Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-15-2021, 08:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure there are those who will say if the judge doesn't understand THIS then can we trust him with the rest of the trial.

Those people are probably wrong unless we see a whole BUNCH of stuff this judge doesn't understand.

As usual I will let people smarter than me explain:

And, I'm repeating myself but this probably hens more than we will ever know because most trials are not televised.  And since this is a hot topic people will apply their own biases to everything they see and hear.

LOL "I like that"!

One issue I would raise about these confusion during jury instruction is that it is likely to bias the jury towards the defense. If they are unclear about the law and how they are supposed to respond to it, that could increase their willingness NOT to convict in unclarity. And it looks like one charge was taken off the table right at the last moment. 

I've actually been surprised at numerous points during the trial when judge, prosecutors, and defense have appeared not to know something I expected them to know.

[Dill]

(11-15-2021, 06:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1460270544239030280

 Is that really Rittenhouse in the video beating that girl? I can't tell for sure. My guess is he caught her painting BLM graffiti somewhere.

If it is, he got a roundhouse punch in on her.  He clearly did not need that gun for self defense.

What a laundry list of issues on that judge. 

I wonder how some of these points would strike lawyers if they applied to potential jurors--jokes about Asian food, "God Bless the USA," etc.

Unbiased defense lawyers in cases like Rittenhouse's would likely see no problem, I'll bet. 

Stroke of luck when it's actually the judge. 

I'm generally against just PRESUMING a judge won't follow the law rather than his/her supposed bias. That's what Trump was doing when he complained about the "Mexican" judge hearing his case. 

So a good discussion point here might be--is their anything in his rulings which which actually seem to track with other evidence of the judge's political views? 

[jj22]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jury-7-women-5-men-picked-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-rcna5694?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR0EJ2HIe6TRoNYhLxwod-SK8_eY45b6NvEV3ypgnc_l4zjV9Tkf65RIHeU

[Dill]

Couple of more trials playing out in the wake of the Rittenhouse shooting:

Injured Kenosha protest shooting survivor suing city, law enforcement officers
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/injured-kenosha-protest-shooting-survivor-suing-city-law-enforcement-officers/ar-AAPA2z0

Gaige Grosskreutz, the survivor of the shooting, is alleging that police enabled the violence by allowing an armed militia to have free reign of the city's streets during the protest, according to ABC News.

"It was not a mistake that Kyle Rittenhouse would kill two people and maim a third on that evening. It was a natural consequence of the actions of the Kenosha Police Department (KPD) and Kenosha Sherriff's Department (KCSD) in deputizing a roving militia to 'protect property' and 'assist in maintaining order'," the lawsuit states....

Grosskreutz is not the first to press charges against the City of Kenosha. The family of another victim, John Huber, who was killed by Rittenhouse, also sued the city in August.

In their lawsuit, Anthony Huber - the victim's father - claimed that Kenosha and its law enforcement departments "deputized" and "conspired" with armed individuals. The Huber lawsuit specifically names Kenosha County sheriff, the former chief of police and acting chief of police of the Kenosha Police Department, and "John Doe police officers" throughout the city, and includes the city itself as well as Kenosha County.

It will be interesting to see if the "deputized" charge can stand. Won't the police argue they were only "thanking" all those armed men, who after all had a "right" to carry and be on private property? 

But there is still the larger question which has animated many on this thread--how is it possible, or a good thing, if armed teens can open carry rifles during a riot long after a curfew is in effect?  Police choices may become more clear as these trials proceed. Certainly they'll be scrutinized more.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(11-15-2021, 06:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Everyone of these "points" has been addressed in this very thread.  Everyone is either framed inaccurately or makes wild conclusion based solely on pure supposition.  In short, it's a poorly constructed video that only exists to make people who already feel this way give a round of applause of their own.  If this is all you've got then you've got nothing.  Unless you can explain why any of them show bias or demonstrate the judge is not conducting himself as he should on the bench.  I ask because your video definitely doesn't do this, but it could be exhibit A in the case of why confirmation bias is a dangerous thing.

I have no horse in this race (as usual), but dude, are you seriously for real?

His cell phone went off during a trial.

A judge, whom is working at a very important job, that just happens to hold one's life (to an extent) in the balance, doesn't have the courtesy, class and professionalism, to TURN OFF HIS DAMN PHONE?!

Hell, if this happens in church of all places, the, "offender," (in quotes because it's not like they committed a crime) is admonished at worst, embarrassed at best.

And it's not because of the cell phone going off itself, it's because the lack of awareness, decency, selflessness and most of all, respect for the surroundings, why it is looked down upon.

It's the smallest thing imaginable, but it paints a picture that perhaps, this judge is either not taking things seriously or just doesn't care about upholding the level of maturity and class one is to expect from a judge. That and the Asian comment is preposterous, but I wanted to shed light on how the smallest thing displays his lack of conduct.

I work alone, at a desk in a large room, away from everyone and I STILL have my phone on vibrate, even though it is perfectly acceptable to look at your phone on the job. Why? Because I have respect for my surroundings and my job.

So GTFO here with defending his conduct; a monkey can be more professional than this guy.

