Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 45 of 60 [ 954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 ... 60  Next

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,977
Location: canada

05 Dec 2021, 5:39 pm

It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 5:56 pm

ironpony wrote:
It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?


Why are you asking me? <joke>
Ask Brictoria, Dox or mom. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,977
Location: canada

05 Dec 2021, 6:49 pm

Oh I was just asking anyone on here, I wasn't directing it to a specific person, sorry :).



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,524
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Dec 2021, 7:19 pm

ironpony wrote:
It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?

From memory, the case(s) which he ruined or severly compromised with his testimony were not this case (directly), but rather his civil cases against the city\state as a result of his being shot. The problem was that in these cases he had not mentioned in the details around the incident the highly relevant fact that he was armed (and the related detail that he had pointed his gun at Mr Rittenhouse), details which would likely have a strong bearing on the degree to which what occurred to him was caused by his own acts, rather than the lack of action by those entities which he was sueing.

Of course, the defence started out by pointing out this failure to provide important\relevant details (lying by omission), and so his credibility took a hit (and, by extension, that of the answers he had provided for the prosecution's questions). His demeanour (some reported him as acting in a smug way, but it is possible that was simply him acting naturally\result of nerves through being on the stand\other causes) when answering the question as to whether a guilty verdict in the case would help him with those civil cases may have also had a similar effect, as well as making his evidence appear somewhat self-serving.


_________________
Quote:
"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it" - Edith Sitwell
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,977
Location: canada

05 Dec 2021, 7:25 pm

Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?

From memory, the case(s) which he ruined or severly compromised with his testimony were not this case (directly), but rather his civil cases against the city\state as a result of his being shot. The problem was that in these cases he had not mentioned in the details around the incident the highly relevant fact that he was armed (and the related detail that he had pointed his gun at Mr Rittenhouse), details which would likely have a strong bearing on the degree to which what occurred to him was caused by his own acts, rather than the lack of action by those entities which he was sueing.

Of course, the defence started out by pointing out this failure to provide important\relevant details (lying by omission), and so his credibility took a hit (and, by extension, that of the answers he had provided for the prosecution's questions). His demeanour (some reported him as acting in a smug way, but it is possible that was simply him acting naturally\result of nerves through being on the stand\other causes) when answering the question as to whether a guilty verdict in the case would help him with those civil cases may have also had a similar effect, as well as making his evidence appear somewhat self-serving.


Oh okay I see. I didn't catch the entire video unedited before and just saw it now, sorry. Thanks. But since Gaige's actions speak for themselves in the video, and you can see what he does clearly, is him leaving the gun out of the civil suit relevant though, since his actions are in the video anyway as far as credibility goes?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,524
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Dec 2021, 8:12 pm

ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?

From memory, the case(s) which he ruined or severly compromised with his testimony were not this case (directly), but rather his civil cases against the city\state as a result of his being shot. The problem was that in these cases he had not mentioned in the details around the incident the highly relevant fact that he was armed (and the related detail that he had pointed his gun at Mr Rittenhouse), details which would likely have a strong bearing on the degree to which what occurred to him was caused by his own acts, rather than the lack of action by those entities which he was sueing.

Of course, the defence started out by pointing out this failure to provide important\relevant details (lying by omission), and so his credibility took a hit (and, by extension, that of the answers he had provided for the prosecution's questions). His demeanour (some reported him as acting in a smug way, but it is possible that was simply him acting naturally\result of nerves through being on the stand\other causes) when answering the question as to whether a guilty verdict in the case would help him with those civil cases may have also had a similar effect, as well as making his evidence appear somewhat self-serving.


Oh okay I see. I didn't catch the entire video unedited before and just saw it now, sorry. Thanks. But since Gaige's actions speak for themselves in the video, and you can see what he does clearly, is him leaving the gun out of the civil suit relevant though, since his actions are in the video anyway as far as credibility goes?


With his civil cases, the video evidence would be less likely to come into play, with a settlement based upon the statements he had made when launching the case being the more likely outcome. The absence of these highly relevant details (lying by omission) which would tend to have a detrimental impact on his case could easily appear to an observer to have been omitted in order to help himself, rather than being an accidental oversight.


