Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by doubtingthomas »

ajax18 wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:54 pm
Video evidence shows Grosskreutz stopping and raising his hands, his pistol pointing in the air.
But that's not what Grosskreutz said under cross examination and it's not what he told the police initially.
"Gaige Grosskreutz Testifies Rittenhouse 'Re-Racked' His Weapon While Holding Him at Gunpoint"
https://www.newsweek.com/gaige-grosskre ... New Testament-1647042
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:55 pm
drumdude wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:06 am
If only there were some evidence he pointed his rifle…

The 12 jurors certainly didn’t see it.
Perhaps if the judge would have allowed more evidence in court.

"New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong"
https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter ... uries.html
What evidence did the judge exclude that you claim should have been allowed? A claim that juries "often" get it wrong doesn't mean that this jury got it wrong.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:03 pm
ajax18 wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:54 pm


But that's not what Grosskreutz said under cross examination and it's not what he told the police initially.
"Gaige Grosskreutz Testifies Rittenhouse 'Re-Racked' His Weapon While Holding Him at Gunpoint"
https://www.newsweek.com/gaige-grosskre ... New Testament-1647042
Here's the crucial testimony from Grosskreutz, which was not in his direct examination, but in his cross-examination by the defense attorney:
Under examination by prosecutors, Grosskreutz testified that he believed Rittenhouse needed to be stopped and he had never intended to use the handgun he was holding, only moving toward the teen because he thought Rittenhouse was preparing to fire.

Then defense attorney Corey Chirafisi elicited a major concession. Using still images of the seconds before Rittenhouse fired a bullet into Grosskreutz's arm, Chirafisi pressed the witness twice on what triggered the shot.

"When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" Chirafisi asked.

"Correct," Grosskreutz responded.

"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.

"Correct," Grosskreutz said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/states ... 021-11-19/

You have to take into account the entire interaction. When G advanced on R with his hands up, holding his handgun, he was still capable of shooting R at any time. At best, he communicated an ambiguous message to R by continuing to hold the handgun. A reasonable person in R's position could certainly have believed G represented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. R responded, not with deadly force, but with a threat of deadly force by pointing/re-racking his rifle. G responded by pointing his handgun at R. This is exactly a situation in which both people had reason to see the other as an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Very likely, either could have legally shot the other. Han Rittenhouse shot first.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:15 pm
A claim that juries "often" get it wrong doesn't mean that this jury got it wrong.
True, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:15 pm

What evidence did the judge exclude that you claim should have been allowed?
"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 73ee3ff753
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:15 pm
A claim that juries "often" get it wrong doesn't mean that this jury got it wrong.
True, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:15 pm

What evidence did the judge exclude that you claim should have been allowed?
"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 73ee3ff753
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.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by drumdude »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:15 pm
A claim that juries "often" get it wrong doesn't mean that this jury got it wrong.
True, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:15 pm

What evidence did the judge exclude that you claim should have been allowed?
"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 73ee3ff753
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.

I’m curious what system you would prefer over this.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

drumdude wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:17 pm
doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pm


True, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.



"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 73ee3ff753
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.

I’m curious what system you would prefer over this.
The judge does get to decide what evidence gets presented to the jury. And the Evidence Rules can get pretty complicated. But I think this example is pretty clear. Some R said about hypothetically shooting shoplifters is irrelevant to the case because there was no shooting of shoplifters or anyone damaging property. It would also be prejudicial to R to admit an inflammatory statement he made when it has no relevance.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by drumdude »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 pm
drumdude wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:17 pm


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.

I’m curious what system you would prefer over this.
The judge does get to decide what evidence gets presented to the jury. And the Evidence Rules can get pretty complicated. But I think this example is pretty clear. Some R said about hypothetically shooting shoplifters is irrelevant to the case because there was no shooting of shoplifters or anyone damaging property. It would also be prejudicial to R to admit an inflammatory statement he made when it has no relevance.
Did R get to choose his judge?
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:15 pm
A claim that juries "often" get it wrong doesn't mean that this jury got it wrong.
True, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
Even if they are, it doesn't mean your point is valid. It's not an invalid appeal to authority. It's overgeneralization.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

drumdude wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:26 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 pm


The judge does get to decide what evidence gets presented to the jury. And the Evidence Rules can get pretty complicated. But I think this example is pretty clear. Some R said about hypothetically shooting shoplifters is irrelevant to the case because there was no shooting of shoplifters or anyone damaging property. It would also be prejudicial to R to admit an inflammatory statement he made when it has no relevance.
Did R get to choose his judge?
Not that I know of. In some jurisdictions, there are rules requiring recusal under certain conditions. And the ethics rules would require a judge to recuse under some circumstances. But I've never heard of a defendant being able to pick their judge. Or a civil litigant either. Judges are generally assigned by the court administration.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply