What's the Deal with Rittenhouse Judge Schroeder?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
People were confused and angered by the Judge's rulings. Was there reason or madness?
📲 Try Ting Mobile and get a $25 service credit! legaleagle.link/ting
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
The public outrage over this judge just shows how little the common person understands about law. The judge did a good job. It’s the prosecutions job the PROVE guilt.
Exactly. They didn’t like how it made them feel. Well that’s not exactly a legal argument.
@@rajasmasala These are the facts: he didn't bring a gun ready to shoot, he brought a gun because he DIDN'T want to shoot (intimidation); he never brought a rifle across state lines, it was always in Kenosha and he didn't JUST travel across state lines to defend a car dealership, his friends and family lives there, and his job was there; during the day he helped clean up graffiti, at night he stood guard outside a car dealership and when the riots began he went around asking people if they wanted first aid; he neither murdered nor indiscriminately shot the ones he killed or injured, he was acting purely in self defense (one chased after him with a posse after he put out a dumpster on fire as it rolled towards a gas station and tried taking his gun when he tripped, one tried bashing his head with a skateboard and one pulled another gun and tried to shoot him in the head).
None of the ones he shot were black, which makes the claim other people have made about Kyle being a racist ludicrous; AR-15's are legal to carry as 17 in the state of Wisconsin; and last but not least, he was acquitted of all charges. All of this was well established in the trial, if you watched it you would have known about it already and the only thing I wonder when I read opinions like yours of what the public "needs" to do about people like Kyle Rittenhouse is what happened to simple reading comprehension and whether or not we should bring back IQ tests for general voting.
@@rajasmasala I don't know if you live in America but in most American states open-carry (brandishing a firearm in public) is legal and self defense is also legal. Also learn the definition of fascist, there is no evidence to support Rittenhouse supports tyrannical, militaristic, socialist regimes at all. Finally January 6 and a so called transgender genocide has nothing to do with Kyle Rittenhouse, nothing, none of these events are connected at all.
@@rajasmasala There is no genocide of trans people.
@@Pitchguest The dude came to that place fantasizing about killing people (clearly documented) and killed people. That is what happened. Also he is a textbook vulnerable-victim militiaman and child soldier straight out of a racist fantasy about Africa. About not wanting to kill people dude, all of the police trainers at Jan 6 would probably say they don't really want to kill people but. The guys burning that Mike Pence effigy would too. As would probably all of the dudes Mark Milley was referencing when he said he was going to keep the effing nazis out. This guy was too immature to not be a loose cannon as a militiaman. This baby fantasizing about murder and then doing it.
As a software engineer, the judge wanting to make sure that the zoom algorithm doesn't adulterate the footage is actually impressive, because it's a perfectly valid point. There isn't a single algorithm to upscale, and all of them introduce sampling in a potentially uneven and biased way. It may seem trivial to people who don't know the details and just think "but it's zoom, something we do all the time" without considering how much work is being done behind the scenes.
Very good point!
Very true. Any time you're zooming and the resolution isn't massively dropping then there's algorithms working behind the scenes to "create" more pixels. While we generally accept this tech as being pretty good in a law case you need to make sure that those algorithms aren't changing something crucial. A few incorrect pixels could be the difference between a video of someone just brandishing a gun at someone who trips in fright and someone getting "shot".
That's actually interesting. I chuckled when that was first brought up simply because it sounded absurd but shows what I know. Thanks for sharing.
Yes it's a valid point, BUT, the exact same point applies WHEN YOU DON'T zoom in. Unless the video happens to have the exact same resolution as the screen space it's occupying, some up- or down-sample algorithm is necessarily being used. So if they're going to allow showing a video on an iPad at all, they're implicitly accepting the iPad's scaling algorithms.
I was going to say the "Windows machine hooked up to a TV" that ended up being used was just as easily susceptible to this sort of thing. But the name of the program (input-ace) is visible at 10:36 and after looking it up, it specializes in video evidence gathering. It's likely that the court officially recognizes it as having objective zooming capabilities that don't create false or misleading artifacts.
As a software engineer I'd ask you to stfu please
At no point did the prosecution ever have a case. Their own witnesses did the most to solidify Kyle's self defense case.
LoL, and yet Mr legal eagle here says the video made Kyle look bad.....when every red blooded American knows that he did the right thing. I think Kyle looked good doing what he did. It's what this country has been missing for a long time.
@@ajossi Some of the dumbest Americans seem to think that when you disagree with a potentially violent protest/riot, you should go to the center of it and patrol areas with a weapon. Luckily, he actually knew how to use it. The issue is that we’re encouraging politically motivated people to bring guns to mass gatherings so that they can supposedly “protect” people.
Right wingers (and some left wingers) want escalation.
@@fleebertreatise1063 Why shouldn't they? Surely the police should do their job and people shouldn't have to take a weapon just in case.
The only people encouraging violence, including guns, at mass gatherings with intent are on the left
Left-wingers always escalate. Right-wingers don't want to be murdered by the aggressors.
i see 3 shadowbanned replies
@@jennytalls2087Same lol.
This judge was a masterclass in how to handle an incompetent prosecution. Seriously that whole post-arrest silence insinuating guilt part of the cross-examination was so egregious that the man questioning Rittenhouse should face professional consequences with the BAR association; his entire performance is absolutely disgraceful.
