░░░░░░ It s the law ░░░░░░░░ most states including Wisconsin ░░░░░░░░ once Rittenhouse got on ░░░░░░░░ witness stand and during ░░░░░░░░ direct examination and during ░░░░░░░░ cross examination said There ░░░░░░░░ chaos Somebody threatened my ░░░░░░░░ Three people threatened my ░░░░░░░░ I had to make ░░░░░░░░ split second decision to ░░░░░░░░ alive he s made ░░░░░░░░ basic defense he s ░░░░░░░░ it He s given ░░░░░░░░ to the jury in ░░░░░░░░ rational way Then it ░░░░░░░░ the obligation of the ░░░░░░░░ to disprove the defense ░░░░░░░░ the government failed to ░░░░░░░░ that So notwithstanding all ░░░░░░░░ the other evidence if ░░░░░░░░ government fails to disprove ░░░░░░░░ defense then the defendant ░░░░░░░░ acquitted That s at ░░░░░░░░ the way it s ░░░░░░░░ to work and the ░░░░░░░░ it worked in the ░░░░░░░░ case Now we don ░░░░░░░░ know for sure what ░░░░░░░░ in the minds of ░░░░░░░░ jurors They took four ░░░░░░░░ to resolve this and ░░░░░░░░ are many other extraneous ░░░░░░░░ in the case Why ░░░░░░░░ the prosecution give a ░░░░░░░░ version of the video ░░░░░░░░ the defense Did they ░░░░░░░░ with the video Why ░░░░░░░░ the prosecution show a ░░░░░░░░ to the jury that ░░░░░░░░ court had explicitly excluded ░░░░░░░░ did the prosecutor pick ░░░░░░░░ the weapon the AR ░░░░░░░░ put his finger on ░░░░░░░░ trigger like Alec Baldwin ░░░░░░░░ a movie set aimed ░░░░░░░░ weapon at the wall ░░░░░░░░ pretend he was about ░░░░░░░░ shoot it I mean ░░░░░░░░ type of histrionic is ░░░░░░░░ prohibited in a courtroom ░░░░░░░░ those are extraneous issues ░░░░░░░░ didn t the judge ░░░░░░░░ a mistrial as most ░░░░░░░░ would have I think ░░░░░░░░ did the right thing ░░░░░░░░ think he knew that ░░░░░░░░ jury was going to ░░░░░░░░ Kyle Rittenhouse and it ░░░░░░░░ be far better for ░░░░░░░░ and for the concept ░░░░░░░░ justice as well as ░░░░░░░░ the public at large ░░░░░░░░ Rittenhouse is acquitted by ░░░░░░░░ jury rather than the ░░░░░░░░ is thrown out by ░░░░░░░░ judge When the case ░░░░░░░░ thrown out by a ░░░░░░░░ a mistrial ordinarily the ░░░░░░░░ has the opportunity to ░░░░░░░░ him again unless the ░░░░░░░░ finds that the mistrial ░░░░░░░░ caused intentionally by the ░░░░░░░░ Why would the state ░░░░░░░░ sabotage its own case ░░░░░░░░ if it thinks it ░░░░░░░░ going to lose its ░░░░░░░░ prosecutors have been known ░░░░░░░░ sabotage their cases so ░░░░░░░░ mistrial is declared and ░░░░░░░░ get another bite at ░░░░░░░░ apple But if judges ░░░░░░░░ smart enough astute enough ░░░░░░░░ enough to see through ░░░░░░░░ they then engage in ░░░░░░░░ s called a dismissal ░░░░░░░░ prejudice meaning you can ░░░░░░░░ be retried again Nevertheless ░░░░░░░░ didn t reach that ░░░░░░░░ because the jury rendered ░░░░░░░░ verdict of not guilty ░░░░░░░░ not everyone agrees with ░░░░░░░░ Fortunately there weren t ░░░░░░░░ riots in the streets ░░░░░░░░ the government and the ░░░░░░░░ feared but the head ░░░░░░░░ the NAACP the president ░░░░░░░░ the NAACP Derrick Johnson ░░░░░░░░ recently on CBS News ░░░░░░░░ s what he said ░░░░░░░░ starts JOHNSON Here you ░░░░░░░░ a 17 year old ░░░░░░░░ illegally purchased a gun ░░░░░░░░ across state lines to ░░░░░░░░ property that was not ░░░░░░░░ for owners who did ░░░░░░░░ invite him and he ░░░░░░░░ himself in harm s ░░░░░░░░ based on the rhetoric ░░░░░░░░ he s seen on ░░░░░░░░ media platforms Clip ends ░░░░░░░░ So couple of things ░░░░░░░░ The court ruled that ░░░░░░░░ gun was not acquired ░░░░░░░░ possessed illegally It was ░░░░░░░░ very technical rolling based ░░░░░░░░ the precise wording of ░░░░░░░░ Wisconsin law But nevertheless ░░░░░░░░ charge of the unlawful ░░░░░░░░ and the unlawful possession ░░░░░░░░ the weapon was thrown ░░░░░░░░ And we also know ░░░░░░░░ the weapon wasn t ░░░░░░░░ into his hands until ░░░░░░░░ was in Wisconsin so ░░░░░░░░ didn