Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

[LeChampion1992]

It's a trial court, so it won't set any legal precedent.

While it's a trial court cases like this will at least in state cases convince local legislature to adjust their laws to ensure another event like this occurs. Remember think about the ramifications this case has even though it's just a normal murder trial for all intensive purposes the way Media attention has been focused.

 

[Matt Damon]

i think his plan was to wait for the verdict so he could release another one of his dumb leftist takes on it.
how could you be a youtube lawyer and not acknowledge it?
i also think he filters it out of his twitter, because i dont see anyone asking him about it, or commenting to him about it.

I wonder if the evidence is so lopsided that even he can't skew the legal situation in a plausible way, but knows that he has to toe the ideological line to keep his place on Youtube's promoted content list.

That would explain just keeping quiet about such a big case.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

He's reiterated several times how important he thinks it is to let the jury make this decision, and I highly doubt he has any plans to actually step in and undermine their verdict, regardless of his stated intention of considering any motion for mistrial.

A hung jury isn't a verdict, Though. He's not undermining the jury if they can't agree on one.

 

[Michael Janke]

ensure another event like this occurs.

do you mean to say, doesn't occur?
another fiasco like this cant be good for the state.

 

[TheGreatDodongus]

A hung jury isn't a verdict, Though. He's not undermining the jury if they can't agree on one.

What he can and likely will do, though, is do everything in his power to encourage the jury to come to a decision as expediently as possible. What I mean by that is explained well here:

There is no set time limit on how long or short deliberations can take. The judge will allow the jury to take as much time as they need. If that means taking three or four days or a week or even longer to reach a conclusion, they can do that. There are instances where juries cannot reach a decision because of infighting, disputes occurring during deliberation and notes sent to the court reflect an impasse. There have been many instances where judges will remind a jury of their civic obligation to reach a decision and compel the jury to return back to the jury room to continue to work it out.

https://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/how-long-does-a-jury-have-to-deliberate.cfm

When the jury are stuck deliberating all day nonstop, and the judge refuses to budge, it would be very hard for any holdouts to resist the urge to concede to the pressure. I don't find this scenario unlikely at all in the event of a hung jury, considering Shroeder's previous statements/behavior. Of course, the closer the split is to 50/50, the less likely this is to happen, and the higher the chances of a mistrial are to occur.

 

[Stoneheart]

I think people still considering this are either coping after Friday or else simply haven't been paying much attention to his behavior. He very clearly does not want to interfere with the jury process in any way shape or form. He's reiterated several times how important he thinks it is to let the jury make this decision, and I highly doubt he has any plans to actually step in and undermine their verdict, regardless of his stated intention of considering any motion for mistrial. I think, more likely than not, he said as much to make clear to the prosecution that he wasn't going to tolerate any more skullduggery on their part (Although it doesn't seem like the threat was very effective, or even had any actual weight behind it, judging by the events of the following days).

When they do something real stupid again he will accept the motion. if they bring up kyles communication pretrial again he will slap them with his cookie book and just say yes to the motion-

 

[TheGreatDodongus]

When they do something real stupid

Let's hope they do. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Binger can speak for two hours without crossing some sort of line, going by his behavior earlier in the trial. OTOH, I sort of have the feeling that those earlier slip-ups were very intentional on his part. He felt certain that his case no longer stood a chance, and wanted to force a mistrial so that he could play up the bias angle to the media and remove any personal accountability for what was looking to be a very one-sided loss.

The move for provocation instructions being accepted against all odds changes things. If I'm right about his earlier intentions, there's no way he's going to repeat that when a conviction is suddenly on the table again.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

The state keeps arguing that Kyle "admitted" to pointing his rifle at yellow pants man. But yellow pants man accused him of pointing a laser at him, and Kyle's gun didn't have a laser. So it's impossible. How can you "admit" to something that never happened?

 

[Michael Janke]

OTOH, I sort of have the feeling that those earlier slip-ups were very intentional on his part.

i think some of them were, but others were just his shitty personality
the prosecution talking down and getting angry at their own witnesses is one thing.
remember the Grandma and Autisitc Photographer?
the photographer caught the Fat One off guard by accusing him of attempting witness tampering.
then you have Binger getting into a subtle argument with Drew Hernandez
him talking down to the wintesses and the judge himself are probably slip ups.