Yeah, that made me so angry. As the judge said, that is basic law - so basic. A clear and intentional violation of the defendant's rights.
Any lawyer who knows anything would remember the 5th amendment.
In the prosecution’s defense, they had no case and the guy was charged because the charges were political in nature
@@HajimeNoJMo There is no defense for acting solely out of political gain. I thought we expected our prosecutors to act honorably and only charge in situations where a crime is reasonably thought to have occurred. If anything, this makes it worse, he should had the integrity to stand up to the woke mob and say, NO! I will not go along with this!
seriously, how he wasn't immediately fired from being the assistant DA i have no clue. but that just shows how incompetent the people are in these positions.
I recall a while back a judge who would hold people in contempt of court and subject to something like a $50 fine if their cellphone ringers went off in court. He forgot to turn his phone on silent one day and of course it goes off. To his credit, he did hold himself in contempt and fined himself.
a judge holding himself in contempt sounds absolutely hilarious. I like that judge already!
@@emillundqvist8126 same, I love people that can hold themselves accountable.
My county here in NC took care of the ringtone problem. The court does not allow the general public to have cellphones in the court house. LEO's, lawyers and court personnel are permitted but it had better be on vibrate only. Same thing here, if one of those goes off during the course of a trial, a fine is imposed payable down at the clerk's office.
Rules for thee and also for me. I dig his style.
In Illinois you can’t bring in a cellphone if they have a camera. I was a runner for a law firm in 2004-08 and even then every phone had a camera
Remember that prosecution represents *the state* which is why it's so bad when *the state* uses your silence against you. No wonder the judge yelled at him.
What
@@jeremyroland5602 sex
@@jeremyroland5602 The prosecutor on the case tried calling Kyle out on the fact that he used his right of remaining silent post arrest, which obviously didn’t go well.
Except he wasn't using the silence against Kyle. He was pointing out the opportunity to lie under oath by changing stories on the stand, which Kyle had the incentive to do, and this judge tacitly allowed
@@EmperorPilaf04 That's the same thing put differently
One of the big mistakes the prosecutor made in this court case was to lecture the judge as if he was some big hotshot in the room. I saw that part, and my God, I died internally from secondhand humiliation
Thomas Bingers whole time on stand was a shit show, it felt like he thought he was taking the hardest case the courts had everseen and that HE was going to be the one to TAKE OUT Kyle, he wanted so badly to paint Kyle as this demon of a person, he was constantly talking down to people, the Judge included, he came off as a complete tool
@@Nate_the_Nobody... that's literally what every lawyer does, tho. Even Rittenhouse's lawyers looked stuck-up and had an attitude the whole time Binger was talking
@@JustEverton I mean wouldn't you when the prosecution is litterly wasting tax payers dollar on trying to prosecute someone who had very clearly committed an act of self defense
Not even just lecturing him, he essentially ignored the judges prior ruling that there was no evidence to support that the threats the defendant made without a weapon on hand was somehow a premeditated threat for the alleged murders even though the threat he made wasn’t even at the same people he shot and attempted to push a narrative that the previous threats were somehow the catalyst to events that followed. So the prosecution was trying to push for a 1sr degree murder conviction which was already dead in the water based off the judges prior rulings
@@Eseerrowez Literally* and the justice system are wasting taxpayers' dollars by allowing corruption to run rampant within.
It’s amazing to me, and yes frightening, how horribly the media reported this case. It really felt like everyone was out to get rittenhouse, and the judge. I actually had a hard time find a non biased article about this case when it happened.
There are STILL people who believe Rittenhouse was in the wrong. The pistol brandished at him was carried across state lines. He had racial slurs thrown against him. Hell, even the GUY HE SHOT (the only non pedo he hit) testified that he felt Kyle could have felt that his life was in danger from his actions. Its crazy how myths about this trial are still prelevant.
Yeah that's why I actually went and watched the raw footage before forming am opinion. I don't like watching people die but it empowered me to make my own opinion that the kid was probably not guilty of murder.
I saw the clip being discussed in this video and looked it up on Google. All the articles I found were insanely biased against the judge.
I imagine there were people who defended Kyle and the judge, and that Google omitted them from basic searches. Technically they could be searched, but you would need to either get creative with what you search or already know of the articles so you can enter specific key words.
That is to say, I speculate that Google is a big player in misinformation.
Jewish people when you kill their own in self defense:
@@NoNameNoWhere Google sorts results based purely on popularity (and your own activity). It goes without saying that "racist judge defends white delinquent murderer" generates more clicks than "trial proceeds exactly as it should".
I feel like Kyle's prosecutor should be a case study as to how to make a bad argument
He didn’t have any evidence, this was a joke prosecution from jump. They had to lie and they did. That’s all they had.
cant win that argument - so thats the best way u can when its CLEAR SELF DEFENSE lol - sucks to be binger
@@natehatf If it were not for the media attention, no District Attorney /Crown Prosecutor in the free world would have brought this in front of a Judge with the video of all three being the aggressors and Kyle only firing when they were a direct threat.
Forget the possibility of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Prosecutor would have a hell of a time making even a case that there was a REASONABLE doubt that it WASN"T self-defence with the evidence available.