t cross state ░░░░░░░░ Why are people why ░░░░░░░░ they saying he crossed ░░░░░░░░ lines he crossed state ░░░░░░░░ Somebody probably suggested that ░░░░░░░░ my colleagues in the ░░░░░░░░ because if he did ░░░░░░░░ state lines for the ░░░░░░░░ of committing a crime ░░░░░░░░ is arguably a federal ░░░░░░░░ and that would enable ░░░░░░░░ federal the U S ░░░░░░░░ of Justice to indict ░░░░░░░░ even though he s ░░░░░░░░ been acquitted by a ░░░░░░░░ in Wisconsin So the ░░░░░░░░ that he did not ░░░░░░░░ state lines with a ░░░░░░░░ in his hands an ░░░░░░░░ weapon for the purpose ░░░░░░░░ committing a crime in ░░░░░░░░ state to which he ░░░░░░░░ going Wisconsin the fact ░░░░░░░░ that did not happen ░░░░░░░░ the argument that the ░░░░░░░░ are in a position ░░░░░░░░ to prosecute him The ░░░░░░░░ argument that Mr Johnson ░░░░░░░░ is that the defendant ░░░░░░░░ put himself in harm ░░░░░░░░ way Yes he did ░░░░░░░░ did put himself in ░░░░░░░░ s way That does ░░░░░░░░ negate his ability to ░░░░░░░░ in self defense Often ░░░░░░░░ defense is a split ░░░░░░░░ decision Somebody s threatening ░░░░░░░░ kill me what do ░░░░░░░░ do You don t ░░░░░░░░ think about it Someone ░░░░░░░░ pointing a gun at ░░░░░░░░ or says I have ░░░░░░░░ gun I m about ░░░░░░░░ kill you and you ░░░░░░░░ your own guy you ░░░░░░░░ going to pull the ░░░░░░░░ You re not going ░░░░░░░░ engage in some serious ░░░░░░░░ moral legal political rationalization ░░░░░░░░ re just going to ░░░░░░░░ what your instincts tell ░░░░░░░░ to do Any reasonable ░░░░░░░░ would do that and ░░░░░░░░ jury agreed Here is ░░░░░░░░ Johnson again Clip starts ░░░░░░░░ This trial for us ░░░░░░░░ a warning shot that ░░░░░░░░ justice is allowed in ░░░░░░░░ country or in particular ░░░░░░░░ Clip ends NAPOLITANO Well ░░░░░░░░ wouldn t call this ░░░░░░░░ justice because this young ░░░░░░░░ was defending himself I ░░░░░░░░ don t really get ░░░░░░░░ many members many of ░░░░░░░░ friends in the African ░░░░░░░░ community are so animated ░░░░░░░░ this since it was ░░░░░░░░ a racial case everybody ░░░░░░░░ the case was the ░░░░░░░░ was the same race ░░░░░░░░ guess what Mr Johnson ░░░░░░░░ trying to say is ░░░░░░░░ he was white he ░░░░░░░░ acquitted if he had ░░░░░░░░ black he would have ░░░░░░░░ convicted That s a ░░░░░░░░ We don t know ░░░░░░░░ that is the case ░░░░░░░░ feared that the jury ░░░░░░░░ engage in sort of ░░░░░░░░ general justice meaning they ░░░░░░░░ do what they thought ░░░░░░░░ the right thing for ░░░░░░░░ community The community was ░░░░░░░░ for Rittenhouse s neck ░░░░░░░░ know that If they ░░░░░░░░ done what they thought ░░░░░░░░ community wanted well that ░░░░░░░░ t have been justice ░░░░░░░░ the American system that ░░░░░░░░ have been mob rule ░░░░░░░░ the American system The ░░░░░░░░ should be acquitted or ░░░░░░░░ based solely on the ░░░░░░░░ in the courtroom not ░░░░░░░░ at all on what ░░░░░░░░ jury fears might result ░░░░░░░░ conviction or an acquittal ░░░░░░░░ not based at all ░░░░░░░░ what the crowds or ░░░░░░░░ editorial writers or the ░░░░░░░░ in the media outside ░░░░░░░░ courtroom are saying So ░░░░░░░░ s a tough a ░░░░░░░░ Two people are dead ░░░░░░░░ is permanently injured the ░░░░░░░░ is alive and well ░░░░░░░░ emotionally scarred by this ░░░░░░░░ alive and well Nevertheless ░░░░░░░░ do believe that justice ░░░░░░░░ done Now if you ░░░░░░░░ with me for a ░░░░░░░░ we have a new ░░░░░░░░ a new part of ░░░░░░░░ Freedom which were introducing ░░░░░░░░ and I m going ░░░░░░░░ be doing this on ░░░░░░░░ regular basis from now ░░░░░░░░ I love when you ░░░░░░░░ me whether it s ░░░░░░░░ question about the law ░░░░░░░░ a question about the ░░░░░░░░ even if it s ░░░░░░░░ question about something I ░░░░░░░░ t discuss in the ░░░░░░░░ A It gets my ░░░░░░░░ flowing and B it ░░░░░░░░ me connect directly with ░░░░░░░░ So