Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Schadrach]

I personally do think he was guilty, but I accept he was found innocent.

He was found not guilty. There's a big important difference.

First of all, American courts do not generally find people innocent (there are a few narrow exceptions, for example in CA after being found not guilty you can request a hearing to prove you could not have done the crime beyond a reasonable doubt but you have to pay for this, that standard is a ridiculously high bar, and generally all you can get from it is having your records related to the charge expunged).

Secondly, to be found not guilty, there merely has to be a reasonable doubt that your actions did not meet the requirements of the crime or that they fall into an explicit legal defense. In this case, he relied on self defense as defined by state law. So, all he had to do was create reasonable doubt that he had a reasonable belief that he was at imminent risk of great bodily harm or death and reasonably believed he had to shoot to end that risk. The facts of the case meet that standard, and then some.

Which is clearly bullshit.

It's exactly as much bullshit as bringing up the histories of any of the men shot, which were also disallowed. If I recall, when that clip was objected to, the defense even explicitly pointed out that if that is admissible then so should prior events from the protesters. Like that clip where Rosenbaum says he wants to "jack them" and "steal they guns" earlier that night. Or the criminal histories of the people involved.

 

[Schadrach]

You want to be angry, be angry at them for fucking up their one job and not at the defence for not fucking up theirs.

The facts didn't support the charges, this is why they kept trying things that were no bueno, they were down to the "pound the table" part of that old adage about law. They might have got away with 2nd degree reckless (and no guarantees there), but 1st degree intentional was never going to stick.

 

[Agema]

He was found not guilty. There's a big important difference.

No there isn't an important difference, because "found innocent" is plainly vernacular most people use to describe someone cleared of charges in a trial.

Unless you have a good reason to believe someone is referring a technical verdict of "innocent" (which many if not most jurisdictions do not even have), the basic assumption should be that they are describing a verdict "not guilty", and doing otherwise constitutes almost wilful misinterpretation.

 

[CriticalGaming]

No there isn't an important difference, because "found innocent" is plainly vernacular most people use to describe someone cleared of charges in a trial.

Unless you have a good reason to believe someone is referring a technical verdict of "innocent" (which many if not jurisdictions do not even have), the basic assumption should be that they are describing a verdict "not guilty", and doing otherwise constitutes almost wilful misinterpretation.

That's just wrong. There is a reason why they use "not guilty" when talking about cases like this.

What is the difference between innocent and not guilty? | MacDonald Law Office, LLC

When you're going through a criminal case, it's important to take a step back to look at the differences between innocent and not guilty. We're explaining the difference in today's post.

www.amacdonaldlaw.com

.

Not guilty just means they couldn't prove that the person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of any charges present. Innocent means it is provably impossible that the person could have commited a given act.

I'll use OJ Simpson as an example again. He was found not guilty. Meaning they could not prove that he killed those people, but there is no way to prove that he also DIDN'T kill those people. And later evidence suggests that OJ totally was guilty.

 

[Agema]

I'll use OJ Simpson as an example again. He was found not guilty. Meaning they could not prove that he killed those people, but there is no way to prove that he also DIDN'T kill those people. And later evidence suggests that OJ totally was guilty.

You have completely failed to refute my point.

 

[Silvanus]

Even mentioning that the accused remained silent in a fashion meant to suggest that it should be seen as suspicious is walking right up to the edge of a 5th Amendment violation and hoping that no one is willing to call you on it. He couldn't compel him to give up his silence (and in context he was already agreeing to speak), instead he was trying to make his silence so far seem suspicious. If the judge hadn't put a kibosh on it, it might have been used as a grounds for mistrial or appeal.

Well, that's an absurd rule, then. His question was; "After all of that [testimony from others], you are telling us your side of the story?" - the intended inference being that since Rittenhouse didn't testify earlier, while simultaneously feeling fine to do media interviews, he was leaving himself flexibility to adapt the story.

Here in the UK, it's established law that suspects/defendants cannot be compelled to speak, but that by the same token, their unwillingness to do so may reflect badly on their case.

According to the expert witness, all shots against Rosenbaum were at a distance less than 4 feet and Rosenbaum's hand was on or within a couple inches of the barrel when the gun was fired. That coupled with the video sounds a lot like Rosenbaum chased him down and was going for his gun.

It can't have been "all shots" against Rosenbaum, because the first shot caused him to fall to the ground, after which the next 3 were fired when he was already down.

