Deference to the Defense - thoughts stemming from recent trials

[Belsnickel]

So, I should be writing up a research proposal right now, but I got to thinking about something thanks to the Rittenhouse trial and the McMichaels/Bryan trial. I'm using these trials as a launching pad for this for a reason, but know that my personal opinions on the guilty or innocence of these defendants is truly irrelevant.

Our legal system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and that someone needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in order for them to be imprisoned. I think that everyone here is familiar with this ideal and would agree to that. We also all know that the court of public opinion does not work this way.

The way this often works in trials is that things are made a little more difficult for the prosecution because the defendant, the accused, has rights related to their presumed innocence. This is, quite frankly, a very liberal/progressive ideal. So why do so many people seem to throw that out the window when it comes to someone on the wrong side of the law in their eyes? I know there is likely a psychological answer for it and it will be justified by some because they need to calm their cognitive dissonance with that rationalization, but it was just a thought I was having.

This also goes into the direction of some of the protests I have been seeing regarding race and the Rittenhouse case. At first I was baffled, because it is a white guy that shot other white guys. It seems, though, that the protests are because of how he was treated by the criminal justice system. They argue that a black person in those same circumstances would not have been afforded the same rights and protections. Honestly, I can't argue against that. They should be afforded the same rights and protections. I just don't like the idea of directing the ire towards Rittenhouse for that situation. There are people in those protests using that message to say Rittenhouse should be found guilty, and that I don't understand. Why should we drag others down to a place where they are being treated unjustly by the system?

Anyway, just some pre-coffee, Sunday morning thoughts that are resulting from a lack of focus.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2021, 08:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I should be writing up a research proposal right now, but I got to thinking about something thanks to the Rittenhouse trial and the McMichaels/Bryan trial. I'm using these trials as a launching pad for this for a reason, but know that my personal opinions on the guilty or innocence of these defendants is truly irrelevant.

Our legal system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and that someone needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in order for them to be imprisoned. I think that everyone here is familiar with this ideal and would agree to that. We also all know that the court of public opinion does not work this way.

The way this often works in trials is that things are made a little more difficult for the prosecution because the defendant, the accused, has rights related to their presumed innocence. This is, quite frankly, a very liberal/progressive ideal. So why do so many people seem to throw that out the window when it comes to someone on the wrong side of the law in their eyes? I know there is likely a psychological answer for it and it will be justified by some because they need to calm their cognitive dissonance with that rationalization, but it was just a thought I was having.

This also goes into the direction of some of the protests I have been seeing regarding race and the Rittenhouse case. At first I was baffled, because it is a white guy that shot other white guys. It seems, though, that the protests are because of how he was treated by the criminal justice system. They argue that a black person in those same circumstances would not have been afforded the same rights and protections. Honestly, I can't argue against that. They should be afforded the same rights and protections. I just don't like the idea of directing the ire towards Rittenhouse for that situation. There are people in those protests using that message to say Rittenhouse should be found guilty, and that I don't understand. Why should we drag others down to a place where they are being treated unjustly by the system?

Anyway, just some pre-coffee, Sunday morning thoughts that are resulting from a lack of focus.

I spent yesterday getting a get (used) vehicle because mine was ready to go and before I could get around to trading it in I hit a deer!  And I also have not had my coffee yet so....

To me it's the same as those who don't want student loans forgiven because "we paid off ours no matter how hard it was!"  There is a subset of people who want OTHERS to suffer because THEY suffered.  So the people who, and I agree in most cases rightfully, feel that a minority would not have been treated as well as Rittenhouse was want HIM to be treated badly versus looking for THEM to be treated better and fairly.

The other part, again to me, is that people often complain about the law even if it is applied correctly because it "feels" wrong.  Like a football fan complaining about a holding call that was actually holding but wasn't called in the exact same manner in another game or against another team.  Maybe roughing the passer where some QB's seem to get more protection than others depending on their size, age or who the official is.

There are those who want everything to "fair".  Heck, I'm one of them.  So pointing out that McMichaels and Bryan weren't even arrested until the video went public may be a good example of the "it's who you know" point of being able to get away with crimes but because three white men killed a black man those who believe that police/the justice system are harsher to blacks use the flip side of that argument to make it about how THEY would have been treated worse so why weren't those men.