If not for the media and politician backlash, the Judge probably would have thrown the case out.
Not so much Malicious as Binger was motivated by fear not hatred, but it could be grounds for a wrongful prosecution lawsuit against the state for pursuing clearly false charges.
Much the way the people who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse demonstrated how not to try to beat someone to death in the street.
@@natehatf technically there were no lies. Rittenhouse did in fact stay silent until the trial. The relevance of those other videos is obvious to any reasonable person. There were no good ADMISSIBLE arguments, but the arguments made by prosecutors were not lies.
It can't be overstated how important the right to remain silent is. Trying to imply that waiting for due process means someone is guilty is scummy as all hell. If that story being twisted was enough to convince somebody, they really need to step back from corporate media for a while.
I thin that trick should of had him disbarred actually. It's using someone's legal protections and framing it as evidence of guilt. It's truly disgusting.
Thing is people have the right to remain silent, few have the ability. Kyle is one of the few who was able to do it.
You are dead on the money. I could spend a thousand words telling my story. But end of the day, me understanding my rights and ending an "interview" saved my ass from spending 7 years in a prison for something I did no do.
Even though Binger has been a duplicitous weasel throughout the trial, and is still doing so talking about the trial, both he and Richards have stated that Schreoder is well-known for being a hard-ass who doesn't suffer fools or play games. Both men have also said that Schreoder's conduct during the trial was consistent with how he ran his courtroom in the past.
I've heard it said that he's a really jocular, friendly, amicable fellow outside the courtroom...but once inside, he's not the guy you wanna play games with.
Yes, sir. Somehow it looks more like a show.
As the old saying goes "a job is a job"
Sounds like a great judge
So Schroeder had this rightwing bias before the Rittenhouse trial? Explains why he was ''chosen'' I guess?
@@doriandundee9906 No, he's just a 'defendants judge' rather than a 'hanging judge'. All Judges have a slight bias towards the prosecution or the defence.
He didn't have a right-wing bias, he just applied the law...Which is the whole point of this video. Of course, with how incompetent the prosecution was that's not exactly hard.
'You play Call of Duty so you must be a murderer.' Ugh.
What's really egregious is that there actually was an attempted murder caught on film by a violent criminal and the District Attorney's office decided to put that violent criminal, Grosskreutz on the stand instead of charging him like they should have.
That's why the fucker actually told the truth on the stand.
If you ccap him, he was up to no good again after this. I believe another DUI or something.
I actually know some people on Facebook, that had friends that were friends with him 😅
To be really fair there
There is multiple factors that go into pressing charges. Two people can both have self defence cases in the same situation and grosskreutz despite being actual slime has a plausible argument for why he did what he did and ultimately he never even fired a shot. He should have probably been charged for illegally carrying firearm but that kind of thing is regularly swept under rug in justice system for what is perceived as a more severe case
@@humvee2800 they literally dropped some DUI charges because it would have interfered with testifying.
I think he got what was coming to him. Just 2 months ago, he was in a hit and run as he was walking in the street (probably jay walking lol)
Not many know of this because he changed his name. Imagine having your name changed to hide who you are and stay in the same city then get hit by a car.
@@humvee2800 He should have been charged with more than illegaly carrying.
Binger deserved the yelling for trying to violate the defendant's 5th Amendment rights
State prosecutors are typically extremely scummy people. Of course they rarely hold a candle to the absolute villainy it takes to be a District Attorney.
Who's binger?
@@KingNexusMOCs The guy that talked to rittenhouse on the stand
I love how everyone became a legal expert with this case, and we all got to see how horribly biased and uniformed most of our friends are.
Oh come on dude. People have been doing that for decades. Not just this case.
Yeah I hate that I initially got baited when the shooting was still fresh. By the end of the day Rittenhouse sure as Hell had every right to defend himself and the only debates should be whether he should've been there and whether gun laws for minors should be kept as is or modified
@@GrantedBunion At least you self corrected, we need to change our reflex of situations to be understanding instead of judgment.
We also got to see how we have two separate justice systems for white people and black people in America
@@raidermaxx2324 so if I black teenager shot kkk memebers rioting in his city. After they chased and attacked him. You think America/a jury would find him guilty? Stfu you’re literally polluting the cause of actual anti-racism
Given what you have said about it, and how brazenly the prosecuter ignored the judge's orders, I am actually surprised the prosecuter wasnt held in contempt of court.
He almost was several times, Thomas Binger was REALLY pushing his luck
@@Nate_the_Nobody Yeah, on review of the whole thing, I think he was just one more time away from being held in contempt.
He was in danger of it, but Schroeder let him back down. Believe me when I say. Schroeder didn't have to let Binger off the land mine he'd just stepped on.
I felt like that was his plan.
I don't know the benfits, cause delays/chaos?
In my opinion, the judge was lenient with the prosecutor. I’ve seen judges, much more aggressive.
The judge knew Binger wanted a mistrial and tried to prevent it
I didn't know that the "Don't get brazen with me!" was the prosecution following up trying to infer that taking his 5th amendment right was nefarious _immediately_ with trying to use video that they were told they couldn't use at that time.
