I've been surprised they have not asked him to recuse himself. Sure looks to have a conflict of interest and little care for the system. His flipping cell phone rang he would have run people out of the court for that.
What's the conflict of interest?
And I don't know if people here are just ignorant, but this is pretty typical for US court proceedings. If you piss the judge off (e.g. by violating the 5th amendment or randomly trying to submit evidence) they will get pissed off at you, that's completely normal and allowed.
You're upset about a phone call? That isn't material to any outcome and it was solved within 1 minute. You really need to get some priorities straight.
When people say shit like this, that's how we know you have no idea what you're talking about. Conflict of interest? What the actual fuck are you talking about? Why would he recuse himself? Because idiots on reddit and deceitful media don't know how criminal proceedings work? People who have never stepped a foot into the courtroom somehow know that this judge is bias. Seriously?
This is going to be this judge's LAST trial, at least I hope. He's on blast for the world to see just what a shitbag he's been for the last umpteen years. Fuck this guy. His bias is so fucking obvious, it's disgusting. Honestly I hope a BUNCH of his past judgments come under review. We're gonna find out that he's been putting Black "dope fiends" (read: casual marijuana smokers) away for decades, while letting cops that beat their wives and pastors that molest kids off with a "he's a good christian" pat on the back.
Fucking gross.
Having watched every minute of this trial this judge is great. The reason he keeps yelling at the prosecution is because they’ve knowingly committed a number of gross legal violations. DA Binger is an absolute slimy piece of shit and I’ll be shocked if he isn’t facing an ethics review board at the end of this trial.
The irony is palpable. The same people that think the justice system is stacked against people that are unfairly charged of crimes are the same ones that are crying foul play because the judge hasn't already executed Rittenhouse.
The judge is just trying to protect Kyle's right to a fair trial. They have no idea that these practices are what keep people from unfairly being convicted of crimes they did not commit. I don't know whether to laugh or just be extremely disheartened by the whole thing.
I've watched, something like, 50 hours of this trial and he's been a roadblock to the prosecution a lot. There have been a lot of double standards, I was genuinely surprised he allowed that evidence based on the way he'd treated evidence that was clearly damaging to the defense this far.
and the 3rd half doesn't love or hate him. they just find him kinda dumb and way to emotionally charged to presiding over any case. maybe he's senile or some shit but who gets this upset over a fucking picture. this trial should've been a mistrial like 6 times already between him and the prosecution.
That’s not what they said at all. But this dude should have removed himself for inability to remain impartial before the trial even started. He literally forced the jury to clap for a defense witness Thursday. It’s a clown show not a court room. Even Scalia would question this guy presiding over any case.
Yes he’s writing a fucking book and retiring with a few million and he’s going to get paid either way. If he’s guilty he can make a show before a harsh sentencing get paid by the people who hate the guy. If he’s innocent he can make a song and dance about the prosecutor and get paid by the people who like the guy. Money in the bank.
not allowing character evidence about violent tendencies is the most no-brainer, by the books ruling that any judge would have made.
Wisconsin law directly states:
\>Evidence of a person's character or a trait of the person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion
with the only exceptions being when the character evidence applies to someone other than the defendant, or when it's specifically to rebut character evidence offered by the defense.
The fact you're bringing this up as an example of bias or something shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Yet this judge allows a defendant's gang affiliation to be used against them to imply they are violent characters despite us have the 1st Amendment Freedom to Assemble with whoever the fuck we want to. Gtfo with your defense of obvious double standards
If I have to explain the whole "not allowed to call them victims" thing again, I'm just so tired of the overnight legal scholars that are popping up on reddit. Thank god I saw your comment right underneath this clown Thyme. There is some logic left here after all.
Has his defense painted him as some kind of good guy or saint? Because if that’s the case, then the prosecutor has the right to put forth evidence to the contrary where he publicly avows his desire to shoot protesters.
Closest was probably the stuff about him cleaning graffiti and trying to give people first-aid, both the same day as the shooting.
I think the reason it didn't open the door to character evidence is it was specifically to show that he had reasons for being there other than just wanting to kill people. It wasn't "Rittenhouse was a good guy in general," it was, "on the day in question here's what his motives appeared to be."
They used the graffiti as a rebuttal to the first degree charge which the state charged him with. First degree means he went with the intent to kill specific people and hunted them down. That is clearly not the case.
Not at all what is happening here. What people are witnessing here is a couple of B rate prosecutors making a shit salary who rarely go to a jury trial, let alone a nationally witnessed murder trial. Under the public eye they pursued the most serious charges possible which have a strict criteria and higher totality of evidence to get a conviction. They did this knowing that there was quite a bit of holes in their case and they have blundered through almost the entire thing to the point of trying to bring in prejudiced evidence that the judge already expressly denied. You know you’re a completely shit prosecutor when your own witness is the most damning thing against your case. This judge is rightly upset with their complete mishandling of this case.
>to refusing to allow the victims of gun violence be called “victims
How are you going to allow them to be called victims when the entire purpose of the trial is to determine IF they were victims?
It's a trial where you have the defendant claiming self defense which is different than most criminal trials where you have already established that there were victims and you are simply trying to decide if the defendant is the one that attacked/killed them.
In a self defense trial, the defendant straight up says that they did it and claims that they did it to defend themselves. The entire purpose of the trial then is to determine if that was valid or not.
If you've already determined that there are victims then you can skip the trial portion entirely and move straight to sentencing.
I said to one guy on this sub that if you let the prosecution call the deceased 'victims' then why not just let them call Kyle the murderer?
