Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-11-2021, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You will please forgive me for not addressing points I've already addressed numerous times.  We are past the point of diminishing returns with this discussion.  You've made several factually inaccurate statements and you're never even attempted to address facts based arguments made in return.  You have a problem with me using the term "silly"?*  Please let me know what adjectives I am permitted to use that won't bruise your sensibilities.

As for your argument about the law in general, maybe make a thread about that instead of clogging up an actual fact based discussion on the trial itself?  I would be fascinated to see how you think the law should be changed based on this event.  I'm sure none of your "fixes" would be unconstitutional at all.  In any event, I've exhausted my patience in this regard and, in the interest of maintaining civility I will bid you good day.

?? Posting yet another link to a video showing only Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse is EXACTLY addressing a "fact-based argument made in return." The "diminishing return" you avoid here is admission your "mob" was one person, that your description was inflated by that partisan vision you claim others exhibit.    

What you call "addressing points you've already addressed" is just more of your refereeing your own case, declaring points settled which aren't and imposing thematic limits on jj's thread. People still interested in this thread are free to consider Rittenhouse trial from a narrow legal angle focusing on how law and evidence come together, but they are just as free to place evidence, law and events of the trial in a larger social-historical context. If they are not satisfied that topics declared closed are really closed, they are free to continue addressing them.


*I wouldn't have mentioned "silly," but it was your bruised sensibility which complained of "petty insults"--after your not-so-petty accusations of bad faith and deliberate falsehood. Why not avoid all the ad hominem altogether? 

[GMDino]

(This exchange was just after the jurors were brought into the room.) https://t.co/oExZrI2Vpg

— Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs (@NickAtNews) November 11, 2021

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-11-2021, 11:44 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? Posting yet another link to a video showing only Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse is EXACTLY addressing a "fact-based argument made in return." The "diminishing return" you avoid here is admission your "mob" was one person, that your description was inflated by that partisan vision you claim others exhibit.

It wasn't one person, it would take a minimum of two to include the guy who fired the hand gun.  But don't take my word for it, it's on video.  Stop it, you sound silly.    

Quote:What you call "addressing points you've already addressed" is just more of your refereeing your own case, declaring points settled which aren't and imposing thematic limits on jj's thread. People still interested in this thread are free to consider Rittenhouse trial from a narrow legal angle focusing on how law and evidence come together, but they are just as free to place evidence, law and events of the trial in a larger social-historical context. If they are not satisfied that topics declared closed are really closed, they are free to continue addressing them.

Please do forgive me for declaring my points "settled".  Since no one has even attempted to refute them with facts I made the unspeakable mistake of considering them closed.  But, as you raise a doubt, please feel free to refute any of my fact based assertions with fact based counter points.  I would add that Bel's position on this case almost exactly mirrors my own, yet you have not responded to him in kind.  This rather leads me to believe that your issue is not with the argument, but with the person making it.  That generally isn't a good look and it's definitely not in keeping with your stated objective to argue a case based on merit and not on personality.  For all your protestations otherwise, you genuinely do not appear to want a legitimate discussion.  But that's just my opinion, I leave it to others to form their own.

Quote:*I wouldn't have mentioned "silly," but it was your bruised sensibility which complained of "petty insults"--after your not-so-petty accusations of bad faith and deliberate falsehood. Why not avoid all the ad hominem altogether? 

Yes, I am easily offended, so I do appreciate your taking that into consideration.  But, as you continue to argue points not related to this case, or anything but me specifically, I will now consider our conversation over.  Thank you for your time, if nothing else.

[Belsnickel]

(11-11-2021, 11:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I always thought that was flat out forbidden. Like a serious ethical offense and grounds for reversal on appeal or a mistrial. If he’s trying to get a mistrial then he should lose his job.

It is a definite faux pax. Also, if a lawyer intentionally angles for a mistrial it can result in disbarment, and will tarnish not only that attorney, but the entire prosecutorial office.

[NATI BENGALS]

This judge should be used as exhibit B for implementing term limits in the judicial system.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2021, 11:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This judge should be used as exhibit B for implementing term limits in the judicial system.

Why, what exactly has he done wrong?

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 11:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This judge should be used as exhibit B for implementing term limits in the judicial system.

I hear you. The jury was supposedly in the library next door, not sequestered, when he gave that shrill outburst "I don't believe you!" 
People could hear it down the hall.  

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(11-12-2021, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why, what exactly has he done wrong?

He hasn’t been harsh enough with the defense and has been criticizing the prosecutors too much. Also he had one case overturned in his 40+ year career

[GMDino]

(11-12-2021, 11:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This judge should be used as exhibit B for implementing term limits in the judicial system.

(11-12-2021, 12:01 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: He hasn’t been harsh enough with the defense and has been criticizing the prosecutors too much. Also he had one case overturned in his 40+ year career

More that if the technology confuses a judge, any judge, to the point that they say it shouldn't be used...or they make claims about its accuracy while claiming to not understand it then maybe it's time for them to move on.

He may still have all of his mental facilities but just not be able to "keep up" with new ways of gathering and presenting evidence.

It doesn't have to be about his behavior toward one side or the other.  