_________________
Quote:
"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it" - Edith Sitwell
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,743

05 Dec 2021, 8:17 pm

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I used reason, rather than emotionalism to come to this conclusion.
And politics had nothing to do with my opinion.

Could it possibly be that the judge was simply seeing the political BS for what it was?
That he felt sorry the kid had to be dragged through the mud?


Well I didn't want to interrupt the love fest between DW and Dox but we should return to the topic huh.

Yes, you have a point, but in order to qualify the premise you need empirical evidence. Perhaps he (Schroeder) was a stickler for impartial judgement/adherence to the literal interpretation of the law, in which case both he and the jury collectively bought the defense argument that all of the events leading to/during the shootings were sufficiently ambiguous to throw doubt. However, using my NT wired brain I picked up a pattern that judge Schroeder followed which makes me think he was at least sympathetic to protecting Rittenhouse from the prosecution. Perhaps he saw in Rittenhouse somebody who reminded him of his own son?


The hard core point that the prosecution employed unethical procedure might also have had something/k to do with it.
I haven't investigated this, just heard it mentioned several times.


I acknowledge the prosecution shot themselves in the foot



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,743

05 Dec 2021, 8:20 pm

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


I see we get to add "liberal" to the list of words you that you don't actually know the meaning of. It's getting to be kind of a long list.


DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Yes, there's a word for a judge who generally is seen to favor the defense: a liberal.


A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


A judge with liberal politics who is capable of applying the same standards equally to all defendants in his courtroom would. Especially since all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

Remember that the ACLU once defended the KKK.

Either you believe in some concepts, or you don’t. You don’t bend them just because the wrong guy picked them up.


Alright, cultural thing pertaining to what I interpreted "liberal" mean't in America. I associate it with being "progressive" although I also acknowledge the "Liberal party of Australia" is also the conservative party here.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 8:36 pm

Fascinating. 8O



Has this been posted before?


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,977
Location: canada

05 Dec 2021, 9:16 pm

Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?

From memory, the case(s) which he ruined or severly compromised with his testimony were not this case (directly), but rather his civil cases against the city\state as a result of his being shot. The problem was that in these cases he had not mentioned in the details around the incident the highly relevant fact that he was armed (and the related detail that he had pointed his gun at Mr Rittenhouse), details which would likely have a strong bearing on the degree to which what occurred to him was caused by his own acts, rather than the lack of action by those entities which he was sueing.

Of course, the defence started out by pointing out this failure to provide important\relevant details (lying by omission), and so his credibility took a hit (and, by extension, that of the answers he had provided for the prosecution's questions). His demeanour (some reported him as acting in a smug way, but it is possible that was simply him acting naturally\result of nerves through being on the stand\other causes) when answering the question as to whether a guilty verdict in the case would help him with those civil cases may have also had a similar effect, as well as making his evidence appear somewhat self-serving.


Oh okay I see. I didn't catch the entire video unedited before and just saw it now, sorry. Thanks. But since Gaige's actions speak for themselves in the video, and you can see what he does clearly, is him leaving the gun out of the civil suit relevant though, since his actions are in the video anyway as far as credibility goes?


With his civil cases, the video evidence would be less likely to come into play, with a settlement based upon the statements he had made when launching the case being the more likely outcome. The absence of these highly relevant details (lying by omission) which would tend to have a detrimental impact on his case could easily appear to an observer to have been omitted in order to help himself, rather than being an accidental oversight.


But even if he ommitted this intentionally, the video still shows him put his hands up, and then Rittenhouse wracks the next round into the chamber. This indicates that Rittenhouse did not accept his surrender like he said and that Rittenhouse was getting the next round ready which provoked Grosskreutz into attacking him. So doesn't the video still supports his state of mind at the time accurately, regardless if him leaving the something out later for a lawsuit?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,743

05 Dec 2021, 9:18 pm

Pepe wrote:
Fascinating. 8O



Has this been posted before?


The guys is largely explaining how Wisconsin law works in favor of a stand your ground/self-defense outcome. We kinda already knew that.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,743

05 Dec 2021, 9:25 pm

ironpony wrote:
the video still shows him put his hands up, and then Rittenhouse wracks the next round into the chamber. This indicates that Rittenhouse did not accept his surrender like he said and that Rittenhouse was getting the next round ready which provoked Grosskreutz into attacking him.


