Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Page 28 of 45 [ 709 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 45  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

17 Nov 2021, 12:42 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Well, this case got even more interesting - It appears the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence from the defence team until after the trial concluded, despite having used it themselves.
…

Paragraph 12 from a recently lodged "motion to dismiss (with prejudice)" by the defence team... So far I have only seen the first 4 of the 7 pages in this document (pages 3 and 4 are the images above).


Experts have noted a mistrial is quite likely. I’ve seen speculation that one or both sides may have been banking their bets in case it doesn’t go their way.

Dismissal with prejudice, however, is considered unlikely.


The commentary I have seen from a range of legal sources has suggested the prosecution were working towards a mistrial, but I haven't seen anything demonstrating the defence doing so.

Dismissal with prejudice is possible, given the required conditions have been met (constitutional (5th ammendment) violation, along with "bad faith" actions by the prosecution having been noted by the judge), combined with what appears to be Brady violations (withholding evidence).

Quote:
The motion states, 'As it relates to the compressed drone footage. The prosecution should be required to explain to the court why they did not copy the footage for the defendant with the same quality as their copy

'The video footage has been at the center of this case. The idea that the state would provide lesser quality footage and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case is the very reason they requested and were granted the provocation instruction by the Court.'

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210087/Prosecutors-Kenosha-shooter-trial-WITHHELD-evidence-defense.html - Also includes copies of full "Motion for mistrial with prejudice".

The suggestion I have seen is that the judge prefers to trust the jury to come to a verdict, rather than forcing an outcome through "mistrial" - holding out on this until after the jury returns a verdict also allows the prosecution to appeal a "mistrial with prejudice", whereas declaring a "mistrial with prejudice" prior to the jury returning a verdict removes the ability for such an appeal.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

17 Nov 2021, 12:44 am

When I keep reading about this case, a lot of people are mentioning that Rittenhouse "crossed state lines", but is this really illegal or a crime? I'm not American but I thought Americans could go from state to state, without having to wait on permission and legally just drive through, unless I am wrong?



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

17 Nov 2021, 1:11 am

Fnord wrote:
These are the charges.  The verdict sheet has no section devoted to "social messaging".  The jury is examining and debating the evidence and testimony.  If they ignore the staged emotionalism of the defendant, then he is likely to be screaming into his pillow before the end of the year.[/color]

Two additional, lesser charges were added, regarding Huber.

a second-degree intentional homicide
b first-degree reckless homicide

These are substantial charges, because they carry max 60 years in prison.

"Jurors can also consider a charge of second-degree intentional homicide if they believe Rittenhouse believed he was acting in self-defense but such a belief was unfounded".

So, even non-provoked, self-defense may not help Rittenhouse.

https://www.wqow.com/news/crime/here-ar ... cd65a.html


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

17 Nov 2021, 1:35 am

Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Well, this case got even more interesting - It appears the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence from the defence team until after the trial concluded, despite having used it themselves.
…

Paragraph 12 from a recently lodged "motion to dismiss (with prejudice)" by the defence team... So far I have only seen the first 4 of the 7 pages in this document (pages 3 and 4 are the images above).


Experts have noted a mistrial is quite likely. I’ve seen speculation that one or both sides may have been banking their bets in case it doesn’t go their way.

Dismissal with prejudice, however, is considered unlikely.


Dismissal with prejudice is possible, given the required conditions have been met (constitutional (5th ammendment) violation, along with "bad faith" actions by the prosecution having been noted by the judge), combined with what appears to be Brady violations (withholding evidence).


I think that is a matter of opinion and, as I noted, the experts I've read didn't find the case compelling. Still, law isn't always black and white so who knows.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

17 Nov 2021, 1:36 am

ironpony wrote:
When I keep reading about this case, a lot of people are mentioning that Rittenhouse "crossed state lines", but is this really illegal or a crime? I'm not American but I thought Americans could go from state to state, without having to wait on permission and legally just drive through, unless I am wrong?


"Crossing state lines" claims are a good indication that the person making them has little-to-no understanding of the case or details surrounding it.

Starting with the basics: There is no impediment to crossing state lines (no papers\authorisation\other requirements needing to be met).

Next we proceed to the fact that the town he lived in is right on the border between the 2 states, with the suburban area actually bridging the "state line".

Then, we have the fact that he had family in the town where the events occurred, as well as working there (it was around 20 miles away from his home), indicating he had a relevent connection to the town\legitimate reason to visit it. (In terms of where I live, the Western suburbs of Melbourne are an equivalent distance from the CBD as he lived from the town where this occurred, whereas the Eastern suburbs stretch to almost twice that distance).

The claim is spread simply to try and give the impression he had to travel a considerable distance to a location with which he had no link to, in order to be present there.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

17 Nov 2021, 1:37 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Well, this case got even more interesting - It appears the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence from the defence team until after the trial concluded, despite having used it themselves.
…

Paragraph 12 from a recently lodged "motion to dismiss (with prejudice)" by the defence team... So far I have only seen the first 4 of the 7 pages in this document (pages 3 and 4 are the images above).


