FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[JPhillips]

Yeah, the judge took time today to bitch about media coverage of himself.

[Lathum]

this judge is a real piece of work.

Listening to Rittenhouse testify makes me sick. Cosplaying lawman and acting like he is a peacekeeper and medic. Example 1A why people shouldn't do this, 2 dead and one shot. The horrible thing is he is going to get off and more people are going to pull this shit.

[Lathum]

Holy shit. I don't understand the legal mumbo jumbo other than what I see on Bull, but man, this judge is a dickbag and it is beyond obvious he has it out for the prosecutor.

[PilotMan]

The judge is quite the asset for the defense. Where was this guy during the Steven Avery case?

[PilotMan]

When you let everyone carry, and a bunch of people get shot, because both sides thought the other side was an active shooter, everyone gets to claim self defense, and anyone killed was just a terrible misunderstanding, but that's ok, because people got to carry their guns!

[Lathum]

The Rittenhouse judge's ring tone is literally Trump's rally theme song. Draw your own conclusions. https://t.co/g7ynaQsPmc

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2021

[Lathum]

Tell me you don't care about the Rittenhouse trial without telling me pic.twitter.com/Tk8MP9zaoP

— Gabe Sanchez (@iamgabesanchez) November 10, 2021

[NobodyHere]

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Tell me you don't care about the Rittenhouse trial without telling me pic.twitter.com/Tk8MP9zaoP

— Gabe Sanchez (@iamgabesanchez) November 10, 2021

This MFer has no business on the bench, he has been as biased as i can remember a judge being in a trial of this magnitude

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Holy shit. I don't understand the legal mumbo jumbo other than what I see on Bull, but man, this judge is a dickbag and it is beyond obvious he has it out for the prosecutor.

In fairness, I'm seeing a lot of actual lawyers saying the prosecution crossed a line that would get you yelled at by any judge. Some suggesting he is trying to get a mistrial because a conviction isn't happening.

[PilotMan]

Was that line only because the Judge had previously put severe restrictions on case in the first place? Would a typical judge done the same? Or would the prosecution had the expectation of being able to question in that way?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In fairness, I'm seeing a lot of actual lawyers saying the prosecution crossed a line that would get you yelled at by any judge. Some suggesting he is trying to get a mistrial because a conviction isn't happening.

yeah, one of the legal talking heads broke that down. Even removing that incident he is still a huge prick and completely biased. Not allowing the video because zooming in could alter it? No allowing the picture with the Tee shirt because it happened 4 months after the night in question, etc...

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

yeah, one of the legal talking heads broke that down. Even removing that incident he is still a huge prick and completely biased. Not allowing the video because zooming in could alter it? No allowing the picture with the Tee shirt because it happened 4 months after the night in question, etc...

I haven't followed this particular incident but:

If zooming does alter the raw pixels or introduce new ones then from my understanding it is generally inadmissible because it does alter the evidence.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I haven't followed this particular incident but:

If zooming does alter the raw pixels or introduce new ones then from my understanding it is generally inadmissible because it does alter the evidence

What? Like almost all video is lossy. You're not going to get lossless video from any playback. So any video "introduces" odd pixels.

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What? Like almost all video is lossy. You're not going to get lossless video from any playback. So any video "introduces" odd pixels.

SI

I'm a random internet person in this area but:

My understanding is that you can use raw footage. But if you try to zoom then you have to have some kind of algorithm to enhance the video. When creating the additional pixels you are essentially creating the evidence which could be skewed in the prosecutions favor.

[GrantDawg]

I think the anger over the fact Rittenhouse was there and why is clouding all reason when people are looking at the case.

[Lathum]

When you voluntarily put yourself in harms way you shouldn't get to then yell self defense when you kill two people.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

When you voluntarily put yourself in harms way you shouldn't get to then yell self defense when you kill two people.

Can you you show me that law? Where exactly is it written? This is the issue. Instead of wanting a conviction because you disagree with the politics of the kid, divorce the politics and look at what happened:
A kid, running from a crowd including a guy that has already threatened to kill him, tries to get away. The guy who threatened him corners him and tries to grab the gun. How is that not self defense? He then shoots a guy that tries to grab the gun and swings a skateboard at him, and with another guy barreling down him with a gun whom he also shoots. How was the kid not afraid for his life?


Let's change a couple of facts. The kid is a BLM protester and he is guarding a black church. Do you feel the same way?


I am for a law that strongly prevents this kind of vigilantism. It absolutely should exist. The problem in this case is it doesn't. Also, for the record a despise Rittenhouse's politics and everything he stands for, and it makes me sick that he is going to come off as an hero here.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm a random internet person in this area but:

My understanding is that you can use raw footage. But if you try to zoom then you have to have some kind of algorithm to enhance the video. When creating the additional pixels you are essentially creating the evidence which could be skewed in the prosecutions favor.

How does the judge's decision to not allow the people killed to be called 'victims' NOT skew the evidence in favor of the defense?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Can you you show me that law? Where exactly is it written? This is the issue. Instead of wanting a conviction because you disagree with the politics of the kid, divorce the politics and look at what happened:
A kid, running from a crowd including a guy that has already threatened to kill him, tries to get away. The guy who threatened him corners him and tries to grab the gun. How is that not self defense? He then shoots a guy that tries to grab the gun and swings a skateboard at him, and with another guy barreling down him with a gun whom he also shoots. How was the kid not afraid for his life?


Let's change a couple of facts. The kid is a BLM protester and he is guarding a black church. Do you feel the same way?


I am for a law that strongly prevents this kind of vigilantism. It absolutely should exist. The problem in this case is it doesn't. Also, for the record a despise Rittenhouse's politics and everything he stands for, and it makes me sick that he is going to come off as an hero here.

This is a fair and accurate take. It also sickens me that this kid, who by all accounts is a complete fuckhead, is going to become a hero and worse likely encourage more of this in the future, that will also likely lead to targeted murder in the name of self defense. But within the scope of the law, there is no way he is convicted of murder. He will/should be convicted of the misdemeanors, but that is not going to have any impact on his martyrdom with the vigilante crowd.

There needs to be a law in place that removes non-interested parties from the ability to deputize themselves and show up at protests with weapons. If a situation is that bad, we have the national guard and should use them, instead of allow these wannabe cosplay soldier idiots to show up and further escalate already tense situations.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

How does the judge's decision to not allow the people killed to be called 'victims' NOT skew the evidence in favor of the defense?

This is a completely separate issue.

My post was about altering/fabricating evidence.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Can you you show me that law? Where exactly is it written? This is the issue. Instead of wanting a conviction because you disagree with the politics of the kid, divorce the politics and look at what happened:
A kid, running from a crowd including a guy that has already threatened to kill him, tries to get away. The guy who threatened him corners him and tries to grab the gun. How is that not self defense? He then shoots a guy that tries to grab the gun and swings a skateboard at him, and with another guy barreling down him with a gun whom he also shoots. How was the kid not afraid for his life?


Let's change a couple of facts. The kid is a BLM protester and he is guarding a black church. Do you feel the same way?


I am for a law that strongly prevents this kind of vigilantism. It absolutely should exist. The problem in this case is it doesn't. Also, for the record a despise Rittenhouse's politics and everything he stands for, and it makes me sick that he is going to come off as an hero here.

I have to think on all of this, but there's a lot of truth to this post.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/u...tic-rifle.html
That said, he should totally get busted for whatever gun statutes he violated by having that weapon and get the maximum. Also, the guy who bought him his gun when he was a minor - is there some law against that in the same way that there's a law against buying alcohol for a minor? That guy needs to get the book thrown at him, too.

And I'm fine with him getting thrown to the wolves for civil suits, especially considering he /did/ kill 2 people and willingly put himself in those situations.

SI

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Can you you show me that law? Where exactly is it written? This is the issue. Instead of wanting a conviction because you disagree with the politics of the kid, divorce the politics and look at what happened:
A kid, running from a crowd including a guy that has already threatened to kill him, tries to get away. The guy who threatened him corners him and tries to grab the gun. How is that not self defense? He then shoots a guy that tries to grab the gun and swings a skateboard at him, and with another guy barreling down him with a gun whom he also shoots. How was the kid not afraid for his life?


Let's change a couple of facts. The kid is a BLM protester and he is guarding a black church. Do you feel the same way?


I am for a law that strongly prevents this kind of vigilantism. It absolutely should exist. The problem in this case is it doesn't. Also, for the record a despise Rittenhouse's politics and everything he stands for, and it makes me sick that he is going to come off as an hero here.

Yes I do. The easiest way to not have to use your gun is don't voluntarily put yourself in a position to use that gun.

[Lathum]

seems appropriate...

NEW: judge in Rittenhouse case just made the jury applaud for Rittenhouse’s witness (because he is a veteran). Inappropriate to say the least.

— Kaivan Shroff (@KaivanShroff) November 11, 2021

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I have to think on all of this, but there's a lot of truth to this post.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/u...tic-rifle.html
That said, he should totally get busted for whatever gun statutes he violated by having that weapon and get the maximum. Also, the guy who bought him his gun when he was a minor - is there some law against that in the same way that there's a law against buying alcohol for a minor? That guy needs to get the book thrown at him, too.

