Jump to content

Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

clapclapclap

By clapclapclap
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Not sure.  The optics of the timing don't look good.  It suggests a possible deal in exchange for testimony, but I don't know why you'd need to cut that kind of a deal for a victim, as opposed to a co-defendant/co-conspirator type of witness.  A victim should testify freely against a defendant without the inducement of a dismissal or plea deal on other criminal charges.

And simple criminal charges against a witness aren't admissible at trial, at least they aren't in Texas.  You need an actual criminal conviction for it to be admissible as impeachment evidence, and it then depends on the type of crime.  Charges aren't good enough.

Maybe there's a nuance of Wisconsin criminal law I'm missing, but I need more info to know if there's anything qualifying as shenanigans.  

Not like the state needs anything else to make itself look bad in this case. 

If they agreed to dismiss them for favorable testimony, it damn sure goes to bias.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Poe It Up
Poe It Up

The “I used to vote Republican” line is the CR’s version of “I have a black friend.”   

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

so, yeah, this is the problem writ large. unarmed black dude, may be a threat, shot several times in the back. armed white dude, with an assault rifle present and visible, who just shot some people, w

CORN
CORN

Kenosha's very own Sweet Corn Fest, held every August Jerry Smith Produce and Pumpkin Farm (7150 18th St.), would like you to know that they are here to support you during this difficult time. Wh

Posted Images

South Austin

South Austin 52523

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If they agreed to dismiss them for favorable testimony, it damn sure goes to bias.

It certainly would.  But that goes to my question -- why do that for a witness whom the state should've have to induce to testify against the defendant?  It's not like cutting a deal with Henry Hill.  It's one of the guys who Rittenhouse shot.  Why wouldn't he testify for the state?

If there's no deal needed, then the charges aren't admissible. 

Edited by South Austin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3664

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

But - ponder the evidentiary problems that arise when when working with digital images that all require an algo to render an image.

Especially a proprietary one.  I wasn't expecting the guy to know "this pixel is going to sample 25% from the NW corner..."  but have a rudimentary understanding of how it works.  At least know enough to not mislead on the stand.

But especially know why you choose the method that you did even if it's a personal opinion that it looked clearer or more like the authentic.  He spent 20 hours on two photos, used different interpolation methods for each, and had zero explanation for what he was doing.

6 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Kinda expected the attorneys to bring in the right experts to clear it up though.

They didn't have time.  This was the last witness on the last day of testimony.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

They didn't have time.  This was the last witness on the last day of testimony.

The prosecution did a horrible job preparing for potential evidentiary objections, even one out of left field like this one. 

And this is a courtroom-must for you aspiring courtroom lawyers (barristers) or if you are an associate helping to prepare a partner for trial. 

spacer.png

https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/imwinkelried/

 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105180

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The prosecution did a horrible job preparing for potential evidentiary objections, even one out of left field like this one. 

And this is a courtroom-must for you aspiring courtroom lawyers (barristers) or if you are an associate helping to prepare a partner for trial. 

spacer.png

https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/imwinkelried/

 

Reminds me of advice GOLL gives young lawyers when they are preparing a motion -- "Evidence.....you should have some."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52523

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Reminds me of advice GOLL gives young lawyers when they are preparing a motion -- "Evidence.....you should have some."

Except for something like a motion for a no-evidence summary judgment or a Rule 91a motion to dismiss.  If we're truly showing our law geekdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105180

Posted
Posted
Just now, South Austin said:

Except for something like a motion for a no-evidence summary judgment or a Rule 91a motion to dismiss.  If we're truly showing our law geekdom.

Don't.  Get.  Me.  Started.  On 91a motions.  So many people use those, and JUST that vehicle, when they are making an argument that necessarily relies on evidence (and often it's an argument they can even WIN), but it's a wasted effort....because the court can't consider evidence in a 91a.  I hate it.  I really have come to hate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52523

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't.  Get.  Me.  Started.  On 91a motions.  So many people use those, and JUST that vehicle, when they are making an argument that necessarily relies on evidence (and often it's an argument they can even WIN), but it's a wasted effort....because the court can't consider evidence in a 91a.  I hate it.  I really have come to hate it.

You'd think the threat of fee-shifting for filing a losing 91a motion would minimize that.  But people like to spend their client's money on stupid shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Reminds me of advice GOLL gives young lawyers when they are preparing a motion -- "Evidence.....you should have some."

Yeah, what was the old saying?

If the law is on your side, argue the law.

If the facts are on your side, argue the the facts.

If the evidence are on your side, argue the evidence.

If none of those are on your side, just argue.

And if none of those are possible, bill somebody for the effort.

Do you even Order of the Coif, bitches? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2109

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, what was the old saying?

If the law is on your side, argue the law.

If the facts are on your side, argue the the facts.

If the evidence are on your side, argue the evidence.

