5 ms·

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 t

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?
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      That's correct, it's an affirmative defense. You admit to the crime, but assert that you were privileged to take an otherwise illegal action.
    - somethingor 5y ago
      As I understand it, it differs depending on state law.
  - didgeoridoo 5y ago
    Did you follow the (nearly simultaneous) trial of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery? That prosecutor didn’t seem to have too much trouble at all proving that particular negative — those guys are all going away for life.
    - loonster 5y ago
      That case would be the equivalent if Grosskreutz killed Rittenhouse and tried to claim self defense. An alternative equivalent would be if Arbery was successful at taking away the firearm and killing his attackers.
      - didgeoridoo 5y ago
        What? Not at all. Arbery attempted to gain control of the gun and was killed, and the defense attempted to claim self-defense. I was responding to the claim that self-defense is some kind of automatic not-guilty verdict. It evidently is not.
        loonster 5y ago
        Arbery, like Rittenhouse, was not the aggressor. Rittenhouse had a firearm to defend himself, Arbery did not. If Arbery was successful in taking the firearm from his assailants, self-defense would be a very viable claim.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    This is totally possible—if Rosenbaum had killed Rittenhouse, he would have been laughed out of court on a self-defense claim. People claim self-defense all the time, it rarely works. In this case, where the clear, legally defined standard of self-defense was met, Kyle walked.
- chmod600 5y ago
  Then why weren't the charges dropped? Is it acceptable to put someone through a trial when the outcome is a predictable aquittal?
  - tinyhouse 5y ago
    As I mentioned, the first shooting and killing of Rosenbaum wasn't a clear justified self defense based on the video, so it justified the trail. Also the politics around the case played a role.
  - maxlybbert 5y ago
    Prosecutors are supposed to bring charges based on “the interests of justice.” I can’t say that they actually meet that standard. They famously bring harsh charges and try to negotiate plea deals. They also famously get creative with how to interpret different laws. There is the concept of malicious prosecution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution ), but that only applies when the prosecutor pursues a case without proof of even the basic elements of the crime. If they filed charges that they were incredibly unlikely to prove (which is what I heard from all the commenters on this case: “the prosecution has a hard case to make” or something similar), then they spent a lot of time and money, caused somebody to spend a lot of money for the defendant, etc., but they didn’t cross the line into malicious prosecution.
    - Rebelgecko 5y ago
      Rittenhouse was charged with violating a law that only applies if you're younger than 17 years old or have a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches. Since both of those things are trivial to disprove (the prosecutor admitted that Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the rifle was longer than 16"), would that be considered malicious prosecution?
      - maxlybbert 5y ago
        I would love to learn the answer to this: if some charges are arguably justified, but others aren’t, can you claim malicious prosecution for the ones that aren’t? I would think so. Unfortunately, for this specific case, I don’t think it qualifies. The judge only dismissed the charge because he couldn’t write clear jury instructions for it ( https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge-d923d8e255d6b1f5c9c9fc5b74e691fb https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhou... ). I think that could be enough to say “we brought the charge because we honestly thought it applied; the confusion wasn’t malice, it was just difficulty understanding a convoluted law.” I don’t know about Wisconsin, and I don’t know if Rittenhouse has some way to afford bringing a malicious prosecution lawsuit or some other lawsuit against Kenosha. I get the feeling that kind of reaction (followed by a negotiated settlement) is more common in some parts of the country than others.
- 7sidedmarble 5y ago
  I agree, I was very confused how the Grosskreutz testimony was so incredible. It was obvious from the video. Should the state have even pursued that charge? Probably not, but that has nothing to do with that testimony blowing anyone away.
  - loonster 5y ago
    It's an all or nothing deal. If the first death was murder, then all that followed were likely murder too.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  The most interesting aspect for me was watching the polar opposite reactions to the same content. I was personally interested in the facts of the case, which I have been following since 8/25/2020. > 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". This was a very big deal. It was on the video, but as we've seen on social media, different people see different things. The other party in said videos being trapped into admitting that Kyle was right to shoot him was vidicating, both legally and personally for everyone who was rooting for Kyle. Before anyone gets horrified at my views on the case, Kyle was a good kid, being dumb and idealistic, trying to help, and protecting himself when that went south. I wish he hadn't stayed out that night, I wish his assailants had valued their lives more highly, and I hope that this will be a good example for everyone: don't put yourself in danger unless you're prepared for the consequences, and secondarily, fuck around and find out.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I think many people missed the point of the whole self defense argument. In Michigan, you can't claim self defense if you unreasonably put yourself or others in danger. To me, the part that made this case a tossup, was whether or not you believe it is reasonable to go out into public at night, while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. I find that completely ridiculous and unreasonable. Regardless of one's technical right to do so. But some people done agree and think it is totally acceptable to do so.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      > completely ridiculous and unreasonable Maybe, but it's also legal in Wisconsin.
    - Akronymus 5y ago
      ..., while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. are you referring to going out as unnecessary or the carrying a loaded rifle being unnecessary?
    - 5y ago
dheera 5y ago
Also, the people at the trials love to waste time. I remember at the Floyd trial there was something to the tune of: "You have a mobile device, right?" "And a mobile device can record images, right?" "And you were present at the scene, right?" "And while you were present at the scene you had a mobile device, right?" "And your mobile device is capable of recording images, right?" "And you used your mobile device to record images, right?" Like, fuck, you could have compressed that all into 1 question. I guess lawyers get paid $900 an hour so maybe that's part of it.
- handrous 5y ago
  I think they do it in pieces to get them to start saying yes to stuff, both to get them on a roll and to have a place to pick back up that's not the very beginning if they say no to something along the way.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I have also heard that depending on the situation, an attorney may want to bore the jury. If you overload them with information you can reduce the effectiveness of facts that may be detrimental to your case.
  - dheera 5y ago
    > that's not the very beginning So you binary search the damn thing, and you find the logical culprit in log(N) time if N is the number of clauses, instead of searching linearly. Like, if they agree what a phone is, you don't need to drill down all the details of what constitutes a phone. If they disagree, only then traverse the sub-nodes of that.
- jrussino 5y ago
  This comment reminded me of a post that appeared on HN few months ago, which may shed some light on why the questioning is structured the way it is: "Effective Deposition Strategy and Dealing with the Evasive, Non-cooperative Witness" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29123830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29123830 This section, and the example that follow it, are particularly relevant: > Second, don’t go immediately for the killer question. Take the time to build toward your ultimate question with multiple questions, each question about one fact. > Questions that include one and only one fact is the technique that gives you the most control of a witness.[4] You must ask about facts, not conclusions, when you want to control an evasive, non-cooperative witness. The witness will never agree to your conclusions, and their disagreement with you on any point may seem completely reasonable unless there has been the proper “set-up” (see the following questions and the next section dealing with “set-up”). The advantage of the “one fact – one question” technique is that when a witness “runs”, i.e. they try a long non-responsive narrative; the question can be repeated easily again and again. Each “run” makes the witness appear less credible and frequently results in the witness admitting the fact imbedded in the question. Stringing together multiple questions that are “one fact-one question” allows the jury to derive larger, case-critical conclusions that are inescapable, even if unstated.
encryptluks2 5y ago
Rekieta law ended up being a panel of right-wing lawyers who constantly mocked a prosecution attorney over their weight. I think just watching the trial was sufficient in itself and didn't need a bunch of Jack Posobiec tweeting attorneys to help me understand it.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  > Rekieta law ended up being a panel of right-wing lawyers who constantly mocked a prosecution attorney over their weight. Their legal analysis was excellent. You disagreeing with their views doesn't change that.
  - loonster 5y ago
    I really enjoyed listening to Andrew Branca. He is a very articulate attorney and knows self defense law very well. I got the impression that Barnes would have also made a very good defense for Rittenhouse, but at a very great expense to the Rittenhouse family. To me, it looked like he was an ambulance chaser looking to make a lot of money on a very high profile case. Spend spend spend, then ask for more donations to cover what was spent. Some of the others were more distracting when trying to hear what was said during the case.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      As a gun guy, Branca has been great in navigating the laws that every American gun owner should know. He's a grifter, but he makes a very valuable product. Barnes is obviously extremely smart, worth the big bucks, but definitely requires big money to hire. Nick Rekieta himself is a fun guy, and I'm really glad he took off. He's re-sparked my nascent interest in criminal law, and it's great to see a lawyer dad who's up on his memes. The rest of the panel is fun, not always super helpful, but the value of the panel was great. Good to see something new in the world of streaming.

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?
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    That's correct, it's an affirmative defense. You admit to the crime, but assert that you were privileged to take an otherwise illegal action.
  - somethingor 5y ago
    As I understand it, it differs depending on state law.
- didgeoridoo 5y ago
  Did you follow the (nearly simultaneous) trial of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery? That prosecutor didn’t seem to have too much trouble at all proving that particular negative — those guys are all going away for life.
  - loonster 5y ago
    That case would be the equivalent if Grosskreutz killed Rittenhouse and tried to claim self defense. An alternative equivalent would be if Arbery was successful at taking away the firearm and killing his attackers.
    - didgeoridoo 5y ago
      What? Not at all. Arbery attempted to gain control of the gun and was killed, and the defense attempted to claim self-defense. I was responding to the claim that self-defense is some kind of automatic not-guilty verdict. It evidently is not.
      - loonster 5y ago
        Arbery, like Rittenhouse, was not the aggressor. Rittenhouse had a firearm to defend himself, Arbery did not. If Arbery was successful in taking the firearm from his assailants, self-defense would be a very viable claim.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  This is totally possible—if Rosenbaum had killed Rittenhouse, he would have been laughed out of court on a self-defense claim. People claim self-defense all the time, it rarely works. In this case, where the clear, legally defined standard of self-defense was met, Kyle walked.
chmod600 5y ago
Then why weren't the charges dropped? Is it acceptable to put someone through a trial when the outcome is a predictable aquittal?
- tinyhouse 5y ago
  As I mentioned, the first shooting and killing of Rosenbaum wasn't a clear justified self defense based on the video, so it justified the trail. Also the politics around the case played a role.
- maxlybbert 5y ago
  Prosecutors are supposed to bring charges based on “the interests of justice.” I can’t say that they actually meet that standard. They famously bring harsh charges and try to negotiate plea deals. They also famously get creative with how to interpret different laws. There is the concept of malicious prosecution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution ), but that only applies when the prosecutor pursues a case without proof of even the basic elements of the crime. If they filed charges that they were incredibly unlikely to prove (which is what I heard from all the commenters on this case: “the prosecution has a hard case to make” or something similar), then they spent a lot of time and money, caused somebody to spend a lot of money for the defendant, etc., but they didn’t cross the line into malicious prosecution.
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    Rittenhouse was charged with violating a law that only applies if you're younger than 17 years old or have a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches. Since both of those things are trivial to disprove (the prosecutor admitted that Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the rifle was longer than 16"), would that be considered malicious prosecution?
    - maxlybbert 5y ago
      I would love to learn the answer to this: if some charges are arguably justified, but others aren’t, can you claim malicious prosecution for the ones that aren’t? I would think so. Unfortunately, for this specific case, I don’t think it qualifies. The judge only dismissed the charge because he couldn’t write clear jury instructions for it ( https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge-d923d8e255d6b1f5c9c9fc5b74e691fb https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhou... ). I think that could be enough to say “we brought the charge because we honestly thought it applied; the confusion wasn’t malice, it was just difficulty understanding a convoluted law.” I don’t know about Wisconsin, and I don’t know if Rittenhouse has some way to afford bringing a malicious prosecution lawsuit or some other lawsuit against Kenosha. I get the feeling that kind of reaction (followed by a negotiated settlement) is more common in some parts of the country than others.
7sidedmarble 5y ago
I agree, I was very confused how the Grosskreutz testimony was so incredible. It was obvious from the video. Should the state have even pursued that charge? Probably not, but that has nothing to do with that testimony blowing anyone away.
- loonster 5y ago
  It's an all or nothing deal. If the first death was murder, then all that followed were likely murder too.
rpmisms 5y ago
The most interesting aspect for me was watching the polar opposite reactions to the same content. I was personally interested in the facts of the case, which I have been following since 8/25/2020. > 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". This was a very big deal. It was on the video, but as we've seen on social media, different people see different things. The other party in said videos being trapped into admitting that Kyle was right to shoot him was vidicating, both legally and personally for everyone who was rooting for Kyle. Before anyone gets horrified at my views on the case, Kyle was a good kid, being dumb and idealistic, trying to help, and protecting himself when that went south. I wish he hadn't stayed out that night, I wish his assailants had valued their lives more highly, and I hope that this will be a good example for everyone: don't put yourself in danger unless you're prepared for the consequences, and secondarily, fuck around and find out.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I think many people missed the point of the whole self defense argument. In Michigan, you can't claim self defense if you unreasonably put yourself or others in danger. To me, the part that made this case a tossup, was whether or not you believe it is reasonable to go out into public at night, while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. I find that completely ridiculous and unreasonable. Regardless of one's technical right to do so. But some people done agree and think it is totally acceptable to do so.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    > completely ridiculous and unreasonable Maybe, but it's also legal in Wisconsin.
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    ..., while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. are you referring to going out as unnecessary or the carrying a loaded rifle being unnecessary?
  - 5y ago

dheera 5y ago

Also, the people at the trials love to waste time. I remember at the Floyd trial there was something to the tune of: "You have a mobile device, right?" "And a mobile device can record images, right?" "And you were present at the scene, right?" "And while you were present at the scene you had a mobile device, right?" "And your mobile device is capable of recording images, right?" "And you used your mobile device to record images, right?" Like, fuck, you could have compressed that all into 1 question. I guess lawyers get paid $900 an hour so maybe that's part of it.

handrous 5y ago
I think they do it in pieces to get them to start saying yes to stuff, both to get them on a roll and to have a place to pick back up that's not the very beginning if they say no to something along the way.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I have also heard that depending on the situation, an attorney may want to bore the jury. If you overload them with information you can reduce the effectiveness of facts that may be detrimental to your case.
- dheera 5y ago
  > that's not the very beginning So you binary search the damn thing, and you find the logical culprit in log(N) time if N is the number of clauses, instead of searching linearly. Like, if they agree what a phone is, you don't need to drill down all the details of what constitutes a phone. If they disagree, only then traverse the sub-nodes of that.
jrussino 5y ago
This comment reminded me of a post that appeared on HN few months ago, which may shed some light on why the questioning is structured the way it is: "Effective Deposition Strategy and Dealing with the Evasive, Non-cooperative Witness" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29123830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29123830 This section, and the example that follow it, are particularly relevant: > Second, don’t go immediately for the killer question. Take the time to build toward your ultimate question with multiple questions, each question about one fact. > Questions that include one and only one fact is the technique that gives you the most control of a witness.[4] You must ask about facts, not conclusions, when you want to control an evasive, non-cooperative witness. The witness will never agree to your conclusions, and their disagreement with you on any point may seem completely reasonable unless there has been the proper “set-up” (see the following questions and the next section dealing with “set-up”). The advantage of the “one fact – one question” technique is that when a witness “runs”, i.e. they try a long non-responsive narrative; the question can be repeated easily again and again. Each “run” makes the witness appear less credible and frequently results in the witness admitting the fact imbedded in the question. Stringing together multiple questions that are “one fact-one question” allows the jury to derive larger, case-critical conclusions that are inescapable, even if unstated.

encryptluks2 5y ago

Rekieta law ended up being a panel of right-wing lawyers who constantly mocked a prosecution attorney over their weight. I think just watching the trial was sufficient in itself and didn't need a bunch of Jack Posobiec tweeting attorneys to help me understand it.

rpmisms 5y ago
> Rekieta law ended up being a panel of right-wing lawyers who constantly mocked a prosecution attorney over their weight. Their legal analysis was excellent. You disagreeing with their views doesn't change that.
- loonster 5y ago
  I really enjoyed listening to Andrew Branca. He is a very articulate attorney and knows self defense law very well. I got the impression that Barnes would have also made a very good defense for Rittenhouse, but at a very great expense to the Rittenhouse family. To me, it looked like he was an ambulance chaser looking to make a lot of money on a very high profile case. Spend spend spend, then ask for more donations to cover what was spent. Some of the others were more distracting when trying to hear what was said during the case.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    As a gun guy, Branca has been great in navigating the laws that every American gun owner should know. He's a grifter, but he makes a very valuable product. Barnes is obviously extremely smart, worth the big bucks, but definitely requires big money to hire. Nick Rekieta himself is a fun guy, and I'm really glad he took off. He's re-sparked my nascent interest in criminal law, and it's great to see a lawyer dad who's up on his memes. The rest of the panel is fun, not always super helpful, but the value of the panel was great. Good to see something new in the world of streaming.