This is why ppl are so frustrated with the media and the left rn. The entire trial was broadcast LIVE! And everyone who was watching the trial knew EXACTLY why the judge yelled at the prosecutor. Lawyers following this case said that judges have thrown out other cases for far less than the mistakes the prosecution made in this situation. The entire (unedited) exchange has been all over YT ever since it happened.
The judge had *politely* given the prosecutor warning after warning on things that are BASIC LAW! Imagine a PhD student forgetting how to add and subtract (basic math). That's basically the level of mistakes the court was dealing with from the prosecutor. So, what the defense argued was that the prosecutor was so well experienced that he was intentionally making those mistakes to angle for a mistrial without prejudice (bc the state was losing the trial). So, in return, the defense filed a motion for mistrial with prejudice (meaning the state couldn't prosecute Kyle again).
This was a very serious thing. If the jury came back with guilty verdicts, then judge could've overturned the verdict on these mistakes alone -- not to mention the sketchy drone footage which was also called into question at the end of the trial. Thank God it didn't have to come to that.
None of the things in the Rittenhouse case were a mystery. Almost all of the CLEAR video footage has been available for over a year. Eye witnesses were interviewed saying it was self defense (even the prosecution's own witnesses). The entire trial was broadcast uninterrupted for everyone to see witness testimony and evidence. Nothing in this case was hidden. Yet, so many ppl are coming out of the woodwork with _"I didn't know that"_ on things that have been public knowledge for weeks/months. The media is broken.
@@brandondaniels9471 yeah, as someone who had only heard of this case in passing I wasn't even aware that zero black people were involved in the shooting lol
@@brandondaniels9471 To be fair, both sides of the spectrum like to cherry pick information, take information out of context, or distort information. I agree that media, especially social media has an issue with this, but it biased of you and diminishes your argument to claim that it is an issue singled out to the left.
@@Kyuukai I’d love to see Fox News try and hide major details of a live broadcasted trial to the point where regular viewers were ignorant in the extreme as to the facts of the case.
@@PantsuTaigas go look at comments from people on the George Floyd case. Fox and other RW outlets did exactly the same thing and many of their viewers came to equally incorrect realities of the situation.
In fact both of these cases, how the bias media on both sides covered them and the results are a good example of what hyper partisan tribal bias, turbo charged by direct targeted propaganda, is coming to. It's only one small symptom but it's bad enough that it should get people on both sides thinking about where this is all going.
We have to keep in mind that is totally correct for the judge to side with the defendant because the way that works on the US is that the prosecution has to prove guilt, trust me, here in Mexico we have a lot of situations in which the defendant has to prove innocence and you do not want anyone to be in that situation, in that situation youre almost 100% guaranteed to land on jail.
When you're poor in the US, you don't get those protections or assumptions.
@@poodypooroo yes they do the problem is most poor people don't make it to court because they don't have a lawyer during the investigation process and get pressured into a plea deal
@@poodypooroo Which is an even bigger reason for judges to be biased towards the defense.
Yeah, I’ve been disturbed by the push to change this stateside. If you ever want to come here, we’ve got room for ya in Idaho and would love to have you.
@@patrickmartin6977 Yeah you'll get a public defender that doesn't care about you / is buddies with the prosecutor, so they almost never want it to go to trial. In my darker days I had one for a minor vehicular incident and they said they would call the prosecutor and call back, they called back in literally 30 seconds, didn't even pretend that they actually called and talked to them! Then I found something that might have gotten me off, but the public defender hadn't even bothered. The whole thing sucked anyway because if I really wanted it to go to trial and used what I had found, I'd have lost my job... but since it was all really just a fine, I sucked it up and got convicted.
Based judge. Huge respect. Probably one of the best judges in the USA.
P.S. people who charge at you, while you are on the ground, with the clear intent of harming you are NOT victims. Thats why you dont call them victims.
So, I'm just gonna put this out here. The defense didn't argue that the word victim could prejudice the jury against Rittenhouse but rather that has been Judge Schroeder's belief for decades.
You make it sound like this is unique to Judge Schroeder. Many Judges have similar rules in their courtrooms to prevent prejudicing the jury, and the court should always air on the side of the defendant in such instances. Forcing the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not through influencing the jury with word tricks and emotion.
Sort of? judges are limited in what they can do unless defense counsel objects. On the other hand any reasonably competent defense counsel would object to the antics Binger put on full display.
I’m reminded of the Simpsons episode “You honor, I object to the use of the term ‘killer’ as it characterizes my client as a killer” “Sustained”.
Was that the "Bart The Murderer" episode, where Bart was on trial for a murder that never happened, where Principal Skinner was the alleged victim who was still alive the whole time?
I think something like this doesn't make sense completely and especially when the loaded language seems to only favor the defense. In a case of a spree shooting it's absurd. By this standard problematic language against the 9/11 terrorists could have been banned.
@@zeed33r you mean Bart or Rittenhouse?
@@dustynesmith "especially when the loaded language seems to only favor the defense. "
It only applies to the defense because only the defense is on trial. Yes, the system is created to stack the odds in the favour of the defendant. As it should.
@@Skozerny rather one guilty go free :)
Prosecution was always going to be hard, its much harder when you're not good at it.
i mean kyle was a clear case of self defense, also people see the prosecutor aiming a gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger that he was clearly unfit for his job
@@prestongarvey2285 another settlement needs Kyle's help
@@jasoncp3257 lolll
And Binger is worst than most. It’s like he got his law degree out of a cracker jack box. 😂😂😂
Seems like the head honcho DA didn't want anything to do with it either (proceeding non-the-less out of public pressure) and gave it to the intern when he realised it how bad it would look when everything came to light
“Two ‘mistakes’ by the prosecutor”
Those were not mistakes, they were willful, unethical acts by the prosecutor.
They can still be mistakes from a tactical standpoint.
@@ThegreatMizuti777 a mistake is unintentional. His actions were deliberate and intentional. Not mistakes .
@@ericad528 mistakes can be intentional. If I shoot a man in broad daylight, be completely culpable, and this still be considered a tactical mistake.
@@ericad528 You're confusing that definition with "accident". A mistake does not mean it is unintentional, simply that it's viewed as something that should not have occurred, usually via hindsight.
I agree, however. The prosecutor was obviously paid off to do a bad job on purpose.
@@Lady_Violet22 Or maybe he was just incompetent, or the facts of the case were so in favour of the defence that underhanded tactics seemed like the only way to win?
The deal with this judge was that he applied the LAW. Nothing more nothing less.
Good video. Former Prosecutor here out of Philadelphia and i pretty much agree with everything you said. Judge’s have discretion i think the zoom in call was wack, but I have had a judge railroad me over trying to do something basic and not prejudicial before. It definitely happens often for the sake of protecting the defendant, avoiding an appeal or both.
Also the part where the prosecutor was being “yelled at” 😂 that was the softest yell ive ever heard. Ive been torn apart worse for less I cannot imagine the verbal hiding i would have gotten for ignoring a sustained objection of that type in the very next question and a subject of an MIL. He is lucky it wasn’t an immediate mistrial. Definitely could have called a quick sidebar and asked to reopen the issue. Forgiveness is NOT better than permission in a court room.
Do you ever think judges maybe shouldn't have that massive amount of power? Why let judges yell at anyone? Why let them decide what language is allowed?
@@lProN00bl you’re obviously out of your depth buddy. That was a stupid question.
The pinch to zoom feature in some softwares uses algorithms to insert pixels into the frame and basically guesses what should be there. Either way the evidence that was going to be presented was extremely pixelated and unclear. But the fact that the image was so unclear only serves to help the case that the judge said they’d need an expert witness on the software.
@@lProN00bl my thoughts exactly
@@tiarabite So, you want to let the prosecutor do whatever they want, turning every court into a kangaroo court. Whatever you say, fascist.
Some other youtubers: "I try not to talk about extremely politically contentious/controversial topics so I don't get a lot of dislikes to likes"
Devin: "The last video I did on this topic got a lot of criticism... and I'll do it again"
lots of lawyers talk about it.
in a much better way with better insight.
natethelawyer
vivafrei
and riketta law
this video is actually mostly good though... the last one was not
He only speak facts though and the fact that he's clearly more left leaning that right leaning should tell you how bad Twitter is trying to spin this case as racial injustice.
Yeah, the previous video definitely had a lot of mistakes if you look at how he missed pretty important details and got things wrong or half right. Rikieta law did a review of his last video with a panel of lawyers and it was pretty rough.
@@simonrival1613 the only thing with this video is the avoidance of all the things the judge allowed that went against Kyle/Defense.
It's almost like it's hard to convict self defense on camera
Not hard enough, in my opinion. Thank goodness they reached the right verdict, but I don't think he should even have been charged.
@@bandit6272based
The left will try anyway.
@@bandit6272 I have a feeling that even those who were directly involved in the decision to charge Kyle don't think he should've been charged, but you gotta make political decisions when you've got a political job unfortunately
@@bandit6272 he wouldnt have been brought to trial in the first place 99% of the time, the entire thing was politically motivated. Its frankly disgusting.
Binger trying to rephrase what he was told not to bring up reminds me of when Judge Judy tell people they can’t bring in hearsay.
“Then Mr. X told me...”
“You can’t tell me what Mr. X told you unless he’s here to testify. That’s hearsay.”
“Sorry. Mr. X said to me...”
“You can’t tell me what he said.”
“Sorry, I heard from Mr. X that...”
😊
Yeah people trying to criticize the judge for reminding Binger not to violate a basic defendant’s right have no idea what they’re talking about. If there were an established ten commandments of law, then the right to remain silent would be one of them. I still can’t believe an established lawyer actually did that on national television.
If you think the anti Rittenhouse crowd wasn't absolutely grilling the prosecutor for his blatant incompetence then you haven't been paying attention
I haven't practiced in 5 years and my first thought was the lawyer was trying to get a mistrial so he can blame the judge for losing.
Are you thinking about the bill of rights?
You glossed over the Drone footage situation which is key to the defense's argument and was clearly a sign of Mistrial.
The Drone footage the defense had was only 8mb or something like that. The prosecution then said they had their own file and hdisplayed a file but of much higher quality and bigger in file size.
Plus it was cropped. They then said they received the footage the same way the defense did.
Therefore the footage had been mishandled in someway. The defence have the right to have the same drone footage as the prosecution; especially when it's of much higher quality.
