Ongoing Trials in Ahmaud Arbery and Kyle Rittenhouse Cases.

[CoffeeTiger 5,113]

So 2 high profile, national murder cases are currently happening. What's everyone think?

With the Arbery case, I think it's pretty clear that "somebody" is going to be convicted for the murder if not all 3. This is a case where you had 3 white guys chasing a jogging black kid through a neighborhood in a truck because they thought he was 'suspicious'. After a 5 min chase they cornered him with their truck and one guy ran up and stuck a shotgun into the face of Arbery then shot him when Arbery tried to hit the gun away.  Guy is now trying to claim "self defense" 

This case is a mess. one of the dudes was a former career police officer, and the local DA who one of the defendants once worked for told police to not arrest the shooters, for which she is not being charged for misconduct herself. The defendants have a history of using racist language and have an old confederate/georgia flag sticker on their truck.    I think the prosecutors case is pretty strong on this one. 

 

---------------------

The Kyle Rittenhouse case is a different matter. 

Kyle was a kid who at 17 grabbed an AR rifle and went to a BLM protest to "defend" life and property from protestors. Ended up getting in a scuffle with a protestor and shot them dead and then proceeded to kill and seriously wound 2 other protestors who tried to stop him after the first shooting. He's become a 2nd amendment and anti-BLM movement hero on the Right and he's received $millions in donations to his legal defense fund. 

  Seems to be some dispute that his 'self defense' claim might be applicable and believable to the jury in this case, so its one that could really go either way. There has been a lot of criticism over this trial from people on the left as it seems the 75 yo Judge is possibly favoring the defense as he ruled that the people who were killed can't be referred to as 'victims' in trial by prosecutors, but the defense is allowed to refer to them as 'rioters' or 'looters' if they wish. The Judge has also reportedly been telling Bible stories references to the jurors when explaining legal concepts. 

 

I think the Rittenhouse tral is the big one to watch, but of course juries and trials can be unpredictable so who really knows how either of these go. 

My personal opinion so far is that we get convictions on the Arbery trial, and either a not guilty or a hung jury on Rittenhouse. 

[AUDub 11,153]

Keeping up with the Rittenhouse trial while the prosecution is making their case...

...and there's no way I could convict. Hell the prosecution is making the best case for the defense they possibly could. 

[AU9377 4,960]

The Rittenhouse case isn't nearly as clear cut as I had been made to believe. As for the South Georgia case, those men are going to spend the rest of their lives in  prison.  Nobody has the right to chase down another and shoot him.  The victim was unarmed and tried to evade the red neck idiots, therefore posed no threat to them.

 

I would like to ask the parents of Rittenhouse why their dumb ass thought it was a smart move for them to support their child owning an assault weapon and going a few states over looking for trouble.  If the boy is convicted, they should feel responsible.  That is bad parenting.

Edited November 8, 2021 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The Rittenhouse case isn't nearly as clear cut as I had been made to believe.

For the prosecutor or defense?

[AUDub 11,153]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

For the prosecutor or defense?

Prosecutors. The defense hardly has to make a case. He's going to get off and rightfully so.

They have him on the weapon and curfew but those are misdemeanors. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I would like to ask the parents of Rittenhouse why their dumb ass thought it was a smart move for them to support their child owning an assault weapon and going a few states over looking for trouble.  If the boy is convicted, they should feel responsible.  That is bad parenting.

Whether he should have been there are not is irrelevant and has no bearing for a self defense case. If you're attacked and retreat it's still self defense. 

As Dub noted, the only charges Rittenhouse is likely to be convicted of are misdemeanors on the gun possession charge for being under 18 at the time and the curfew. 

[AUDub 11,153]

On the other hand the Arbery case comes off as a slam dunk for the state. Felony murder, kidnapping. 

Unless we get a nullification by the jury a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. 

[AUDub 11,153]

5 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Whether he should have been there are not is irrelevant and has no bearing for a self defense case. If you're attacked and retreat it's still self defense. 

As Dub noted, the only charges Rittenhouse is likely to be convicted of are misdemeanors on the gun possession charge for being under 18 at the time and the curfew. 

Did you see Grosskreutz' testimony? Deere Lorde what a mess for the prosecution.

>tfw your star witness is the worst possible person you could put on the stand. 

[AUDub 11,153]

On 11/5/2021 at 2:19 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

There has been a lot of criticism over this trial from people on the left as it seems the 75 yo Judge is possibly favoring the defense as he ruled that the people who were killed can't be referred to as 'victims' in trial by prosecutors, but the defense is allowed to refer to them as 'rioters' or 'looters' if they wish.

There's a reason for this and it isn't out of the ordinary at all. "Victim" is unnecessarily prejudicial and would impugn the defendant's presumption of innocence.

And the judge said they could use those terms if they presented evidence that they were "rioting and looting." Wasn't hard to come by. Got videos of one of the decedents setting dumpster fires and business were looted with aplomb.

You can't put that one in the judge.

[AU9377 4,960]

3 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Whether he should have been there are not is irrelevant and has no bearing for a self defense case. If you're attacked and retreat it's still self defense. 

As Dub noted, the only charges Rittenhouse is likely to be convicted of are misdemeanors on the gun possession charge for being under 18 at the time and the curfew. 

And whether he is convicted or not has no bearing on how idiotic it was for him to be there brandishing an assault rifle, especially at his age.  That is the job of law enforcement, not somebody that wants to play army for the weekend.

[AU9377 4,960]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

There's a reason for this and it isn't out of the ordinary at all. "Victim" is unnecessarily prejudicial and would impugn the defendant's presumption of innocence.

And the judge said they could use those terms if they presented evidence that they were "rioting and looting." Wasn't hard to come by. Got videos of one of the decedents setting dumpster fires and business were looted with aplomb.

You can't put that one in the judge.

In most jurisdictions, meaning every other jurisdiction I have ever known, the judge would not have made that ruling. Due to the fact that he has ruled this way in other prosecutions, it will stand in this case, but it is unusual. 

From what I have seen of the prosecution's case so far, it is unlikely that they will get a conviction for murder.  However, using deadly force to protect the property of another is not permissible. Someone also can't pursue someone who has retreated with deadly force and claim self defense.

[AU9377 4,960]

11 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

For the prosecutor or defense?

Either the prosecution is doing a very poor job, or they don't have much. I honestly don't know which at this point.

[AUDub 11,153]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

In most jurisdictions, meaning every other jurisdiction I have ever known, the judge would not have made that ruling. Due to the fact that he has ruled this way in other prosecutions, it will stand in this case, but it is unusual. 

Where do you practice law? This is probably more common in some regions than others, but it definitely happens frequently, especially in cases with a colorable argument for self defense.

Quote

From what I have seen of the prosecution's case so far, it is unlikely that they will get a conviction for murder.  However, using deadly force to protect the property of another is not permissible. Someone also can't pursue someone who has retreated with deadly force and claim self defense.

The argument for self-defense is just too damn strong.

The defense hasn't even presented their case yet, but from the witness testimony and other evidence we have a pretty clear picture of him retreating every time he had the opportunity and only using his weapon when he had no other choice.

Edited November 9, 2021 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,153]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Either the prosecution is doing a very poor job, or they don't have much. I honestly don't know which at this point.

They don't have much. Should never have gone to trial. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,113]

Yep, like I said in the OP, I don't see Rittenhouse being convicted for any serious offense here. 

 

I think Rittenhouse was 100% wrong in what he did that night and is in a way culpable for those deaths and injuries, but I do understand why legally a jury may not be able to convict here.  

I do kind of wonder why the 3rd guy who Rittenhouse shot and injured never tried to shoot Rittenhouse since he himself was armed with a handgun. I don't know if he would have been legally justified in doing so in that situation. 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

54 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I think Rittenhouse was 100% wrong in what he did that night and is in a way culpable for those deaths and injuries, but I do understand why legally a jury may not be able to convict here.  

This. Wrong and illegal are two very different things under our current laws.

As for the case in Brunswick, I think Roddie Bryan might get off. I actually spoke with a friend of his fiancee's. Which means I clearly didn't get an objective version of events, but still, it seems every version has him as being far less complicit in the overt racism and murder. He thought he was participating in a non-violent citizen's arrest. Allegedly. I do hope the McMichaels receive full book to face. 

[AUDub 11,153]

19 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

This. Wrong and illegal are two very different things under our current laws.