How much of the trial footage have you actually seen? I'm just curious. Because it seems like a lot of the people very upset (or even remotely surprised) by the verdict tend to be people who've seen bits and snips on social media or a couple of news stories as opposed to actually following the trial and seeing the same evidence and arguments brought before the jury.

I've watched the surrounding contextual parts around bits like this, which have become contested and divisive. I've not watched hours of it.

Innocent means it is provably impossible that the person could have commited a given act.

Not legally, it doesn't mean that. Hence "innocent until proven guilty". We are all legally innocent until deemed guilty in a court.

 

[Schadrach]

Well, that's an absurd rule, then. His question was; "After all of that [testimony from others], you are telling us your side of the story?" - the intended inference being that since Rittenhouse didn't testify earlier, while simultaneously feeling fine to do media interviews, he was leaving himself flexibility to adapt the story.

Again, a violation of the 5th. You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself in criminal court, you cannot be compelled to speak to police when arrested (the "right to remain silent" in the Miranda rights is literally an explanation of how the 5th applies when in police custody), and you cannot have your silence used against you (otherwise said right to silence would be meaningless, because every prosecutor would use any application of 5th amendment silence as an implication of guilt).

This is literally what the objection from the defense was about - he was trying to use Rittenhouse being silent to the police against him, which is explicitly not permissible. The judge made the right call, at the time of the objection, the prosecutor was basically playing chicken with Rittenhouse's 5th amendment rights to see what he could get away with.

It can't have been "all shots" against Rosenbaum, because the first shot caused him to fall to the ground, after which the next 3 were fired when he was already down.

More precisely, Rosenbaum was within 4 feet for all shots fired, but his hand was only at the end of the barrel for the first. McGinnis testified that Rosenbaum had lunged at Rittenhouse, which the pathologist said was in line with the injuries. He definitely wasn't already on the ground when the fatal shot was fired (it went in his back but went lengthwise down his body [only way to hit both lung and liver with one bullet], or IOW where you'd expect if Rittenhouse shot him mid-lunge -- that shot can't happen with the target on the ground and the shooter standing). I'd have to rewatch testimony to see if there was anything to imply Rosenbaum was already down for the groin shot, but he definitely wasn't for the fatal shot or the hand shot.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Again, a violation of the 5th. You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself in criminal court, you cannot be compelled to speak to police when arrested (the "right to remain silent" in the Miranda rights is literally an explanation of how the 5th applies when in police custody), and you cannot have your silence used against you (otherwise said right to silence would be meaningless, because every prosecutor would use any application of 5th amendment silence as an implication of guilt).

This is literally what the objection from the defense was about - he was trying to use Rittenhouse being silent to the police against him, which is explicitly not permissible. The judge made the right call, at the time of the objection, the prosecutor was basically playing chicken with Rittenhouse's 5th amendment rights to see what he could get away with.



More precisely, Rosenbaum was within 4 feet for all shots fired, but his hand was only at the end of the barrel for the first. McGinnis testified that Rosenbaum had lunged at Rittenhouse, which the pathologist said was in line with the injuries. He definitely wasn't already on the ground when the fatal shot was fired (it went in his back but went lengthwise down his body [only way to hit both lung and liver with one bullet], or IOW where you'd expect if Rittenhouse shot him mid-lunge -- that shot can't happen with the target on the ground and the shooter standing). I'd have to rewatch testimony to see if there was anything to imply Rosenbaum was already down for the groin shot, but he definitely wasn't for the fatal shot or the hand shot.

One thing I never saw in the trial (I've not watched it all so I likely missed it).

Did they ever talk about the fact Rosenbaum wasn't taken from the scene by ambulance or medics despite them supposedly being on the way but he was kind of picked up and put in the back of a van to be driven to hospital?

I mean I know Rittenhouse fired what would be a fatal shot but what I'm wondering is how much chance of survival Rosenbaum had with trained paramedics vs random likely AntiFA associated "street Medics" in the back of a van.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

In the land of Q, meanwhile

 

[Cheetodust]

In the land of Q, meanwhile

That tweet didn't last long. What did it say?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That tweet didn't last long. What did it say?

Oh no. Q folks are comparing pictures of Kyle Rittenhouse to one of the kids killed in Sandy Hook, and saying he's a fake crisis actor, twice now.

 

[Cheetodust]

Oh no. Q folks are comparing pictures of Kyle Rittenhouse to one of the kids killed in Sandy Hook, and saying he's a fake crisis actor, twice now.