And sometimes they aren't even making THAT argument but we see it that way because it's been made so much.

I just had dinner with my best friend from college and every time we talk about politics who goes on about "the media" and "their agenda" and how "they spun a story" while I try to explain that what the news channels care about is eye on them so they can sell advertising and make money a LOT more than whatever drivel they are pointing on the air I also tell him that his own personal biases are affecting how HE interprets their stories.  As proof we were talking abut Rand Paul and I said he wasn't a real doctor because of the whole board thing, something my friend didn't know anything about.  As I was showing and proof he pointed out that Paul was indeed board certified but them when they changed a testing rule he got pissy and formed his own board with his wife and father-in-law just to certify himself.  So I admitted I was wrong about the doctor thing but right that Paul was an ass...to which my friend readily agrees.  But it was MY bias that told the story in a way that had the facts right, just not all of them.  The ones that proved my point.  Even though I knew all the facts they were not relevant to the point I was making about Paul being an ass.

Long winded way of saying some people put their own spin on issues in a way that makes us want to disagree with them even when we agree on the core principle.

In the cases you started the conversation with the law/justice/police should treat everyone equally...but they don't.  

And there will be an argument made that many/most are.  But until all are there is still a problem.  And yes, I realize it will never be perfect.

(Side note:  I feel this conversation would be something that CRT would get into and that if a social studies teacher in a grade school mentioned it angry white parents would want them fired.  )

[Dill]

(11-14-2021, 08:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Our legal system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and that someone needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in order for them to be imprisoned. I think that everyone here is familiar with this ideal and would agree to that. We also all know that the court of public opinion does not work this way.

The way this often works in trials is that things are made a little more difficult for the prosecution because the defendant, the accused, has rights related to their presumed innocence. This is, quite frankly, a very liberal/progressive ideal. So why do so many people seem to throw that out the window when it comes to someone on the wrong side of the law in their eyes? I know there is likely a psychological answer for it and it will be justified by some because they need to calm their cognitive dissonance with that rationalization, but it was just a thought I was having.

I can offer a partial answer to this. Some just aren't down with the rule of law. Much of our popular culture supports this. How many times have you watched a movie or detective show and seen some perp actually committing a crime in the opening segment (so you KNOW he is guilty), followed by some Dirty Harry type fighting through the obstacles "liberals" throw in his way, invoking laws that coddle criminals, requiring search warrants and the like. Watching crime narratives unfold in the news, some similarly "know" the truth already and don't want the law getting in the way.

That's hardly the whole picture though. On the flip side, people now observe videos of shootings that clearly seem, to them, unjustifiable. Think of Tamir Rice. And yet the shooter is protected by law. And without video: the Zimmerman case baffled many. An armed vigilante can cruise a neighborhood identifying and confronting those he deems thugs, and get off scott free after shooting an unarmed kid in self defense. Many see a danger to the public in laws that free such shooters, not an enhancement of "freedom." Compare that then with the 20 years initially given Marisa Alexander for NOT killing someone. People start expecting imbalance, injustice, and let the authorities know they are watching.

"Cognitive dissonance" arises, then, when it appears that the law doesn't protect everyone, appears to defend one set of "rights" over another. 
This is not about what happens BEFORE a trial, but during and after, when the evidence is in and the law is clear, and justice does not seem served, though the letter of the law is. So its more about the expectation justice will not be served, and less about this or that individual's guilt. Now each self defense trial becomes a symbol and test of expected justice, each new case driven by frustration over the last.

(11-14-2021, 08:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This also goes into the direction of some of the protests I have been seeing regarding race and the Rittenhouse case. At first I was baffled, because it is a white guy that shot other white guys. It seems, though, that the protests are because of how he was treated by the criminal justice system. They argue that a black person in those same circumstances would not have been afforded the same rights and protections. Honestly, I can't argue against that. They should be afforded the same rights and protections. I just don't like the idea of directing the ire towards Rittenhouse for that situation. There are people in those protests using that message to say Rittenhouse should be found guilty, and that I don't understand. Why should we drag others down to a place where they are being treated unjustly by the system?

A white guy shot other white guys, but in a riot sparked by the shooting of an unarmed black man, seven times in the back, by a policeman who was returned to duty without even administrative punishment.

