• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

(W#4255)The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse for the intentional first degree homicide of 2, injuring of 1

It was in a video that was shown. People are asking him why he shot him, and he says that he pulled a gun.
I thought he was talking about Ziminski, not Rosenbaum. They were both there when the chase started.
 
I thought he was talking about Ziminski, not Rosenbaum. They were both there when the chase started.
Sounds like he is talking about the guy he just shot, but I could be wrong.
 
It was in a video that was shown. People are asking him why he shot him, and he says that he pulled a gun.
Oh, so not said under oath in a court of law, but instead around a pack of dogs chasing him down and threatening him.
 
Oh, so not said under oath in a court of law, but instead around a pack of dogs chasing him down and threatening him.
Asking him why he shot him is threatening? The video was put into evidence was it not?
 
Asking him why he shot him is threatening? The video was put into evidence was it not?
I must have missed the part where Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse had a quiet chat, in an intimate setting, with no one else around, a-la Inside the Actor's Studio. When was that?

Let's also not forget that Rittenhouse had no idea who Grosskreutz was, what his intentions were, or how he might be connected to the guy who just tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle. Makes total sense that he would say whatever he thinks might satisfy this guy's question without pissing him off.
 
I must have missed the part where Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse had a quiet chat, in an intimate setting, with no one else around, a-la Inside the Actor's Studio. When was that?

Let's also not forget that Rittenhouse had no idea who Grosskreutz was, what his intentions were, or how he might be connected to the guy who just tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle. Makes total sense that he would say whatever he thinks might satisfy this guy's question without pissing him off.
Why are you talking about him?
 
You cannot possibly be serious. No, acquittals cannot be reversed.

- An actual lawyer

Admission is the first step to a cure.

Do you have access to Westlaw Keycite at your firm? Because if you do, trying looking up the following keynote:

- Criminal Law (110)
- Review (XXIV)
- Right of Review (D)
- Right of prosecution to review (1024)
- Verdict or judgment of acquittal (5)

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have Keycite.... but somehow or other, I doubt Westlaw would go through all of the trouble of making a keynote for something that can't possibly occur.
 
were his extensive instructions not the result of the defense seeking to have the same terms (self defense, for instance) explained in each of the counts? the judge explained that he would prefer to explain those recurring terms only once but advise they applied to each count; however, he expanded his instructions as requested by the defendant to avoid a basis for appeal
if any members watched that portion of the trial and find my description inaccurate, please chime in for accuracy's sake

And it was entirely within the right of the defense to request that. My problem is with the reasonable person standard that the jury was instructed to apply to Rittenhouse. You can't try someone as an adult and apply a juvenile standard to them. Barring some form of mental impairment, the same standard should have been applied regardless of whether Rittenhouse was 17, 27, or 37. That being said, it would have been incumbent on the prosecutor to object to any misapplication of the standard before the jury retired to deliberate. I don't know if such an objection was made or not.... but if it was, and was overruled by the judge, that opens up a window (albeit it slim) for the prosecutor to request appellate review of the acquittal.
If the objection wasn't made by the prosecutor, well, then this whole argument is moot.
 
Admission is the first step to a cure.

Do you have access to Westlaw Keycite at your firm? Because if you do, trying looking up the following keynote:

- Criminal Law (110)
- Review (XXIV)
- Right of Review (D)
- Right of prosecution to review (1024)
- Verdict or judgment of acquittal (5)

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have Keycite.... but somehow or other, I doubt Westlaw would go through all of the trouble of making a keynote for something that can't possibly occur.
One thing.

I asked you to read one thing.

You couldn't even do that.
 
Admission is the first step to a cure.

Do you have access to Westlaw Keycite at your firm? Because if you do, trying looking up the following keynote:

- Criminal Law (110)
- Review (XXIV)
- Right of Review (D)
- Right of prosecution to review (1024)
- Verdict or judgment of acquittal (5)

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have Keycite.... but somehow or other, I doubt Westlaw would go through all of the trouble of making a keynote for something that can't possibly occur.

That was pretty impressive, up to the point you admitted you didn't have the document you were citing.

My understanding is that prosecution can only appeal the judge's fair handling of the case (ie was it a mistrial) whereas defence can appeal the jury's verdict. I'm not super sure about that, but it seems consistent with constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.
 
That was pretty impressive, up to the point you admitted you didn't have the document you were citing.