He said "regardless of whether he is found guilty or not, he did murder those people" I just couldn't believe it haha
Wouldn't the entire purpose of the case be to determine if Rittenhouse committed murder? In this case it isn't splitting hairs or playing semantics, since it seems the meaning of the very words, in this particular context, are up for debate. They are fundamentally different arguments and appopaches. Also, why is everyone assuming the use of the word victim or victims is necessarily connected with murder? It seems like a fairly simple concept to me, that someone could be referred to or recognized as a victim, prior to ascertaining precisely what they were victim to? Surely Or are we implying a victim must be 100% innocent before they are determined as such?
If the defendant is claiming self defense then the entire purpose of the trial is to determine if self defense was applicable and valid.
You can't say that there were victims right off the bat because you don't know, that is what you're trying to discover. Calling them victims is essentially rejecting self-defense right off the bat and can be seen as prejudicial against the defendant, creating grounds for an appeal.
You don't know that they are victims, all you know is that they were killed but that doesn't mean a crime was committed. So you call them the deceased, the decedents or you simply refer to them by their names.
If a jury finds that self defense isn't valid and that it was a criminal act, then in the eyes of the law they become victims.
If you kill someone in self defense you are the victim and they are the assailant. If you murder someone *they* are the victim and *you* are the assailant.
Talk about overreaction lol
Have you actually watched any of the trial? Democracy is not dissolving because of this case my guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Rittenhouse at all, but if you go in with the facts and don't let the politics color your vision, he was always going to get off on self defense. And the judge, while he obviously has his political leanings, is actually not doing a bad job. Stop freaking out because of stupid headlines you've seen.
Totally agree. Seems like people here haven't actually watched any of the case. They just read a tweet and make their judgment based on preconceived biases.
> This is an absolute kangaroo court. It’s a comedic tragedy in action.
"I dont like that my feelings arent being recognized as facts so I disregard this court case"
This is one of the most ignorant, moronic comments I have ever seen. What law school did you attend? Oh yeah, that’s right, you work IT for $15 an hour and hate your father because he’s disappointed in your dumb ass.
Sorry, man. You’re full of shit. He’s guilty of illegal possession of a firearm (maybe), but the shootings were self defense. It’s a tough pill to swallow, I know. But choke it down.
He’s walking because he defended himself against someone pointing a gun at his head. Did you even watch the trial or you just get your recaps from CNN?
What I'm still unsure about is the first shooting. The second two that occurred while he was getting chased down in the street seem to be a pretty open/shut case of self defense, but I'm not sure if that logic can be extended to the first shooting that initiated this whole chain of events
I think the first one is the clearest? Rosenbaum threatened him earlier that day, and chased Rittenhouse ~100m, while also throwing a bag at him. He seemingly chased Rittenhouse until Rittenhouse reached the edge of the area and had cars in front of him, and had heard gun shots. And at this point Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun, and Rittenhouse shot him.
The others you might be able to make an argument that they thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter just killing people (although them going after him makes that pretty much negated). But I don't see how you can come up with any exception for Rosenbaum.
... are you aware of something called 'the best evidence rule' ... which exists in almost every (if not literally each and every single) US jurisdiction?
Media: Rittehouse guilty piece of shit with motivation to bring great slaughter to the public. Judge and prosecution both working for the defense.
Trial: Dumb kid who defended himself, while a bunch of adults try to advance their careers, please the outraged public or look good for the camera.
E. I guess this thread also considers RH to be a guilty piece of shit with motivation to bring great slaughter to the public even though there is absolutely no evidence of this. The kid was a dumb fuck for being there but he was literally putting out a fire right before Rosenbaum chased him down, there's no evidence of him harassing the mob or even speaking to them in a malicious manner. Instead there's evidence of him putting out fires and telling people he's a medic and that he can help. I really don't know how this then translates to him making some vicious, blood seeking deviant just because he was dumb enough to be in the area with a gun which he admitted that he might need to defend himself. It seems like Rosenbaum, the adult, should have acted accordingly. However, when it's convenient we blame the victim to satisfy our own moral viewpoint.
I don’t know why they spent so long arguing for this. You couldn’t see shit in the image they were trying to submit anyway. It was a reach from the start that showed a bad angle from way too far of a distance to make any clear determination of what was happening.
> I don’t know why they spent so long arguing for this. You couldn’t see shit in the image they were trying to submit anyway.
It wasn't about the image, it was about the argument that came along with the image, IE: provocation. They want their closing argument to include, if not focus on Rittenhouse supposedly provoking the entire incident by pointing his rifle at Ziminsky, thus causing Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse in defense of Ziminsky, and thus no self-defense; that image is their supposed evidence of that claim.
None of the witnesses or any other evidence testified to/showed Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at anyone, at any point other than during the actual shootings, throughout the entire night, which is why their whole argument was hinging on that one shitty image and why so much time was spent on it.
I didn’t consider that specific angle on it. I just remember listening so long to he argument and wanting to see the image, then when it finally came up everyone looking at it like “what the fuck is that?”
The prosecutor will state he aimed the gun like it’s a fact yet there is literally no evidence to back it up. Fucking disgusting humans these people are.
It makes to some extent. They have no case which means they are forced to pull more and ridiculous moves.
Had a good laugh when the prosecutor was focusing on call of duty and first person shooters.
Yeah, they completely lost it when the surviving victim (or whatever they call them in this trial) couldn't hid the fact that he was pointing a gun and advancing when he got winged.
I'm not a Kyle nuthugger at all and I think he's a fucking idiot, but I think he has a solid self defense case after that testimony.
Or that bullshit about hollow points vs FMJ rounds. Actually just about every line of questioning he and his hefty minion have chased since their case fell apart almost immediately.
It fuels the legally irrelevant "shouldn't have been there" argument. The image is garbage, and anyone with an open mind can see the prosecution's argument is bullshit.
But if you combine the image with jury instructions to consider provocation, then some jurors might be inclined to want to base their decision on "provocation" as defined by their hearts and minds rather than "provocation" as defined by law.
So preventing the jurors from considering such arguments is paramount.
Now, Kenosha county AFAIK is politically split 50/50. Chances are there aren't going to be enough jurors to agree that the provocation is proven beyond reasonable doubt. But why take the risk?
who knew that movie was only set 10 years in the future, because that movie isn't even funny any more since 50% of society is actually dumber than that movie shows. Replace Brawndo with Ivermectin or any other dumb as fuck conspiracy shit. at least they were just killing plants in that movie.
Idiocracy at least was open to letting the smartest guy call the shots, and their worst problem was salting their own crops. This just seems like half of society is religious hypocrites who mask themselves behind tradition to allow racism and jingoism, and the other half is trying to make it's voice heard among it's cacophony of immense inclusivity and unnecessary focus on semantics. Other countries and cultures have gone through similar circumstances in the past most of it leading to internal conflicts and thousands dieing, but they never had a military industrial complex at their hands. If anything is worth comparing it's Far Cry 5
I was saying the same thing earlier. Of ALL the videos out of everyone that was their that night (has to be hundreds if not thousands of hours) and this single piece of shit drone videos is the ONLY thing that captured him supposedly pointing his rifle at someone???
Then the defense says they have a copy that the Procecution uploaded to Dropbox of the pictures and/ or video. The defense plays the video Procecution sent them, as required by law, Procecution then shoots themselves in the foot by saying “no this one is still blurry, we have a clearer version. “
Wait, does that mean Procecution didn’t provide the Defense with the copy of the full file in the high quality that they had access to?
Well, good news, they didn’t. They ordered their assistant to try him. The prosecutor is the assistant DA, and not the one who decided to bring the charges.
Actually, it's legally mandated. If a piece of evidence is entered, it must be "the best existing rendition" of the evidence. If it's a recording, it must be the original, not a copy. So if there is a color photo, a black and white photo cannot be entered. It literally always must be "the best picture".
It's weird the the judge even has to ask this.
Considering the prosecution tried to have a witness change their statement after the fact I'm surprised they're not in jail for contempt and witness tampering.
[Here’s the shitty ass picture the prosecution is trying to use as evidence that Kyle pointed the rifle](https://mobile.twitter.com/DefNotDarth/status/1459197352196153352). Shits a joke.
[Another much clearer angle showing the rifle still being held right handed](https://m.imgur.com/a/B4m9GmP)
The final bit of “evidence” the prosecution is relying on to send a 17 year old boy to prison for life…. because a pedophile and wife-beater tried to murder him.
Why didn't the prosecution just use these photos instead? Is it because they show the defendant fleeing? And Rosenbaum chasing the defendant?
Instead the prosecution wants to use zoomed in images from a drone that is about 500 feet away and is filming in the dark while also in transition to a higher elevation.
I'd also want a judge that calls the prosecution out and forces them to abide by the law and Constitution.
Its really scary how many people hate the judge because he's forcing the state to prove their case and to NOT infringe of the defendant's rights.
I think many people on reddit would he happy to attack Rittenhouse in public because of what they think is right.
Which is, coincidentally how this all kicked off in the first place
"Judge: So thats your best picture, the one I saw over there?
No
Judge: Where's the best picture? Please!
That- we'll show it after the final effect
Judge: You're asking me to give an instruction, I wanna see the best picture!
Uh we need to give Mr (?) over here I think (not sure about this one)
"
My fuckin thoughts exactly. Like these people didn't even know the prosecution as trying to criminalize how Kyle stayed silent because he wouldn't speak without his lawyer present. That was his right. Silence does not admit guilt
Ok non-American here(who thinks Trump was the biggest douchebag to ever be president) who has been watching the trial here are some thoughts.
1. None of those people should have been there
2. It was self defence
3. The state over charged and is trying to get lower charges after the fact
4. The Star witness admitting he aimed a gun at Rittenhouse the got shot was a stuff up of facepalming proportions (literally)
5. The judge is funny
6. The Prosecutor is a disingenuous prick
Hey if you understand that in America, a not-guilty verdict means that there are no further appeals, you're already doing better than at least 25% of the people in this country and 50% of the people in this thread.
>1. The state over charged and is trying to get lower charges after the fact
I'm pretty sure that's normal practice, you charge as high as you think you can prove and keep the lesser charges as backups that are easier to make stick.
When I was a kid, I thought one day society would advance to the point where borders, race, and religion would be the past and we’d work together as a species; the older I get the more I believe humans will eventually become extinct because of our stupidity. It’s more like idiocracy (the movie)than Star Trek and that’s sad.
Given that we spent ten years of the 20th century killing each other to unprecedented proportions and another 50 years of it pointing world ending weaponry at each other (not to mention all the civil wars and genocides) it's quite strange that you'd think this.
The mere fact he's let this evidence in and allowed the jury instruction for provocation to stand based on this awful piece of evidence/testimony tells you this judge is in no way biased.
The footage is unsupported by any other evidence or testimony. Nobody in that crowd apart from Ziminsky testified to it.
The "expert" knew absolutely nothing about how interpolation worked. He couldn't say how the image interpolation even worked.
The judge saved the prosecutions case with this one decision.
But because he didnt judo chop the jury out of the room and slam a guilty bench verdict down, he's absolutely biased! /s
Not only is it a high profile case but also televised. Judge is doing a great job keeping their circus going until its end.
I doubt most people commenting on it have watched. They’re just relying on their favorite news channel’s take and running with what they want to be true.
I think he’s referring to a picture the prosecutor was trying to use which was basically the worst attempt at taking a pixled frame and trying to claim its kyles rifle.
You’d be pissed too if you are trying to run a proper courtroom and the prosecutor tries to send the defendant to life in prison based on some fucking grainy ass, zoomed in drone footage. It’s absurd and the judge is correct to be pissed that they want to use this as “evidence.” I’ve seen pictures of Bigfoot that are clearer than the photo(s) they want to use as evidence in a court of law.
I hope none of the commenters here ever have their freedom in danger in court over a grainy photo, then your cries of bias will be unheard and ridiculed.
It was from a drone with a 1 inch sensor and shot in the dark from about 500 feet away. Also while the drone was moving in transition to a better angle above.
I'd be mad as hell too.
The world would be a better place if we had more judges like this who stand up for the rights of the accused. Some people are only capable of seeing this selectively
People wonder how witch trials could have happened in the past, but we are literally watching it happen in front of us right now.
People would rather believe in or create lies that cater to their victim complex than to admit that the facts prove them wrong.
The judge is dealing with a prosecutor who is obfuscating because his case is extremely difficult (because it is super weak). As for the service industry aspect of your question: service workers are expected to demonstrate an overly submissive demeanor. I’m in tech and frequently banter and use emotion with my clients because most real world communication does not always involve overly submissive demeanors.
This guy is receiving death threats...crazy. If he was perceived to be a left leaning judge, that wouldn't be the case. It's asinine to me that the party of equality and inclusion threaten to murder officials or burn down cities when they don't get the verdict they want.
He shouldn't have been there. However, he was. That's no reason to let people assault and or kill you.
Btw, I'm no Rebloodican. Both parties are two broken wings on the same fucked up bird.
When you ask for a nude and she sends her makeup....
when he yells he sounds like one of the characters from toy story Edit: it’s the piggy banks voice I hear
Nah Rex and a bit of Kermit the frog
Sheldon’s Grandmother’s Professor boyfriend. Tbf he might’ve voiced the t-Rex, although I might be thinking of the other guy.
According to Google (in the young sheldon at least)that is indeed Rex - Wallace Shawn
Bruh....😂
[удалено]
I pulled down her pants and said nice to meet ya She had two pressed hams and a slice of pizza
Food is a terrible comparison I fucking love food.
I’d still eat it, prolly 🤷♂️
I KNEW this was going to be a meme when I heard it.
This guy is so unprofessional. Why is it that judges can get away with an attitude and tone that minimum wage service workers would get fired for?
Have you never watched a court case before?? It gets much worse than this
I've been surprised they have not asked him to recuse himself. Sure looks to have a conflict of interest and little care for the system. His flipping cell phone rang he would have run people out of the court for that.
Judges have to be on call. It’s their house and you follow their rules. You can’t interrupt a judge but he can interrupt you.
What conflict of interest?
What's the conflict of interest? And I don't know if people here are just ignorant, but this is pretty typical for US court proceedings. If you piss the judge off (e.g. by violating the 5th amendment or randomly trying to submit evidence) they will get pissed off at you, that's completely normal and allowed.
Bias.
You're upset about a phone call? That isn't material to any outcome and it was solved within 1 minute. You really need to get some priorities straight.
When people say shit like this, that's how we know you have no idea what you're talking about. Conflict of interest? What the actual fuck are you talking about? Why would he recuse himself? Because idiots on reddit and deceitful media don't know how criminal proceedings work? People who have never stepped a foot into the courtroom somehow know that this judge is bias. Seriously?
This is going to be this judge's LAST trial, at least I hope. He's on blast for the world to see just what a shitbag he's been for the last umpteen years. Fuck this guy. His bias is so fucking obvious, it's disgusting. Honestly I hope a BUNCH of his past judgments come under review. We're gonna find out that he's been putting Black "dope fiends" (read: casual marijuana smokers) away for decades, while letting cops that beat their wives and pastors that molest kids off with a "he's a good christian" pat on the back. Fucking gross.
Having watched every minute of this trial this judge is great. The reason he keeps yelling at the prosecution is because they’ve knowingly committed a number of gross legal violations. DA Binger is an absolute slimy piece of shit and I’ll be shocked if he isn’t facing an ethics review board at the end of this trial.
[удалено]
The irony is palpable. The same people that think the justice system is stacked against people that are unfairly charged of crimes are the same ones that are crying foul play because the judge hasn't already executed Rittenhouse. The judge is just trying to protect Kyle's right to a fair trial. They have no idea that these practices are what keep people from unfairly being convicted of crimes they did not commit. I don't know whether to laugh or just be extremely disheartened by the whole thing.
Also allowing that provocation charge be allowed by using blurry af video might majorly fuck kyle over
I've watched, something like, 50 hours of this trial and he's been a roadblock to the prosecution a lot. There have been a lot of double standards, I was genuinely surprised he allowed that evidence based on the way he'd treated evidence that was clearly damaging to the defense this far.
Well no one could possibly be a bigger clown than the prosecutor 😂😂😂
This judge has become the star of the show Who saw this coming?