"The law is not ethics"

[CoffeeTiger 5,113]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

This. Wrong and illegal are two very different things under our current laws.

As for the case in Brunswick, I think Roddie Bryan might get off. I actually spoke with a friend of his fiancee's. Which means I clearly didn't get an objective version of events, but still, it seems every version has him as being far less complicit in the overt racism and murder. He thought he was participating in a non-violent citizen's arrest. Allegedly. I do hope the McMichaels receive full book to face. 

 

Speaking  of Robbie Ryan, this CNN interview with him and his lawyer is comical.

 

Dude has like a bowl cut hair cut and is on national tv with his lawyer talking about how he was too weak, short, and uneducated to commit the crime. This lawyer was all over the place. 

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

55 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Speaking  of Robbie Ryan, this CNN interview with him and his lawyer is comical.

 

Dude has like a bowl cut hair cut and is on national tv with his lawyer talking about how he was too weak, short, and uneducated to commit the crime. This lawyer was all over the place. 

 

 

Lordy they are straight out of central casting. 

[AU9377 4,960]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

Where do you practice law? This is probably more common in some regions than others, but it definitely happens frequently, especially in cases with a colorable argument for self defense.

The argument for self-defense is just too damn strong.

The defense hasn't even presented their case yet, but from the witness testimony and other evidence we have a pretty clear picture of him retreating every time he had the opportunity and only using his weapon when he had no other choice.

Georgia.  I have also practiced in Louisiana criminal courts.   I admit that I don't know what they do everywhere, but I would think that it is outside the norm.  The judge is more likely to issue an instruction to the jury that the use of the word victim does not infer guilt.  The reasoning is that there is someone that has been victimized, whether it be by the defendant's justified self defense or someone else.  Self defense is a justification for the use of deadly force.  When someone is found not guilty of murder after they have affirmatively plead self defense, they aren't simply found not guilty, they are found not guilty by reason of self defense.

I haven't listened to all of the testimony, but from what I have heard, I agree that a guilty verdict is unlikely at this point.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

23 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

As Dub noted, the only charges Rittenhouse is likely to be convicted of are misdemeanors on the gun possession charge for being under 18 at the time and the curfew. 

Scratch the curfew. The judge today dismissed the curfew charge

[AUDub 11,153]

11 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Scratch the curfew. The judge today dismissed the curfew charge

I suspect the gun charge won't be far behind. Read a lot of analysis that the ambiguity of the law makes that one a quagmire too. 

[AUDub 11,153]

18 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Georgia.  I have also practiced in Louisiana criminal courts.   I admit that I don't know what they do everywhere, but I would think that it is outside the norm.  The judge is more likely to issue an instruction to the jury that the use of the word victim does not infer guilt.  The reasoning is that there is someone that has been victimized, whether it be by the defendant's justified self defense or someone else.  Self defense is a justification for the use of deadly force.  When someone is found not guilty of murder after they have affirmatively plead self defense, they aren't simply found not guilty, they are found not guilty by reason of self defense.

I haven't listened to all of the testimony, but from what I have heard, I agree that a guilty verdict is unlikely at this point.

I've seen attorneys saying it's routine in NY, SF and MA so yeah this is most likely a regional thing.

And "victim" is a loaded term for lay people. You know, juries, and I have no problem with any judge ever saying the prosecution is not allowed to use the term. I'm a defendant's rights guy, and prosecutors have enough of an advantage as it is. 

[AUGunsmith 666]

On 11/8/2021 at 3:13 PM, AU9377 said:

The Rittenhouse case isn't nearly as clear cut as I had been made to believe. As for the South Georgia case, those men are going to spend the rest of their lives in  prison.  Nobody has the right to chase down another and shoot him.  The victim was unarmed and tried to evade the red neck idiots, therefore posed no threat to them.

 

I would like to ask the parents of Rittenhouse why their dumb ass thought it was a smart move for them to support their child owning an assault weapon and going a few states over looking for trouble.  If the boy is convicted, they should feel responsible.  That is bad parenting.

He only went like 20 minutes away from home lmao. 

Tis case is clear AF if you've watched the case or know the law in question. Hell the prosecutors own witnesses have been witnesses for the defense. 

[AUGunsmith 666]

Kyle rightfully walks free. Every person he shot deserved it.