Plus, the comments about zooming in were because the apple software adds pixels to try and enhance a photo when its blurring. The software itself states it can not be used in a court of law. So the defense had every right to argue their case there.
Not only was that a Brady violation, but the Prosecution *actively* had Video Compressing Software on the device that had the "Better" video.
Add that to the other attempts at intentional mistrials; and we should be asking when DA Binger's disbarment hearing is.
Bingo. I also believe the situation with Dr black is a bigger deal than he made it seem. It absolutely gives the jury a sense that the state (as represented by the judge) is saying "this man is an honored/venerable and trustworthy serviceman!" And that has a big implication on how the jury feels about their expert testimony. I would think these kinds of non standard procedures would be more if a NO NO in such an important instance like during a trial. You want as little interference as possible with how the jury perceives evidence and witnesses, it's the whole reason the "victim" and "rioters and looters" distinction was important....so shouldn't it be just as important here?
@@wisersamson9000 it was only coincedence that he was the lone veteran in the room that day. the defense called witnesses who were veterans but they werent there on veterans day.
They had to admit live to the entire planet they didn't know how their own technology worked. That was a good belly laugh right there.
Pffft. They probably did know and they lied about it.
The more I hear of this case the more I get suspicious of the prosecution over anyone else. It almost seems like they were trying to lose given all the rather blatant acts they were pulling...
Winning/ losing wasn't within the control of the prosecution. I'm more suspicious of why this even went to trial after the video was released.
Nah they weren't trying to lose. They were trying to win an impossible battle. Cheating was their only chance.
Charges should have never even been brought to trial in the first place. Binger is a disgrace.
@@OBJYN788 He ran for DA in another district and lost, and his aunt happens to be mayor so now he's the ADA. Kyle was a political prisoner, and Binger used him for optics.
@@rivahkillah I mean having a trial doesn’t mean that you are guilty , do remember this.supposition of innocence and all that innit
The only victim here was Rittenhouse and the survivors of his shooting should all be charged and thrown in jail for even attempting to hurt him for no reason
survivor. There was only one. The other two died
@@Eseerrowezno, there were more people after him, not just the two who died...
@@elmokauppinen6545 ok but they were not survivors of his shooting because they were not shot at
@@Eseerrowez yes they were shot, one had his arm shot by kyle
@@elmokauppinen6545 ya ONE survivor. Thats who I was referring to in my first post.
The coverage of this trial made me doubt the qualifications of news producers, anchors, and reporters. It was absolutely disgraceful.
Media coverage of events had nothing to do with their qualifications, they're fueled by a combination of malice and their desire to push their own beliefs.
I’ve always doubted them. They handled this case poorly and ignore a lot of important ones. They don’t report news just attention grabbing stories.
The scary part is that this is how the news treats absolutely everything. This one just looks so gross because you know what's actually going on.
The news (any side's news, it's not a matter of politics, it's economics, and money works the same for everyone) paints such a distorted picture of reality that not watching it is literally more informative than watching it.
Ask around, anyone will tell you that the news is generally accurate but sucks at reporting on whatever thing they happen to know a lot about. When everyone says that, that's because the news isn't generally accurate. Don't trust it, as loaded as the term has become, all of the news is fake.
Well the problem is simple
If they just talk facts without giving their opinion they can't pander to audiences who will give them more money if they just say what everyone is already thinking
100%. I watched the entire trial, read up on individual laws and I was shocked what the media made out of this case. I prefer to go to the direct source when available these days.
Wow, I heard the judge was generally on the side of the defense for a lot of his cases, but I never knew the prosecution was this shit.
I’m very left-leaning but pro-facts. I couldn’t watch CBS, NBC, and other sources because when I did, the lies and mistruths made me too mad.
I knew the prosecution was shit the moment call of duty was brought up.
And you can tell the prosecution was shit because you have so much experience with other prosecutions?.. Or are you speaking out of your ass having no such experience?
@@kidShibuya the prosecution was shit because their arguments and points were shit. Next question.
@@kidShibuya Are you new to the internet? Everyone in the comments section is an armchair expert. You can't handle it? Don't read the comments.
I’m just happy Kyle didn’t lose his entire life because he legally defended himself
He still has to carry the weight, which is way better than the alternative, but I’m sure it’s a bitter sweet victory to Kyle.
@@artOVtrolling yeah
Grosskreutz is now attempting to sue Rittenhouse, because I guess trying to murder a kid while you violently riot wasn't enough to prove what a waste of air he is.
Pfft Kyle deserves to be in prison. He went out looking for trouble.
@@its-_-foxgrrr6041 he was defending property from rioters that where break/destroying private property
The judge was sick of bingers borderline prosecutorial misconduct and didn’t want the case going into a mistrial wasting everyone’s time.
A clip you could have added is of the post trial interview with Kyle's lead attorney.
He had a lot to say. With regards to the judge the attorney pointed out that he had appeared before the judge as both a prosecutor and defense attorney. The attorney summed up the judge by saying you will receive a fair trial, but "you don't want him to sentence your client".
Apparently no leniency once the guilty verdict is handed down....
That’s interesting, and it fits with what I’ve seen.
they're just equating consistently being trash to being fair
But that violates the narrative
@@nathanlevesque7812 I’m not sure who is trash? The judge? I thought he did a excellent job I think you’re coming from a slanted perspective.