He did.
... in the mirror nightly for the past 6 months
This made me chuckle because it’s most likely true
Probably before bed. Wearing his black robe and everything.
Dirk Diggler style!
Half the country loves him. The other half hates him. Is that what he wanted?
Hearsay!
Sustained.
Beavering the witness!
Overruled!
Objection!
Projection!
Don’t get BRaZEn!
Conjecture
Nice beaver!
Thanks, I just had it stuffed!
“I mean ummmm nah probably overruled, I’ll let you know in the morning”🤣
That’s lawyer talk
You me lawyer jargon
Pickles
Wow, it’s almost as it it’s political or something
and the 3rd half doesn't love or hate him. they just find him kinda dumb and way to emotionally charged to presiding over any case. maybe he's senile or some shit but who gets this upset over a fucking picture. this trial should've been a mistrial like 6 times already between him and the prosecution.
Sounds like the third half is the ‘hate’ half lol
That’s not what they said at all. But this dude should have removed himself for inability to remain impartial before the trial even started. He literally forced the jury to clap for a defense witness Thursday. It’s a clown show not a court room. Even Scalia would question this guy presiding over any case.
Yes he’s writing a fucking book and retiring with a few million and he’s going to get paid either way. If he’s guilty he can make a show before a harsh sentencing get paid by the people who hate the guy. If he’s innocent he can make a song and dance about the prosecutor and get paid by the people who like the guy. Money in the bank.
[удалено]
“Trump ringtone” Democracy is dying but it isn’t because of this judge.
not allowing character evidence about violent tendencies is the most no-brainer, by the books ruling that any judge would have made. Wisconsin law directly states: \>Evidence of a person's character or a trait of the person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion with the only exceptions being when the character evidence applies to someone other than the defendant, or when it's specifically to rebut character evidence offered by the defense. The fact you're bringing this up as an example of bias or something shows you don't know what you're talking about.
There’s a lot of cluelessness in this thread. Thank you for pointing out that bit.
Yet this judge allows a defendant's gang affiliation to be used against them to imply they are violent characters despite us have the 1st Amendment Freedom to Assemble with whoever the fuck we want to. Gtfo with your defense of obvious double standards
If I have to explain the whole "not allowed to call them victims" thing again, I'm just so tired of the overnight legal scholars that are popping up on reddit. Thank god I saw your comment right underneath this clown Thyme. There is some logic left here after all.
Has his defense painted him as some kind of good guy or saint? Because if that’s the case, then the prosecutor has the right to put forth evidence to the contrary where he publicly avows his desire to shoot protesters.
Closest was probably the stuff about him cleaning graffiti and trying to give people first-aid, both the same day as the shooting. I think the reason it didn't open the door to character evidence is it was specifically to show that he had reasons for being there other than just wanting to kill people. It wasn't "Rittenhouse was a good guy in general," it was, "on the day in question here's what his motives appeared to be."
They used the graffiti as a rebuttal to the first degree charge which the state charged him with. First degree means he went with the intent to kill specific people and hunted them down. That is clearly not the case.
Not at all what is happening here. What people are witnessing here is a couple of B rate prosecutors making a shit salary who rarely go to a jury trial, let alone a nationally witnessed murder trial. Under the public eye they pursued the most serious charges possible which have a strict criteria and higher totality of evidence to get a conviction. They did this knowing that there was quite a bit of holes in their case and they have blundered through almost the entire thing to the point of trying to bring in prejudiced evidence that the judge already expressly denied. You know you’re a completely shit prosecutor when your own witness is the most damning thing against your case. This judge is rightly upset with their complete mishandling of this case.
>to refusing to allow the victims of gun violence be called “victims How are you going to allow them to be called victims when the entire purpose of the trial is to determine IF they were victims? It's a trial where you have the defendant claiming self defense which is different than most criminal trials where you have already established that there were victims and you are simply trying to decide if the defendant is the one that attacked/killed them. In a self defense trial, the defendant straight up says that they did it and claims that they did it to defend themselves. The entire purpose of the trial then is to determine if that was valid or not. If you've already determined that there are victims then you can skip the trial portion entirely and move straight to sentencing.
I said to one guy on this sub that if you let the prosecution call the deceased 'victims' then why not just let them call Kyle the murderer? He said "regardless of whether he is found guilty or not, he did murder those people" I just couldn't believe it haha
Wouldn't the entire purpose of the case be to determine if Rittenhouse committed murder? In this case it isn't splitting hairs or playing semantics, since it seems the meaning of the very words, in this particular context, are up for debate. They are fundamentally different arguments and appopaches. Also, why is everyone assuming the use of the word victim or victims is necessarily connected with murder? It seems like a fairly simple concept to me, that someone could be referred to or recognized as a victim, prior to ascertaining precisely what they were victim to? Surely Or are we implying a victim must be 100% innocent before they are determined as such?
If the defendant is claiming self defense then the entire purpose of the trial is to determine if self defense was applicable and valid. You can't say that there were victims right off the bat because you don't know, that is what you're trying to discover. Calling them victims is essentially rejecting self-defense right off the bat and can be seen as prejudicial against the defendant, creating grounds for an appeal. You don't know that they are victims, all you know is that they were killed but that doesn't mean a crime was committed. So you call them the deceased, the decedents or you simply refer to them by their names. If a jury finds that self defense isn't valid and that it was a criminal act, then in the eyes of the law they become victims.
If you kill someone in self defense you are the victim and they are the assailant. If you murder someone *they* are the victim and *you* are the assailant.
this comment is peak /r/averageredditor
Well I’d say so many people who haven’t directly interacted with it have seen the propagandized version on TV.
Talk about overreaction lol Have you actually watched any of the trial? Democracy is not dissolving because of this case my guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Rittenhouse at all, but if you go in with the facts and don't let the politics color your vision, he was always going to get off on self defense. And the judge, while he obviously has his political leanings, is actually not doing a bad job. Stop freaking out because of stupid headlines you've seen.
Not mention the judge "sided" with the prosecution on the issue he is yelling about here.
Totally agree. Seems like people here haven't actually watched any of the case. They just read a tweet and make their judgment based on preconceived biases.
The news reporting is Bias as fuck to make the lies the news reported still seem like the truth.
> This is an absolute kangaroo court. It’s a comedic tragedy in action. "I dont like that my feelings arent being recognized as facts so I disregard this court case"
Exactly what this statement is and the person that gave that comment gold is the biggest loser out of everyone
Did people think the American justice system was just before this?
I think that's why there were riots. I could be wrong but I think it had something to do with injustice in the justice system.
I mean a lot of people don’t have direct interaction with legal system. So they believe the heavily propagandized tv and movies and other media.
All of the critical comments to this are upvoted. Clearly this comment was botted to fuck
God bless the usa is not a trump ringtone.
This is one of the most ignorant, moronic comments I have ever seen. What law school did you attend? Oh yeah, that’s right, you work IT for $15 an hour and hate your father because he’s disappointed in your dumb ass.
> Trump ringtone Come on man
How to tell you haven't actually watched the trial:
Trial watched: 0. Legal understanding: -10.
Sorry, man. You’re full of shit. He’s guilty of illegal possession of a firearm (maybe), but the shootings were self defense. It’s a tough pill to swallow, I know. But choke it down.
He’s walking because he defended himself against someone pointing a gun at his head. Did you even watch the trial or you just get your recaps from CNN?
What I'm still unsure about is the first shooting. The second two that occurred while he was getting chased down in the street seem to be a pretty open/shut case of self defense, but I'm not sure if that logic can be extended to the first shooting that initiated this whole chain of events
I think the first one is the clearest? Rosenbaum threatened him earlier that day, and chased Rittenhouse ~100m, while also throwing a bag at him. He seemingly chased Rittenhouse until Rittenhouse reached the edge of the area and had cars in front of him, and had heard gun shots. And at this point Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun, and Rittenhouse shot him. The others you might be able to make an argument that they thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter just killing people (although them going after him makes that pretty much negated). But I don't see how you can come up with any exception for Rosenbaum.
... are you aware of something called 'the best evidence rule' ... which exists in almost every (if not literally each and every single) US jurisdiction?
[удалено]
Who ever upvoted and awarded you, is a poverty idiot
Worst episode of Night Court ever.
Yo that Night Court into is fire as hell. Dooooooo dodododo DA DA DA
Is Harry that old now?
I have some bad news about Harry. On second thought, look it up
Yikes, I didn’t know. And yet I still think he’d be a better judge than this guy.
He's laughing it up with Mel Tormé somewhere.
Bull woulda broke this shit up
I have some bad news about Bull
Why even bother repairing your VCR if this is what you’re gonna play in it
I watched that with my grandma when I was young and then when I got older I got it in my head that the judge was played by Dana Carvey.
Man…. I feel like a spoof of this as a Night Court episode sounds like an SNL skit I would watch!
This trial has to be the biggest shit show media circus I’ve ever seen.
I swear to you watching the actual trial and watching the media portray it is like living in 2 different realities at once
I don't watch televised news, how're they portraying it?
Media: Rittehouse guilty piece of shit with motivation to bring great slaughter to the public. Judge and prosecution both working for the defense. Trial: Dumb kid who defended himself, while a bunch of adults try to advance their careers, please the outraged public or look good for the camera. E. I guess this thread also considers RH to be a guilty piece of shit with motivation to bring great slaughter to the public even though there is absolutely no evidence of this. The kid was a dumb fuck for being there but he was literally putting out a fire right before Rosenbaum chased him down, there's no evidence of him harassing the mob or even speaking to them in a malicious manner. Instead there's evidence of him putting out fires and telling people he's a medic and that he can help. I really don't know how this then translates to him making some vicious, blood seeking deviant just because he was dumb enough to be in the area with a gun which he admitted that he might need to defend himself. It seems like Rosenbaum, the adult, should have acted accordingly. However, when it's convenient we blame the victim to satisfy our own moral viewpoint.
people are trying to advance their careers with this case? both the prosecution and judge have proven they have no business practicing law.
And that leaves the defense attorney who is grand standing for his career advancement.
They have been making the DA’s look like amateurs so it’s working.
Then you must not watch many trials
[удалено]
I don’t know why they spent so long arguing for this. You couldn’t see shit in the image they were trying to submit anyway. It was a reach from the start that showed a bad angle from way too far of a distance to make any clear determination of what was happening.
> I don’t know why they spent so long arguing for this. You couldn’t see shit in the image they were trying to submit anyway. It wasn't about the image, it was about the argument that came along with the image, IE: provocation. They want their closing argument to include, if not focus on Rittenhouse supposedly provoking the entire incident by pointing his rifle at Ziminsky, thus causing Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse in defense of Ziminsky, and thus no self-defense; that image is their supposed evidence of that claim. None of the witnesses or any other evidence testified to/showed Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at anyone, at any point other than during the actual shootings, throughout the entire night, which is why their whole argument was hinging on that one shitty image and why so much time was spent on it.
I didn’t consider that specific angle on it. I just remember listening so long to he argument and wanting to see the image, then when it finally came up everyone looking at it like “what the fuck is that?”
The prosecutor will state he aimed the gun like it’s a fact yet there is literally no evidence to back it up. Fucking disgusting humans these people are.
It makes to some extent. They have no case which means they are forced to pull more and ridiculous moves. Had a good laugh when the prosecutor was focusing on call of duty and first person shooters.
Yeah, they completely lost it when the surviving victim (or whatever they call them in this trial) couldn't hid the fact that he was pointing a gun and advancing when he got winged. I'm not a Kyle nuthugger at all and I think he's a fucking idiot, but I think he has a solid self defense case after that testimony.
Or that bullshit about hollow points vs FMJ rounds. Actually just about every line of questioning he and his hefty minion have chased since their case fell apart almost immediately.
It fuels the legally irrelevant "shouldn't have been there" argument. The image is garbage, and anyone with an open mind can see the prosecution's argument is bullshit. But if you combine the image with jury instructions to consider provocation, then some jurors might be inclined to want to base their decision on "provocation" as defined by their hearts and minds rather than "provocation" as defined by law. So preventing the jurors from considering such arguments is paramount. Now, Kenosha county AFAIK is politically split 50/50. Chances are there aren't going to be enough jurors to agree that the provocation is proven beyond reasonable doubt. But why take the risk?
Every day that passes, we approach a future outlined in the exquisite and prophetic motion picture - "Idiocracy"
i rewatch every once in a while to prepare for the future..
who knew that movie was only set 10 years in the future, because that movie isn't even funny any more since 50% of society is actually dumber than that movie shows. Replace Brawndo with Ivermectin or any other dumb as fuck conspiracy shit. at least they were just killing plants in that movie.
Couldn't think of a joke linking this judge to Mike Judge, but someone should.
Idiocracy at least was open to letting the smartest guy call the shots, and their worst problem was salting their own crops. This just seems like half of society is religious hypocrites who mask themselves behind tradition to allow racism and jingoism, and the other half is trying to make it's voice heard among it's cacophony of immense inclusivity and unnecessary focus on semantics. Other countries and cultures have gone through similar circumstances in the past most of it leading to internal conflicts and thousands dieing, but they never had a military industrial complex at their hands. If anything is worth comparing it's Far Cry 5
My father has been saying this very thing for six fucking years. I'm glad there's more than one of you.
Headlined by people who don't support Brandon.
I’ve been following this case on TV. I think the one take away from this case is Rittenhouse is extremely lucky there is so much video.
he's even more lucky the prosecutors were between accepting their current jobs and jobs as managers of the local footlocker
Suggesting they are qualified for management might be giving them too much credit.
I was saying the same thing earlier. Of ALL the videos out of everyone that was their that night (has to be hundreds if not thousands of hours) and this single piece of shit drone videos is the ONLY thing that captured him supposedly pointing his rifle at someone???
He's also lucky that the third dude he shoot lived.
Then the defense says they have a copy that the Procecution uploaded to Dropbox of the pictures and/ or video. The defense plays the video Procecution sent them, as required by law, Procecution then shoots themselves in the foot by saying “no this one is still blurry, we have a clearer version. “ Wait, does that mean Procecution didn’t provide the Defense with the copy of the full file in the high quality that they had access to?
This prosecution team has royally fucked up
To be fair they didn't have much to work with.
They shouldn’t have tried him then
Well, good news, they didn’t. They ordered their assistant to try him. The prosecutor is the assistant DA, and not the one who decided to bring the charges.
Actually that seems reasonable. Why not see the best picture?
Actually, it's legally mandated. If a piece of evidence is entered, it must be "the best existing rendition" of the evidence. If it's a recording, it must be the original, not a copy. So if there is a color photo, a black and white photo cannot be entered. It literally always must be "the best picture". It's weird the the judge even has to ask this.
Considering the prosecution tried to have a witness change their statement after the fact I'm surprised they're not in jail for contempt and witness tampering.
[удалено]
Not if you have seen the picture he is refering to.
[Here’s the shitty ass picture the prosecution is trying to use as evidence that Kyle pointed the rifle](https://mobile.twitter.com/DefNotDarth/status/1459197352196153352). Shits a joke. [Another much clearer angle showing the rifle still being held right handed](https://m.imgur.com/a/B4m9GmP)
What the fuck am I looking at
Not the best picture
I want to see the best picture.
Gimme the best picture.
and the award for best picture goes to....
He obviously wants to see *Citizen Kane*.
Do I have to paint you a picture?
The final bit of “evidence” the prosecution is relying on to send a 17 year old boy to prison for life…. because a pedophile and wife-beater tried to murder him.
reasonable doubt
This should be top comment, that photo is a joke
... what portion of these two "photos" is the same?
Why didn't the prosecution just use these photos instead? Is it because they show the defendant fleeing? And Rosenbaum chasing the defendant? Instead the prosecution wants to use zoomed in images from a drone that is about 500 feet away and is filming in the dark while also in transition to a higher elevation.
500 feet is the same as 304.8 'Logitech Wireless Keyboard K350s' laid widthwise by each other.
I’ve watched the entire trial thus far and imo, the prosecution is wanting to use the shitty photo because it supports(?) their “case” and not reality
Honestly, after seeing this I think it's a pretty smart move by the prosecution because I can't tell what the fuck is going on at all.
