8 ms·

Cool project. Reminds me how peculiar it is that I had to endure rittenhouse and floyd trials livestreaming and analyzed by herds of talking heads and yet I don

Cool project. Reminds me how peculiar it is that I had to endure rittenhouse and floyd trials livestreaming and analyzed by herds of talking heads and yet I don't even think they have a feed into ghislaine maxwells' trial that is now under way.

user-the-name 5y ago
Apparently it is not legal for a federal case.
- robbiex88 5y ago
  Was the Rittenhouse circus _not_ a federal case though?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcameron 5y ago
    It was not. It was a state case.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - eganist 5y ago
    > Was the Rittenhouse circus _not_ a federal case though? It literally wasn't. It was tried under Wisconsin jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Rittenhouse_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Ritten...
    - robbiex88 5y ago
      You're absolutely right, please forgive my ignorance on the matter and thanks for clarifying!
  - huntertwo 5y ago
    It was not, it was a state case.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - firebird84 5y ago
    No, it was not.
  - loeg 5y ago
    Rittenhouse was tried in a Wisconsin state court.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    I don't understand why HN users downvote questions (they don't like). This one should just have a simple yes or no response and 1 point.
    - Invictus0 5y ago
      Because it takes 2 seconds to Google the answer
      - waych 5y ago
        Google makes a business about what you see in those first two seconds. It's bad practice to give-in to the algorithm the way you are suggesting. Just as bad as only reading the headlines.
        Eelongate 5y ago
        I practice general search engine avoidance; I don't use a general search engine (google, bing, duck, yandex, etc) if I believe a more specialized search engine will give me what I am looking for. In this circumstance, it's easy to figure out what sort of trial Rittenhouse got by searching for Rittenhouse on Wikipedia directly. With my search keyword for Wikipedia, I can search "wiki rittenhouse" and it takes me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rittenhouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rittenhouse which in turn leads me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting That page clearly states "Under Wisconsin state law, Rittenhouse was charged as an adult with the following crimes: ..."
- boredumb 5y ago
  Thanks, I didn't know this.
robbiex88 5y ago
Yes I agree. Not discounting it by any means but it seems like the news cycle is dominated by the new COVID variant, yet I've seen literally nothing on this trial. Makes you wonder what's really going on and how deep the rot runs in this country.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  This is such a silly conspiracy theory in the most pejorative sense of the term -- there are literal front page stories on CNN/NYTimes/Fox News/MSNBC.
  - boredumb 5y ago
    There is definitely coverage but the fervor from the media, the usual suspects and subsequently the general public is not even remotely to the fever pitch we've seen recently. It also doesn't help that this case involves a literal conspiracy with wealthy people in power of all domains and so people defaulting to deep distrust of how it's being handled seems perfectly sound.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      I don't think it's the media that's lacking fervor in this case. It's your social media feed.
      - yasp 5y ago
        https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%22kyle%20rittenhouse%22,%22ghislaine%20maxwell%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%22kyle%20...
        missedthecue 5y ago
        Yep. People just aren't as interested in this case. There's no culture war component. But there certainly isn't some suspicious media blackout on it. You can readily find coverage.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rpmisms 5y ago
It's really a shame. The Rittenhouse trial was fascinating and educational, this trial likely wouldn't be as educational, but the information should be out in the open. If you're interested in learning more about the Rittenhouse trial, Rekieta Law on youtube is a lawyer who had a panel of lawyers analyze the case live with him. Absolutely awesome to get live strategic analysis on a criminal trial.
- tinyhouse 5y ago
  Most of it was pretty predictable, not fascinating unless you're talking about the political aspect. For example, the dude who was shot in the arm testified and everyone was like "big win for Rittenhouse, he admitted he got shot only after he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse". Really? you have a video of the entire incident, do you need a testimony to figure it out? The one bit that was interesting though is how the shooting of Rosenbaum would be interpreted, as the video wasn't that good and it wasn't clear if self defense would qualify. But I kind of knew from the beginning after watching the videos that it's very unlikely the jury would claim it wasn't justified self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I think without the political aspect it would've been a short and predictable trail. It's funny to me how much build up and cross interviews for an incident that was captured almost fully on video.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    The prosecutor had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense. Good luck proving a subjective negative. After I learned that particular I just awaited the official aquittal.
    - alasdair_ 5y ago
      I thought that "self defense" was something you had to prove yourself, where you've admitted to committing a crime (killing someone) but that you had a specific circumstance that mitigated the charge. I assumed it was similar to a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea, where you admit you committed a crime but there are special circumstances (that you have to prove) that mitigate it. You can't just stay silent the entire time and force the prosecutor to prove you were insane - you have to actually provide some evidence you were insane. Is this not true?
PeterisP 5y ago
Not from USA, but it seems quite common and reasonable that any trials of sex crimes (and especially sex crimes against minors) would be closed, if for no other reason than to protect the victims.
kredd 5y ago
I would say this trial isn't as polarizing, so we don't get social media fights between two groups of people. That's, after all, type of an engagement that boosts the trial's virality.

