Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
This is going to be big news. It should have a thread. I'll start with this.
Rittenhouse
- Thread starter Al-O-Meter
- Start date
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I'd hate to be a juror for this case.
So many wrongs.
So many wrongs.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Including by the lead prosecutor. It has come out in trial testimony that law enforcement wanted a copy of Gaige Grosskreutz's smartphone for evidence. The lead investigator went to a judge who reviewed everything surrounding the application for the warrant and granted the search warrant to seize and copy Grosskreutz's phone. The lead prosecutor stepped in to block law enforcement from serving that warrant. The investigator said that has never happened ever before in his law enforcement career. The lead prosecutor obstructed justice in this criminal case to make sure defense couldn't get their hands on the information. Prosecution in this case is playing dirty.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
The whole situation has so many fingers to point imo.
A FreeDumb toon indeed. For example, it leaves out that Rittenhouse was pointing his weapon before anyone grabbed it.
Law enforcement wanted to provide evidence for the defense of Rittenhouse, and you think the problem is with the prosecution?
Prosecutors object to evidence being found or used every single day in the US. If you mean "dirty as usual", that I'd agree with.
What your take on the judge saying the people who were shot can't be called "victims"? Business as usual?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Yes, absolutely 100%. The job of law enforcement was to investigate the incident and collect the evidence. Prosecution would then examine the evidence and decide on filing charges. The only way it would work with how you have just presented things would be if you believed the job of law enforcement was solely to find a way from the outset to get Kyle Rittenhouse. Prosecution in this case obstructed law enforcement because they had predecided to get Kyle and didn’t want facts to get in the way.
The facts surrounding Grosskreutz are of particular value in determining self-defense. Grosskreutz was armed and had used his gun earlier. Rittenhouse was running toward police to give himself up, not pointing his weapon at anyone, and Grosskreutz took off with gun in hand after Rittenhouse to shoot him before he could get to the police. After a freak series of events where Rittenhouse tripped and was attacked by Huber, Rittenhouse through sheer luck happened to be facing toward Grosskreutz and could see him coming. Grosskreutz held up his off hand with palm open as to indicate he meant no harm. Seeing that, Rittenhouse lowered his weapon from firing position at which Grosskreutz raised his Glock to take aim at Rittenhouse. Kyle was faster and shot Grosskreutz before Grosskreutz could get his shot off. Afterwards, Grosskreutz said that he wanted to empty his entire magazine into Rittenhouse.
I think, and law enforcement thinks, and the judge issuing the search warrant thinks that phone of the armed, motivated, and aggressive Grosskreutz would be extremely informative as to what Grosskreutz would have done if Kyle hadn’t happened to see him and used force to stop what Grosskreutz was trying to do.
With that judge it is business as usual. He has had that exact same rule for every case in his court for decades. He believes that word biases the jury. Although it hasn’t been widely reported in the media coverage, the prosecution got the much better end of forbidding the use of biasing terms. It is for that exact same reason that the defense is forbidden from referring to the two people who died as pedophiles and child molesters. The prosecution can’t call them victims and the defense can’t call them child molesters.
I found your take on this remarkably naive and funny. Your description of Rittenhouse seeing another guy raising a gun, raising a rifle faster, and then firing sounds like a fantasy from a spaghetti Western. Your notion that the defense isn't allowed to irrelevantly attack the character of the people being shot as some sort of prosecution victory humorous.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
It may sound that way but there is a lot of video and photographic evidence. It seems everyone had cell phones and cameras. After Rittenhouse tripped and Huber attacked him, Rittenhouse through sheer luck happened to be facing Grosskreutz who had been pursuing him. Grosskreutz raised his hands in a gesture meant to convey that he meant no harm. Rittenhouse lowered the barrel of his rifle.
At Rittenhouse lowering his rifle barrel, Grosskreutz believed his hands-up deception had given him an opening and he quickly tried to aim his Glock to shoot Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was faster.
That picture doesn't show Grosskreutz's gun point toward Rittenhouse. You have no evidence for your supposed "deception". Just wishful thinking.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
And prejudicial (not to mention speculative) language like "deception."
Red
Well-Known Member
In addition to his gun not pointing toward Rittenhouse(I do realize this is a freeze frame photo), you are here reading Grosskreutz’s mind, are you not?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing not a single one of you has taken the time to watch the video. I am not reading Grosskreutz’s mind but describing his actions as recorded in the video. If Grosskreutz had just stood there with his hands up he never would have taken a bullet. That is obvious because you can see in the video Grosskreutz wasn't the only one to stop and put his hands up and none of them got shot. Call it a deception or call it a change of mind, but after stopping to put his hands up, the armed-with-a-Glock Grosskreutz made an attempt at getting Rittenhouse and got shot because of it.
Red
Well-Known Member
I tried, but everything is happening too fast, and not close enough for me to tell where each gun is pointed at every second. I see Rittenhouse firing, and hear his shots, but I just can’t be clear on all the motions of those around him. I’ve watched it several times, full screen, and I guess if I tried freeze framing each relevant second, but right now, I cannot get to the point of confirming your interpretation. And I do remember seeing this video before, at the time I’m guessing. You’re good if you can follow all that in the real time speed of the video. Apparently I’m lacking in that ability. It’s likely I’ll keep trying, though, but I got nowhere conclusive in this attempt.
I also still believe your statement “Grosskreutz believed his hands-up deception had given him an opening” amounts to reading his mind.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
This is the most succinct and accurate representation.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Which part of the video shows the subtitles on his thought processes, again?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I'll admit that it would be much easier to get a grip on what Grosskreutz had in his head if law enforcement had been allowed to serve the warrant on Grosskreutz to get a copy of the messages he sent immediately before and subsequent to the video. Law enforcement wanted that information. A judge thought getting that information was relevant and proper. We should have that information. In interfering with the serving of that warrant, prosecutors obstructed justice.
Possibly that was an attempt to kick Rittenhouse, but he still didn't try to point the gun at him in the video.