And I'm fine with him getting thrown to the wolves for civil suits, especially considering he /did/ kill 2 people and willingly put himself in those situations.

SI

Agreed.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Let's change a couple of facts. The kid is a BLM protester and he is guarding a black church. Do you feel the same way?

The question is moot! (Jesse Jackson voice) BLM protester would have been shot by the police if he had discharged a firearm.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And I'm fine with him getting thrown to the wolves for civil suits, especially considering he /did/ kill 2 people and willingly put himself in those situations.

SI

I'm not a fan of a person defending himself being "thrown to the wolves for civil suits"

[JPhillips]

I don't know if he's criminally liable, but he chose to go to Kenosha with an illegal weapon. He definitely bears blame for the outcome. If he stays home, those two people don't die.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Let's change a couple of facts. The kid is a BLM protester and he is guarding a black church. Do you feel the same way?

Yes. I don't believe having 17-year old vigilantes crossing state lines with military-grade weapons itching to shoot someone is a good thing regardless of the cause.

This is similar to a gang shooting. Theoretically, it's self-defense because the other gang member had a gun (I know it doesn't work that way in court because of their race/ethnicity). But I sure as shit don't want shootouts happening anywhere. Innocent bystanders catch bullets all the time because of idiots like this.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't know if he's criminally liable, but he chose to go to Kenosha with an illegal weapon. He definitely bears blame for the outcome. If he stays home, those two people don't die.

A reminder that Bill Barr made a huge stink about crossing state lines to commit crimes.

https://www.axios.com/george-floyd-p...0f05ad428.html

This was quickly ignored for this case. No federal charges were ever filed against him.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm not a fan of a person defending himself being "thrown to the wolves for civil suits"

I'm not a big fan of anyone, in particular a minor, grabbing an AR-15, and going somewhere well out of his way to kill people as a vigilante.

Calling him "a person defending himself" certainly strips away a lot of relevant context and you know it. This wasn't some old dude using a gun to protect himself from a home invasion.

SI

[GrantDawg]

For those who answered my rhetorical, I want you to reread the question. I didn't ask if it changed your opinion on whether the individual should have been there. or even on guilt. I asked if changed how you FEEL about it. Would you be as vehemently cheering on his conviction? Would you be as convinced he was only there to shoot people? Because I say BS if you say yes. I can believe you could still be against the kid being there. I just don't buy you would be as emotionally invested.
The stuff I read on Twitter is just emotionally clouded opinions that largely have no basis in fact. That is a "both sides" statement. But not liking something is not a reason to convict. Not liking someone is not a reason to convict.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

For those who answered my rhetorical, I want you to reread the question. I didn't ask if it changed your opinion on whether the individual should have been there. or even on guilt. I asked if changed how you FEEL about it. Would you be as vehemently cheering on his conviction? Would you be as convinced he was only there to shoot people? Because I say BS if you say yes. I can believe you could still be against the kid being there. I just don't buy you would be as emotionally invested.
The stuff I read on Twitter is just emotionally clouded opinions that largely have no basis in fact. That is a "both sides" statement. But not liking something is not a reason to convict. Not liking someone is not a reason to convict.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I don't care if it's a choir boy there to defend a church, I don't support 17-year olds carrying around military-grade weapons looking to dole out vigilante justice.

They are not trained to handle the weapon, not trained to handle the situation, and have brains that are not fully developed and able to make good decisions.

This isn't just about people attending these protests. Bullets are indiscriminate and someone wildly firing off shots into the air is a recipe for disaster. A lot of innocent bystanders get hit by gang shootings. I don't care who's side your own, I don't want to be in the vicinity of this shit.

[GrantDawg]

Again. Not what I asked. I am against that as well, and have stated as such.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[cuervo72]

I'll admit that I'm probably biased against him and those with him. I think they were looking for a confrontation, not to keep any peace. (Though make no mistake, Rosenbaum was also looking for a confrontation.)

Part of my bias is the frustration that it even got that far. IMO there's no possible way armed BLM protesters would be given that sort of leeway. They would be cracked down on, and fast. Not that I think anyone should be able to do it.

[GrantDawg]

You do realize there have been armed BLM protest that have happened without incident? One happened locally. The idea that it couldn't happen is a bit exaggerated.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Btw, another fallacy that keeps coming up in this thread. There have been "gang shootings" where people have gotten off on self defense.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[cuervo72]

I knew of one Black 2nd amendment group that marched, but I didn't know any BLM-specific ones had occurred. I'll stand corrected, but it does surprise me.

