Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Edge-]

Look at all the lynchings and whatnot that went unpunished thanks to juries. Shit still continues today.

Blatantly so, see the Ahmaud Arbery case and the just calling out the overt, but not explicit, racial profiling the defense attorneys engaged in.

[Endus]

Wrong, the point of the law is to keep society functional. Without laws it crumbles into anarchy. Deciding we’re just going to let some people off isn’t how you fix broke laws. You do that by changing them.

That's a completely separate argument. Nobody was talking about a law-free anarchic society.

Also, the courts don't "fix" laws. That's the legislative branch's responsibility, not the judicial's.

And considering the long history of uneven outcomes in jury trials it’s a big point against them. Look at all the lynchings and whatnot that went unpunished thanks to juries. Shit still continues today.

Sure. That's the other side of jury systems. There's no option without negatives to be had.

A juryless system wouldn't have that problem, but it also wouldn't have a jury's capacity to express empathy or rein in overbearing legal codes. A jury's not a perfect system. No system's perfect.

[Zeth Hawkins]

In closing arguments, Prosecution state Kyle should have fired warning shots when running away from the mob. This whole closing argument is wild.

[ghotihook]

In closing arguments, Prosecution state Kyle should have fired warning shots when running away from the mob. This whole closing argument is wild.

That sounds like they are trying to lose the trial.

[Xyonai]

After checking he said it’s too short to qualify. I was just guessing based on what I saw.



https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/11...rge-dismissed/

Egg on my face then but, yeah, as the post you quoted said it's hilariously badly worded so I hope the confusion is understandable lol.

[tehdang]

Prosecution is certainly stretching. If they had witnesses and clear video that backed their case, they’d push that hard. The opposite is true.

So they go with a lot of character attack and hypotheticals from lawyers.
Rittenhouse behaved dishonorably
Rittenhouse could’ve fired warning shots
Rittenhouse lied about his medical training
(You’d think Count 8 was lying about medical and dishonorable conduct)
Rittenhouse could’ve cast away his weapon
Crowd “knowledge” of active shooter excuses their attacks on Rittenhouse
Bringing a weapon itself excuses you from self-defense because of provocation (quote “you lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun.”)
He falls down to the ground “on his own” (as he’s being chased by a mob, recorded on video)
Rosenbaum wasn’t actually reaching for the gun (contradicting witness testimony)

Way too much to cover all the insanity.

This is a Hail Mary on the jury disliking Rittenhouse and imputing lack of self defense to him, combined with believing the grainy, digitally enhanced drone footage shows clear pre-assault provocation. But, fuck, the states own witnesses buried the prosecutions case so I don’t really know what they should’ve done besides saying bad people provoke attacks on themselves and aren’t entitled to self-defense.

[Coniferous]

In closing arguments, Prosecution state Kyle should have fired warning shots when running away from the mob. This whole closing argument is wild.

I think we can all agree that the prosecutors aren’t quite up to snuff here. Which, I imagine, is pretty common, as the defense attorneys earn like 5x the income of prosecutors.

Endus you would have done a better job lol.

- - - Updated - - -

I just hate the idea of giving random people power who, for better or worse are not subject to the same standards as the people who present the case from either side. but then again you can't trust judges or legal experts to be impartial either.

It’s a bad idea, except when compared to every other alternative idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Juries work for cases like this. For financial crime and other stuff it should be judge decided

The hard part is that “experts” in financial crime, etc. are usually overly sympathetic to defendants because they often worked in a similar job.

[Deus Mortis]

In closing arguments, Prosecution state Kyle should have fired warning shots when running away from the mob. This whole closing argument is wild.

Aren't warning shots illegal???

[ghotihook]

Aren't warning shots illegal???

Yes, they very much are.

[Endus]

I think we can all agree that the prosecutors aren’t quite up to snuff here. Which, I imagine, is pretty common, as the defense attorneys earn like 5x the income of prosecutors.

Endus you would have done a better job lol.

Honestly, there's some shit like the claim that Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at the Ziminskis, provoking Rosenbaum. And the judge asks; why aren't they here to testify to that as a witness? And that's an honestly good question. I have to imagine for whatever reason they weren't willing to or something, but there should have been an explanation, and instead, it just looks like the prosecution, like, didn't even consider that.

The case should've been more clear than it is. I think the judge has put his thumb on the scales a bit, but the prosecutors definitely aren't amazing lawyers.

It kind of goes the other way, too, though. Why weren't the defense calling the Ziminskis, to debunk? It all makes me think that the Ziminskis wouldn't help the defense's case, but the prosecutors felt they weren't needed, which was a bad choice; get every damned bit of evidence you can to pile it up on your side. When the judge tells you "we get it, that's enough, stop piling on", then you can consider the point made, not before.

It's all just badly prosecuted. On the prosecution, on the defense, by the judge. I get the impression this case will be a very public "what not to do" example cited in future law school classes, no matter which section you're looking at.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't warning shots illegal???

So is shooting people without just cause. "Maybe Rittenhouse should have committed this lesser crime rather than leaping straight to murder" is . . . a take, but it's not TOTALLY stupid.

[ghotihook]

So is shooting people without just cause. "Maybe Rittenhouse should have committed this lesser crime rather than leaping straight to murder" is . . . a take, but it's not TOTALLY stupid.

Until those warning shots kill someone not involved

[Endus]

Until those warning shots kill someone not involved

I am presuming by "warning shots", they mean firing directly into the ground, not firing at people but aiming to miss, or firing into the air where falling rounds will land . . . somewhere.

I'm not backing their recommendation. But pointing that there were less-illegal options than murder isn't totally unreasonable. I wouldn't have given the jury that particular consideration at all, though.

[ghotihook]

I am presuming by "warning shots", they mean firing directly into the ground, not firing at people but aiming to miss, or firing into the air where falling rounds will land . . . somewhere.

I'm not backing their recommendation. But pointing that there were less-illegal options than murder isn't totally unreasonable. I wouldn't have given the jury that particular consideration at all, though.

Bullets can deflect especially with a LR. I am making the point it's just as stupid.

[Gorsameth]

That's a completely separate argument. Nobody was talking about a law-free anarchic society.

Also, the courts don't "fix" laws. That's the legislative branch's responsibility, not the judicial's.



Sure. That's the other side of jury systems. There's no option without negatives to be had.

A juryless system wouldn't have that problem, but it also wouldn't have a jury's capacity to express empathy or rein in overbearing legal codes. A jury's not a perfect system. No system's perfect.

Why? Judges do make such decisions around the world.
The whole idea of mandatory minimal sentences is to get around judges trying to express empathy.

[Coniferous]

Why? Judges do make such decisions around the world.
The whole idea of mandatory minimal sentences is to get around judges trying to express empathy.

I’m a big “mandatory minimums are stupid” guy. Keeping people in jail for years and years is expensive and not really productive.

Violent crimes are obviously different if the person seems likely to continue being violent.

[Egomaniac]

Bullets can deflect especially with a LR. I am making the point it's just as stupid.

It's not though. Yes, accidents can happen and a deflection could potentially hurt or kill someone. But the odds are stacked against that.

That being said, "fire a warning shot while running" is not the best argument i've ever heard. Better to argue that Rittenhouse had other options that didn't involve using the gun at all.

[tehdang]

Defense begins.

Early move to the obvious: The prosecutor mentioned provocation zero times in opening statements about what they would prove about Rittenhouse. Now, it’s all about inherently provocative action by Rittenhouse that invalidates his self-defense rights. It was when prosecution witness testimony blew up in their faces that they had to pivot.

[downnola]

Defense begins.

Early move to the obvious: The prosecutor mentioned provocation zero times in opening statements about what they would prove about Rittenhouse. Now, it’s all about inherently provocative action by Rittenhouse that invalidates his self-defense rights. It was when prosecution witness testimony blew up in their faces that they had to pivot.

Out of all of the reactions one could hope to achieve by bringing a rifle to a protest/riot/civil unrest, this one seems pretty obvious.

pro·voke
verb
stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Out of all of the reactions one could hope to achieve by bringing a rifle to a protest/riot/civil unrest, this one seems pretty obvious.

pro·voke
verb
stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

Legally open-carrying is not provocation.

[PhaelixWW]

Legally open-carrying is not provocation.

The one doesn't really have bearing on the other.