@@steviesevieria1868 You can think that if you're grading on a national curve, but that would be absurdly generous to the judicial system of the USA.
You’ve done me a service with this video. I was admittedly outraged at the coverage of the goings on with this trial, thinking it was slanted from the start. You really helped me understand why it happened how it did, and how it was actually quite fair. I’m man enough to admit when I’m wrong. Thanks for the great content. Glad to be a long time subscriber.
People need to up vote this.
Changing your mind when presented with sufficient and clear explanation is oddly rare these days
You needed him to explain this to you? This was openly out there for you to research. You just didn't do your due diligence and wanted to ride your own narrative and biases.
I was the same. This was an eye opener and showed how fair it was. Just shows I need to study law even more!
Congrats. A lot of people refuse to admit they were wrong.
The Rittenhouse trial was rife with media misinformation. From: "Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum down and shot him in the back" To: "A white man who shot 3 black men." I can't tell you how many people woke up to just how hard the mainstream media are pushing false narratives these days. It's always encouraging to see people change their mind when they are given the truth. It can be hard, but is so important!
I thought by reading the news that Kyle was guilty of murder. Until I watched the actual trial and saw the evidence he was acting in self defence.
Wouldn't have mattered how good the prosecution was.. The kid clearly just defended himself.
I have a brother who's a retired judge, for health reasons, a law professor, a former public defender and an acknowledged expert on criminal law. I saw him in court several times. Judge Schroeder was easy on Binger. I strongly suspect my brother, though he is very liberal, would have flamed Binger so hard in court that his little hair peak would have melted. No, I haven't discussed the case with him. Binger was very lucky that he didn't have a stricter judge.
You should discuss the case with him and see what his views are. I imagine he could give you an interesting perspesctive, at the very least.
Yeah. My take has really only been reinforced in my mind: We’re I Rittenhouses parent I’d be PISSED at him for going, but were I the DA I’d have never brought the case as it just wasn’t there.
Edit 11-29-21 Noon: The issue with the gun charge brought was that, as written, it only spied to Short barreled weapons. It was made, for context, to punish Sawn off shotgun use between gangs. It just didn't apply.
@@josepetersen7112 They only avenue to go after Rittenhouse was if he was convicted of illegally possing a firearm in public while under age. As soon as the judge threw that charge out it basically ensured a not guilty verdict as the only means to discredit the self defense claim "of he was in commission of a crime". Not that I think Kyle was morally wrong but as the Law is written if he was himself committing a crime then he can not claim self defense.
@@totallynottrademarked5279 what did he do that was morally wrong?
@@TheGruspastej As he said
"Not that I think Kyle was morally wrong"
So the answer is nothing.....he did nothing morally wrong, but perhaps he may have been criminally wrong.
Honestly the prosecutor should be disbarred from practicing law again. He was absolute embarrasment in the trial.
No no keep em if I commit a crime I want. Him defending the state.
Binger was childish. He even went into Kyle playing Call of Duty as if the 'videogames cause violence' argument hasn't been disproven multiple times in the past 25 years.
That same prosecutor probably does fine against public defense lawyers that average like 20 minutes per client case. Rittenhouse got the million dollar defense
Agreed. All things aside about the outcome of the trial and such, also having some disagreements with the judge, I commend the judge for lashing out at that prosecutor. I believe the prosecutor should have been sentenced to jail time for violating his duties and the rule of law, forced to pay a civil penalty of at least $500, and disbarred.
@@GOPerks-jo7mg
Rittenhouse got 2 defense teams
I would love to see you cover the ongoing case of Jussie Smollett, as his defense attorney cries in court, and storms out with her mom in the middle of the case, because the judge denied her a mistrail
LOL!😂
Jesus that’s bad
His defense attorney cried in court -For real?
I appreciate you for explaining these things. You've helped me to correct my thinking about the application of the rule of law in this case.
Honestly I agree this felt objective and honest and he explained it was not as black and white as the media was making It be.
@@thewewguy8t88 it actually is that black-and-white, just in the opposite direction
@@violet_broregarde What are you a sith?
@@jongyon7192p no the media is the sith
Sorry but that judge was corrupted that is a fact je made sure the jury would see eittenhouse has not guilty and he succeeded a xold blooded murderer who cross state with intend of killing is not self defence at all
Thank you for another excellent video that answers many questions and explains things so us laypeople can understand them better. Definitely a complicated case. I was also shocked at the prosecution trying to berate him for staying silent after his arrest. Literally EVERY SINGLE ATTORNEY will tell you to do just that. They aren't kidding when they say "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
And it can only be used *against* you.
@Kitty Queer - fae / faer - Tell me your an idiot without telling me you are na idiot…
@Kitty Queer - fae / faer - the thing is they have a right to keep silence and can't be punished for using that right
@Kitty Queer - fae / faer - It's dangerous to close your mind to additional info. Also, the 3 men he shot were not black.
@Kitty Queer - fae / faer - He didn't kill any black people, you're living in make believe land.