[molson]

I haven't followed this case much, but I recently worked on a case where the issue was whether the jury was properly instructed on the "initial aggressor" exception to the state self-defense statute. The defendant argued that state law required there to be a distinct violent act for the exception to apply, but that the jury instruction permitted the jury to find that it applied if there was mere provocation. And there was discussion about what the line is between violent and non-violent provocation. We argued that the jury was instructed correctly, and that in any event, there was a violent act from which a reasonable jury could find that the initial aggression exception applied.

For every case that the news decides is one that we all need to fight over, there are dozens more where these kinds of legal issues are at play. And it's always crazy to me how a middling prosecutor with massive student loan debt can suddenly become a borderline national celebrity based on shit that went down while he was at home trying to catch up on streaming service TV shows he was behind on. You can spend you career trying to be an ethical public servant but then one of these cases comes along and there are a billion more factors at play, real and perceived, besides law and justice and the legal arguments they're used to making. And everyone on the internet decides you're part of some massive corrupt conspiracy when you can't even find time to get your laundry done.

I know our office lost a particular prosecutor when the media decided he was racist for not bringing particular criminal charge which did not even exist in our state, and now he's making 3 times as much in private practice. I read somewhere that in the Rittenhouse case that the lead prosecutor makes $66k. It really isn't worth it unless you can get locked into the concept that you are serving the public and that has its own value. And you don't make overtime or anything when you're life gets taken over by a case like this.

More and more these types of cases just make me uncomfortable both because of my sympathy for the plight of the actual humans involved, and how media attention and public scrutiny just take everything in a direction away from the normal legal arguments that lawyers are used to making, to something that is more fraught with bias, politics, etc. I consider my own role as kind of a super-clerk where I assist state appellate and federal habeas judges in making whatever the right decision is based on the established facts and the law in this moment. I don't care if we win or lose. When we lose, that's part of the process, as long as I accurately and competently present the law and facts to the courts in a way in which they can reach that decision and provide that guidance to future similar cases. But when a case becomes "famous", it's very frustrating because it doesn't feel like justice is happening in that same way. It's about something else. Of course the public SHOULD be interested in cases like this, but once that interest is there, it feel like we're in a different category completely from things like justice and what the law requires.

Edit: Self-defense statutes in particular, are a fucking mess and stressful to deal with from the perspective of law enforcement and prosecution. There are vaguely written, lots of reliance on what is "reasonable" and what is a "reasonable belief". Which unlike every other criminal statute that lays out elements, is totally reliant on what the police, prosecutors, and ultimately, the jury, morally believe, which is much different today than it was 20 years ago, even though the statutes have not been amended in that time. So there's a trend towards deference to the public through grand juries, and through letting a jury hear a case, which, has its own ethical pitfalls. America traditionally has a very strong tradition of self-defense that is now being challenged. Someone can be guilty today when they wouldn't have been guilty 10 or 20 ago under the same statutes.

Personally, I think state legislatures should re-draft these statutes with more specifics, and also create new criminal statutes for police use of force so that force can be more easily evaluated than via the same old 100-year old statutes prosecutors and juries are stuck with now. In all of these claimed reform movements, one thing that has been almost completely absent is legislative clarification on what the people actually want prosecutors and the police to do in terms of charging, and what type of self-defense is lawful. I think that's in part because people enjoy the police and prosecutors remaining the lightning rods for all of societal ills so their own privelge can be protected.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Btw, another fallacy that keeps coming up in this thread. There have been "gang shootings" where people have gotten off on self defense.

It's extremely rare from what I've seen. Chicago has gang shootings daily and I can't remember any where self-defense was used successfully (I'm sure there is a case somewhere). Especially one with multiple victims.

I also don't remember any gang member involved in a mass casualty shooting garnering these kinds of donations and support from the highest levels of government.

If you can find me some examples, it would be interesting.

[RainMaker]

Also odd that the friend who illegally provided him with the gun was not charged with felony murder. A common charge against gang members but oddly not used in this case (can say the same for the Capitol deaths). I'm sure there is a reason why.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's extremely rare from what I've seen. Chicago has gang shootings daily and I can't remember any where self-defense was used successfully (I'm sure there is a case somewhere). Especially one with multiple victims.

It would be.


[quote=RainMaker;3350223I also don't remember any gang member involved in a mass casualty shooting garnering these kinds of donations and support from the highest levels of government.[/quote]
One of the problems with this case is that it has been completely politicized. I don't know what your point is here.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also odd that the friend who illegally provided him with the gun was not charged with felony murder. A common charge against gang members but oddly not used in this case (can say the same for the Capitol deaths). I'm sure there is a reason why.

