Jump to content

Carl Spackler

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    3393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carl Spackler

  1. Damn, that's some articulation. Copilot also can double as security
  2. I agree, which is why McKenna BiB (same mashbill but higher proof) was always a steal before Minnick and others let the cat out of the bag. Killing off a bottle of Bulleit Blender's Select tonight to erase the memory of yet another Texas loss.
  3. Yeah, those tweets make me shake my head as well.
  4. If that quote is accurate (and I don't mean just the yellow highlighted part), then it's very concerning.
  5. I don't think Grosskreutz's testimony necessarily provides proof that he lied. You can say that it's susceptible to different interpretations, and I would agree with that. And I don't think there's any dispute that Grosskreutz got shot only after he brandished a firearm at Rittenhouse. That simply underscores that Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, particularly as to the Grosskreutz shooting, was legally viable. I have no problem at all with the jury's conclusions on the Grosskreutz-related charges. As for why Grosskreutz was not charged, I obviously don't know since I wasn't privy to the decisionmaking process. But according to that linked article, he claimed he was unaware that his permit had expired, so perhaps that had something to do with it. It also would not have been good "optics" to charge someone with a crime when that person was expected to testify for the prosecution, so I suspect that had something to do with it as well.
  6. Sorry if you are unable to read or digest more than a sentence or two at a time. I'll try to keep that in mind for future posts. In the meantime, here's a link and quoted excerpt for your edification. I hope this isn't too much for you to read and comprehend. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha Grosskreutz was roughly a block away from Rittenhouse when he first heard the gunshots — the sound of Rittenhouse shooting and killing Joseph Rosenbaum. As a medic, Grosskreutz ran toward the sound, rather than away, he said.
  7. The hypothetical is/was intended to illustrate why the evidence of the conduct that preceded the Rosenbaum shooting was so critical to Rittenhouse's self-defense claim. Does that help you understand?
  8. Uh, no. Get your facts straight. Grosskreutz testified that he heard the sound of the gunshots in the Rosenbaum shooting. He did not testify that he witnessed the actual shooting. Second (and this has been discussed in this forum and in DT), the fact that there was testimony to the effect that Rittenhouse made a statement to Grosskreutz to the effect that he was going to the police would not necessarily have nullified any self-defense claim by persons attempting to intercept and subdue Rittenhouse. Why? Well, if you thought a guy was an active shooter and he told you that he was "going to the police," would you believe him? Or is it possible, maybe just possible, that he's saying that to avoid detention. If we applied your reasoning generally, then persons engaging in shootings (both lawful and unlawful) could simply announce that they were "going to the police" and foreclose any efforts by citizens to detain them. It's patently ridiculous to suggest that Rittenhouse's brief, ambiguous statement about "going to the police" somehow completely short-circuited the ability of any onlooker to attempt to legally detain him if they reasonably thought he was an active shooter who had just shot someone -- possibly unlawfully. And it's also worth noting that your comments wouldn't apply to Huber -- he had no information suggesting that Rittenhouse was going to the police. Third, any evidence concerning the legality or illegality of Grosskreutz's possession of his firearm and/or a tear gas canister would have been legally irrelevant to any potential claim of self-defense on his part, just as any questions about the legality of Rittenhouse's possession of his firearm were irrelevant to the viability of his self-defense claim. Finally, since you may have your panties in a wad thinking that my posting above somehow signals that I'm upset with the verdict, I'll simply repeat what I posted earlier -- I don't have a problem with the verdict. I'm just taking issue with the notion that the persons who attempted to intercept and detain Rittenhouse would not have had viable legal defenses. The key point is that because his shooting of Rosenbaum was deemed to be lawful self-defense, Rittenhouse also had similarly viable defenses in connection with the shootings of Huber and Grosskreutz.
