Home » Just a reminder about the Rittenhouse trial

Comments

Just a reminder about the Rittenhouse trial — 19 Comments

  1. Binger is describing how the senior Capitol Police “hero” elected to abort the unarmed woman in a prone position. A shot to the neck. Essentially a shot to the back.

  2. According to Branca, the state has to disprove Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument. If it cannot clearly prove it was NOT self-defense, an acquittal is called for.

    But I’m having flashbacks to the Derek Chauvin trial. Despite some pretty good cross-examination by the defense attorney, Chauvin was convicted on all counts, including at least one for which the evidence did not support the severity of the charge. The jury simply wasn’t going to listen to contrary argument. I hope that is not the case here.

  3. –and, of course, the jury watched it all happen in real-time.

    Ha! I was an alternate juror on a civil trial where an ambulance chasing lawyer went after a middle aged lady who had caused a nasty drunk driving accident a couple years earlier. There was considerable property damage in the accident but no substantial medical injuries. Presumably they had already gotten a pound of flesh from the lady possibly for psychological suffering though that wasn’t within our scope.

    But now the guy who had been scratched up a little was claiming a substantial back injury. As they read some depositions that the plaintiff’s team had taken into the record, it became clear that someone had completely messed up a critical deposition.

    Laughably, the attorney had a giant laptop and screen in front of him and when the faux pas dawned on him, he ducked his head down behind the screen so the judge couldn’t see him and silently cursed “Oh f__k!” about six times. Hello dude; all 13 jurors had a ring-side seat for his plainly visible antics. Let me write those details down, now that I know how important that mistake was.

    I didn’t make to deliberations, but I believe they awarded him $100.

  4. ADA Binger knows that Rosenbaum was lunging at Rittenhouse. He knows Rittnhouse is innocent and fired in self-defense. Binger knows that he been in Rittenhouse’s place he too would have defended himself.

    Rittenhouse is being prosecuted just for being there and opposing antifa. This is blatant political prosecution.

    Unlike defenders, shouldn’t prosecutors be held to a rigorous standard, where they stick to the facts and not try to put the most negative spin on the case?

    Should the State in effect be allowed to lie, to knowingly tell untruths? Prosecutors should face actual disbarment for dishonestly presenting a case.

  5. According to yesterday’s write-up, there seems to have been coordination between the (inexperienced) police investigator and the assistant DA who is the prosecutor.

  6. According to Jack Posobiec an others,

    The lead detective in the Kyle Rittenhouse case is the nephew of the mayor who let Kenosha burn. And the DA prosecuting Kyle is the mayor’s first cousin

    “The Mmyor’s (sic) cousin is reportedly the Kenosha City Attorney Ed Antaramian. Mayor Antaramian’s nephew is Kenosha City Judge Michael Easton. Another nephew of his is State Representative Thaddeus McGuire. Another cousin of his is County Board Supervisor Laura Belsky, the Kenosha County Eye reported.”

  7. I watched every day of the Chauvin trial. His lawyer was imperfect, but the trial hinged on a jury ruined by a lifetime of leftist indoctrination.

    I haven’t watched a single day of the Rittenhouse trial. The facts no longer matter. Is the Kenosha jury pool less polluted than the one in Minneapolis? That’s the only question we need to ask.

  8. Cornhead,

    As you well know, it’s the actual jurors selected who matter and regardless of how tainted the jury pool, it’s the responsibility of the defense to ensure that the jury consists of the least biased jurors.

    Reportedly, Barnes had a team of jury selection experts on hand and he and his team were barred by Rittenhouse’s defense team from attending that selection process.

    If Rittenhouse escapes imprisonment its likely because even biased jurors balk at convicting so obviously an innocent man.

    Yet Chauvin’s trial demonstrates that bias often scorns truth. May Chauvin’s jurors be judged, as they have judged.

  9. Immediately after the “persecution” has finished its lying the Defense should ask for acquittal due to lack of a prima facia case.

    Probably won’t work but it would fit the actual facts.

  10. That exchange reminded me of the Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newhouse cage match.

    You can find lots of posts on YouTube, but here’s one.
    That was back when Friedersdorf was still sane, and he quotes lots of examples from the interview, very disapprovingly because of her highly partisan procedure:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
    Why Can’t People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?
    A British broadcaster doggedly tried to put words into the academic’s mouth.

    Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters.

    There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?

    To conclude, this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Peterson’s views. It is an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.

    Lots of culture-war fights are unavoidable––that is, they are rooted in earnest, strongly felt disagreements over the best values or way forward or method of prioritizing goods. The best we can do is have those fights, with rules against eye-gouging.

    But there is a way to reduce needless division over the countless disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic democracy: get better at accurately characterizing the views of folks with differing opinions, rather than egging them on to offer more extreme statements in interviews; or even worse, distorting their words so that existing divisions seem more intractable or impossible to tolerate than they are. That sort of exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation is epidemic—and addressing it for everyone’s sake is long overdue.

    Nobody listened to him, judging by the exponential increase in hyperbolic hysteria over the intervening years.

    This was new to me, short but powerful.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxP_UDH9jts
    Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson Discuss the Cathy Newman Fallout

  11. @ huxley – the prosecutor would feel right at home in that other case we’ve been discussing.
    As you so poignantly observed,
    “Her court testimony in the show trial is heartbreakingly beautiful. A 19 year-old girl, alone and imprisoned, stands up against the best minds the Catholic Church and England can supply and she humiliated them with her grace to the point that they made the proceedings private.
    Then they burned her at the stake.”

    It really didn’t matter to them what the evidence showed, or what her justifications were.
    They already knew what verdict they wanted.
    And, in the context, knew that there would be problems for them if Joan were acquitted.

  12. Here’s a thought:
    The prosecution knows that he’s innocent of the charges and are trying to thread the needle here between on the one hand the grotesque expectations of the rabid mob and its (i.e., the prosecution’s) professional obligations and on the other the inexorable demands of decency and justice.

    (Or is that a movie I dreamt of that somehow got stuck in my head?…)

  13. Is it rule #1 or rule #2 of questioning a witness on the stand?

    Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.

  14. The case, so far, makes me think that the DA really doesn’t like ADA Binger.

    Alternatively, maybe Binger is taking one for the team because you’re never asked to take one for the team if they don’t like you!

  15. AesopFan —

    And then in the wake of the Peterson/Newman interview came the podcast “So What You’re Saying Is”, which is worth it just for Peter Whittle’s extremely plummy accent, much less the UK conservative culture-war content.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>