Grosskreutz did not articulate his actions accurately in court but the events seem to transpired so quickly that both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse decided that each one was a threat.

Rittenhouse reloading his chamber gives some insight into his mindset but its irrelevant now as there is no double jeopardy in US law so even if it transpires he wanted to kill, the time has now passed.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,977
Location: canada

05 Dec 2021, 9:30 pm

Oh yes, I am not saying anything about double jeopardy. What I mean is, since the video shows what it shows, what does Grosskreutz's credibility matter, at all, when you can just go by the video? People say Grosskreutz's testimony hurt the case, but how did he when the video overrides anything he says is what I mean?

Shouldn't the jurors go by the video and disregard anything he says or did after the fact?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,743

05 Dec 2021, 9:35 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh yes, I am not saying anything about double jeopardy. What I mean is, since the video shows what it shows, what does Grosskreutz's credibility matter, at all, when you can just go by the video? People say Grosskreutz's testimony hurt the case, but how did he when the video overrides anything he says is what I mean?

Shouldn't the jurors go by the video and disregard anything he says or did after the fact?


Rittenhouse and his victims were very close to each other when the shootings occured so the videos were not clear enough and needed some licence to be interpreted. This fed into the lack of evidence and reasonable doubt for the jury.

Rittenhouse was lucky in that the drone footage showing him provoking the crowd right at the beginning was too granular to show that he pointed his gun at the crowd.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,524
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Dec 2021, 9:37 pm

ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?

From memory, the case(s) which he ruined or severly compromised with his testimony were not this case (directly), but rather his civil cases against the city\state as a result of his being shot. The problem was that in these cases he had not mentioned in the details around the incident the highly relevant fact that he was armed (and the related detail that he had pointed his gun at Mr Rittenhouse), details which would likely have a strong bearing on the degree to which what occurred to him was caused by his own acts, rather than the lack of action by those entities which he was sueing.

Of course, the defence started out by pointing out this failure to provide important\relevant details (lying by omission), and so his credibility took a hit (and, by extension, that of the answers he had provided for the prosecution's questions). His demeanour (some reported him as acting in a smug way, but it is possible that was simply him acting naturally\result of nerves through being on the stand\other causes) when answering the question as to whether a guilty verdict in the case would help him with those civil cases may have also had a similar effect, as well as making his evidence appear somewhat self-serving.


Oh okay I see. I didn't catch the entire video unedited before and just saw it now, sorry. Thanks. But since Gaige's actions speak for themselves in the video, and you can see what he does clearly, is him leaving the gun out of the civil suit relevant though, since his actions are in the video anyway as far as credibility goes?


With his civil cases, the video evidence would be less likely to come into play, with a settlement based upon the statements he had made when launching the case being the more likely outcome. The absence of these highly relevant details (lying by omission) which would tend to have a detrimental impact on his case could easily appear to an observer to have been omitted in order to help himself, rather than being an accidental oversight.


But even if he ommitted this intentionally, the video still shows him put his hands up, and then Rittenhouse wracks the next round into the chamber. This indicates that Rittenhouse did not accept his surrender like he said and that Rittenhouse was getting the next round ready which provoked Grosskreutz into attacking him. So doesn't the video still supports his state of mind at the time accurately, regardless if him leaving the something out later for a lawsuit?


The lawsuits where he neglected to mention this, however, are civil cases, where the entities being sued by him (city\state) would have to make the effort to find the footage and present it, should they decide to take it to court.

In those cases, it would be more likely that someone in the legal department (or high up in the entity) of the entity could decide it is "cheaper" to settle the case prior to going to trial based on what is contained in what he provided in his "complaint", not what was omitted but available in video footage of the events.


_________________
Quote:
"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it" - Edith Sitwell
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 9:51 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Fascinating. 8O

Has this been posted before?


The guys is largely explaining how Wisconsin law works in favor of a stand your ground/self-defense outcome. We kinda already knew that.


Your dismissiveness noted. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!