Again only because the judge stepped in to make sure it didn't happen
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
It's completely unreasonable for anyone to abide by your expectations. So I can just rush up to someone quickly turning my back intermittently and if I get shot in the back, it's then murder instead of self defense? Somebody still moving towards you with their back turned is still a threat. It's completely unreasonable to know in the heat of a life and death situation the second someone ceases being a threat. Some monster scaring the shit out of a player in a heavy resource management horror game is going to shoot more than they need to even when trying to conserve as much ammo as possible. People panic under pressure, a couple panic shots does not turn self-defense into murder. People freeze and panic when their car slides in the snow.
It's very hard to compare cases to each other as every case is different. So there isn't a case of a black Rittenhouse doing this exact same thing to compare to. Minorities and black people most likely get worse defenses because they don't have the money to afford a proper defense than the jury being racist. Nobody on the jury is going to be saying guilty just because the defendant is black. Sure, there's some legit racist people still out there, and I'm sure they occasionally get on juries but one or two racists on the jury isn't going to cause a mistrial anyway since the other jurors are going to vote innocent (assuming the prosecution didn't prove their case). And, yes, there was a time when you had obvious juries racist against black defendants (which is why the rolleyes at Seanchaidh) but that isn't the case anymore outside of maybe the occasional small town here and there. Most crime takes place in the big urban cities and there's hardly a lot of racists there, even in southern cities.
You sound like someone that would be convicting blacks at higher rates because you're arguments have included this:
Sounds very similar to a lot of black crimes that happen in dangerous areas at like 2 in the morning. It's their fault for traveling to a dangerous area, possibly looking to partake in some criminal activity, in the middle of the night when they should be sleeping or watching their kids or what-have-you. If you're gonna say Kyle is guilty for all those reasons, then it seems like black people are being convicted correctly.
If I was to try to write a spoof position for a satirical comedy, maybe something Chris Morris or Armando Iannucci might write, I could scarcely come up with something better than this.
The problem is that a lot of racism is not out-and-out, flag-waving, self-confessed racism. A lot of racism consists of subconscious prejudices and unconscious biases. A lot of people who do not view themselves as racist-- or genuinely believe themselves not to be-- would still be likely to judge a black person more harshly than a white person, even if all other circumstances of the situation were the same.
Study after study have shown unconscious bias to be both real and widespread. Recall those instances of research bodies sending identical job applications to institutions: one with a typically white-European name, and one with an Afro- or Caribbean-sounding name. The former receiving a lot more invitations for interview.
Those institutions would not believe themselves to be racist. They might well consciously hold disdain for racism, and fully consciously intend to be act in non-racist ways. But the stats would show that subliminal biases persist.
Fuck this disgusting piece-of-shit sentence. What a despicable fucking accusation, without a shred of anything to back it up.
Completely irrelevant. The fact that something might have happened is not grounds for a mistrial. You transparently don't understand what the purpose of a mistrial actually is.
I think @Dwarvenhobble means that misconduct was stopped before there was further damage. And even then, that is not completely correct. The jury heard the prosecution attack Rittenhouse for using his right to remain silent. He stopped that. But they withheld evidence and tampered with evidence, all of which did prejudice the jury. But it didn't matter only as these points became moot with the Jury verdict. I think the Judge wanted to do as much as possible to allow them to return a verdict and show the system can work. Had the jury returned with guilty verdicts, I think the Judge would have been duty bound to over turn the verdict and issue his own.
I am surprised that the prosecution is not facing at least a suspension of their licenses to practice law.
I know but then again it's a department struggling to retain staff and the Mayor of Kenosha, the DA and Binger (the lead prosecution lawyer) all also happen to share the same surname, but I'm sure it's just co-incidence......
...Where did you hear that? The DA's name is Mike Graveley, and the Mayor of Kenosha is John Antaramian. Binger is the ADA...and I don't mean "someone with the same surname as the prosecutor" is the ADA, I mean that prosecutor Thomas Binger is himself the ADA.
Sorry seems I was slightly off.
Turns out it's the Mayor, the City DA and the lead detective in the case
John Antaramian - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
City Attorney - City of Kenosha
The City Attorney's Office provides comprehensive legal services to the City of Kenosha, its governing body and subunits.
Jury watches drone footage of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting man dead
Teenager shot Joseph Rosenbaum four times at close range including once in the back during Kenosha protest
www.theguardian.com
Do I need to get an anatomical chart and show you where your liver is and lungs are? One bullet, traveling in more or less a straight line hit his upper back, lung, and liver. If you were standing in front of me, back turned and I wanted to reproduce that shot, I'd have to get a stepladder or ask you to kneel because the bullet is entering near one end of your torso and traveling down your length. If you were standing, the shot would have to be "almost directly downwards, in a highly unrealistic and awkward position." If he were already on the ground, you'd have to join him down there to make the shot.
But if he were say midway through a lunge or tackle (meaning he's not fully upright) and coming in kind of below shoulder height, suddenly that shot makes a lot more sense.
What's the probative value of asking that question? What do you learn of value from that line of questioning? What purpose does asking it achieve? Why do you think he asked that question?
That's not grounds for a mistrial under any understanding of the process.
Well no, that was an argument made by the defence, which I think was made on tremendously spurious grounds. Pinch-to-zoom materially changes the content of a video?! The filesize changed, even though the defence were the ones who requested it be sent by email, which caused the downsizing... and they then didn't even object in court?!
If a "lunge" presents a clear shot of your back, then the lunger would need to be absurdly low to the ground, beyond the point where any practical lunge could work.
