Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[drumdude]

The system isn’t perfect. But the attacks on it are ridiculous. You have to claim that the judge is racist, the jury is racist, the system is racist, everything is racist and biased towards letting R go free. There is zero evidence for any of that. Unless you want to latch on to the joke that the judge made about Asian food, which the media did try to latch on to.

[Res Ipsa]

The system isn’t perfect. But the attacks on it are ridiculous. You have to claim that the judge is racist, the jury is racist, the system is racist, everything is racist and biased towards letting R go free. There is zero evidence for any of that. Unless you want to latch on to the joke that the judge made about Asian food, which the media did try to latch on to.

The system isn't perfect. To blame racism would require some evidence that the judge or jury made decisions in the trial based on race. In a trial of a white guy for shooting other white guys, that's pretty hard to prove.

Now, there's some pretty good evidence that one of the imperfections in the system is systemic bias that disproportionately hurts some POCs. But this specific trial isn't evidence of that.

[drumdude]

The system isn’t perfect. But the attacks on it are ridiculous. You have to claim that the judge is racist, the jury is racist, the system is racist, everything is racist and biased towards letting R go free. There is zero evidence for any of that. Unless you want to latch on to the joke that the judge made about Asian food, which the media did try to latch on to.

The system isn't perfect. To blame racism would require some evidence that the judge or jury made decisions in the trial based on race. In a trial of a white guy for shooting other white guys, that's pretty hard to prove.

Now, there's some pretty good evidence that one of the imperfections in the system is systemic bias that disproportionately hurts some POCs. But this specific trial isn't evidence of that.

Agreed. And it distracts from the real problems with the system that hurt POC.

[Res Ipsa]

The system isn't perfect. To blame racism would require some evidence that the judge or jury made decisions in the trial based on race. In a trial of a white guy for shooting other white guys, that's pretty hard to prove.

Now, there's some pretty good evidence that one of the imperfections in the system is systemic bias that disproportionately hurts some POCs. But this specific trial isn't evidence of that.

Agreed. And it distracts from the real problems with the system that hurt POC.

Also agreed. The obsession with scoring political points gets in the way of identifying and fixing actual problems.

[doubtingthomas]

A reasonable person in R's position

A reasonable person (or a young man) in R's position wouldn't think a short unarmed man would represent a threat. Rosenbaum was skinny (had belly fat) and probably didn't run fast at 36. Many people, including a news reporter, were around to help Rittenhouse.

At best, he communicated an ambiguous message to R by continuing to hold the handgun.

People had reasonable grounds to think a felony was committed. After shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse called someone, not 911, before to running away.

A reasonable person in R's position could certainly have believed G represented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Rittenhouse doesn't think following someone is a problem, "He also has argued that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum during a confrontation earlier that evening and that Rittenhouse chased him with a fire extinguisher [and rifle] before Rosenbaum turned the tables."
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/s ... d/2684756/

I understand your argument, the problem is that Rittenhouse made himself look very suspicious.

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.

That is disputed by the prosecution. Grosskreutz said, "he had pointed his Glock pistol in Rittenhouse's direction" unintentionally.

[doubtingthomas]

Under the rules of evidence, I believe the judge was correct to exclude that evidence. He didn't use deadly force against people who were shoplifting or causing other types of damage to property.

That works under the assumption that Rittenhouse was afraid for his life.

[doubtingthomas]

Our justice system is founded on appealing to the authority of 12 of our peers selected in a fair process between defense lawyers and prosecution.

1.I don't think one single judge should decide what evidence should be allowed and what should be excluded in a trial.

2. "Despite taking an oath to follow the law, juries sometimes don’t apply the law as instructed"
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-information/crim ... e-law.html

3. Juries can be influenced by emotion, charisma, and popular opinion.

I’m curious what system you would prefer over this.

I think the solution would be to have three judges and a diverse jury (from different parts of the country) with impressive credentials.

[Res Ipsa]

Under the rules of evidence, I believe the judge was correct to exclude that evidence. He didn't use deadly force against people who were shoplifting or causing other types of damage to property.

One has to consider the possibility that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum to chase him. It is possible that Rittenhouse intentionally went to a "dark" corner knowing Rosenbaum was following him. It is not that hard to provoke someone to chase you.

The judge made a big mistake.

Okay, DT, at this point, you're reaching farther and farther beyond anything resembling the applicable statutes or evidence rules. Provoking someone to chase is absolutely irrelevant, and the the statement you think the judge should have admitted has absolutely nothing to do with provocation as it is relevant under the Wisconsin's statutes.

You've reached the point where what you are doing resembles apologetics much more than reasoning to get to the truth. I think you know what motivated reasoning is -- you're doing it to a huge degree. You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but you are nowhere near qualified by knowledge, education or experience to claim that the judge "made a big mistake."

If you're going to simply grasp at ever weaker straws, I'm just not interested.

[doubtingthomas]

If you're going to simply grasp at ever weaker straws

I changed it. Hopefully it makes more sense

You've reached the point where what you are doing resembles apologetics much more than reasoning to get to the truth.

Not at all. I am considering what you are telling me. Maybe tomorrow I'll defending Rittenhouse actions all the way. Like I just told you, "I understand your argument".

[Res Ipsa]

A reasonable person in R's position

A reasonable person (or a young man) in R's position wouldn't think a short unarmed man would represent a threat. Rosenbaum was skinny (had belly fat) and probably didn't run fast at 36. Many people, including a news reporter, were around to help Rittenhouse.

At best, he communicated an ambiguous message to R by continuing to hold the handgun.

People had reasonable grounds to think a felony was committed. After shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse called someone, not 911, before to running away.

A reasonable person in R's position could certainly have believed G represented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Rittenhouse doesn't think following someone is a problem, "He also has argued that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum during a confrontation earlier that evening and that Rittenhouse chased him with a fire extinguisher [and rifle] before Rosenbaum turned the tables."
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/s ... d/2684756/

I understand your argument, the problem is that Rittenhouse made himself look very suspicious.

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.

That is disputed by the prosecution. Grosskreutz said, "he had pointed his Glock pistol in Rittenhouse's direction" unintentionally.

You're just grabbing a bits and pieces of things you like and not making any attempt to evaluate the evidence as a whole. You continue to confuse what R may have actually thought with what a reasonable person in Relief Society position could reasonably conclude, which is the applicable legal standard. What R thinks about following someone, in and of itself, is not relevant. You're also skipping around from incident to incident, when each has to be evaluated on its own merits. Whether Rittenhouse made himself look suspicious is not relevant. I gave you a quote from G's testimony on cross examination – it doesn't matter what the prosecution disputes. Was the prosecutor's statement that you quoted made before or after the cross examination?

As I said in my last response, I'm out.