the first of ░░░░░░░░ is from Curtis Scott ░░░░░░░░ s a long question ░░░░░░░░ so I m not ░░░░░░░░ to read the full ░░░░░░░░ But basically you want ░░░░░░░░ know if the government ░░░░░░░░ away money federal government ░░░░░░░░ away money is constitutional ░░░░░░░░ in my opinion it ░░░░░░░░ unconstitutional I m talking ░░░░░░░░ the stimulus checks In ░░░░░░░░ opinion it s unconstitutional ░░░░░░░░ the Constitution does not ░░░░░░░░ the federal government to ░░░░░░░░ that The federal government ░░░░░░░░ one of limited powers ░░░░░░░░ may only do what ░░░░░░░░ Constitution authorizes it to ░░░░░░░░ The list of powers ░░░░░░░░ to the federal government ░░░░░░░░ right there in the ░░░░░░░░ and the right to ░░░░░░░░ away money is not ░░░░░░░░ them However the Supreme ░░░░░░░░ disagrees The Supreme Court ░░░░░░░░ those powers only regulate ░░░░░░░░ government when it wants ░░░░░░░░ regulate behavior but they ░░░░░░░░ t regulate the government ░░░░░░░░ it wants to spend ░░░░░░░░ Stated differently the Supreme ░░░░░░░░ has ruled for better ░░░░░░░░ for worse in my ░░░░░░░░ for worse that the ░░░░░░░░ government can spend its ░░░░░░░░ on anything it wants ░░░░░░░░ can only regulate behavior ░░░░░░░░ the areas that are ░░░░░░░░ to it but when ░░░░░░░░ comes to spending it ░░░░░░░░ spend money however it ░░░░░░░░ That has resulted of ░░░░░░░░ in the big government ░░░░░░░░ monster that we have ░░░░░░░░ Washington D C today ░░░░░░░░ among the way the ░░░░░░░░ spend their money is ░░░░░░░░ bribe the states another ░░░░░░░░ for another question by ░░░░░░░░ the states cash in ░░░░░░░░ for state governments doing ░░░░░░░░ they want Another interesting ░░░░░░░░ we don t have ░░░░░░░░ person s name this ░░░░░░░░ refers to him or ░░░░░░░░ as Truth Seeker very ░░░░░░░░ nice handle And the ░░░░░░░░ Seeker question is When ░░░░░░░░ approach members of Congress ░░░░░░░░ that considered a bribe ░░░░░░░░ is it considered free ░░░░░░░░ or does it divert ░░░░░░░░ attention of members of ░░░░░░░░ from the well being ░░░░░░░░ their constituents to the ░░░░░░░░ of a lobbyist Very ░░░░░░░░ subject matter The Supreme ░░░░░░░░ has said that this ░░░░░░░░ free speech Now can ░░░░░░░░ lobbyists give the member ░░░░░░░░ Congress something of value ░░░░░░░░ it can be a ░░░░░░░░ up to 100 If ░░░░░░░░ s more than 100 ░░░░░░░░ member of Congress has ░░░░░░░░ pay for everything you ░░░░░░░░ from 100 01 north ░░░░░░░░ from 100 down the ░░░░░░░░ can give the money ░░░░░░░░ then of course the ░░░░░░░░ of Congress has to ░░░░░░░░ I met with a ░░░░░░░░ from I ll just ░░░░░░░░ something out the AARP ░░░░░░░░ Association of Retired Persons ░░░░░░░░ this divert the lobbyist ░░░░░░░░ sic attention and heart ░░░░░░░░ the needs of the ░░░░░░░░ to the needs of ░░░░░░░░ lobbyist It might but ░░░░░░░░ Court has said it ░░░░░░░░ free speech so the ░░░░░░░░ of Congress is never ░░░░░░░░ to listen to lobbyists ░░░░░░░░ they often do Do ░░░░░░░░ lobbyists influence them Of ░░░░░░░░ they do so So ░░░░░░░░ you can find that ░░░░░░░░ member of Congress who ░░░░░░░░ I m not going ░░░░░░░░ accept a lunch or ░░░░░░░░ breakfast from a lobbyist ░░░░░░░░ I m not even ░░░░░░░░ to talk to a ░░░░░░░░ good luck it will ░░░░░░░░ tough to find that ░░░░░░░░ that member of Congress ░░░░░░░░ with a ruling from ░░░░░░░░ Supreme Court I hope ░░░░░░░░ has helped I hope ░░░░░░░░ ve enjoyed it I ░░░░░░░░ do it from time ░░░░░░░░ time I m even ░░░░░░░░ to begin discussing sections ░░░░░░░░ the Constitution You ll ░░░░░░░░ how what Madison James ░░░░░░░░ wrote the Constitution intended ░░░░░░░░ so radically different from ░░░░░░░░ way the Constitution is ░░░░░░░░ today I hope this ░░░░░░░░ been of a help ░░░░░░░░ you and I hope ░░░░░░░░ have a a wonderful ░░░░░░░░ a blessed Thanksgiving Judge ░░░░░░░░ here on ‘Judging Freedom’.”