Follow this with the optics of white guys open carrying during that riot, the armed Rittenhouse waived past police during a riot after shots were fired. The open carry right, which R did not have, looks like a white privilege here, unless one is prepared to argue that black men running around with rifles during the rights would also get water from the police, because they law says their right to open carry is "equal."  

Add to that, at least two of the people R shot apparently came to protest police violence against blacks; R came to "run towards danger."

I'll wager that most of the people who would like to see some punishment exacted for R's actions are less interested in this one individual than a legal system which enables his bad behavior--signals there will be no accountability for people who pick up their rifles to run towards danger whenever there is civil unrest. Since they think the system is unjust because it exonerates those responsible for what should be crimes, they don't think they are "dragging Rittenhouse down" to unjust treatment by the system. They want an unjust system to stop protecting vigilantes.

PS what are the parameters of your proposal? Just curious.

[Belsnickel]

(11-14-2021, 11:12 AM)Dill Wrote: PS what are the parameters of your proposal? Just curious.

Interestingly enough, very unrelated. It is to find effective messaging to improve attitudes towards Canis rufus in an effort to reduce anthropogenic mortality and hopefully make a new recovery effort successful as the program going on for roughly 40 years has resulted in only seven estimated individuals remaining in the wild.

[*michaelsean*]

I think people say this group wouldn’t be treated the same really don’t know. I mean it probably happens on occasion, but I don’t know anyone who is familiar with all of the cases in America. We will see an armed white man arrested and hear that if he were black, they would have shit him. Armed black men are routinely arrested without being shot.

But to answer your question, it all comes down to what side the person is perceived to be on. I think Rittenhouse is a moron, and I really don’t like people like that. But from my limited attention paid to the case, I think he should be found not-guilty. In the other case, I’ll say I really don’t know what the law says, but that one stinks to me.

I will say, that except for the death penalty and fruit from the forbidden tree or whatever it’s called,I’m pretty liberal when it comes to the justice system. I don’t think prisons should be hell holes. Punishment is loss of freedom. And I think taking someone’s liberty is very serious, and it is the state’s responsibility to care for the inmates, and should never be outsourced to a third party.

[Sled21]

The Presumption of Innocence must be maintained and at all times, and mob rule never allowed to alter justice. Of course, in reality we all know that this doesn't happen. The 24 hour news cycle blasts what they want you to hear all day and all night, and do not broadcast what they don't want you to hear at all to sway public opinion. MSNBC for instance, carried the whole prosecution argument in the Rittenhouse case, then did not cover the defense. This is why we need judges who will stand on the rule of law as written and not waiver on it.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-17-2021, 06:11 PM)Sled21 Wrote: The Presumption of Innocence must be maintained and at all times, and mob rule never allowed to alter justice. Of course, in reality we all know that this doesn't happen. The 24 hour news cycle blasts what they want you to hear all day and all night, and do not broadcast what they don't want you to hear at all to sway public opinion. MSNBC for instance, carried the whole prosecution argument in the Rittenhouse case, then did not cover the defense. This is why we need judges who will stand on the rule of law as written and not waiver on it.

I'd hate to be a juror in some of these trials.  Anyone even hinting at a threat to a juror should face severe punishment.  It should be taken as seriously as a threat to the President.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2021, 06:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'd hate to be a juror in some of these trials.  Anyone even hinting at a threat to a juror should face severe punishment.  It should be taken as seriously as a threat to the President.  

I think the last line is a bridge too far, but I generally agree with your sentiment.  I wouldn't mind a federal law against jury intimidation in the slightest, with significant penalties, like 15+ years in prison.  One of the crimes I go full bore against is witness intimidation for the exact same reason, if we allow witnesses and juries to be intimidated into either not cooperating or delivering the wrong verdict then the foundation of our criminal justice system is shattered.  And I don't think that's hyperbolic.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-17-2021, 06:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the last line is a bridge too far, but I generally agree with your sentiment.  I wouldn't mind a federal law against jury intimidation in the slightest, with significant penalties, like 15+ years in prison.  One of the crimes I go full bore against is witness intimidation for the exact same reason, if we allow witnesses and juries to be intimidated into either not cooperating or delivering the wrong verdict then the foundation of our criminal justice system is shattered.  And I don't think that's hyperbolic.

I mean just as seriously as in any suggestion of intimidation is investigated. You wanna put something stupid on Facebook? We are going be knocking on your door. And yes the same applies to witnesses.

