September 9, 2022

A prosecutor who uses his or her authority to virtue signal to the public to advance his or her political career is more dangerous to society than all but the most violent criminals.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

Insurance will cover many forms of property crimes, and you can legally use deadly force against somebody who menaces you with death or serious bodily injury. 

A prosecutor, though, can bankrupt most people by filing unfounded criminal charges against them, ruin their lives with prison time and criminal records. Unless the case is particularly egregious like that of Mike Nifong (D-NC), or with crooked judges like Mark Ciavarella (D-PA, a.k.a., federal inmate #15008-067) or Mike Conahan (D-PA, home arrest), there is little or no recourse against these “jurists.”

To put this in perspective, Pennsylvania attorney Frank Fina was suspended from the practice of law for his role in convicting Penn State President Graham Spanier of putting children at risk. Pennsylvania’s current Attorney General, and gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro (D-PA), worked hard to reinstate Spanier’s conviction while tweeting that Spanier had been told that Jerry Sandusky was sexually assaulting children on the Penn State campus. The witness, Mike McQueary, testified, however, under oath, that he did not see Sandusky do anything he deemed reportable to police while his father and a family friend, both of whom are mandated by law to report abuse, did not encourage him to report to child protective authorities whatever he thought he might have possibly heard.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

I believe that Shapiro, like Scott Harshbarger (D-MA) and Martha Coakley (D-MA) who ruined the lives of the Amiraults, used his position to “virtue signal” his concern for the children prior to the election. The latter is my perception of Shapiro, Harshbarger, and Coakley rather than a statement of fact because I cannot read their minds.

Kyle’s Law

Attorney Andrew Branca, whose opinions often appear on William Jacobson’s blog Legal Insurrection, has proposed what he calls Kyle’s Law due to what he and I both regard as a politically motivated prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse for what was obviously self-defense.

“Too often, rogue prosecutors bring felony criminal charges against people who were clearly doing nothing more than defending themselves, their families, or others from violent criminal attack. …The only motivation of the prosecutor is personal aggrandizement and political capital.” Kyle’s Law would sanction not only the jurisdiction but also the prosecutor who brings a junk case, to be defined as one in which the prosecutor lacks even preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did anything wrong.

The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state meanwhile, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous…” and also “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause…” and probable cause requires a “reasonable belief” that the defendant has committed a crime.

If, for example, a video of a self-defense shooting shows clearly that the person who was shot initiated a deadly confrontation, perpetuated it by not allowing the subject of their attack to retreat in complete safety, and menaced the shooter with immediate deadly force, as did all three of Rittenhouse’s assailants, that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of the shooter that the shooting was justified. If we look within the four corners of the charges against Rittenhouse, the prosecutors did not contest this version of the events.  Joseph Rosenbaum initiated a confrontation in which he attempted to strong-arm rob Rittenhouse (a violent felony by itself) of a firearm he could have turned against Rittenhouse on the spot and also one which, as a convicted felon, it was unlawful for Rosenbaum to handle. Anthony Huber the domestic abuser was a member of a mob (which constitutes disparity of force and therefore deadly force) that pursued Rittenhouse while yelling violent threats, thus putting Rittenhouse in reasonable fear for his life and denying him the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. He then menaced and struck Rittenhouse with a deadly contact weapon when Rittenhouse was on the ground. The third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, pursued Rittenhouse with a drawn handgun, which again constituted an implied threat, along with the immediate means of carrying it out.