I don't believe he was running (not enough time between shots for him to turn) or on the ground. I think he was most likely to be mid-fall.
Not every single question is probative. Lawyers of both stripes will frequently ask questions just to set the course of events in context. It would be a relatively minor, but relevant, thing to establish that there is no alternative explanation the defendant has already given in the past.
Then you don't understand the process and what a Judge's responsibilities are if a jury, in that Judge's opinion, have been hopelessly prejudiced.
Tthe Defense made a formal motion for a directed verdict including the tampered with evidence for reason. It became moot as the jury came forward with the not guilty verdict on all counts.
None of which was caused by anything you put forward. No "hopeless prejudice" could possibly have occurred as a result of pinch-to-zoom or other such nonsense.
You're exaggerating it enormously because it suits a pre-existing political view you took of the case.
Seriously, the violation of Kyle's right to remain silent, by itself, should do the trick. I was shocked when the Prosecution did this.
But it went on. Of course it is prejudicial and cause for case dismissal if the Defense asks for a piece of evidence and the prosecution tampers with it to provide something relatively unusuable... and then boasts they have an actual watchable copy of it for the jury.
But that didn't happen. He was never compelled to speak. He was asked if he had.
They didn't "tamper with it". Absolutely nothing they did changed the material, relevant content. Putting aside the fact that the compressed filesize was a direct result of the defence requesting to be sent it by email. They then chose to complain about... a result of what they themselves asked for.
The line of questioning was clearly meant to imply guilt as Kyle had remained silent. This is a major no no. I am curious: if that was not the intent of that line of questioning, what was it?
You're giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt. That isn't how it works.
I honestly don't know but I think the request had been made previously for other evidence. By email, they would receive a link to a "Dropbox" service that had evidence the Defense would then download without any transformation. The video we're talking about, I think, could and should have been provided in this manner. Instead, the video the Defense got was not only compressed and of lower quality but the file name was changed. It's alleged simply attaching the video would not have changed that name thus. The format was changed from something like 16x9 to 4x3.
And, because the Prosecution appears to have been doing dirty, they appear to have used an opensource application, "Handbrake" to deliberately alter the video. I would love it were there a criminal investigation of them in this case.
I've already answered that question above. But that's not relevant. It doesn't matter if something might have happened had the judge not intervened. If it didn't end up actually happening, there's no grounds for a mistrial. A mistrial is a salve for something that actually materially damaged the trial, not something that might have otherwise damaged the trial, but didn't.
The... filename was changed? Who gives a shit? There's no actual reason to believe that that indicates tampering. If you're going to allege tampering (a serious crime), you have to actually provide a reason to think it happened.
The defence did not ask for it via Dropbox. Other evidence had already been shared via Dropbox in this case, that was standard. The defence asked for it by email. The prosecution did as the defence asked. Then, in court, the defence did not object. Then, later, people chose to bang on about it in order to create a false narrative of prosecutorial misconduct, based on them doing as the defence had asked (and had expressed no issue with in court).
I know you'd love it if that were to happen; your only consideration in this case appears to be serving a pre-existing political position you hold.
Compare to the 1st. I have a right to speak. I scream, "Let's Go Brandon!". The government, in no way, infringes upon my right to scream that. I say it freely and openly and they do not infringe upon this right even though they easily could do so.
Then, they arrest me, try me for saying something they dislike, and have me shot dead. They didn't infringe upon my right to scream what I want. They just shot me dead for saying it after the fact.
The state did not compel Kyle to say anything. They just were implying his guilt for exercising the right not to do so.
That's a no no. And the prosecution was rightly spanked but only after some of the damage done.
That's how the law works.
Changing a file name is immaterial. But it is evidence (not conclusive, but it is evidence) that changes were intentionally made to the file sent to the Defense. The rest of your statement is offering the Prosecution a benefit of the doubt you are not supposed to be giving them.
Let's compare to the 1st in a like-for-like, then. You scream "Let's go Brandon". The government doesn't stop you. A lawman then asks whether you shouted it or not, and you confirm you did. No harm comes to you.
Oooooh, truly oppressive.
It's not "benefit of the doubt" to require actual evidence of misconduct. Changing a filename is not that at all; it's completely meaningless as to the content of the video.
You have absolutely no compelling reason, not one iota of one, to assume the content was changed. It wasn't. You're blaming the prosecution for literally doing what the defence asked them to, and it's absurd.
In your example, the cop is not making a conviction of me for a crime more or less likely. It's immaterial. The Prosecution, on the other hand, metaphorically speaking, winked to the jury saying, "hey, y'know he kept silent. He must be guilty! Please convict him." I'll try to look up some case law to show you this is forbidden conduct for which the prosecutor should have his card suspended at a minimum.
The file name change suggests the opposite of what you'd posited earlier.
They did not simply take the file and email it to the defense and whatever service they used changed the name, compressed the file into something un-viewable as well as its format. That didn't happen. And if it didn't happen, what really did? Especially with HandBrake software on their computer? Without giving the Prosecution the benefit of the doubt, one must acknowledge that it is possible some "smart" guy looked at the request, could have emailed the Defense a link to a Dropbox but instead thought to himself, "y'know, given the wording of their request, I think I can get away converting the video into something that is virtually un-viewable, and they won't be able to prepare a response regarding it. And only after the trial, one Prosecutor dropped the ball and said they had a much better, clearer copy to review.
EDIT:
So far, " Once a person has been read their Miranda rights or is taken into custody by police or other law enforcement officers, the prosecutor cannot introduce evidence of a defendant’s silence, and a jury cannot use it to infer guilt. "https://www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2021/04/29/admission-by-silence/
Last edited: