Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Right to Self Defense (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter matuski
- Start date
dkp993
Footballguy
I think that would be determined by who you think is favored with a hung jury verdict.
Good point, thanks. I personally think Kyle isn't guilty but he'll convicted of some lesser charge.
dkp993
Footballguy
Certainly a possibility.
I think it favors Kyle as I don’t see the prosecution bringing this case again.
yak651
Footballguy
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I guess this is all possible but I think its really unfair for these guys to watch this trial play out and then, at the first sign of something not going quite perfect, claim they see all sorts of mistakes the defense is making and that they could have done better. That's really low rent in my opinion. I'd be very surprised if the Rekeita has ever represented a murder defendant. His office is in Spicer Minnesota, population 1,167 per Wikipedia, and he's been a lawyer for 7 years after graduating from Hamline, one of the lowest ranked law schools in the nation. They are self-marketing blowhards. Its pretty telling to me that Rekieta has 70,000 followers on Twitter but only 41 connections on his law firm's LinkedIn. This isn't a guy who is a serious private practice lawyer. Its really very disingenuous for these guys to sit behind their social medial platforms and play after-the-fact expert on something they are completely unqualified to comment on.
For what its worth, Rittenhouse defense team is working with Jo-Ellan Dimitrius as its jury consultant. She's been in the Courtroom throughout the trial, and has undoubtedly been giving feedback both in jury selection and during the trial. She is one of the most successful and famous jury consultants in the country - having worked on the OJ Simpson team and numerous other high-profile criminal and civil jury trials over the past 30+ years. (https://dimita.com/team/)
the moops
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
You know what they call the worst student at the worst rated yet accredited medical school?
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
My first reaction is that writing is from a female and they seem totally focused on the provocation vs self defense in the drone footage which was discussed at length by both sides.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Tomorrow I expect, "that rifle looks cool, can I take it home to show my family?"“can I take the instructions home”
cuckoo cuckoo
psychobillies
Footballguy
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/qwqx69/blm_protesters_shared_a_pizzas_with_rittenhouse/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Apologies if that was already posted somewhere.
Apologies if that was already posted somewhere.
Gawain
Footballguy
Anyone who has read Grisham or watched one of a few crappy CBS procedurals knows how the psychology behind voir dire is presented, but I always though handwriting analysis was one step up from tarot card reading.
Is there a consensus that inferring personality traits from handwriting is more accurate than dowsing?
Is there a consensus that inferring personality traits from handwriting is more accurate than dowsing?
KingPrawn
Footballguy
Milwaukee news station (WISN) reported tonight that the defense team expects a hung jury with it being split 6-6. No idea where they got this info from but they seemed to indicate that that was their read on the jury. My guess would be that is the way their jury consultant (Jo-Ellan Dimitrius) sees it
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
i think that was a calculated move by the defense.
they have been extremely tight lipped with the media. When they let something out it is for a reason. Even though the jury isn’t supposed to look at anything about the case I’m sure some are. It’s almost impossible to avoid if they go on the internet.
identikit
Footballguy
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
I don’t know. Might be bad optics saying they think it’s only 1-2 holding out.
I could be totally wrong and they legit think it’s a 50/50 split.
I’m just assuming anything they put out is for a reason.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Most of these criticism by Robert Barnes were raised prior to the start of the trial, and it all played out exactly as predicted. Jo-Ellan Dimitrius attaches her name to the OJ case, but the real key was Johnnie Cochran who was able to relocate the trial to downtown LA and then pack the jury with mostly older black women who would view OJ as their child. That was ALL directed by Cochran, but that is Dimitrius claim to fame. Dimitrius real talent was on display here, where she allowed this jury to be packed with anti-Kyle Karens. Of course some of the problem was the quickly done jury selection process with no questionnaires. All of these were highly criticized by Barnes before it even happened. Barnes had polling information his team had collected concerning the heavy anti-Kyle sentiment in the local area largely due to how the local media along with the prosecutors were spinning this story and the demographic data for what to look for as well as list of stealthy questions which would have identified these types of jurors without tipping off the prosecution. All this information was provided but Richards refused to use it.
It is quite apparent Kyle's attorneys have no idea how to handle a self-defense case. This has nothing to do with what Rekeita's opinion is, as he offers very little insight except for some knowledge of basic law. Anybody could watch that trial and see an overly passive Defense team who let an over zealot prosecutor walk all over their client's rights and butcher the law. It is very telling that the judge gets more upset with the prosecution than the Defense team. Barnes would have done a far far far superior job.
I think the people around Kyle are in over their heads or even worse are not working with Kyle's best interest in mind. It is a travesty that this case is in a deadlock and it is ridiculous if it is a 6-6 split. This was a slam dunk case which worse case should have been 1 or 2 holdout jurors. Hopefully this case gets dismissed with prejudice, but it should have been a not guilty verdict.
Last edited by a moderator:
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
You have no idea what you’re talking about but it’s nice that you just hear little blurbs on TV and parrot what they say.
If you would like to discuss this we can do it in a different thread but I assure you you don’t want that.
bigbottom
Footballguy
I am not saying there are never "slam dunk" cases - but it is a rarity that a "slam dunk" case ever makes it to trial.
This is not, and never was, a "slam dunk" case. Reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret the facts that were drawn out at trial.
yak651
Footballguy
Weird how during the trial some were claiming the defense was killing the prosecution and now the defense team is incompetent
sho nuff
Footballguy
The little I have seen I have not been impressed by the defense, the prosecution, or the judge.
A correct reading and explanation of the law makes it a slam dunk case. Period. Binger has outright lied to the jury on how the provocation clause applies to this case, while the Defense team sat on their butts and said nothing. Binger has also manipulated images to make them appear to show something that did not happen and then did not disclose the correct high definition material it was based on to the defense until after arguments were over. There were dozens of gross errors by the defense and improper acts by the prosecution. With proper counsel this was a slam dunk. And with an ethical prosecutor, this never goes to court. There has never been a more clear cut case of self-defense captured all on video, and yet we have 20-30 percent of the population who refuse to admit it. This is the exact flip side of Trump really won the election debate.
If that were true - this would have been dismissed prior to trial.
You have your interpretation of the law and facts. I am simply pointing out, that other, reasonable people, can look at the same law and facts, and reach a different conclusion.
You are highly emotionally invested in this case, and I don't think there is anything wrong with your passion. But, it does cloud your judgement here. If you listen to most of the practicing lawyers in this thread - they agree with your general proposition that Rittenhouse could be found not guilty, based on the self-defense angle. But, that does not make it a "slam dunk", nor does it make people evil, or incompetent, if they view this differently.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
It’s hard to find unbiased sources these days, but I think it’s better to have watched the trial unfiltered, rather than through the Rekeita/Barnes lens which is heavily distorted. I watched the Rekeita YouTube feed for about ten minutes one day and couldn’t hear the questions or witness answers much of the time because the commentators were shouting over each other, constantly trying to get the best sick burn in.I think if these types of media are your main sources of information, you’d have to admit your understanding of the case is coming from an extremely biased often hysteric and inaccurate commentary that is entirely driven by social media marketing rather than any desire to educate or understand reality.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Thats not accurate. Jon could be right and the case still go to trial due to pressure or other reasons. You are assuming prosecutors always do the right thing. We know for certain is that isnt true.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The trial has been a bit of a circus at times for a variety of reasons and the judge and lawyers all bear some of the blame for that. There is a risk of a mistrial, which is uncommon and I think the jury is likely confused. I think some of that is inevitable under the circumstances. Our criminal law, particularly self defense and provocation, are not well suited to deal with this new age of Wild West gun laws where untrained young men can adopt a police role, fully armed, in our community at a powder keg protest situation. It’s a very hard circumstance to adjudicate when people clash in this situation. However, I think if your experience with the trial is a few snippets here and there, overlayed with media commentary you really don’t have even a small part of the picture. I watched less than half the trial, maybe 20 hours or so, and would say I have no basis to pass judgment on these lawyers.
I realize and understand their bias. There are a couple more moderate ones, but the panel overall leans heavily right. I am more than open to good legal arguments from other perspectives, but I have not seen much. That is why I discuss stuff here. IMO, Binger has butchered these. I may not be a lawyer, but I write contractual documents all the time and am quite versed in the importance of the meaning of words and legal construction.
I make no assumptions about the prosecutors - if this was a slam dunk - i.e. there was no basis for a guilty verdict, the defense would have moved to dismiss, and make that argument. The judge dismissed the gun charge - essentially finding that no reasonable person could conclude that Rittenhouse was guilty of that charge. That, in essence, was a "slam dunk".
That, this judge, allowed the remaining charges to go to the jury, shows that he thinks there are reasonable differences of opinion here.
Jon is not "wrong' in thinking that this is a clear self-defense case. That is a reasonable position to take, based on his interpretation of the facts and law. But, Jon is "wrong" in asserting that reasonable people can't disagree about either the facts or the law.
One thing where I think everyone dropped the ball in all the analysis and even in court arguements, is that for Kyle to have provocated it had to be an illegal act according to the law. The prosecution has not charged Kyle with any such act let alone proved one beyond a reasonable doubt. What are they claiming? Perhaps brandishing a weapon, but there are no charges of such. It was an error to include those instructions in the absence of any charge.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
I have a question for the lawyer guys….
Are there not prior cases of similar self defense cases that can be reflected on? Has this happened? Is this not relevant?
Are there not prior cases of similar self defense cases that can be reflected on? Has this happened? Is this not relevant?
Last edited by a moderator:
From the Wisconsin statute:
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
What do you mean?
Its not relevant to this jury, who are charged with determining the facts.
If there was some case law out there, where a binding authority found that this fact pattern was self-defense, as a matter of law, then that would be used by the lawyers in the motion to dismiss.
The reality here though is that our system relies on jurors to be the arbiter of facts, and most cases turn on the interpretation of "facts" that are presented at trial. Its for the jury to determine what happened, and then apply that to the law as instructed. Every jury is going to be different. When issues are fact-dependent - as they are here - prior cases have no bearing, even as a matter of law.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
So in layman‘s terms, you could point to prior cases prior to this going to trial but once it’s decided that the case is going to trial by jury that part is irrelevant?
Please forgive me if I’m butchering this, I’m not a lawyer (yet).
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
Well this can’t possibly be true. I’m sure there are plenty of closed caption videos of people (convenience store clerks for example) acting even more clearly in self-defense.
Even then, this case has someone pointing a gun at Kyle's head charging towards him ready to shoot. I have e never seen such footage of someone literally milliseconds away from being killed.
If I understand what you are asking - there is no point where you can bring up prior cases to the jury, to, in essence, prove your case.
You can't show the jury that in a prior similar case, that jury (or judge) found it to be self-defense, so you (jury) should find it to be self-defense also.
Now, in making arguments to the judge, or on appeal, you would look for prior cases - that have been up on appeal - and say: "Hey, this factor pattern is the same as our case, and in that prior case, the court found it was self-defense." You want the judge/appellate court to find this is self-defense as a matter of law.
The reality is - that is extremely unlikely - but that is when you would use a prior case to "prove" your current case. Its unlikely because of the nuances involved in self-defense, and provocation are almost always fact dependent - "Was the defendant reasonable to fear for his life (or great bodily injury?" or, "Did this defendant do anything to lose the right of self-defense?"
Best case scenario is you get a ruling that simply carrying an open weapon is not sufficient for provocation - but that still leaves open for jurors to decide that a particular defendant did more than open carry.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Its interesting that the prosecutors clearly knew that this charge was bs, yet they included it and argued semantics to death throughout the trial. When it actually came time to answer the basic question of whether the rifle was illegal, the proscutor basically said, no its not. They argued a charge they knew to be bull####. Isn't that against the idea that they should be truth seekers, regardless of the outcome?
bigbottom
Footballguy
Well, just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Also, that’s only one of three acts of self-defense involved in this case. The others are less “slam dunk” than Grosskreutz. And the Grosskreutz incident really became slam-dunky when Grosskreutz testified at trial.
the moops
Footballguy
Why do you refer to everyone else involved in the case (judge, attorneys, youtubers, etc) by their last name, but refer to Rittenhouse by his first name?
Insein
Footballguy
Insein
Footballguy
He confirmed what we all saw on film. Grosskruetz ran in with a gun, put his hands up so KR would lower his weapon and then when KR did, Grosskruetz raised his weapon presumably to shoot KR. It was very helpful of him to confirm that that's what he was doing.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Similar threads