[Dill]

(11-16-2021, 02:24 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: And it's not because of the cell phone going off itself, it's because the lack of awareness, decency, selflessness and most of all, respect for the surroundings, why it is looked down upon.

What do you make of the Trump anthem ringtone?  It's possible he just likes country western music. I guess.

Bad look though, in a case involving shootings during a riot about racial imbalance in law enforcement.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(11-16-2021, 02:29 PM)Dill Wrote: What do you make of the Trump anthem ringtone?  It's possible he just likes country western music. I guess.

Bad look though, in a case involving shootings during a riot about racial imbalance in law enforcement.

Well, I mean, for the optics, it goes without saying .

But, as that is a subjective and biased take/opinion/stance/whatever, I did not entertain it; SSF is trying to portray the judge in a fair light and the cell phone BS just takes the wind out of those sails and anyone of any creed, race, religion, political affiliation would (and if they are logical, practical people, should) agree with that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2021, 02:24 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I have no horse in this race (as usual), but dude, are you seriously for real?

His cell phone went off during a trial.

A judge, whom is working at a very important job, that just happens to hold one's life (to an extent) in the balance, doesn't have the courtesy, class and professionalism, to TURN OFF HIS DAMN PHONE?!

Hell, if this happens in church of all places, the, "offender," (in quotes because it's not like they committed a crime) is admonished at worst, embarrassed at best.

And it's not because of the cell phone going off itself, it's because the lack of awareness, decency, selflessness and most of all, respect for the surroundings, why it is looked down upon.

It's the smallest thing imaginable, but it paints a picture that perhaps, this judge is either not taking things seriously or just doesn't care about upholding the level of maturity and class one is to expect from a judge. That and the Asian comment is preposterous, but I wanted to shed light on how the smallest thing displays his lack of conduct.

I work alone, at a desk in a large room, away from everyone and I STILL have my phone on vibrate, even though it is perfectly acceptable to look at your phone on the job. Why? Because I have respect for my surroundings and my job.

So GTFO here with defending his conduct; a monkey can be more professional than this guy.

I had to read this twice, and after doing so I am pleading with you to tell me this post was made as a joke.  I've been in court on numerous occasions when someone's phone went off, and yes that's included some bench officers.  That you can take that one incident and use it to condemn the judge as incompetent, biased or in any way bad at his job is honestly mind boggling.  

[jj22]

The Judge is a mess Social, and everyone no matter race, politics, religion has agreed.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(11-16-2021, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had to read this twice, and after doing so I am pleading with you to tell me this post was made as a joke.  I've been in court on numerous occasions when someone's phone went off, and yes that's included some bench officers.  That you can take that one incident and use it to condemn the judge as incompetent, biased or in any way bad at his job is honestly mind boggling.  

Words in my mouth.

Not turning your phone off in a VERY serious and VERY professional setting, is unprofessional, ESPECIALLY from the supposed, "highest-ranking human," that is present.

We do it in movie theatres FFS.

I just can't believe you're actually shrugging it off and you think it's a joke; what standard are people held to, when the smallest, puniest act to show respect, isn't adhered?

Again, I have no horse in this race, but actions speak louder than words and it is incredibly unprofessional for the judge's PERSONAL phone to go off, in a damn murder trial.

EDIT*: From one of our Provinces' (BC) court etiquette guidelines:

Quote:Dress as you would to attend a job interview or go to a religious service. This is a way to show you respect the court process and understand that a court is a more formal setting. For example:

no short shorts, tank tops, 'muscle shirts', 'belly shirts' or bare feet
no clothing with disrespectful slogans or pictures
remove sunglasses, chewing gum, and baseball caps or other hats before going into a courtroom (religious headwear excepted)
Also:

leave food and drinks outside a courtroom
turn off cell phones before entering a courtroom

Members of the public may not use electronic devices of any sort (including smartphones, cell phones, computers, laptops, tablets, notebooks, personal digital assistants, Google glasses and similar devices) to transmit or receive text, audio or video record, photograph or digitally transcribe in a courtroom. It is best to turn off any electronic device before you enter the courtroom. See Use of Electronic Devices in Courtrooms for more details. (The policy does permit limited use of some devices by lawyers and accredited journalists.)

For more information see Court Etiquette.

Guess we take the law seriously in Canada (and yes, that absolutely was a deliberate dig).

https://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/about-the-court/preparing-for-court

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2021, 04:30 PM)jj22 Wrote: The Judge is a mess Social, and everyone no matter race, politics, religion has agreed.

A demonstrably false statement.  Quit drinking the Kool-Aid, dude.

[jj22]

I don't know why you choose to die on this hill alone. With all due respect your credibility is sinking. I don't say that lightly. Maybe things has changed around here since last time I spent a lot of time in this forum. Your pride for your believes and standards specifically as it relates to what you consider ideal for a judge should override whatever your motivation is to continue to turn a blind eye to what seemingly everyone has noted and said.

This isn't about politics. This is flat out calling something what it is, and that is why it's been widely determined by all that this judge has blown his moment and really made a mockery of the trial.