Experts have noted a mistrial is quite likely. I’ve seen speculation that one or both sides may have been banking their bets in case it doesn’t go their way.

Dismissal with prejudice, however, is considered unlikely.


Dismissal with prejudice is possible, given the required conditions have been met (constitutional (5th ammendment) violation, along with "bad faith" actions by the prosecution having been noted by the judge), combined with what appears to be Brady violations (withholding evidence).


I think that is a matter of opinion and, as I noted, the experts I've read didn't find the case compelling. Still, law isn't always black and white so who knows.


What evidence was withheld? I haven't watched all the long footage, if someone can tell me?



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

17 Nov 2021, 1:42 am

ironpony wrote:
When I keep reading about this case, a lot of people are mentioning that Rittenhouse "crossed state lines", but is this really illegal or a crime? I'm not American but I thought Americans could go from state to state, without having to wait on permission and legally just drive through, unless I am wrong?


Each state has its own laws and jurisdiction. How much that matters depends on the section of law being looked at it. Travel by itself isn't an issue; travel is open, and US citizens are free to move around and live where they wish. But carrying weapons across state lines can run into issues depending on the fact pattern and states involved. Travel involving crimes can increase the severity of the case, and can add federal jurisdiction that might not have otherwise existed. I don't have a list in my head but the above should be close enough for this discussion.

The interesting thing in this case was that while he crossed a state line, he actually didn't travel very far at all. So while the impression may be that this was a major journey, it wasn't. But it did mean a change in rules and jurisdictions.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 17 Nov 2021, 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

17 Nov 2021, 1:43 am

Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
When I keep reading about this case, a lot of people are mentioning that Rittenhouse "crossed state lines", but is this really illegal or a crime? I'm not American but I thought Americans could go from state to state, without having to wait on permission and legally just drive through, unless I am wrong?


"Crossing state lines" claims are a good indication that the person making them has little-to-no understanding of the case or details surrounding it.

Starting with the basics: There is no impediment to crossing state lines (no papers\authorisation\other requirements needing to be met).

Next we proceed to the fact that the town he lived in is right on the border between the 2 states, with the suburban area actually bridging the "state line".

Then, we have the fact that he had family in the town where the events occurred, as well as working there (it was around 20 miles away from his home), indicating he had a relevent connection to the town\legitimate reason to visit it. (In terms of where I live, the Western suburbs of Melbourne are an equivalent distance from the CBD as he lived from the town where this occurred, whereas the Eastern suburbs stretch to almost twice that distance).

The claim is spread simply to try and give the impression he had to travel a considerable distance to a location with which he had no link to, in order to be present there.


There is more to it than that. See my post above.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

17 Nov 2021, 1:43 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Like Fnord said, crying in his pillow in prison.


Why would you repeat this phrase after several people in this thread have made clear it’s disturbing and inappropriate connotation? Did you not see those posts (the phrase itself flew over my head when I first saw it), or are you that vindictive? I’m disappointed in you.


I mean't it in the context of "real tears" (as with Oscar Pistorius) at the prospect of jail. But since it appears to be triggering I won't mention it again.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

17 Nov 2021, 1:50 am

ironpony wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Well, this case got even more interesting - It appears the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence from the defence team until after the trial concluded, despite having used it themselves.
…

Paragraph 12 from a recently lodged "motion to dismiss (with prejudice)" by the defence team... So far I have only seen the first 4 of the 7 pages in this document (pages 3 and 4 are the images above).


Experts have noted a mistrial is quite likely. I’ve seen speculation that one or both sides may have been banking their bets in case it doesn’t go their way.

Dismissal with prejudice, however, is considered unlikely.


Dismissal with prejudice is possible, given the required conditions have been met (constitutional (5th ammendment) violation, along with "bad faith" actions by the prosecution having been noted by the judge), combined with what appears to be Brady violations (withholding evidence).


I think that is a matter of opinion and, as I noted, the experts I've read didn't find the case compelling. Still, law isn't always black and white so who knows.


What evidence was withheld? I haven't watched all the long footage, if someone can tell me?


The specific video used to justify "provocation" instructions being provided to the jury for the charges was provided to the defence team in a much lower quality version than that which the prosecution team provided to the court and used as evidence, preventing the defence an opportunity to adequately examine it or dispute what it showed, with the "better" quality video provided to the defence team only after the presentation of evidence to the jury was over.

There are also rumours that "jump-kick man's" identity was known to the prosecution becuase he had approached them to request indemnity to other charges in return for testifying in this case, but this was refused due to the charges waiting - but this is unconfirmed at this stage, only having started in the past day.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

17 Nov 2021, 2:03 am

Dox47 wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I believe you meant "littlebinger" - The names started during Rekieta law's coverage (which interestingly had higher numbers of viewers than PBS and other networks covering the trial individually had, and was not advertised\promoted by youtube).