[Sled21]

Witness/Jury intimidation is a crime. It can also be charged as obstruction. Sometimes, it is very blatant, like the MSNBC producer following the jury bus in an attempt to get pictures of the jury. Of course, he said he was ordered by his boss to follow the bus but was not going to photograph them. Then why run red lights following them? He should be criminally charged. Where it gets tricky is protestors on the courthouse steps, chanting the usual "No Justice, No Peace" and other tag lines in their pursuit of whatever verdict they happen to be chanting for that day. They have the First Amendment Right to do that, however when it is in earshot of the jury, it is also a form of intimidation by basically saying rule the way we want or we're going to burn your neighborhood down. Yet it's hard to charge people for this. I do, however, think they should be kept away from courthouses while trials are going on and juries are in deliberation

[GMDino]

(11-19-2021, 09:39 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Witness/Jury intimidation is a crime. It can also be charged as obstruction. Sometimes, it is very blatant, like the MSNBC producer following the jury bus in an attempt to get pictures of the jury. Of course, he said he was ordered by his boss to follow the bus but was not going to photograph them. Then why run red lights following them? He should be criminally charged. Where it gets tricky is protestors on the courthouse steps, chanting the usual "No Justice, No Peace" and other tag lines in their pursuit of whatever verdict they happen to be chanting for that day. They have the First Amendment Right to do that, however when it is in earshot of the jury, it is also a form of intimidation by basically saying rule the way we want or we're going to burn your neighborhood down. Yet it's hard to charge people for this. I do, however, think they should be kept away from courthouses while trials are going on and juries are in deliberation

What is the criminal charge for following the van?

Even if it was to get photos?

Should we give him a trial or just assumed because it was "blatant" that his and his boss' explanation should be thrown out and sentence him now?

[Dill]

(11-19-2021, 12:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: What is the criminal charge for following the van?
Even if it was to get photos?
Should we give him a trial or just assumed because it was "blatant" that his and his boss' explanation should be thrown out and sentence him now?

Sounds like you are defending traffic violations here, Dino. Ok for liberals to break the law? 

We know this guy was a freelance photographer/journalist so it doesn't matter what his temporary "boss" says. 

"Well why not just ban that freelancer until this is sorted out?" you might respond. "Why ban an entire news organization?"

No, no need for some "trial." You choose the explanation that most empowers the judge to control the press and go with that. 

This judge would have banned Fox too, if they had been running segments on his behavior and one of their reporters ran a light following the bus. But they have been much better behaved, focusing on the prosecution's missteps.

The judge is re-thinking this "tv in the courtroom" business. He wouldn't have to take time outs to defend his behavior if the whole world wasn't watching. What about his right to privacy? 

[Sled21]

(11-19-2021, 12:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: What is the criminal charge for following the van?

Even if it was to get photos?

Should we give him a trial or just assumed because it was "blatant" that his and his boss' explanation should be thrown out and sentence him now?

It's called intimidation of a jury, obstruction of justice. Yes, he should be tried.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2021, 06:19 PM)Sled21 Wrote: It's called intimidation of a jury, obstruction of justice. Yes, he should be tried.

Wait...how did he intimidate the jury?  Is there a law saying no one can follow their van ever?  

What was he obstructing even if he was trying to take a photo?

[Sled21]

(11-19-2021, 07:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wait...how did he intimidate the jury?  Is there a law saying no one can follow their van ever?  

What was he obstructing even if he was trying to take a photo?

It's jury intimidation. Following them, taking their pictures when they are supposed to remain anonymous, etc. It falls under obstruction because it can sway a jury.  And that is not my opinion, this stuff has been adjudicated in the past. 

[GMDino]

(11-21-2021, 11:26 AM)Sled21 Wrote: It's jury intimidation. Following them, taking their pictures when they are supposed to remain anonymous, etc. It falls under obstruction because it can sway a jury.  And that is not my opinion, this stuff has been adjudicated in the past. 

He didn't take their picture.  He was accused of going to take it.

[Sled21]

(11-21-2021, 11:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: He didn't take their picture.  He was accused of going to take it.

Doesn't matter if he did or didn't, if they believed  he was tryin to it is intimidation. Again, this is all case law so you can argue it all you want.