 

[Puff]

Let's hope they do. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Binger can speak for two hours without crossing some sort of line, going by his behavior earlier in the trial. OTOH, I sort of have the feeling that those earlier slip-ups were very intentional on his part. He felt certain that his case no longer stood a chance, and wanted to force a mistrial so that he could play up the bias angle to the media and remove any personal accountability for what was looking to be a very one-sided loss.

The move for provocation instructions being accepted against all odds changes things. If I'm right about his earlier intentions, there's no way he's going to repeat that when a conviction is suddenly on the table again.

I agree besides for the fact that the provocation instruction is not going to work on anyone not already leaning to guilty, so it really just moves some soft guilties to hard ones. Increases chances of mistrial, little to no effects on an all out acquittal

 

[Weppers]

i think his plan was to wait for the verdict so he could release another one of his dumb leftist takes on it.
how could you be a youtube lawyer and not acknowledge it?
i also think he filters it out of his twitter, because i dont see anyone asking him about it, or commenting to him about it.
edit: I'm guessing he believes rittenhouse is legally innocent, though maybe not personally. so he just decides to not talk about it.

He's probably practicing his emotionally distraught introduction in the mirror right this minute.

 

[Frank_Jaeger]

The state keeps arguing that Kyle "admitted" to pointing his rifle at yellow pants man. But yellow pants man accused him of pointing a laser at him, and Kyle's gun didn't have a laser. So it's impossible. How can you "admit" to something that never happened?

It's not even that, Kyle outright says he said "I did?"sarcastically to yellow pants man because he did not know what he was talking about. The fact the proscecution is trying to twist this into an admission is insane.

 

[Black Light Red Panic]

Despite the last 2 weeks of trial and error, I maintain RuneScape as my vote. Is there anyway or where I can browse RuneScape memes to give me sufficient basis to begin talking about it as if I played it to later bait actual RuneScape fans into arguments?

I want my only true takeaway from the trial that decided whether self defense means anything anymore to be the unyielding and reasonless torment of an extremely specific minority of people.

 

[TheGreatDodongus]

I agree besides for the fact that the provocation instruction is not going to work on anyone not already leaning to guilty, so it really just moves some soft guilties to hard ones. Increases chances of mistrial, little to no effects on an all out acquittal

The vagueness of the image hurts the prosecution's argument, that's indisputable. That being said, it could also be a weapon in the event of hung jury deliberations. After all, if there's anyone on the jury who has been determined to get a guilty verdict from the get go (this is almost guaranteed), this gives them a tool they can use to argue their case. If you've been stuck for several days arguing over pixels, you might begin to start subconsciously making yourself more amenable to being convinced, simply due to a mixture of fatigue and a desire to end the conflict so you can go on with your life.

Combine this possibility with the fact that the jury has full access to MSM and social media over the weekend, and have almost certainly gotten word of the governor's (IMO, highly calculated and manipulative) move to deploy the NG to protect against riots, and that's another incentive that might make someone want to be convinced into seeing something they don't see.

I want to be clear: I'm not doompilling. I still think the prosecution has to fight an uphill battle to land a conviction, but I also think there's a valid reason to be worried.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

The defense should point to what the judge said during grambo's cross during their closing arguments.

"It is lawful to be armed while protecting one's property. It is not lawful to use deadly force to protect property. It's important that we not get that confused."

The jury instructions for simple provocation specifically say "an unlawful act." The judge is explicitly telling the jurors that the "he was there with a gun so he provoked them!" argument is wrong.

 

[Zetton285]

The defense should point to what the judge said during grambo's cross during their closing arguments.

"It is lawful to be armed while protecting one's property. It is not lawful to use deadly force to protect property. It's important that we not get that confused."

The jury instructions for simple provocation specifically say "an unlawful act." The judge is explicitly telling the jurors that the "he was there with a gun so he provoked them!" argument is wrong.
frpp8Q3JecUd-SXh.mp4

Funny thing about this interaction is yellow pants guy could have easily saw Kyle with this group and assumed he pointed a gun at the guy on the car which is why Kyle sarcastically said "i did" , also explains why he thought kyle did it assuming he said that in good faith.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Isn't legal Eagle a diehard left-winger with consequently ridiculous takes, though? I question why you'd have him on for anything except mockery.