If none of those are on your side, bang the table.

And if none of those are possible, bill somebody for the effort.

Do you even Order of the Coif, bitches? 

Theatrics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Yes, we weren't smart enough to make Law Review, but we have elegant parties, drink much bourbon, and ruminate on the nonsensical issues of the day.

Now that I think about it, it's much like Surly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burnt Orange in OC

Burnt Orange in OC 116

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Thatguy said:

   GG wasn't charged because the law took into consideration that he thought there was an active shooter situation. Key phrase there was took into consideration.

But the prosecution didn't take into consideration that GG was pointing a loaded firearm at Rittenhouse; that Rittemhouse was being wailed on with a skateboard by a convicted felon; and that Rittenhouse was being physically assaulted by another convicted felon who had tried to take his weapon .

I guess he should have just said he thought there was a fourth night of rioting with massive property destruction and personal injury occurring. Oh, wait... that's why he's the sacrificial lamb here.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, South Austin said:

Look, we got posters on this board who bang my 76-year-old mom. This chic is a 10 in their eyes.

76?   Seriously?  Man, now I feel like a jerk for all the comments we’ve made.  
 

but to her credit, she tosses like a 69 year old 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harrison Bergeron

Harrison Bergeron 1798

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, South Austin said:

It certainly would.  But that goes to my question -- why do that for a witness whom the state should've have to induce to testify against the defendant?  It's not like cutting a deal with Henry Hill.  It's one of the guys who Rittenhouse shot.  Why wouldn't he testify for the state?

If there's no deal needed, then the charges aren't admissible. 

An earlier witness - do not recall his name - testified that the prosecution did some tomfoolery with him and his testimony. Obviously not evidence in the GG situation but points to a pattern / precedent. Maybe the deal was "if you say this maybe we can do something about that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14346

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Burnt Orange in OC said:

Well, sure, but other than Joe Biden calling him a white supremacist and CBS calling him a murderer, there hasn't been a whole lot of character assassination going on. 

 

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

If Joe Biden had a son, he’d be a miscreant just like Anthony Huber….

….oh wait

 

5 minutes ago, Deej said:

Is Biden even coherent enough to remember he has a son?

CR ——>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burnt Orange in OC

Burnt Orange in OC 116

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

 

 

CR ——>

Sorry, but it was the pandering politician who brought the cloakroom into the case. When one of the two major party candidates for POTUS completely slanders a 17-year-old kid by labeling him a white supremacist, he needs to be held accountable. Hopefully Rittenhouse is a free man by the middle of next week and has an awesome civil attorney who will start shredding those individuals who slandered him and media outlets that committed libel here.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
blacklab

blacklab 11941

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Burnt Orange in OC said:

Sorry, but it was the pandering politician who brought the cloakroom into the case. When one of the two major party candidates for POTUS completely slanders a 17-year-old kid by labeling him a white supremacist, he needs to be held accountable. Hopefully Rittenhouse is a free man by the middle of next week and has an awesome civil attorney who will start shredding those individuals who slandered him and media outlets that committed libel here.

Wrong. Did the president post in this thread? It was you trying to bring CR to here. If you want to discuss the president and what he said about this case take it to the cloak room. 
 

ive just been deleting political posts but will start time off now. 
 

If you wish further discussion of the moderation take it to the board discussion board. Any board discussion posts are going to be deleted from this thread

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Old Man Judge not knowing the tech was embarrassing but expected.  Kinda expected the attorneys to bring in the right experts to clear it up though.

Sometimes the objections that come out of left field are difficult to anticipate.

In well-run courtrooms, these evidentiary issues are cleaned-up, prior to trial.  But you are correct, good attorneys anticipate all possible attacks on the use of an exhibit and prepare accordingly. Rinse and repeat for all potential exhibits.  I don't get the sense this prosecutor spent the requisite time on exhibits/evidentiary issues. 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

If folks wanted community policing to replace defunded policing, they got exactly what they asked for 🤷‍♂️

Wasn't a factor at the time in Kenosha (not today either).

https://www.kenosha.org/images/finance/2020Adopted.pdf

https://www.kenosha.org/images/finance/2021-Proposed.pdf

______________________________________________________________________________

The police fucked up letting the shooter and his armed friend move towards the conflict (giving the shooter and his armed friend water and warning them about the dangers of advancing into the conflict). Dumb and negligent, at the least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burnt Orange in OC

Burnt Orange in OC 116

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, blacklab said:

Wrong. Did the president post in this thread? It was you trying to bring CR to here. If you want to discuss the president and what he said about this case take it to the cloak room. 
 

ive just been deleting political posts but will start time off now. 
 

If you wish further discussion of the moderation take it to the board discussion board. Any board discussion posts are going to be deleted from this thread

 

Edited by blacklab
user taking vacation for political shit and discussing moderation after being told not to
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...