In fact I haven't seen anything he did that wrong legally as much as just looked bad.  Like his comments about Asian food.  He gets to joke because he's in charge and no one can tell him it sounds bad but it sounds bad...lol.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(11-12-2021, 12:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: More that if the technology confuses a judge, any judge, to the point that they say it shouldn't be used...or they make claims about its accuracy while claiming to not understand it then maybe it's time for them to move on.

He may still have all of his mental facilities but just not be able to "keep up" with new ways of gathering and presenting evidence.

It doesn't have to be about his behavior toward one side or the other.  

In fact I haven't seen anything he did that wrong legally as much as just looked bad.  Like his comments about Asian food.  He gets to joke because he's in charge and no one can tell him it sounds bad but it sounds bad...lol.

Can you explain the evidence you’re talking about?

[GMDino]

(11-12-2021, 11:58 AM)Dill Wrote: I hear you. The jury was supposedly in the library next door, not sequestered, when he gave that shrill outburst "I don't believe you!" 
People could hear it down the hall.  

And I'll say again it is funny to me that so many people who believe, and perhaps quite rightly, that Rittenhouse is not guilty by reason of self-defense are still shocked or overjoyed by the behavior the judge based on which conclusion they have reached.

How many judges do these things but don't have cameras on them?

There was a good podcast series on a court system in Cleveland that highlighted the power and freedom judges have and how some use it.

https://serialpodcast.org/

Season three.

I am fully aware that 99% of poster here won't take the time to listen to it but it was certainly eye-opening.  There is an insight into how the system works there.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2021, 12:09 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Can you explain the evidence you’re talking about?

It was in the one tweet I shared about him not understanding how zooming in on photos worked and the software being used.

He didn't want them blown up and shown...and then changed his mind when a magnifying glass didn't work...lol.

Oh damn, maybe not. Fine, we will use your fancy gizmos then. pic.twitter.com/HaGfj4XNyY

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 11, 2021

 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(11-12-2021, 12:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was in the one tweet I shared about him not understanding how zooming in on photos worked and the software being used.

He didn't want them blown up and shown...and then changed his mind when a magnifying glass didn't work...lol.

Oh damn, maybe not. Fine, we will use your fancy gizmos then. pic.twitter.com/HaGfj4XNyY

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 11, 2021

 

I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to do it his own way, realizing his way was stupid, and then doing it their way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2021, 12:01 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: He hasn’t been harsh enough with the defense and has been criticizing the prosecutors too much. Also he had one case overturned in his 40+ year career

That's pretty much it.  The case was in shambles from the jump and now that acquittal looks highly likely the media has to save face.  They condemned Rittenhouse from the very beginning and now their narrative has proven false.  To save face, as they will hardly admit they were wrong, they're going to pin Rittenhouse's acquittal on the judge being biased and tainting the case.  It's as obvious as it is disturbing.  

As I much as I dislike her, I have to give Anna Kasparian credit for admitting her previous suppositions were wrong based on evidence admitted into trial.  I still dislike her, but I have to respect the ability to own when you're proven wrong.

(11-12-2021, 12:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: How many judges do these things but don't have cameras on them?

Many more than you would think.  Every judge has their own style, some run a very relaxed courtroom and some a very stiff and formal one.  Some judges are more affable, hell we had one superior court judge who was borderline Santa Claus, and some are generally irascible.  The judges who will tear into you are well known, if you're at all experienced in the your field you know which judge is which and if you aren't you will quickly learn.  What will fly in one judge's courtroom will get you lambasted in another.

I will close by adding, I've seen the much more mild tempered judges than this one rip into an attorney when they tried to pull some shenanigans.  I would also add I've never seen an attorney deliberately ignore a judges prior ruling regarding admittance in the manner in which happened here.  The ADA's explanation was legal weaksauce, you don't get to assume you can bring something up that was previously denied, you have to request that the court revisit their earlier ruling based on what you believe to be new evidence, or a legal "door being opened".  I've seen far worse castigation from a judge than this for far less than this attorney tried to pull.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2021, 12:23 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to do it his own way, realizing his way was stupid, and then doing it their way.

I'm glad you have your own opinion.  Make the boards more interesting.

My opinion remains that his reasoning was faulty and based on a bias and an admitted lack of understanding in the first place.

Also, as I said, this stuff probably goes on all over the country all the time.

[GMDino]

A little follow up to that bit with the judge:

He was talking during a 15 break to discuss whether the defense team was correct in saying that the pinch to zoom altered what was really there:

https://www.engadget.com/kyle-rittenhouse-ipad-pinch-to-zoom-lawyers-claim-142110207.html

Quote:A lack of technical knowledge may have just influenced an important court case. The New York Times reports the defense for shooter Kyle Rittenhouse incorrectly claimed that an iPad's pinch-to-zoom function could modify footage of the incident, "creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there." That sparked a debate between lawyers and Judge Schroeder, who maintained the burden was on the prosecution to show the imagery remained in its "virginal state," not on the defense to prove manipulation.