My understanding is that prosecution can only appeal the judge's fair handling of the case (ie was it a mistrial) whereas defence can appeal the jury's verdict. I'm not super sure about that, but it seems consistent with constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one precedent out there for an acquittal at least being heard for review on a prosecutor appeal - Westlaw doesn't make a key for a case that has never come up. But I can't take it further than that without having access to KeycCite. C'est la guerre.

Admittedly, double jeopardy is a tough wall to climb.... but if there are grounds for an appellate court to conduct a review, and that review reverses the acquittal, Rittenhouse would still be protected from being charged with the same crimes. But there's nothing to say he couldn't be charged with lesser crimes... again, that's assuming my one-in-a-million reversible error scenario results in the acquittals being overturned.
 
I'm pretty sure there's at least one precedent out there for an acquittal at least being heard for review on a prosecutor appeal - Westlaw doesn't make a key for a case that has never come up. But I can't take it further than that without having access to KeycCite. C'est la guerre.

Admittedly, double jeopardy is a tough wall to climb.... but if there are grounds for an appellate court to conduct a review, and that review reverses the acquittal, Rittenhouse would still be protected from being charged with the same crimes. But there's nothing to say he couldn't be charged with lesser crimes... again, that's assuming my one-in-a-million reversible error scenario results in the acquittals being overturned.

I'd be happy with lesser crimes, even without jail time. It's important to set some kind of example lest young men who interpret his actions as a successful sting operation on rioters, put themselves and others in danger by going armed to riots and trying to "help".

If that doesn't happen, hopefully Rittenhouse himself will see the virtue of setting a good example, and refuse the money gun advocates will no doubt push on him. The number of vicious people who would kill political opponents just because they expect to get away with it, is dwarfed by the number who would do it in expectation of an easy life on the lecture circuit.

I'm trying to put the best spin on it, but as it stands, the complete acquittal, it's a horrible precedent. Zimmerman was bad enough, this is worse.
 
I'd be happy with lesser crimes, even without jail time. It's important to set some kind of example lest young men who interpret his actions as a successful sting operation on rioters, put themselves and others in danger by going armed to riots and trying to "help".

If that doesn't happen, hopefully Rittenhouse himself will see the virtue of setting a good example, and refuse the money gun advocates will no doubt push on him. The number of vicious people who would kill political opponents just because they expect to get away with it, is dwarfed by the number who would do it in expectation of an easy life on the lecture circuit.

I'm trying to put the best spin on it, but as it stands, the complete acquittal, it's a horrible precedent. Zimmerman was bad enough, this is worse.

I think we're on the same page there... hopefully I'm just more cynical than you - because I don't see any chance of this decision boding well for the future, no matter what spin is put on it.
 
I don't expect you to understand this... but I don't automatically believe everything I read.
This trait of yours is less admirable than it may at first appear when one realizes the thing you're not "automatically believ[ing]" is fully sourced, referenced, and not something that is being asserted as information you must "automatically believe" at all.

It raises further concern that, although you claim to not "automatically believe everything [you] read," you seem perfectly willing to believe things you not only haven't read, but fully admit you can't read and have only assumed the meaning of!
 
This trait of yours is less admirable than it may at first appear when one realizes the thing you're not "automatically believ[ing]" is fully sourced, referenced, and not something that is being asserted as information you must "automatically believe" at all.

It raises further concern that, although you claim to not "automatically believe everything [you] read," you seem perfectly willing to believe things you not only haven't read, but fully admit you can't read and have only assumed the meaning of!

I'm just spit-balling, man. I have no idea whether my scenario is feasible or not.... all I am saying is that I've found an avenue where it could be attempted and where, in all likelihood, it has been tried before. I just don't have the resources at my disposal to go the spot on the legal map I've found. But there be dragons there. ;)
 
I'm just spit-balling, man. I have no idea whether my scenario is feasible or not....
Yet here you are, screaming into the wind that an acquittal is appealable, despite not a single person agreeing with you, your complete inability to cite a non-bribery precedent for such an occurrence, and a sourced article stating such an appeal is not a thing.

all I am saying is that I've found an avenue where it could be attempted and where, in all likelihood, it has been tried before.
The only time double jeopardy has been decided not to apply when an acquittal is involved is in the case of bribery, where there was no jeopardy in the first place.

End of story.

Unless you have some evidence that was the case here, you're out of luck.

But there be dragons there.
And, like the dragons on the maps of yore, these dragons are purely fictional.
 
Back
Top Bottom