user-the-name 5y ago

Apparently it is not legal for a federal case.

robbiex88 5y ago
Was the Rittenhouse circus _not_ a federal case though?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smcameron 5y ago
  It was not. It was a state case.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eganist 5y ago
  > Was the Rittenhouse circus _not_ a federal case though? It literally wasn't. It was tried under Wisconsin jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Rittenhouse_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Ritten...
  - robbiex88 5y ago
    You're absolutely right, please forgive my ignorance on the matter and thanks for clarifying!
- huntertwo 5y ago
  It was not, it was a state case.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- firebird84 5y ago
  No, it was not.
- loeg 5y ago
  Rittenhouse was tried in a Wisconsin state court.
- prohobo 5y ago
  I don't understand why HN users downvote questions (they don't like). This one should just have a simple yes or no response and 1 point.
  - Invictus0 5y ago
    Because it takes 2 seconds to Google the answer
    - waych 5y ago
      Google makes a business about what you see in those first two seconds. It's bad practice to give-in to the algorithm the way you are suggesting. Just as bad as only reading the headlines.
      - Eelongate 5y ago
        I practice general search engine avoidance; I don't use a general search engine (google, bing, duck, yandex, etc) if I believe a more specialized search engine will give me what I am looking for. In this circumstance, it's easy to figure out what sort of trial Rittenhouse got by searching for Rittenhouse on Wikipedia directly. With my search keyword for Wikipedia, I can search "wiki rittenhouse" and it takes me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rittenhouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rittenhouse which in turn leads me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting That page clearly states "Under Wisconsin state law, Rittenhouse was charged as an adult with the following crimes: ..."
boredumb 5y ago
Thanks, I didn't know this.

robbiex88 5y ago

Yes I agree. Not discounting it by any means but it seems like the news cycle is dominated by the new COVID variant, yet I've seen literally nothing on this trial. Makes you wonder what's really going on and how deep the rot runs in this country.

mikeyouse 5y ago
This is such a silly conspiracy theory in the most pejorative sense of the term -- there are literal front page stories on CNN/NYTimes/Fox News/MSNBC.
- boredumb 5y ago
  There is definitely coverage but the fervor from the media, the usual suspects and subsequently the general public is not even remotely to the fever pitch we've seen recently. It also doesn't help that this case involves a literal conspiracy with wealthy people in power of all domains and so people defaulting to deep distrust of how it's being handled seems perfectly sound.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    I don't think it's the media that's lacking fervor in this case. It's your social media feed.
    - yasp 5y ago
      https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%22kyle%20rittenhouse%22,%22ghislaine%20maxwell%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%22kyle%20...
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        Yep. People just aren't as interested in this case. There's no culture war component. But there certainly isn't some suspicious media blackout on it. You can readily find coverage.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rpmisms 5y ago

It's really a shame. The Rittenhouse trial was fascinating and educational, this trial likely wouldn't be as educational, but the information should be out in the open. If you're interested in learning more about the Rittenhouse trial, Rekieta Law on youtube is a lawyer who had a panel of lawyers analyze the case live with him. Absolutely awesome to get live strategic analysis on a criminal trial.

tinyhouse 5y ago
Most of it was pretty predictable, not fascinating unless you're talking about the political aspect. For example, the dude who was shot in the arm testified and everyone was like "big win for Rittenhouse, he admitted he got shot only after he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse". Really? you have a video of the entire incident, do you need a testimony to figure it out? The one bit that was interesting though is how the shooting of Rosenbaum would be interpreted, as the video wasn't that good and it wasn't clear if self defense would qualify. But I kind of knew from the beginning after watching the videos that it's very unlikely the jury would claim it wasn't justified self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I think without the political aspect it would've been a short and predictable trail. It's funny to me how much build up and cross interviews for an incident that was captured almost fully on video.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  The prosecutor had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense. Good luck proving a subjective negative. After I learned that particular I just awaited the official aquittal.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    I thought that "self defense" was something you had to prove yourself, where you've admitted to committing a crime (killing someone) but that you had a specific circumstance that mitigated the charge. I assumed it was similar to a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea, where you admit you committed a crime but there are special circumstances (that you have to prove) that mitigate it. You can't just stay silent the entire time and force the prosecutor to prove you were insane - you have to actually provide some evidence you were insane. Is this not true?

PeterisP 5y ago

Not from USA, but it seems quite common and reasonable that any trials of sex crimes (and especially sex crimes against minors) would be closed, if for no other reason than to protect the victims.

kredd 5y ago

I would say this trial isn't as polarizing, so we don't get social media fights between two groups of people. That's, after all, type of an engagement that boosts the trial's virality.