Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
I think Rittenhouse's youth, ignorance, and immaturity will definitely influence the jury. It's human nature.Wendybird wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:22 pm FWIW, I could only stomach a bit of the coverage of the defendant on the stand. I know he's been coached; I know he is lying; I know he should be held 100% accountable for his actions. But I am very worried about the overall effect of him on the stand. It's that baby face of his and his obvious immaturity. He is still in way over his head. I think the defense knows he is their best shot because white privilege is a real thing and that damnable baby face of his will do herculean work for his case.
I do not envy the prosecution's job. The evidence is very strong against him, especially the ME testimony. And the drone video - man, it just blasts the ridiculous "ambush" theory to smithereens - but I worry it will still not be enough to overcome the "I'm just a widdle boy who got a-scaird" image.
Hoping for a good rebuttal case.
Thanks again for all the legal clarity.
Exactly what I mean. He knows his every move is widely transmitted, and he acts like a spoiled brat. If a prosecutor crosses the line, it's perfectly possible for a judge to humiliate him beyond cruelty without ever raising his voice or losing his temper. But this nooper freakin' loses his mud on nationable Tee Vee.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 4:55 pm I would hope judges were always on their best behavior, but especially when one knows their every move is being widely transmitted.
Richie McGinnis testified on direct that seeing the AR15's "escalated" the situation. I don't remember his exact wording. I will locate. He was UNHAPPY about seeing Rittenhouse's AR15.RVInit wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:06 pm I am catching up with the "journalist's" testimony. I notice in his videos that whenever he is videographing an area where you don't see a shitload of vigilantes carting their AR's around there is no violence happening. People are milling around, you hear occasional yelling, but by and large there is nothing like what happens when the vigilantes are around.
There is well documented evidence that the presence of guns amps up the tendency for violence in everyone involved, regardless of whether they are the ones who are armed or not. The out of control vigilantism is a growing problem.
Not reading Fogbow, perish the thought! They are undoubtedly ignoring said advice, and at their own peril!
I think Rittenhouse is more likely to cry than erupt in anger if the prosecutor tried to evoke an emotional reaction. That, of course, would backfire, which is why I think the prosecutor didn’t do it.
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:36 pmRichie McGinnis testified on direct that seeing the AR15's "escalated" the situation. I don't remember his exact wording. I will locate. He was UNHAPPY about seeing Rittenhouse's AR15.RVInit wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:06 pm I am catching up with the "journalist's" testimony. I notice in his videos that whenever he is videographing an area where you don't see a shitload of vigilantes carting their AR's around there is no violence happening. People are milling around, you hear occasional yelling, but by and large there is nothing like what happens when the vigilantes are around.
There is well documented evidence that the presence of guns amps up the tendency for violence in everyone involved, regardless of whether they are the ones who are armed or not. The out of control vigilantism is a growing problem.
4 takeaways from the first week of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial
On the stand Thursday, McGinnis described the atmosphere that night as dangerous and menacing, in large part due to the presence of so many armed men.
"It was clear to me it was a situation where it was likely something dangerous was going to happen, be it Mr. Rosenbaum grabbing it or Mr. Rittenhouse shooting it," McGinnis testified.
Key witness for the Rittenhouse defense Drew Hernandez attended the Jan 6th Capitol riot.
Shortly before Jan 6th. Drew Hernandez called for "bloodshed" and a "second civil war" at a rally with J6 organizer Ali Alexander.
I guess this is where I differ from the rest of the world. It’s not that I don’t care about the result, but, yeah, I kinda don’t care about the result. What I care about is the process. Both sides are entitled to a fair trial, but if the judge is going to err, I’d prefer he err in favor of the defense because that’s what our constitution demands.