If you read his thread there is more than just being a leftist faggot and major consoomer with shit-tier takes.
He might actually be a total fraud.

 

[TheGreatDodongus]

The defense should point to what the judge said during grambo's cross during their closing arguments.

"It is lawful to be armed while protecting one's property. It is not lawful to use deadly force to protect property. It's important that we not get that confused."

The jury instructions for simple provocation specifically say "an unlawful act." The judge is explicitly telling the jurors that the "he was there with a gun so he provoked them!" argument is wrong.
frpp8Q3JecUd-SXh.mp4

The argument is not that being armed was a provocation in and of itself. I'm sure they [the prosecution] argued as such earlier in the trial, or at least strongly insinuated it, but now they are alleging that Kyle brandished the weapon by aiming it at Ziminsky, provoking an attack from Rosenbaum, who thought he was acting in the defense of others.

Their evidence for this is complete shit, but if they could somehow convince enough jurors that that is indeed what they're seeing in that super blurry collection of pixels, it poses a legitimate threat to the defense's case.

The best bet for the defense, IMO, is to harp on the blurriness of the screencap, the threshold for reasonable doubt, and make a point of the fact that the prosecution has no witnesses that can testify to seeing what they've alleged in person, and that they for some reason have neglected to bring Ziminsky to the stand.

Despite what a lot of online commentators have mentioned, I don't think the whole "left handed" thing would be a good route to take, because that might seem to the jury that the defense is conceding that what's pictured does indeed look like Kyle pointing a rifle, whereas I think they shouldn't even come close to acknowledging as such.

 

[Jreindeer]

Funny thing about this interaction is yellow pants guy could have easily saw Kyle with this group and assumed he pointed a gun at the guy on the car which is why Kyle sarcastically said "i did" , also explains why he thought kyle did it assuming he said that in good faith.

Yellow pants nigger even held his hands out in a low ready when mentioning Rittenhouse pointing a gun at him. Its a bullshit accusation and the most exceptional of individuals can tell this was a self defense act. We are due for a good verdict and the doom posters can all go back into their little holes this week.

Don't let fear in brothers, fear is the mind killer.

 

[DamnWolves!]

There is no set time limit on how long or short deliberations can take. The judge will allow the jury to take as much time as they need. If that means taking three or four days or a week or even longer to reach a conclusion, they can do that. There are instances where juries cannot reach a decision because of infighting, disputes occurring during deliberation and notes sent to the court reflect an impasse. There have been many instances where judges will remind a jury of their civic obligation to reach a decision and compel the jury to return back to the jury room to continue to work it out.

When the jury are stuck deliberating all day nonstop, and the judge refuses to budge, it would be very hard for any holdouts to resist the urge to concede to the pressure.

Does this not fundamentally undermine the verdict-finding process? I agree that it should be a unanimous verdict to convict, but the whole point is that the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt, so why exactly does it have to be a unanimous verdict to acquit or else it's a mistrial? It just seems really weird that the whole process is about the rules of evidence and logical fact-finding, and then the instruction is "try to convince each other to conform to the majority opinion". It's not "vote your conscience, then argue for your point of view and listen to others with an open mind, then vote your conscience again"; it's explicitly "try to agree with everyone else".

Like, it can't be healthy for the fact-finding mission the jury has been given to know that they essentially won't be let out of that tiny room until they all say they agree on something. You could have two or three dudes who are adamant that Kyle isn't guilty and chances are non-zero that if you lock them in a room with 7 liberal white women and 2 negresses who disagree, they might cave just to get out of there. Alternatively, you could have 11 good faith jurors and one bad one, and yet, that still results in a mistrial. If you know your job is to "come to a consensus" and you're the only holdout and you really want to go home, how much willpower does it take to stick to your conscience? A lot, I'm betting. The guy from 12 Angry Men is far less likely to convince everyone else to flip their vote and far more likely to feel the social pressure and flip his vote instead, despite what he believes.

Maybe the system should allow a judge to have a not guilty verdict proceed with a 2/3 majority and if it fails that test, then it truly is a deadlocked jury and it should be a mistrial.