I can't remember who (or viewers of which of the lawyers commenting there) came up with "Fatlock" (I seem to recall that it was during Wednesday's trial where that name originated) as Nick was having trouble remembering that prosecutor's name.


I actually saw both names develop organically on a different board with a lot of cross-pollination with the law tubers, so they very well might have originated there. They spread fast though, it took me a second when I started seeing people commenting other places just referring to the prosecutors as LF and FL, definitely game me a chuckle. The breakout star is still the autistic photographer, DeBruin, my humongous gun board is trying to put a little something together for him, as they figure he's probably going to lose a lot of work over his testimony, lot of guys want to buy signed copies of his work.


Have you heard\seen the reference to Mr Binger as "flufferboy2004"?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

17 Nov 2021, 4:20 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:

Off Topic
The only reason I can see for such actions to be permitted to continue would be that those with the power to prevent it either endorse the views themselves, or wish to "protect" those putting forward such views.


In my eyes it is as simple as being an attack on a public figure and not on a member, leaving the only question for moderation being if it is profane or potentially triggering, etc. WP has long allowed distasteful comments other forums would remove. Being “sanctimonious” is not a TOS violation, although fellow members may well challenge such posting on their own.

Making sure everyone posts in a way other members find on-point, appropriate , and meaningful is not the moderators’ job.

I wasn't referring to the examples in this thread in particular ("public figure"), but was instead responding to Pepe's generalised comment:
Quote:
I have been talking about sanctimonious hatefests since before the last American election.
I don't understand why it is allowed to continue.
It reflects poorly on WP. 8)


There has been an ongoing campaign to present any person who holds, endorses, or even merely attempts to accurately explain a viewpoint held by the "right" as being a white supremecist\racist\MAGA\etc. with various perjoratives attached, along with generalisations about such people\groups, which continues here still.

Off Topic
An example would be the "memorial" thread for Rush Limbaugh: The mere act of asking people to be respectful, rather than using it a a forum to attack him\his family\his supporters was enough to become a target of the hate-fueled mob. Compare that with the memorial thread for someone to the left ("RBG"), where people were respectful, and no such attacks occurred (or were removed before I saw them if they were present), despite the right having a similar "negative" view of her as the "left" had of him.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

17 Nov 2021, 4:25 am

cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Like Fnord said, crying in his pillow in prison.


Why would you repeat this phrase after several people in this thread have made clear it’s disturbing and inappropriate connotation? Did you not see those posts (the phrase itself flew over my head when I first saw it), or are you that vindictive? I’m disappointed in you.


I mean't it in the context of "real tears" (as with Oscar Pistorius) at the prospect of jail. But since it appears to be triggering I won't mention it again.


Pull the other one. :mrgreen:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

17 Nov 2021, 4:32 am

Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:

Off Topic
The only reason I can see for such actions to be permitted to continue would be that those with the power to prevent it either endorse the views themselves, or wish to "protect" those putting forward such views.


In my eyes it is as simple as being an attack on a public figure and not on a member, leaving the only question for moderation being if it is profane or potentially triggering, etc. WP has long allowed distasteful comments other forums would remove. Being “sanctimonious” is not a TOS violation, although fellow members may well challenge such posting on their own.

Making sure everyone posts in a way other members find on-point, appropriate , and meaningful is not the moderators’ job.

I wasn't referring to the examples in this thread in particular ("public figure"), but was instead responding to Pepe's generalised comment:
Quote:
I have been talking about sanctimonious hatefests since before the last American election.
I don't understand why it is allowed to continue.
It reflects poorly on WP. 8)


There has been an ongoing campaign to present any person who holds, endorses, or even merely attempts to accurately explain a viewpoint held by the "right" as being a white supremecist\racist\MAGA\etc. with various perjoratives attached, along with generalisations about such people\groups, which continues here still.

Off Topic
An example would be the "memorial" thread for Rush Limbaugh: The mere act of asking people to be respectful, rather than using it a a forum to attack him\his family\his supporters was enough to become a target of the hate-fueled mob. Compare that with the memorial thread for someone to the left ("RBG"), where people were respectful, and no such attacks occurred (or were removed before I saw them if they were present), despite the right having a similar "negative" view of her as the "left" had of him.


There is a strong left-wing bias on this website.
It has been a lot worse. 8)



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,579
Location: the island of defective toy santas

17 Nov 2021, 4:38 am

didja ever consider that there may be a GD good reason for said left-wing bias? would you wanna give a crooked seller of junky jalopies any more of your money or vote for them?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

17 Nov 2021, 4:45 am

auntblabby wrote:
didja ever consider that there may be a GD good reason for said left-wing bias? would you wanna give a crooked seller of junky jalopies any more of your money or vote for them?


There is no justification for bullying its members for simply having a different opinion.
There was an epic thread trying to fix "The Problem". 8)