I mean, I hear you, but for me, the nature and degree of the judicial error would matter, too. Now, IANAL, so I have no way of knowing except by watching the back and forth of IAALs I know and trust as to whether this particular judge's errors surpass the level of 'oops' that might be considered reasonable. I can simply say that from what I've seen, I would go out of my way to avoid his courtroom even as a spectator.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:04 pmI guess this is where I differ from the rest of the world. It’s not that I don’t care about the result, but, yeah, I kinda don’t care about the result. What I care about is the process. Both sides are entitled to a fair trial, but if the judge is going to err, I’d prefer he err in favor of the defense because that’s what our constitution demands.
I haven’t watched the whole trial, so I can’t say how bad the errors are. From what I have seen, I agree with filly. His thumb is on the defense side of the scale. But I blame the prosecutor for some of that because he unnecessarily antagonized the judge.Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:11 pm
I mean, I hear you, but for me, the nature and degree of the judicial error would matter, too. Now, IANAL, so I have no way of knowing except by watching the back and forth of IAALs I know and trust as to whether this particular judge's errors surpass the level of 'oops' that might be considered reasonable. I can simply say that from what I've seen, I would go out of my way to avoid his courtroom even as a spectator.
No, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.
Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:31 pmNo, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.
Rittenhouse is a nasty, evil, racist killer. If he is acquitted, it will be because the criminal justice system did not do its job of identifying him as such and taking appropriate action.
What?! Because 12 people who have been provided with the discretion to decide whether the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt exercise that discretion in a manner you don’t like means the justice system “didn’t do its job”? If “justice” means the result is pre-ordained, why bother with trials at all?
Your viewpoint is akin to saying "oh, the building had a structural safety certificate, so it doesn't matter that it fell down and killed several people". Or "the doctors did lots of tests which gave lots of valuable information, but never interpreted the tests or treated the problem so the patient died, but that's ok because the tests were made and recorded."
It’s not the same thing at all. Our adversarial system places the burden of proof on the state. It allocates to the jury the duty to decide whether the state has met its burden. Indeed, your examples could, in fact, lead to criminal convictions if the state charged the engineer or the doctor with criminally negligent conduct, and if the jury, after evaluating the evidence, found beyond a reasonable doubt that they were criminally negligent.
Valuing process over outcome risks entering a moral and ethical vacuum.
I don’t see it as valuing process “over” outcome. The process is the process, and if managed fairly and appropriately, it theoretically should lead to the “right” result. But there will *always* be people unhappy with the result, even if everything leading up to the jury beginning its deliberations goes their way. I’m sorry, I just can’t buy in to a system that’s driven by the result.
However, I too can live with any result. One shitty racist killer getting off isn't such a big thing when there are so many shitty racists (killers or no) plying their shitty racist trade. That's more of a concern than one otherwise unimportant shitbag who will probably come to a sticky end one way or another.
Please. He would have been shot within the first ten minutes of appearing on the streets with that stupid rifle.
While we all want justice, the best we can do as imperfect humans is to have general procedures in place to (hopefully) make it likely that justice is reached in specific cases.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:31 pm No, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.
***
Valuing process over outcome risks entering a moral and ethical vacuum.
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
else we become like Kyle 
I will simply note that I am normally the one quoting this play in my circle of friends, to the point where it's actually become a joke to most of my friends to ask what Robert Bolt's More has to say on the subject when any debate on *any* ethical matter comes up. So, yes, there is this.jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:03 amWhile we all want justice, the best we can do as imperfect humans is to have general procedures in place to (hopefully) make it likely that justice is reached in specific cases.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:31 pm No, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.
***
Valuing process over outcome risks entering a moral and ethical vacuum.
To paraphrase Robert Bolt from A Man for All Seasons, there is a danger associated with viewing justice as something separate and apart from the laws and procedures:Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
This was my fear. I have now accepted it as the new reality. I wonder if this is how people in Russia feel. They know it's Putin's and the oligarch's world and they're allowed to live in it only as long as they (ahem) behave. So they muddle on, just trying to survive until the reaper comes calling.