Gross.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, a violation of the 5th. You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself in criminal court, you cannot be compelled to speak to police when arrested (the "right to remain silent" in the Miranda rights is literally an explanation of how the 5th applies when in police custody), and you cannot have your silence used against you (otherwise said right to silence would be meaningless, because every prosecutor would use any application of 5th amendment silence as an implication of guilt).

This is literally what the objection from the defense was about - he was trying to use Rittenhouse being silent to the police against him, which is explicitly not permissible. The judge made the right call, at the time of the objection, the prosecutor was basically playing chicken with Rittenhouse's 5th amendment rights to see what he could get away with.

The "cannot have your silence used against you" part isn't actually in the Constitution; it was a result of legal precedent established long after (1965). And it's quite a stretch to say that applies to merely asking the defendant to confirm that he not spoken on the matter until now, without any statement that doing so was suspect.

But that's kind of beside the point. My point was that since Rittenhouse was never compelled to speak, and his rights were never infringed, there's no grounds for a mistrial. What, a mistrial gets called whenever the judge stops something questionable from happening, even if that questionable thing... never ended up actually happening?

More precisely, Rosenbaum was within 4 feet for all shots fired, but his hand was only at the end of the barrel for the first. McGinnis testified that Rosenbaum had lunged at Rittenhouse, which the pathologist said was in line with the injuries. He definitely wasn't already on the ground when the fatal shot was fired (it went in his back but went lengthwise down his body [only way to hit both lung and liver with one bullet], or IOW where you'd expect if Rittenhouse shot him mid-lunge -- that shot can't happen with the target on the ground and the shooter standing). I'd have to rewatch testimony to see if there was anything to imply Rosenbaum was already down for the groin shot, but he definitely wasn't for the fatal shot or the hand shot.

Read that again; the fatal shot entered his back, and only the first shot was fired when he was close to (possibly) grabbing the gun.

How is a shot to the back, or a shot to a man on the ground for that matter, attributable to self-defence?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Read that again; the fatal shot entered his back, and only the first shot was fired when he was close to (possibly) grabbing the gun.

How is a shot to the back, or a shot to a man on the ground for that matter, attributable to self-defence?

So fucking what if the fatal shot was in the back. If you shot someone once that causes them to spin around, are you forced to wait until they turn back around even though they are still moving towards you? It's not like you can tell in that time frame if the 1st shot is going to stop them. You're asking way too fucking much of someone in a life and death scenario. People can't even shoot just the right number of times in a video game let alone when their actual life is on the line in real life. It's not like Rittenhouse shot him in the back after he was like walking away and leaving.

You're acting like this is some conspiracy, the jurors weren't diverse enough, the judge was biased, etc. Have you ever been a juror on any type of case that involves violence? Guess what, people don't give 2 shits about the politics of the case, you go by the law and the directions given to you. I was a juror on a police brutality case and nothing we talked about had anything to do with being say pro or anti-cop (which the prosecution and defense were very concerned about when selecting the jury). It doesn't matter if the jurors were all super left leaning gun-control loving people, they wouldn't have convicted Kyle because the law isn't that you can't have a gun or can't walk around with a gun or can't shoot people. And you think the prosecution didn't get some of their chosen jurors on the jury and the jury was completely decided by the defense? It just takes a single juror disagreeing and you have to do another trial. Those 12 people know more about the case than anyone here by a long shot and the fact they came to an unanimous decision means the prosecutor couldn't convince a single one of them that it wasn't self-defense. You think the judge yelling at the prosecutor for the 5th amendment, however valid or invalid, had anything to do with the verdict because it didn't. 99+% of the what you see in the trial has no bearing on your decision as a juror, the only thing that matters is the what happen in those seconds/minutes of the actual incident and nothing else. Even Rittenhouse's own testimony most likely meant nothing to the jurors' decision because there was really no evidence or testimony pointing to it not being self-defense. It's not like Rittenhouse said XYZ happened and a witness said ABC happened instead and the jury had figure out what really happened and what testimony was more believable.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Those 12 people know more about the case than anyone here by a long shot and the fact they came to an unanimous decision means the prosecutor couldn't convince a single one of them that it wasn't self-defense.

Cool, now do the jury nullifications of people accused of lynching.

 

[Silvanus]

So fucking what if the fatal shot was in the back. If you shot someone once that causes them to spin around, are you forced to wait until they turn back around even though they are still moving towards you? It's not like you can tell in that time frame if the 1st shot is going to stop them. You're asking way too fucking much of someone in a life and death scenario. People can't even shoot just the right number of times in a video game let alone when their actual life is on the line in real life. It's not like Rittenhouse shot him in the back after he was like walking away and leaving.

If he "spun around", with his back towards Rittenhouse, then he was no longer a realistic threat. Unless you're going to argue that he was continuing the attack while... spinning around backwards (or lying on the ground).

In a video game, there's not much to be lost by overcompensating. A few rounds of imaginary ammunition. People are supposed to put more thought into their actions when overcompensation means life or death for another living person.

You're acting like this is some conspiracy, the jurors weren't diverse enough, the judge was biased, etc. Have you ever been a juror on any type of case that involves violence? Guess what, people don't give 2 shits about the politics of the case, you go by the law and the directions given to you. I was a juror on a police brutality case and nothing we talked about had anything to do with being say pro or anti-cop (which the prosecution and defense were very concerned about when selecting the jury). It doesn't matter if the jurors were all super left leaning gun-control loving people, they wouldn't have convicted Kyle because the law isn't that you can't have a gun or can't walk around with a gun or can't shoot people. And you think the prosecution didn't get some of their chosen jurors on the jury and the jury was completely decided by the defense? It just takes a single juror disagreeing and you have to do another trial. Those 12 people know more about the case than anyone here by a long shot and the fact they came to an unanimous decision means the prosecutor couldn't convince a single one of them that it wasn't self-defense. You think the judge yelling at the prosecutor for the 5th amendment, however valid or invalid, had anything to do with the verdict because it didn't. 99+% of the what you see in the trial has no bearing on your decision as a juror, the only thing that matters is the what happen in those seconds/minutes of the actual incident and nothing else. Even Rittenhouse's own testimony most likely meant nothing to the jurors' decision because there was really no evidence or testimony pointing to it not being self-defense. It's not like Rittenhouse said XYZ happened and a witness said ABC happened instead and the jury had figure out what really happened and what testimony was more believable.

Oh, please, spare me. I'm not arguing conspiracy.

You might believe that randomised juries are immune to prejudice just because they don't actively discuss political questions during deliberation. That's childishly simplistic. We know for a fact that political/racial prejudices affect the likelihood of someone being found guilty; why do you think black defendants are so much more likely to be found guilty when the preponderance of evidence is the same? Why do you think black defendants are likely to receive harsher penalties for the same crimes?

Both defence lawyers and prosecutors frequently move to build the jury to match or contrast (respectively) the demographics of the defendant. It's expected. Because the American legal system tacitly acknowledges that demographic biases and prejudices play a role. The best we can usually hope for is one that is at the very least reflective of the area... which this one wasn't, not even remotely.

 

[Schadrach]

and his rights were never infringed, there's no grounds for a mistrial.

Agreed. But the whole judge asking the jury to leave and chewing out the prosecutor was to prevent such from happening because the prosecutor was walking directly into grounds for mistrial.

Read that again; the fatal shot entered his back, and only the first shot was fired when he was close to (possibly) grabbing the gun.

How is a shot to the back, or a shot to a man on the ground for that matter, attributable to self-defence?

Because he wasn't shot in the back because he had his back turned, he was shot in the back because he was coming in lower than shoulder height for Rittenhouse and leaned in towards him, like one would expect from a lunge or tackle. The same bullet hit his back, lung, and liver.

Think about the angle of the shot, and imagine what the line of fire looks like. Like imagine drawing a straight line that goes through Rosenbaum's liver, lung, and upper back and then into Rittenhouse's gun barrel and what that implies about the relative position and movement of the people involved. Rittenhouse is standing holding the gun. Rosenbaum doesn't have his back turned, he's lunging at him and at the moment Rittenhouse fires he's lower than Rittenhouse's shoulder, meaning Rittenhouse is aiming slightly down. Shot goes from gun barrel to upper back to lung to liver.

why do you think black defendants are so much more likely to be found guilty when the preponderance of evidence is the same? Why do you think black defendants are likely to receive harsher penalties for the same crimes?

The same applies to male defendants, except the gap is much larger for gender than for race. The only way Rittenhouse would be expected to be more likely to be convicted based on his demographics is if he were both male and black.