  9. First, persons seeing the shooting would not necessarily have witnessed the chase. In that regard, the hypothetical I posed involved persons simply witnessing the shooting itself, no conduct beforehand. Second, even if others had witnessed an unarmed Rosenbaum chasing an armed Rittenhouse immediately prior to the shooting, that would not have necessarily meant that the shooting was in self-defense or that the onlookers would have perceived the shooting as self-defense. Rittenhouse's self-defense claim as to Rosenbaum relied in large part on evidence of a death threat issued well before the foot chase. Let me put it another way: If an unarmed individual is chasing an armed individual and (without more) the armed individual turns and shoots, it's still questionable that it's self-defense because self-defense laws typically permit only a "proportional response." This is why the evidence of the threat, the prior throwing of an object by Rittenhouse, and evidence suggesting that Rosenbaum had Rittenhouse cornered was so significant.
  10. I am confident that, from a legal standpoint, you are incorrect. Under the law, the second and third victims would not have been required to demonstrate that they actually saw the first shooting in order to establish that their own actions in attempting to catch/subdue Rittenhouse were lawful. It would have been sufficient, IMO, for them to establish that they heard the various shouts from people saying that Rittenhouse had just shot someone and was trying to get away, etc. That would have been sufficient for the second and third victims to reasonably think that it was necessary to stop Rittenhouse in order to protect the lives of others. And, frankly, even if Huber and/or Grosskruetz had actually witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, it would not have nullified their potential defense. Why? Because at the time it occurred, the Rosenbaum shooting would have appeared to most people to be a case of an unlawful shooting (murder). Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense in connection with the Rosenbaum shooting was premised on actions that took place BEFORE the shooting, i.e., Rosenbaum's threat, Rosenbaum's act of throwing an object at Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum's act of chasing Rittenhouse on foot, etc. Neither Huber nor Grosskreutz would have had knowledge of that pre-shooting conduct that ultimately allowed Rittenhouse to claim self-defense. At the time the Rosenbaum shooting occurred, it looked like an armed individual shooting an unarmed individual. A person witnessing just the shooting itself could/would have reasonably thought that Rittenhouse had just murdered Rosenbaum, and would therefore have been justified in attempting to stop Rittenhouse from fleeing the scene. From a legal standpoint, I think you're simply wrong on this point. But it's academic because neither Huber nor Grosskreutz captured or subdued Rittenhouse; rather, they got shot by Rittenhouse. So the issue then became whether Rittenhouse could viably claim self-defense in connection with those shootings.
  11. Not all of it, though, right? Was the threat that Rosenbaum made prior to the shootings on video? Or was the threat in evidence only via the testimony of witnesses? If it was only via testimony, I'd say that was a critical component of the self-defense case that was NOT on video. I don't have a problem with the verdict. I didn't hear/see all of the evidence. The jury did, so it would be difficult for me to secondguess the verdict when I did not hear/see all of the evidence. From what I could tell, there seemed to be enough evidence to support a self-defense finding in connection with the Rosenbaum shooting. And the application of self-defense to the other shootings hinged in large part (if not completely) on whether the Rosenbaum shooting was lawful. If the Rosenbaum shooting wasn't self-defense, Rittenhouse would not have had a viable self-defense claim in connection with the other shootings because he would have provoked the very situation causing others to attack him. The jury decided the Rosenbaum shooting was self-defense, and I can't really question that conclusion. That conclusion compelled the other self-defense findings, IMO. But I also don't have a problem with the decision to bring charges. The self-defense aspect of the Rosenbaum shooting was close enough (shooting of unarmed man counterbalanced by evidence of prior threat, chasing, etc.) that the decision to bring charges was reasonable, IMO. And if the Rosenbaum shooting was not self-defense, there's a good chance the other shootings would have been found to be unlawful as well. Everything hinged on the first shooting, IMO, and that shooting was a close enough call from a legal standpoint to justify the bringing of charges. The fact that the jury had to deliberate 3+ days to reach a verdict seems to bear that out.
