|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 20 2021 05:49 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 05:16 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:01 killa_robot wrote:
Did you guys really not watch the trial? Protestors did bring their own guns. Two of the guys he shot literally had their own pistols and pulled them on him before being shot. Yes, they are going to need AR's next time to make it more even. Do you realize that if Kyle had not came no one would be dead, he wouldn't have had this trial, so many families lives wouldn't have been ruined at the cost of maybe a dumpster getting set on fire? And if rioters hadn't rioted he never would have gone. And if that thing that happened hadn't happened rioters wouldn't have rioted. I really don't see your point. No one has argued going there was a good idea. Anyone at the riots is inherently showing poor judgement by, you know, being at a place with ongoing riots.
The thing that was in Kyle's control was whether he brought a gun to that protest hoping to shoot someone. He made that choice, even announced his intentions. Having a protest, nay, even starting a riot, is not an invitation for murderous white kids to emerge from wherever the fuck and start shooting. You can have one without the other. Kyle knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it, that much is evidence by the way White Supremacists of all stripes are celebrating this shit right now.
|
On November 20 2021 05:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 03:51 killa_robot wrote:
I'm actually not sure how many levels of irony are on display here. Are people here actually convinced he was guilty? I was only following it because both the defence and prosecutors were hilariously inept and I kept getting clips, but there's literally video evidence of every single person who he shot being the aggressor. Did anyone here actually watch the trial? Even the prosecutors' witnesses admitted he was attempting to flee and was never the aggressor.
Is the consensus here just "Well he shouldn't have been there so being attacked was expected"? Yeah pretty much. I’ve been interested in this case since watching it happen on livestream; it was a pretty crazy event to see unfold unprompted on my monitor. Since the beginning, it’s looked like self-defense to me. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who post here saw it as unlawful killing, though. I mean, he crossed state lines, is an incel with a gun, and wasn’t supporting antifa, so of course he’s guilty (and probably a white supremacist!)
He expressed the will to kill looters and inserted himself into a situation where that would be possible. I think that's the main gripe people have.
|
Yeah hopefully people don't rush to judgement in future cases(Jacob Blake and then Kyle Rittenhouse) before grabbing their pitchforks. Not gonna hold my breath if the posts here are any indication, 14 months later and people still seem uninformed about basic facts.
|
On November 20 2021 05:54 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 05:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On November 20 2021 03:51 killa_robot wrote:
I'm actually not sure how many levels of irony are on display here. Are people here actually convinced he was guilty? I was only following it because both the defence and prosecutors were hilariously inept and I kept getting clips, but there's literally video evidence of every single person who he shot being the aggressor. Did anyone here actually watch the trial? Even the prosecutors' witnesses admitted he was attempting to flee and was never the aggressor.
Is the consensus here just "Well he shouldn't have been there so being attacked was expected"? Yeah pretty much. I’ve been interested in this case since watching it happen on livestream; it was a pretty crazy event to see unfold unprompted on my monitor. Since the beginning, it’s looked like self-defense to me. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who post here saw it as unlawful killing, though. I mean, he crossed state lines, is an incel with a gun, and wasn’t supporting antifa, so of course he’s guilty (and probably a white supremacist!) He expressed the will to kill looters and inserted himself into a situation where that would be possible. I think that's the main gripe people have.
Note that the evidence of this intent was not shown to the jurors, which was likely the most questionable of the judge's many questionable rulings throughout the case.
|
On November 20 2021 05:54 Taelshin wrote:
Yeah hopefully people don't rush to judgement in future cases(Jacob Blake and then Kyle Rittenhouse) before grabbing their pitchforks. Not gonna hold my breath if the posts here are any indication, 14 months later and people still seem uninformed about basic facts.
14 months later and it's still outrageous that someone can express a desire to shoot people, travel with their gun for that exact purpose, shoot and kill 2 people, and get away with it as self defense alone. You're goddamn right.
