Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Page 40 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15199654
@Rancid Sure, still, "not guilty" is an intentional phrase used within the justice system. We don't prove innocence, we just prove guilt, and if we can't prove it, it does not necessarily mean you are innocent of crime.


True. There is a saying. "The truth is an absolute defense." Should incontrovertible proof become available that proves a defendant's innocence, the court must dismiss with prejudice. No finding of a jury is really required. A trial goes to the jury, one might say, because no evidence of absolute innocence has been offered.

For example. In a perfectly running system, the fact arising that a defendant could not have committed an offense (for example, was out of the country and ample evidence is presented) the prosecutor would petition the judge to drop the charges. An apology would be issued and the charges never again contemplated. This actually happens not infrequently.
#15199660
ckaihatsu wrote:Not soon enough.


It still took 2.5 months and one of those racist fucks posting video of their lynching before charges were even brought lol



Imagine being so stupid that you can't get away with being a white man who murders a black man in Georgia.
#15199665
SpecialOlympian wrote:
It still took 2.5 months and one of those racist fucks posting video of their lynching before charges were even brought lol

1463582297244983301

Imagine being so stupid that you can't get away with being a white man who murders a black man in Georgia.



Yup.

I like the whole conflict-of-interest thing, which shows that they're all from the same 'dynasty', or 'aristocracy', so-to-speak.
#15199702

All three of Ahmaud Arbery’s killers found guilty of murder



The verdicts brought considerable relief to Arbery’s family, who fought against local officials’ attempted cover-up of the shooting. Arbery’s killers were not initially arrested or charged and instead allowed to walk free for several weeks after the shooting.



The outcome of the trial is a blow against the push to legitimize vigilantism in America under the guise of “self-defense” and carries considerable political consequences. Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp was compelled to sign a hate crimes statute into law and helped repeal significant portions of the state’s citizen’s arrest statute. In a statement, he said that Arbery “was the victim of a vigilantism that has no place in Georgia.”



The fact that a nearly all-white jury in the Deep South convicted Arbery’s killers and that the prosecution was led by a white woman refutes the claims of growing racial tensions put forward by proponents of identity politics.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/1 ... g-n25.html
User avatar
By Drlee
#15199743
Good idea. Let's have a protest that has nothing to do with the root problem. How so very progressive of them....
By Rich
#15199758
SpecialOlympian wrote:At least those shitheads in the Arbery case are all going away.

Even here the case may not be quite as straight forward as the Liberal media wants us to believe. Arbery seems to have had a criminal record, I can't establish how long or extensive. He also seems to have had violent mental health problems that caused his own mother to call the police on him. The judge ruled all this inadmissible on the basis that the defendants had no knowledge of any previous criminality. But again I'm not sure if this is true. I'm not sure if at least one of the defendants had seen CCTV footage of Arbery invading a relatives place.
#15199770

Video of the shooting

A video of the incident[53] was recorded by William "Roddie" Bryan, a neighbor of the McMichaels, using his cellphone from his vehicle as he followed Arbery jogging down the neighborhood road.[52][54][55] The video showed Arbery jogging on the left side of the road when he encountered a white pickup truck that had stopped in the right lane.[54][55] Gregory McMichael is standing in the truck bed, while Travis McMichael initially stands beside the driver's door with a shotgun.[55][56][57][58] Bryan's vehicle comes to a stop behind Arbery and the pickup truck.[56][57]

As Arbery approaches the pickup truck, shouting can be heard.[56] Arbery then crosses from the left side of the road to the right side and runs around the passenger's side of the truck. After passing the truck's front, Arbery turns left.[55][57][59] Meanwhile, Travis McMichael, holding his shotgun, approaches Arbery at the truck's front.[58][60] The camera's view of the confrontation between Arbery and Travis is momentarily blocked.[61]

Several media accounts of the video report that the audio of the first gunshot seems to be heard before Arbery and Travis struggle with each other.[54][59][62] Some media accounts first report a struggle, and then mention the gunshot(s).[57][63] Other media accounts describe that it was "not possible" to see from the video what was happening when the first gunshot was fired,[64] or report that the truck "blocks the view of how the men first engage each other" with regard to when the gunshot is heard.[65]

Travis and Arbery are seen to grapple over the shotgun.[59][66] While struggling, both men disappear off camera view on the left side of the frame, after which the audio of a second gunshot is heard.[55][57] When they reappear, Arbery throws punches and tries to grab the shotgun.[57] A third gunshot is heard being fired by Travis at point-blank range as Arbery appears to throw a right-handed punch at his head.[55][56][67] Arbery recoils, stumbles, and collapses face down in the middle of the road while Travis walks away.[54][57][58] Gregory McMichael, who has taken out a handgun but has not fired, runs towards his son and Arbery.[56][57]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of ... e_shooting
User avatar
By Rancid
#15199834
Rich wrote:Even here the case may not be quite as straight forward as the Liberal media wants us to believe. Arbery seems to have had a criminal record, I can't establish how long or extensive. He also seems to have had violent mental health problems that caused his own mother to call the police on him. The judge ruled all this inadmissible on the basis that the defendants had no knowledge of any previous criminality. But again I'm not sure if this is true. I'm not sure if at least one of the defendants had seen CCTV footage of Arbery invading a relatives place.


His past criminal record and general violent behavior whether it is exists or not is completely irrelevant to the case. The judge was right to declare this as inadmissible. Using irrelevant things like a past criminal record results in an unfair trial as it would unduly bias the jury. The only time past criminal record is taken into consideration is AFTER a guilty verdict when sentencing is being figured out. However, before and during the trial, that is usually not admissible. A court must focus on the events around the charges, not past behaviors or record (by the way Rittenhouse benefited from this same thing as he had some past behaviors around violence a few days before the shooting he was involved in, keep reading). In this case, it's completely irrelevant because Arbery was not the defendant anyway. My source on this bit is knowing actual lawyers & having sat on an actual jury where the Judge explained just that above to us.

You are making a really stupid and round about point here. Grasping at straws.

This is the same reason Kyle Rittenhouses videos fantasizing about shooting some people two days prior to the shooting he was on trail for was also declared inadmissible. It was irrelevant to the specific charges and events his trial was about. This was the right thing to do, and it benefited Rittenhouse. Likewise, it was right to not allow Arbery's past into the trial as well.

This is why we should not listen to arm chair lawyers like yourself. Most people don't understand even the basics of how the court is supposed to operate.

I suggest you STFU with dumb shit like this statement.
#15199837
Rancid wrote:It was irrelevant to the specific charges and events his trial was about.

Why?

It showed Rittenshouse’s state of mind when he fired the shots on Aug. 25, a crucial element to his self-defense claim.


:eh:
User avatar
By Rancid
#15199840
ingliz wrote:Why?

It showed Rittenshouse’s state of mind when he fired the shots on Aug. 25, a crucial element to his self-defense claim.


:eh:


Maybe, maybe not, but given the time separation between these events, courts will tend to lean towards benefiting defendants (tend to, not always). Hence it was thrown out. The actual shooting happened two days later if I remember right. Hence the focus was on the events of that day not past behaviors. The past behavior would have probably been taken into account had he been found guilty though (maybe.. not sure). This is the same reason why it doesn't matter that those other misdemeanors were dropped from his charges. Since he was claiming self-defense, even those charges (i.e. past behavior) shouldn't have a significant bearing on the actual charge of murder. Anyway, there are some good videos out there for lawyers (like legal eagle who is actually left biased) explaining this stuff in a way that makes sense. It's often a hard pill to swallow for the public, but there are more often than not, good reasons why things play out these ways in court rooms.

You and Rich are arguing for the same thing and don't realize it. The only difference being who (i.e. race) was a key subject in the trial. If courts are to be fair, both of you need to be wrong in your opinions.

I recall being on a jury for a violent crime. The defendant turned out to have a past criminal record that we were not allowed to know about. This defendant was black. In his case, should we have known about his past criminal record? If you believe rittenhouse's past video should have been allowed, then you are also saying, I should have known the past record of that black defendant (which would have biased me and other jurors). Are you ok with that?

My point is, that in reality, we have to accept both the Arbery situation, and the Rittenhouse situation. We cannot say one was right and one was wrong if the justice system is to be consistent and have some semblance of fairness. This is the sticky stuff judges have to sort out during a trial. The hope being that they get it right from a legal perspective, not necessarily from a moral perspective.
#15199851
Rancid wrote:
The hope being that they get it right from a legal perspective, not necessarily from a moral perspective.



Now could everyone please get it right from a *political* perspective?

That is, to be correct, politically -- yes, 'politically correct'. No, the *other* kind. (grin)
By wat0n
#15199853
Rancid wrote:Maybe, maybe not, but given the time separation between these events, courts will tend to lean towards benefiting defendants (tend to, not always). Hence it was thrown out. The actual shooting happened two days later if I remember right. Hence the focus was on the events of that day not past behaviors. The past behavior would have probably been taken into account had he been found guilty though (maybe.. not sure). This is the same reason why it doesn't matter that those other misdemeanors were dropped from his charges. Since he was claiming self-defense, even those charges (i.e. past behavior) shouldn't have a significant bearing on the actual charge of murder. Anyway, there are some good videos out there for lawyers (like legal eagle who is actually left biased) explaining this stuff in a way that makes sense. It's often a hard pill to swallow for the public, but there are more often than not, good reasons why things play out these ways in court rooms.

You and Rich are arguing for the same thing and don't realize it. The only difference being who (i.e. race) was a key subject in the trial. If courts are to be fair, both of you need to be wrong in your opinions.

I recall being on a jury for a violent crime. The defendant turned out to have a past criminal record that we were not allowed to know about. This defendant was black. In his case, should we have known about his past criminal record? If you believe rittenhouse's past video should have been allowed, then you are also saying, I should have known the past record of that black defendant (which would have biased me and other jurors). Are you ok with that?

My point is, that in reality, we have to accept both the Arbery situation, and the Rittenhouse situation. We cannot say one was right and one was wrong if the justice system is to be consistent and have some semblance of fairness. This is the sticky stuff judges have to sort out during a trial. The hope being that they get it right from a legal perspective, not necessarily from a moral perspective.


Well, for both trials the rulings can be appealed though. Of course the appeal is about process, and at best there would be a retrial... But it's one of the rights of the parties involved to do so.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15199854
wat0n wrote:Well, for both trials the rulings can be appealed though. Of course the appeal is about process, and at best there would be a retrial... But it's one of the rights of the parties involved to do so.


I'm not aware of any appeal with the Rittenhouse case.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15199857
wat0n wrote:Indeed, let's wait and see if the State chooses to.


I'm not sure where this is coming from. States usually do not appeal after a case has gone to trial and verdict reached. In just about all cases, the state cannot appeal because it's basically unconstitutional to call for a retrial.

I understand, what are you reading/seeing that makes you believe there is a snowball's chance that an appeal by the state would happen?
By wat0n
#15199858
Rancid wrote:I'm not sure where this is coming from. States usually do not appeal and is just about all cases cannot do so because it's unconstitutional.

I understand, what are you reading/seeing that makes you believe there is a snowball's chance that an appeal by the state would happen?


That dropping the curfew and gun charges may have affected jury deliberations. I'm not sure a jury would reach the same result if those charges were taken into account.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15199859
wat0n wrote:That dropping the curfew and gun charges may have affected jury deliberations. I'm not sure a jury would reach the same result if those charges were taken into account.


Instructions to the jury would be to consider those charges separately anyway. This is a misconception that has been addressed by various people already. The self-defense laws of WI say that you still have a right to self-defense even if you were originally committing some other crime.

Some sort of appeal just simply isn't going to happen. There would already be talk of on if that were the case.
Last edited by Rancid on 26 Nov 2021 17:42, edited 1 time in total.
By wat0n
#15199860
Rancid wrote:Instructions to the jury would be to consider those charges separately anyway. This is a misconception that has been addressed by various people already.

Some sort of appeal just simply isn't going to happen.


You can't consider those charges separately - Wisconsin's self-defense law works differently if the person alleging self-defense was breaking the law (the standard is more demanding).
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 44

Israel won't comply because one of their explicit[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]