  12. Out here in CA, the burden of proof on that defense is beyond a reasonable doubt and it's the prosecution's burden. I.e., once there is substantial evidence of self-defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense. I'm not sure if Wisconsin's burden of proof structure on that defense is similar, but I suspect it probably is.
  13. Judge has discretion on whether to sequester the jury. It's unusual to see total sequestration -- most people don't like to be kept from their families, etc. for extended periods. As for allegations of jury tampering and/or juror misconduct, the judge again has discretion to adopt measures designed to address the issues. I think most judges would start out by questioning jurors individually to see if there is any substance to the allegations.
  14. What are you referring to specifically? Whether to sequester the jury? Something else?
  15. Unless I'm misreading the list, it's worse than that -- 3/5 of the respondents didn't rate the clergy as trustworthy.
  16. Part of it may simply be preservation of legal issues for any potential appeal. Not sure how WI law works in that regard, but there may be a potential for waiver or forfeiture of a legal argument if it was not part of a mistrial motion.
  17. Surly threads take the strangest turns sometimes . . .
  18. I recall thinking this role in The Replacements would propel Brooke Langton to even bigger things, but nope. She was hot in that movie.
  19. Good idea. My favorite football movie might be Friday Night Lights, but it's Brian's Song if you want waterworks. Non-attorneys, this is what you do while you're waiting for a verdict. You sit around and talk about random shit.
  20. My favorite scene in A Civil Action is when Schlictman/Travolta goes all out to set up a settlement conference at an expensive hotel, paying top dollar for a banquet room with food and drink, going all out to impress the defense attorneys. Facher/Duvall sits down, hears the initial demand, grabs a croissant on the sly and puts it in his pocket, asks to keep one of the hotel pens, and then walks out without making any kind of counteroffer. Now *that's* how you say "fuck you" to opposing counsel in a settlement negotiation.
  21. Was the testimony that Rosenbaum yelled this directly at Rittenhouse? Or in Rittenhouse's presence? Or was the testimony that Rosenbaum was just yelling this in general?
  22. Wow, did that really get published? That's terrible.
  23. Missed it in the sense that I was not watching the trial when that testimony occurred? Correct -- I have watched very, very little of the trial. But I'm taking you at your word that there was testimony by Grosskreutz to that effect, and I have read news accounts indicating that there was testimony to that effect, so I have no doubt that it occurred. But it doesn't change my opinion that the persons Rittenhouse encountered after he shot Rosenbaum had little or no idea of the circumstances of that first shooting or of Rittenhouse's conduct earlier that evening. Why not? Because I understand there was testimony to the effect that AFTER Rittenhouse made that statement in Grosskreutz's presence, Grosskreutz heard other bystanders saying that Rittenhouse had shot someone, which caused Grosskreutz to turn and follow Rittenhouse. So a person in Grosskreutz's position could have easily decided that Rittenhouse was feeding him a line. Also, I don't know about you, but I would tend to doubt a statement about "going to the police" under those circumstances, i.e., armed person jogging/running away from the direction of gunfire with multiple other individuals shouting that he's a shooter. But that's just me. Maybe you're more trusting. Third, any statement that Rittenhouse made to Grosskreutz (or in Grosskreutz's presence) would obviously have no bearing on Huber's state of mind at the time he encountered Rittenhouse. Fourth, the Rosenbaum shooting had just occurred moments before, so how could any of those other individuals have known all the facts relating to it? Again, I want to stress that the foregoing doesn't necessarily mean that Rittenhouse doesn't have a good self-defense argument as to the Huber and Grosskreutz shootings. It's simply my opinion that the persons Rittenhouse shot didn't know the circumstances of the Rosenbaum shooting (which had just happened moments before), nor did they know if Rittenhouse's activities earlier that evening, which (in turn) tends to explain why they were attacking him and/or trying to stop him from fleeing. That's all.
×
×
  • Create New...