I hate what politics do to people. Can't even call a spade a spade. This judge is not a representative of what we hope for in that position, and that after all we've seen who has followed the trial shouldn't be a "hot take".

[jj22]

More on the unusual way the defendant picked the jury.

Kyle Rittenhouse, in an unusual move, was allowed by the judge to draw the slips of paper that determined who would decide his fate and who would be dismissed as alternates.

That task is usually done by a courtroom clerk, not the defendant.

https://bit.ly/3nmtDgS

https://time.com/6120079/kyle-rittenhouse-jury/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=u.s._courts&linkId=140401502

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2021, 05:12 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't know why you choose to die on this hill alone. With all due respect your credibility is sinking. I don't say that lightly. Maybe things has changed around here since last time I spent a lot of time in this forum. Your pride for your believes and standards specifically as it relates to what you consider ideal for a judge should override whatever your motivation is to continue to turn a blind eye to what seemingly everyone has noted and said.

This isn't about politics. This is flat out calling something what it is, and that is why it's been widely determined by all that this judge has blown his moment and really made a mockery of the trial.

I hate what politics do to people. Can't even call a spade a spade. This judge is not a representative of what we hope for in that position, and that after all we've seen who has followed the trial shouldn't be a "hot take".

I'm the only person who's even trying to persist in discussing this case with you and the other "guilty" group.  The rest have fled rather than endlessly repeat the same facts and endlessly refute the same erroneous arguments.  But guess what, you succeeded, I am officially joining their ranks as this has become more annoying than a DV call.

God help us all if this kid is convicted of anything, self defense will no longer be a viable option in this country.

[masonbengals fan]

Haven't fled anywhere. Just not worth the effort trying to convince people who will never be convinced. Although to your credit steelerfan you have tried.

[jj22]

(11-16-2021, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: God help us all if this kid is convicted of anything, self defense will no longer be a viable option in this country.

As long as it would be viable for the 17 year old black boy we could trust this defense more. Again even those who support him agree if he was a black teen it'd be different. 

A DV call? Domestic Violence? That's pretty lame for you to say and bring up given how serious that is and how many lives that effects. A lot has changed with you around here I see. Hopefully not everyone feels that way about those calls. I'm beginning to wonder what kind of establishment you work for given your approval of this Judge as if it's common practice around you and now mocking DV victims.

[Arturo Bandini]

(11-16-2021, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm the only person who's even trying to persist in discussing this case with you and the other "guilty" group.  The rest have fled rather than endlessly repeat the same facts and endlessly refute the same erroneous arguments.  But guess what, you succeeded, I am officially joining their ranks as this has become more annoying than a DV call.

God help us all if this kid is convicted of anything, self defense will no longer be a viable option in this country.

Self Defense for who ?

Conservatives want to keep the right to kill whoever they call a threat by their own standards but this is not a right who is given to anyone else.

When Amaury Arbery tried to self defense himself, he was killed. 

That's what is on line here. 

[jj22]

Fairness and equality would go a long way to trusting the legal system in cases like this.

But as we saw in the Zimmerman case. A black teen can't even wear a hoody without being followed, stalked, attacked by someone with a gun (and as he begins to win the fight) shot and killed, without the legal system finding a way to determine the death was in self defense.

This case is painful to those who know these laws don't apply to them. When those who benefit from these laws work to change that then the faith in the justice system and in tern the outcome of these cases will be far better received.

But again just like any movement Slavery/Civil Rights/Holocaust it will take those who benefit to let go of the privilege and fight for what is right. Until then, it will continue. Those who are persecuted can't really do anything on their own without the help of those who benefit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2021, 05:55 PM)jj22 Wrote: As long as it would be viable for the 17 year old black boy we could trust this defense more. Again even those who support him agree if he was a black teen it'd be different.

Dear god, I've already stated this, but if Kyle was a black kid my opinion would be 100% the same. 

Quote:A DV call? Domestic Violence? That's pretty lame for you to say and bring up given how serious that is and how many lives that effects. A lot has changed with you around here I see. Hopefully not everyone feels that way about those calls. I'm beginning to wonder what kind of establishment you work for given your approval of this Judge as if it's common practice around you and now mocking DV victims.

No, trust me, everyone in law enforcement hates DV calls and it has nothing to do with your absurd and uncalled for insinuation that I am "mocking" DV victims.  We hate them because they're the most volatile call you can go to and because both parties almost instantly target law enforcement with their aggression, essentially their fighting each other becomes them both "fighting" you.  You have zero, I repeat zero, experience with this so kindly keep your sanctimonious and ignorant judgments to yourself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2021, 06:03 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Self Defense for who ?

Anyone who is attacked by someone else without starting the physical confrontation.  

Quote:Conservatives want to keep the right to kill whoever they call a threat by their own standards but this is not a right who is given to anyone else.

Not by "their standards", by the standards put forth in the penal code.

Quote:When Amaury Arbery tried to self defense himself, he was killed. 

Indeed he was.  However, those situations are not the same and the defendants in that case do not have 1/10th the evidence in their favor that Rittenhouse does.

Quote:That's what is on line here. 

No, the rule of law over the rule of "I feel" is what's at stake here.