Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Firstly, a lawyer doing something disallowed isn't grounds for suspension. That takes truly egregious misconduct, not a clearly-borderline case like this. You're exaggerating for effect.
Secondly, I fail to see how asking whether he'd spoken about it before is making conviction more likely.
But all of this is just based on you insinuating that something happened. You have no actual material evidence that anything was changed. You're just continually repeating that it's possible, even though even the defence didn't allege that in court.
I mean... it's pooooossible the defence altered evidence too! We don't know! There's no reason to think they did, but maybe!
@1:25, the prosecutor starts noting that this is the 1st time Kyle has spoken up and goes on, outrageously, from there. The prosecutor's very statement is entering into the offical record Kyle's silence.
Circumstantial evidence shows something did happen. Simply attaching a file to an email, I can believe, would compress it to a lower mb size and clarity. I've seen this happen before. I don't think it would change the format. I have never seen that happen before. Also, other than adding a .zip extention, the file name itself, I don't think would change it's name. So, what really did happen to this file? Given that HandBrake is on their laptops?
Remember: you are not supposed to be giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt.
Why does that matter? Are you arguing that if somebody has a constitutional right, then it cannot be on official record that they exercised that right? Why not?
Actually, yes, attaching something can change the format, depending on the original file & reader software available.
Changing a name means nothing whatsoever regarding the contents of the file. I could rename a file any time I wanted and the contents would be the same. And I could alter a file as much as I wanted and keep the name the same. It literally has zero bearing on whether or not something has been altered. Zero.
Nor are you supposed to be presuming guilt without cause. The only reason you're doing so is a pre-existing political bias.
Aside from being understood case law in the US, the prosecutor is implying there was something wrong with Kyle exercising that right. What good is it to have a right if a jury is asked to infer guilt in its exercise? I personally would be less likely to exercise a right if I thought doing so could be used against me. (Why do you have a lawyer!?! Only guilty people hire lawyers!!!)
And if you give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt, we can agree this is possible. That isn’t the standard here. They’re called upon to prove that even though the Defense received a different piece of evidence than possessed by the prosecution, a no no, the difference was the result of innocent action. What if it wasn’t? All of this could have been tested so the prosecution could rebut the charges against them, but became moot as the jury came back with an innocent verdict anyway.
As I've already said, it's established law that someone may exercise the right to remain silent in the UK, but it's also established and protected law that doing so may be used against the defendant in the UK. It's the defendant's choice.
After all, Rittenhouse made the choice to engage in various media interviews post-incident but pre-trial. I find it a bit iffy that someone would choose to tell his side of the story via media interview, but simultaneously refuse to testify. That smacks of wanting to make his case in whatever manner suits him best at whatever time.
The evidence the defence and prosecution received wasn't different. Even the defence agreed, by the fact that they didn't object in court.
I have heard that in the UK, silence can = guilt. That isn't the case in the US but if you are from there, I understand your confusion.
England Limits the Right to Silence and Moves Towards an Inquisitorial System of Justice on JSTOR
Gregory W. O'Reilly, England Limits the Right to Silence and Moves Towards an Inquisitorial System of Justice, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 85, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 402-452
www.jstor.org
As for the video, the Defense sure seemed to have a change of heart after the case was turned over to the jury and only then did the prosecution say they had a better, clearer copy of the video resulting in a request for a directed verdict. Now all I would have wanted to know is, was this an innocent error? We could have found out but the question is moot now that the jury has delivered its verdict.
Last edited:
Getting shot in the back doesn't mean it's murder for several reasons that I stated regardless how realistic or unrealistic they were. Your point that a fatal shot to the back means murder is completely ridiculous for many reasons.
And how is that study tied to black people getting worse convictions. Subconsciously or consciously wanting to be with similar people (whether employees or neighbors) and sending someone to jail because they're different than you are 2 completely different things. The cop in my trial of police brutality was latino and the plaintiff was white, nobody on the jury cared about that the plaintiff was white and the cop a minority, and the cop was acquitted. Sure, if the jurors are on the fence about guilty / not guilty, race may come into play, but at the same time if you're on that fence, that should be reasonable doubt right there, and it's hard for anyone to send someone to jail even if they have "normal" racial tendencies.
You were the one saying Kyle looking for trouble and shouldn't of have been there should be part of the decision to convict. You can say the same about tons of black cases too; out when they shouldn't be, not in their neighborhood (even though Kyle's dad lives there), going to a dangerous place with a gun. And if you're going to say those things should be considered, then you'll be convicting black people at high rates too. I don't care about those things because those things don't matter regardless if it's Rittenhouse or anyone else. Sure, Kyle or anyone in such a situation might blame themselves throughout their lives for what happened but that doesn't deem it a criminal offense. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I do agree with the prosecutor's logic and argument there. Being able to hear all testimony and evidence, you can then alter your testimony to align with certain things better. Though that is obviously against the law to use as an argument. That is an issue with the structure of court and not anything that should be levied against anyone though. Kyle's testimony didn't mean anything though because there was no evidence that pointed to murder that he had to explain anyway.
Last edited:
We did discuss how, for instance, in the UK, they are rolling back the right to remain silent. If you are innocent, why remain silent?
ITMT, that is the law in the US. And the prosecutor was trying to imply guilt on the Defendant for using this right.
Maybe we should get rid of the right to remain silent. Until we do, simply trying to imply guilt as the prosecutor did in this case is a violation of power that got the prosecution, justly, spanked.
The 5th amendment isn't going away. An easy fix for the issue the prosecutor brought (being able to tailor testimony after hearing and seeing everything) is to have the defendant "testify" after formally charged before the trial giving his/her statements on what happened with a lawyer obviously. The prosecutor doesn't get to see that testimony until the defense reveals that the defendant will testify (since the defendant doesn't have to testify) so that the prosecution can point out contradictions or story changes if there are any while not having something they shouldn't have and being able to possibly lead their witnesses.
The law here states that someone may choose to be silent when arrested, but that it may harm their defence if they later introduce something in trial relevant to their defence. One might reasonably argue that if they speak at a trial, they are abandoning a right to silence, at which point a jury may then wish to consider whether there was an intent to either impede the prosecution, or that the intervening time was used to formulate a plausible lie.
I think the exact wording is something like "You have the right to remain silent however it may harm you defence if when question you fail to mention something you later rely on in court"
Yeah it doesn't make sense to use people using their rights to avoid incrimination to incriminate them from a different angle all the same. It's a lose-lose. The principle here is that people should be able to avoid incriminating themselves. If you wanna disagree with this principle then strip that right away first through the normal process ones has to go through to do this, and also rememeber once you do this it will affect trans people and black people and so on too, and most likely disproportionately so.
...why do people keep saying "but think what will start happening to <insert minority group>" as if it isn't already happening constantly all the time?
Isn't the point that it'll happen even more than it does?
We can't be selectively authoritarian, it'll affect everyone.
Because they don't actually give a shit, they just want to emotionally blackmail those of us with functioning moral compasses. It's a cheap, manipulative tactic.
Last edited:
I think that’s an older version of the caution. It was certainly the right one for a long time since it was heard every other scene in the Bill.
And of course just because the police want an answer, doesn’t mean you have to give them one that’s helpful. What’s that delightful phrase…….oh yeah.
“No comment”
heh. In the United States, any helpful detail that came up under questioning would be inadmissible due to the hearsay rule. Cops can only testify that you said something incriminating, never that you said something exculpatory. NEVER EVER TALK TO COPS.
Why is it better to supposedly give a shit but do things that harm the thing you give a shit about anyways because it serves your ends? I'd argue it's worse to betray something in this manner than to not give a shit from the start and act consistently with that.
My point is just that there's inconsistency here and ones purporting to care about issues ought to take into account the externalities of their methods, even if it's inconvenient. I don't need to care about something to point out that you who proclaim to care act as thought you in fact don't. I can just point it out irrespective of my feelings and still be equally correct in my point.
If you don't actually give a shit, that explains the cheap argument claiming something that already happens in abundance will start happening in the future.
Like, what are you proposing as a fix? We already have rules regarding what a lawyer can and cannot ask and a judge to rules when that line is crossed, as what happened in this case