Both defence lawyers and prosecutors frequently move to build the jury to match or contrast (respectively) the demographics of the defendant. It's expected. Because the American legal system tacitly acknowledges that demographic biases and prejudices play a role.

...and neither generally gets exactly the jury they want and jury decisions have to be unanimous, or you have a hung jury. In the case of a hung jury, it's a mistrial and the prosecutor can try again. It wasn't a mistrial in this case, the jurors unanimously decided he was not guilty.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The "cannot have your silence used against you" part isn't actually in the Constitution; it was a result of legal precedent established long after (1965). And it's quite a stretch to say that applies to merely asking the defendant to confirm that he not spoken on the matter until now, without any statement that doing so was suspect.

But that's kind of beside the point. My point was that since Rittenhouse was never compelled to speak, and his rights were never infringed, there's no grounds for a mistrial. What, a mistrial gets called whenever the judge stops something questionable from happening, even if that questionable thing... never ended up actually happening?



Read that again; the fatal shot entered his back, and only the first shot was fired when he was close to (possibly) grabbing the gun.

How is a shot to the back, or a shot to a man on the ground for that matter, attributable to self-defence?

Except Binger (the prosecution) was pushing the implication that Kyle's silence was unusual and for an innocent person not what normally happens because innocent people want to be heard and have the world know they're innocent right? That's how it works in the social media age right? or some such BS which is why the judge admonished him

 

[Silvanus]

Except Binger (the prosecution) was pushing the implication that Kyle's silence was unusual and for an innocent person not what normally happens because innocent people want to be heard and have the world know they're innocent right? That's how it works in the social media age right? or some such BS which is why the judge admonished him

It is a little unusual to do the media interview circuit while also refusing to testify, yeah. But that's irrelevant. The only relevant bit is that nobody's rights were actually infringed, so there's no grounds for a mistrial.

Agreed. But the whole judge asking the jury to leave and chewing out the prosecutor was to prevent such from happening because the prosecutor was walking directly into grounds for mistrial.

Eh, possibly. I still have a hard time equating simply asking somebody whether this was the first time they were speaking about something with insinuating that it's wrong to do so. He gave no value judgement.

Because he wasn't shot in the back because he had his back turned, he was shot in the back because he was coming in lower than shoulder height for Rittenhouse and leaned in towards him, like one would expect from a lunge or tackle. The same bullet hit his back, lung, and liver.

Think about the angle of the shot, and imagine what the line of fire looks like. Like imagine drawing a straight line that goes through Rosenbaum's liver, lung, and upper back and then into Rittenhouse's gun barrel and what that implies about the relative position and movement of the people involved. Rittenhouse is standing holding the gun. Rosenbaum doesn't have his back turned, he's lunging at him and at the moment Rittenhouse fires he's lower than Rittenhouse's shoulder, meaning Rittenhouse is aiming slightly down. Shot goes from gun barrel to upper back to lung to liver.

I have thought about it. If that's the result of a "lunge", then Rittenhouse would have to be firing almost directly downwards, in a highly unrealistic and awkward position, to hit his back. And adding the assumption that a first on-target shot apparently had no impact on stopping the guy. And then even after that, we have... two more shots?

It seems far, far more likely that one nonlethal shot stopped him, and then Rittenhouse-- the guy who openly expressed a desire to shoot looters, prior to any of this-- kept firing.

The same applies to male defendants, except the gap is much larger for gender than for race. The only way Rittenhouse would be expected to be more likely to be convicted based on his demographics is if he were both male and black.

The same does indeed apply for male defendants. It's preferable for juries to be balanced/ representative in terms of gender as well. This doesn't counter my point, it's more like a complimentary addendum.

...and neither generally gets exactly the jury they want and jury decisions have to be unanimous, or you have a hung jury. In the case of a hung jury, it's a mistrial and the prosecutor can try again. It wasn't a mistrial in this case, the jurors unanimously decided he was not guilty.

Except in this case, it wasn't just "neither getting the jury they want". It was a jury heavily skewed in one direction, a direction which favoured the defendant.

 

[Gordon_4]

It seems far, far more likely that one nonlethal shot stopped him, and then Rittenhouse-- the guy who openly expressed a desire to shoot looters, prior to any of this-- kept firing.

Almost everyone who uses firearms with the expectation to use them against living targets is taught to continue firing until their target is visibly not moving. And that is the behaviour we expect of those trained and conditioned; a hapless amateur in over his head like Rittenhouse? Well......