You'll notice people are having a discussion entirely separate from what the verdict is. Everyone knows, we saw it coming 5 miles off. What is and what should be are different, and that's the discussion people are having. Continue to stroke yourself that we're uninformed all you like, that's not what this is about.
|
On November 20 2021 05:54 Taelshin wrote:
Yeah hopefully people don't rush to judgement in future cases(Jacob Blake and then Kyle Rittenhouse) before grabbing their pitchforks. Not gonna hold my breath if the posts here are any indication, 14 months later and people still seem uninformed about basic facts.
You seem to be going out of your way to be condescending without saying anything. If you think someone understands something incorrectly, point out what is wrong. This post you've made does nothing but stick your tongue out at people. What motivates you to do that?
|
|
|
On November 20 2021 05:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 05:54 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2021 05:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On November 20 2021 03:51 killa_robot wrote:
I'm actually not sure how many levels of irony are on display here. Are people here actually convinced he was guilty? I was only following it because both the defence and prosecutors were hilariously inept and I kept getting clips, but there's literally video evidence of every single person who he shot being the aggressor. Did anyone here actually watch the trial? Even the prosecutors' witnesses admitted he was attempting to flee and was never the aggressor.
Is the consensus here just "Well he shouldn't have been there so being attacked was expected"? Yeah pretty much. I’ve been interested in this case since watching it happen on livestream; it was a pretty crazy event to see unfold unprompted on my monitor. Since the beginning, it’s looked like self-defense to me. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who post here saw it as unlawful killing, though. I mean, he crossed state lines, is an incel with a gun, and wasn’t supporting antifa, so of course he’s guilty (and probably a white supremacist!) He expressed the will to kill looters and inserted himself into a situation where that would be possible. I think that's the main gripe people have. Note that the evidence of this intent was not shown to the jurors, which was likely the most questionable of the judge's many questionable rulings throughout the case.
Do You think the prosecution will use this as grounds for appeal? Will the case be appealed to higher instance?
|
On November 20 2021 06:31 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 05:58 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2021 05:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On November 20 2021 03:51 killa_robot wrote:
I'm actually not sure how many levels of irony are on display here. Are people here actually convinced he was guilty? I was only following it because both the defence and prosecutors were hilariously inept and I kept getting clips, but there's literally video evidence of every single person who he shot being the aggressor. Did anyone here actually watch the trial? Even the prosecutors' witnesses admitted he was attempting to flee and was never the aggressor.
Is the consensus here just "Well he shouldn't have been there so being attacked was expected"? Yeah pretty much. I’ve been interested in this case since watching it happen on livestream; it was a pretty crazy event to see unfold unprompted on my monitor. Since the beginning, it’s looked like self-defense to me. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who post here saw it as unlawful killing, though. I mean, he crossed state lines, is an incel with a gun, and wasn’t supporting antifa, so of course he’s guilty (and probably a white supremacist!) He expressed the will to kill looters and inserted himself into a situation where that would be possible. I think that's the main gripe people have. Note that the evidence of this intent was not shown to the jurors, which was likely the most questionable of the judge's many questionable rulings throughout the case. Do You think the prosecution will use this as grounds for appeal? Will the case be appealed to higher instance?
Generally, prosecutors cannot appeal an acquittal, so as far as these charges go, Rittenhouse is free in perpetuity. That's another way you can tell the prosecutors did a poor job in this case, they might have been able to seek an interlocutory appeal of the judge's ruling that excluded that evidence had they sought it immediately.
|
On November 20 2021 06:35 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 06:31 Silvanel wrote:On November 20 2021 05:58 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2021 05:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On November 20 2021 03:51 killa_robot wrote:
I'm actually not sure how many levels of irony are on display here. Are people here actually convinced he was guilty? I was only following it because both the defence and prosecutors were hilariously inept and I kept getting clips, but there's literally video evidence of every single person who he shot being the aggressor. Did anyone here actually watch the trial? Even the prosecutors' witnesses admitted he was attempting to flee and was never the aggressor.
Is the consensus here just "Well he shouldn't have been there so being attacked was expected"? Yeah pretty much. I’ve been interested in this case since watching it happen on livestream; it was a pretty crazy event to see unfold unprompted on my monitor. Since the beginning, it’s looked like self-defense to me. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who post here saw it as unlawful killing, though. I mean, he crossed state lines, is an incel with a gun, and wasn’t supporting antifa, so of course he’s guilty (and probably a white supremacist!) He expressed the will to kill looters and inserted himself into a situation where that would be possible. I think that's the main gripe people have. Note that the evidence of this intent was not shown to the jurors, which was likely the most questionable of the judge's many questionable rulings throughout the case. Do You think the prosecution will use this as grounds for appeal? Will the case be appealed to higher instance? Generally, prosecutors cannot appeal an acquittal, so as far as these charges go, Rittenhouse is free in perpetuity. That's another way you can tell the prosecutors did a poor job in this case, they might have been able to seek an interlocutory appeal of the judge's ruling that excluded that evidence had they sought it immediately.
Was it a matter of what the procesutors chose to charge him with? What could they have done differently (knowing, of course, that hindsight is 20/20)?
|
I'm not American and I didn't follow the entire trial, upon seeing the clips of the night I was pretty sure the homicide charges wouldn't stick, I'm somewhat surprised the "recklessly endangering safety" charges didn't stick though. As a European what Kyle did seems to fit recklessly endangering safety pretty well, but I guess things are different out there?
|
On November 20 2021 06:44 Laurens wrote:
I'm not American and I didn't follow the entire trial, upon seeing the clips of the night I was pretty sure the homicide charges wouldn't stick, I'm somewhat surprised the "recklessly endangering safety" charges didn't stick though. As a European what Kyle did seems to fit recklessly endangering safety pretty well, but I guess things are different out there?
Young white far right types don't have consequences here
|
My relatively uninformed understanding (IANAL, etc.) is that it is fairly normal in cases like this for federal charges to still drop, and for the feds to really stack the charges pretty high to force you to plead. It looks like the feds are not doing this (so far, at least?), despite often going that route against protestors associated with lesser crimes, especially in the last year.
I’m not gonna root for the feds to threaten him into pleading to something like that, though. That’s a fucked up justice system and I’m not gonna sign onto using it here or anywhere.
I think more important to me than what actually happens to Rittenhouse is the emboldening of would-be right-wing violent street activists and vigilantes. We’re trending toward political violence and the signal here (intended or not) is that either the justice system isn’t going to get involved in punishing political violence, or it’s going to only intervene on the right’s behalf. I think a Nazi gunning down peaceful protesters would probably still get prosecuted and convicted, but I think Nazis out there will interpret this verdict as license to engage in violence more liberally.
That doesn’t directly indicate a guilty verdict would have been correct. I haven’t followed the trial and don’t know how self-defense is or should be judged anyway. But it is a reason that, even if you thought Rittenhouse was innocent, the verdict still maybe shouldn’t thrill you too much.
|
On November 20 2021 06:35 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 06:31 Silvanel wrote:On November 20 2021 05:58 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2021 05:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On November 20 2021 03:51 killa_robot wrote:
I'm actually not sure how many levels of irony are on display here. Are people here actually convinced he was guilty? I was only following it because both the defence and prosecutors were hilariously inept and I kept getting clips, but there's literally video evidence of every single person who he shot being the aggressor. Did anyone here actually watch the trial? Even the prosecutors' witnesses admitted he was attempting to flee and was never the aggressor.
Is the consensus here just "Well he shouldn't have been there so being attacked was expected"? Yeah pretty much. I’ve been interested in this case since watching it happen on livestream; it was a pretty crazy event to see unfold unprompted on my monitor. Since the beginning, it’s looked like self-defense to me. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who post here saw it as unlawful killing, though. I mean, he crossed state lines, is an incel with a gun, and wasn’t supporting antifa, so of course he’s guilty (and probably a white supremacist!) He expressed the will to kill looters and inserted himself into a situation where that would be possible. I think that's the main gripe people have. Note that the evidence of this intent was not shown to the jurors, which was likely the most questionable of the judge's many questionable rulings throughout the case. Do You think the prosecution will use this as grounds for appeal? Will the case be appealed to higher instance? Generally, prosecutors cannot appeal an acquittal, so as far as these charges go, Rittenhouse is free in perpetuity. That's another way you can tell the prosecutors did a poor job in this case, they might have been able to seek an interlocutory appeal of the judge's ruling that excluded that evidence had they sought it immediately.
They would have lost. Such evidence is almost never admissible, and admitting it would be grounds for reversal of a conviction. Recall, the fact that Rosenbaum was a child rapist that just got released from suicide watch was also not admitted into evidence. Same with the fairly serious criminal histories of the other two.
|
How exactly is evidence curated, especially nowadays? I am sure jurors were aware of the video and perhaps even viewed it themselves. But they have to just pretend they never saw it?
|
On November 20 2021 07:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 06:35 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 06:31 Silvanel wrote:On November 20 2021 05:58 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2021 05:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On November 20 2021 03:51 killa_robot wrote:
I'm actually not sure how many levels of irony are on display here. Are people here actually convinced he was guilty? I was only following it because both the defence and prosecutors were hilariously inept and I kept getting clips, but there's literally video evidence of every single person who he shot being the aggressor. Did anyone here actually watch the trial? Even the prosecutors' witnesses admitted he was attempting to flee and was never the aggressor.
Is the consensus here just "Well he shouldn't have been there so being attacked was expected"? Yeah pretty much. I’ve been interested in this case since watching it happen on livestream; it was a pretty crazy event to see unfold unprompted on my monitor. Since the beginning, it’s looked like self-defense to me. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who post here saw it as unlawful killing, though. I mean, he crossed state lines, is an incel with a gun, and wasn’t supporting antifa, so of course he’s guilty (and probably a white supremacist!) He expressed the will to kill looters and inserted himself into a situation where that would be possible. I think that's the main gripe people have. Note that the evidence of this intent was not shown to the jurors, which was likely the most questionable of the judge's many questionable rulings throughout the case. Do You think the prosecution will use this as grounds for appeal? Will the case be appealed to higher instance? Generally, prosecutors cannot appeal an acquittal, so as far as these charges go, Rittenhouse is free in perpetuity. That's another way you can tell the prosecutors did a poor job in this case, they might have been able to seek an interlocutory appeal of the judge's ruling that excluded that evidence had they sought it immediately. They would have lost. Such evidence is almost never admissible, and admitting it would be grounds for reversal of a conviction. Recall, the fact that Rosenbaum was a child rapist that just got released from suicide watch was also not admitted into evidence. Same with the fairly serious criminal histories of the other two.
Nah, it would by no means be a slam dunk, but the evidence showing that Rittenhouse had previously stated that he would do what he did underlying the charges, use his gun to kill people, is categorically incomparable with those victim backgrounds, bringing in a victim's character evidence under 404(a) and an accused's prior statement showing intent under 404(b) are treated differently for a reason.
On November 20 2021 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
How exactly is evidence curated, especially nowadays? I am sure jurors were aware of the video and perhaps even viewed it themselves. But they have to just pretend they never saw it?
Its all provided for in a set of rules adopted by a particular jurisdiction, with the vast majority of states having adopted close mirrors of the federal rules of evidence. During the leadup to trial, each side needs to disclose the evidence they intend to use, and then the sides can fight over whether the rules let evidence come in or not before the trial occurs. The rules of evidence also control raising objections to and conducting examinations of witnesses during the trial. The jurors swear under oath that they will not expose themselves to any information regarding the case outside of the courtroom, but unless they're sequestered, you're right to assume that there likely some rule breaking on that front in many cases.
|
That’s fascinating. That’s literally not possible in modern day. Do you think that will change? It’s essentially totally fake at this point.
|
On November 20 2021 07:45 Mohdoo wrote:
That’s fascinating. That’s literally not possible in modern day. Do you think that will change? It’s essentially totally fake at this point.
I really can’t say, but you’re right, it requires a lot of suspension of disbelief.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