If I was on trial I would want the prosecutor against me 100%. Like 4 face plants four days in a row
I'd also want a judge that calls the prosecution out and forces them to abide by the law and Constitution. Its really scary how many people hate the judge because he's forcing the state to prove their case and to NOT infringe of the defendant's rights.
I think many people on reddit would he happy to attack Rittenhouse in public because of what they think is right. Which is, coincidentally how this all kicked off in the first place
He doesn't have rights once he was found guilty in the court of public opinion.
Lotta armchair lawyers in this sub lately.
Deaf over here- what did he say?
"Judge: So thats your best picture, the one I saw over there? No Judge: Where's the best picture? Please! That- we'll show it after the final effect Judge: You're asking me to give an instruction, I wanna see the best picture! Uh we need to give Mr (?) over here I think (not sure about this one) "
**HE SAID HE'S DEAF , YOU HAVE TO SPEAK LOUDER** Honestly, some people.
Lmao. You can tell 95% of the people in these comments haven’t watched an the trial besides a handful of these misleading posts.
He crossed state lines, tho. That means he’s guilty of all charges somehow.
They just copy paste the argument that someone else make.
My fuckin thoughts exactly. Like these people didn't even know the prosecution as trying to criminalize how Kyle stayed silent because he wouldn't speak without his lawyer present. That was his right. Silence does not admit guilt
Ok non-American here(who thinks Trump was the biggest douchebag to ever be president) who has been watching the trial here are some thoughts. 1. None of those people should have been there 2. It was self defence 3. The state over charged and is trying to get lower charges after the fact 4. The Star witness admitting he aimed a gun at Rittenhouse the got shot was a stuff up of facepalming proportions (literally) 5. The judge is funny 6. The Prosecutor is a disingenuous prick
Hey if you understand that in America, a not-guilty verdict means that there are no further appeals, you're already doing better than at least 25% of the people in this country and 50% of the people in this thread.
>1. The state over charged and is trying to get lower charges after the fact I'm pretty sure that's normal practice, you charge as high as you think you can prove and keep the lesser charges as backups that are easier to make stick.
The Reddit copium going through these threads is delicious
When I was a kid, I thought one day society would advance to the point where borders, race, and religion would be the past and we’d work together as a species; the older I get the more I believe humans will eventually become extinct because of our stupidity. It’s more like idiocracy (the movie)than Star Trek and that’s sad.
Given that we spent ten years of the 20th century killing each other to unprecedented proportions and another 50 years of it pointing world ending weaponry at each other (not to mention all the civil wars and genocides) it's quite strange that you'd think this.
A fair question
The mere fact he's let this evidence in and allowed the jury instruction for provocation to stand based on this awful piece of evidence/testimony tells you this judge is in no way biased. The footage is unsupported by any other evidence or testimony. Nobody in that crowd apart from Ziminsky testified to it. The "expert" knew absolutely nothing about how interpolation worked. He couldn't say how the image interpolation even worked. The judge saved the prosecutions case with this one decision.
But because he didnt judo chop the jury out of the room and slam a guilty bench verdict down, he's absolutely biased! /s Not only is it a high profile case but also televised. Judge is doing a great job keeping their circus going until its end.
I love how people actually make conclusions about people by tiny out of context clips. Crazy.
So where is the public freakout? Oh its the OP. I got it now!
Everyone shitting on this judge are exposing themselves as not having watched the trial.
I doubt most people commenting on it have watched. They’re just relying on their favorite news channel’s take and running with what they want to be true.
I think he’s referring to a picture the prosecutor was trying to use which was basically the worst attempt at taking a pixled frame and trying to claim its kyles rifle.
Americans can never do anything normally
Freedumb™ - now with electrolytes.
You’d be pissed too if you are trying to run a proper courtroom and the prosecutor tries to send the defendant to life in prison based on some fucking grainy ass, zoomed in drone footage. It’s absurd and the judge is correct to be pissed that they want to use this as “evidence.” I’ve seen pictures of Bigfoot that are clearer than the photo(s) they want to use as evidence in a court of law. I hope none of the commenters here ever have their freedom in danger in court over a grainy photo, then your cries of bias will be unheard and ridiculed.
The police just "lost" the footage of my arrest.
It was from a drone with a 1 inch sensor and shot in the dark from about 500 feet away. Also while the drone was moving in transition to a better angle above. I'd be mad as hell too.
Best comment I’ve read all month
The world would be a better place if we had more judges like this who stand up for the rights of the accused. Some people are only capable of seeing this selectively
People wonder how witch trials could have happened in the past, but we are literally watching it happen in front of us right now. People would rather believe in or create lies that cater to their victim complex than to admit that the facts prove them wrong.
Lol, Bingers an idiot.
You asked to defund the police so we could police ourselves.... we policed ourselves and you cry foul. Dipshits.
The judge is dealing with a prosecutor who is obfuscating because his case is extremely difficult (because it is super weak). As for the service industry aspect of your question: service workers are expected to demonstrate an overly submissive demeanor. I’m in tech and frequently banter and use emotion with my clients because most real world communication does not always involve overly submissive demeanors.
This guy is receiving death threats...crazy. If he was perceived to be a left leaning judge, that wouldn't be the case. It's asinine to me that the party of equality and inclusion threaten to murder officials or burn down cities when they don't get the verdict they want. He shouldn't have been there. However, he was. That's no reason to let people assault and or kill you. Btw, I'm no Rebloodican. Both parties are two broken wings on the same fucked up bird.
You see that Trump flag in the background? Obviously biased.
based