The judge may have accepted the argument. He denied the prosecution's request for an adjournment and instead called for a 15-minute recess, suggesting the team could find an expert to support their claim in that space of time. They didn't, and The Verge noted that the trial resumed with the jury watching video on a Windows PC connected to the courtroom TV.


As you might imagine, the defense's claim played fast and loose with the truth. Pinch-to-zoom on all devices may use algorithms, but only to scale the image — it doesn't change the content itself. This was an attempt to prevent the jury from getting a clearer view of the action, not a genuine challenge to the integrity of the video.


The court scene underscored a recurring problem with technical inexperience in criminal cases. When judges and law enforcement don't understand how technology works, they may set unrealistic expectations or even skew the outcome of a case. Police have repeatedly asked for Alexa recordings on the unfounded assumption that smart speakers are always recording, for instance. While it's not clear if the inaccurate pinch-to-zoom claim will significantly affect Rittenhouse's fate, it certainly didn't help jurors.

In the end he got it right.

[jj22]

This judge is now in some trouble for making off handed joke about Asian food. I don't think he has been as bad as I thought he was, but he is something else.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-12-2021, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why, what exactly has he done wrong?

Complacency exists. Guy has been there since 1984. I would just hate to be on trial in his courtroom as a person who is on the wrong side of the biases he has developed over the years.

I’m not saying the Asian food joke was racist but any race related joke from a judge in their courtroom during a high profile racially charged trial shows bad judgement. Making the court room clap for one person right before they take the stand shows bad judgement.

As a casual observer of this case I just shudder at the thought of my life being in the hands of someone like this. How many trials would a person have gone through being a judge for all those years? Relationships with lawyers developed. Special deals cut for some. Total disregard for other people he doesn’t care for.

I’m just not a fan of letting someone have so much power for decades as they sit back and collect tax payer dollar paychecks. It just invites problems.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2021, 06:33 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Complacency exists. Guy has been there since 1984. I would just hate to be on trial in his courtroom as a person who is on the wrong side of the biases he has developed over the years.

So you have issues with his wealth of experience and his age?

Quote:I’m not saying the Asian food joke was racist but any race related joke from a judge in their courtroom during a high profile racially charged trial shows bad judgement. Making the court room clap for one person right before they take the stand shows bad judgement.

The Asian food joke is not racial or at least it certainly didn't come off that way to me.  It's about the distance the food would have had to travel and then it sat in port due to the backlog.  My paternal grandmother used the term "colored people" her whole life because that's what she grew up with.  The woman didn't have a racist bone in her body.  If the ADA was a veteran would you have taken issue with the applause for veterans?  I probably wouldn't have done it myself, but it's not a big deal and I don't see how it would be prejudicial.

Quote:As a casual observer of this case I just shudder at the thought of my life being in the hands of someone like this. How many trials would a person have gone through being a judge for all those years? Relationships with lawyers developed. Special deals cut for some. Total disregard for other people he doesn’t care for.

Wow, you're gleaning a lot of information that I don't think exists.  The judge has a stellar record as a bench officer.  Did you read the article on the judge I posted earlier in this thread?  It contained statements from attorneys that related how fair and consistent he is.  He's had literally one case overturned on appeal, this is very impressive.  A lot of your reticence as stated here are 100% pure conjecture and speculation.  Would you rather have a bench officer who was just appointed yesterday?  I sure as hell wouldn't.

Quote:I’m just not a fan of letting someone have so much power for decades as they sit back and collect tax payer dollar paychecks. It just invites problems.

So no one should be a judge for longer than how many years in your opinion?  At what point, in your opinion, does experience change from being a positive to a negative factor?  


One last question, do you find any fault with the prosecutor's handling of this case?

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 01:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It wasn't one person, it would take a minimum of two to include the guy who fired the hand gun.  But don't take my word for it, it's on video.  Stop it, you sound silly.    

Please do forgive me for declaring my points "settled".  Since no one has even attempted to refute them with facts I made the unspeakable mistake of considering them closed.  But, as you raise a doubt, please feel free to refute any of my fact based assertions with fact based counter points.  

Yes, I am easily offended, so I do appreciate your taking that into consideration.  But, as you continue to argue points not related to this case, or anything but me specifically, I will now consider our conversation over.  Thank you for your time, if nothing else.

LOL No one declares points settled because no one is questioning them. You were declaring yours settled BECAUSE people continued to question/refute them, as I am doing now.  And you are still doing it, as the last bolded shows. You get to digress on media responses to BLM and Michigan protests; I am "meandering off topic" if I respond.

And someone HAS attempted to refute your mob claim with facts. That's what the links to video showing ONE person chasing R were about. Why do you keep saying that holding to your face the video evidence that counters your interpretation is not an attempt to "refute your points with facts"? (The appropriate quip response would be "because it's not," with no explanation.) You cannot dodge that by claiming the video is not related to the case or that I'm engaging in a "semantic argument" because I don't think one guy is a "mob." 
 
Even two is hardly a "mob," but  I don't grant your claim the guy who fired the handgun was pursuing R. He was walking parallel to the street. Rittenhouse crosses the parking lot 30 yards in front of him, running. The handgun shooter isn't pursuing anyone. He's just there, like those "trailers" R runs past. That's  a "fact based counter point."