It depends on felony murder laws in the state whether this would qualify. Some states (like mine) have a broad felony murder law that probably could include something like that, but there are many states where it has to involve specific felonies. If I had to guess, most states that are pro-gun probably have protections for gun sellers in place to prevent such charges. You know, Merica. If there is a legal way to do it, then charge him. I also think the mom should be charged with something like child endangerment. Of course I don't know the law well enough to say they actually could.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

One of the problems with this case is that it has been completely politicized. I don't know what your point is here.

I'm just saying it's an incredibly unique case compared to most gang shootings. If Rittenhouse was black and considered himself a Crip, I guarantee there would be no one defending his shooting of a Blood who had a weapon on him too. We would just chalk it up as a gang shooting. And the same politicians supporting him would be running anti-crime ads in the next campaign.

And I guess to your initial question, yes, I would cheer on anyone's conviction who committed a mass gang shooting like this. And yes, I think anyone regardless of political affiliation who shows up open-carrying an assault rifle is looking to start something.

There were some left-wing protesters (in I believe Seattle) who walked around with rifles like that too. Those are people looking to provoke a fight and if they end up open fire on a crowd, I would want them away for life.

I get concealed carry. I've never felt scared enough in my life where I felt I need to do it, but I understand there are people who are afraid and feel comfortable doing it. But I think when you're walking around open-carrying a powerful rifle with tactical gear on at a contentious protest 50 miles from where you live, you're not in it for self-defense. You're itching for a fight, or at the least, to intimidate others.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's extremely rare from what I've seen. Chicago has gang shootings daily and I can't remember any where self-defense was used successfully (I'm sure there is a case somewhere). Especially one with multiple victims.

I also don't remember any gang member involved in a mass casualty shooting garnering these kinds of donations and support from the highest levels of government.

If you can find me some examples, it would be interesting.

If there is good evidence (ie. let's say it's on video) of gang member A pulling out a gun and shooting at gang member B, who pulls out his own gun and fires back, killing him, the reason you're not going to see it is because it's not even going to get to the trial stage.

That charge, if it even gets to the stage of a charge being sworn, is going to be dropped very quickly. Sure, there will likely be some pleas to some firearms offences but gang member B is not going to be prosecuted for murder.

Ultimately, it seems as if people are just looking to complain. In the example, if both gang members are people of colour, if the person does get charged, then we get the whole "if it was a white person that did the shooting they wouldn't get charged, police and prosecutors are picking on people of colour, blah, blah, blah."

If the person doesn't get charged, then the complaint turns into police and/or prosecutors not caring about victims of colour, blah, blah, blah. It's really a no-win with some people.

[Edward64]

Been reading bits and pieces. Thinking there is likely reasonable doubt on the original charges re: 3 victims but can see him found guilty on lesser charges.

If he isn't a white supremist now, he sure will be in prison.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Been reading bits and pieces. Thinking there is likely reasonable doubt on the original charges re: 3 victims but can see him found guilty on lesser charges.

If he isn't a white supremist now, he sure will be in prison.

He probably already is, but that doesn't really matter for the trial. It also doesn't matter if the people killed were child molesters are whatever. The number of people that think you can convict someone because you don't like them, don't agree with their politics, or don't agree with what they did is astounding. Just as much as the number of people that think it is fine to kill people if you consider them "bad people."

[Brian Swartz]

I have nothing specific to add aside from that I've never known GrantDawg to make more sense, and I agree with him. Suffice to say everything I've seen on social media hasn't had the first thing to do with what you might call 'relevant evidentiary factors'.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I have nothing specific to add aside from that I've never known GrantDawg to make more sense, and I agree with him. Suffice to say everything I've seen on social media hasn't had the first thing to do with what you might call 'relevant evidentiary factors'.

Who-hoo!!! I made sense! I will take the win!

[PilotMan]

I've gone back and forth on Matt Taibbi, he's gone from a solid investigative reporter to a reporter who has rejected the overall narrative that divided the nation, instead turning is writing to the efforts of paid media to stroke the emotions with the intentions to divide. He's also written extensively on freedom of speech and press. I don't see eye to eye with him all the time, and I'm trying really hard to separate the narrative here from the points that Grant is making and I do understand it. I also understand that the judge seems like a giant tool, but that is separate from the narrative too. Here Taibbi does a solid job (at least in my non-paid portion) of trying to change the narrative and how the eyes really ought to be on the idea that profits are still raging despite the world feeling like it's on the brink of collapse. To his greater point....why is that? Why is the focus on one thing, and not another?

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/as-america-falls-apart-profits-soar

[cuervo72]

Heh. I read this a couple of weeks ago: What Happened to Matt Taibbi?