Binger is literally a movie viliian, the way he argues with the judge and then points a gun at the entire jury
One thing I really love in this comments section is how many people are realizing and admitting that they were lied to by the media, got the wrong idea, rushed to judgement, and now have changed their minds. no gatcha's sarcasm or other inferences. I am just really happy to see that this video is having such a strong effect and that people are willing to change their minds when presented with solid evidence.
Unfortunately all the media has done is double, even triple down on their lies and misrepresentation of Kyle. I hope that kid gets Millions off of defamation lawsuits.
Multiple news station still literally calling him a murderer even though he's been found not guilty.
Even that looney from the young turks said she was wrong!!
@@DarthZ01 I mean, not being found guilty doesn't mean he didn't kill, want him to be called a killer? Or is he a self defenser or some other less threatening title?
@@agentc7020 the definition of murder is a human killing another human without a legal reason to do so
Continuing to call someone a murderer after acquittal is PATHETIC and an absolute and utter falsehood. Stop reaching bro, take the L. Be happy we still have a right to a trial
@@deusvult6920 Still counts in my opinion, excesive self defense is murder in any other developed nation but like I said it's just my opinion. I'll "take the L" as you said.
I'm pro televised trials - if this trial wasn't so public the situation would be worse - as it's so public we can see the evidence, the process, and the arguments and show it to the people who clearly have no idea and are getting their hot takes from echo chambers. The problem becomes that those same ... people chose to take snippets, edit statements out of context, and use that to create dissent - I'd rather have the whole story in the open or we'd still be listening to cnn going on.
Yet people upset about the outcome didn’t seem to care about evidence or laws.
I hope Kyle sues the media like the Sandman kid did. Defaming someone who at the time was 17, calling him a murderous white supremacists, calling him a shooter. CNN and the likes are poison.
@@TheHockey991 He is a murderous white supremacist. You can’t explain that away!
@@lindapryor3747 LMAO whats evidence do you have for saying that??? Murderous, he would've been killed if he didn't defend his life.
@@TheHockey991 Dude its obvious bait.
As a person who, admittedly only knew of this through social media, thought Judge Schroeder was being a dick, I’m really glad to have somebody give a dispassionate and thorough explanation of what happened. And seriously, Judge, put your phone on vibrate while you’re at work. 🤣
Although I agree he conducted a fair trial, I still think his constant grandstanding and "look at me!" attitude was very unprofessional for a judge
Social media is cancer. Gives everyone snippets that make you feel a certain way without telling you the whole story, and to add insult to injury this pattern is further reinforced through social conformity in the comments.
Thats the whole point, they wanted to paint this image of him for you without you knowing the whole truth. Pretty common media tactic. My advice would be to do your own research when it comes to something controversial or when they are telling you what to think.
he never told us what the ringtone was
@@ryan4627 Did you not watch the total disrespect of the DA and the outright Lies He was speaking now that was grandstanding.
Anyone who thinks that having the song "Proud to be an American" as your ringtone is grounds for criticism, or evidence of improper bias.... those people are detached from reality and predictably cannot understand the event, the case, or the verdict. It's like they live in an alternate reality where logic is turned inside out.
They are as detached from reality as the people who think a 5'3 unarmed man chasing you gives you a right to murder them.
@@ericbogar9665 Unfortunately for Rosenbaum, he HAD threatened to murder KR a short time before charging at him AND he was accompanied by people with guns and clubs who were firing shots. Most importantly, the JURY felt that the threat was quite real. Unanimous verdict of Not Guilty on all charges.
@@Sherman62 The threat was a lie. It got debunked on video. Rosenbaum was never around when the lasers were being pointed and Kyles boys scaring people. I guess that is irrelevant to you, huh? Only kyle and his boys with guns should feel threatened, right? And do you know how cowardly you sound saying that he threatened to kill him so that means he could do it. No it doesn't. If someone threatens to kill me and they don't have a weapon to carry out that threat I would laugh at them. That doesn't scare me. That's something people say all the damn time. And he was not accompanied by anyone. He was alone. He got out of the hospital and walked there after meeting his girl. What was his motive to kill kyle? Why do you think he chased Kyle? You don't think Kyle did anything at all and Rosenbaum chases him for no good reason? And the "mob". Why were they chasing him? What did Kyle do to have them chase him? Just some more people with murder on their mind that night? Everyone was out to get ol innocent Kyle, huh? He didn't do a thing wrong did he?
@@ericbogar9665 What did Kyle do to make them chase him? He got caught alone.
Rosenbaum: "If I catch any of you MFers alone I'm going to kill you".
And then he tried to do just that. We really don't need to wait and find out if he could do it before defending ourselves. He was a grown man and could have done serious damage. The threat was credible. The burden is met.
Face it, there is no sympathy for people who "protest" in the middle of the night by burning the city down. Don't expect that to change.
People were calling this judge out for having an American flag tissue box. We’re truly losing our minds
Is shocking how little fact legal eagle knows about this case
In reference to the jury selection, I actually find it really fascinating. All of the prospective jurors listen to the whole case, assuming they will be picked, instead of knowing ahead of time they are alternates, meaning they might not pay enough attention. The theatrics of the picking by the defendant isn't a bad idea either
It's just a shame our media doesnt want to always get it right.
Unless he lets everyone choose their alternates like that it seems a little off but I can understand why he gave it to him because hes so young.
@@nimrowd2023 he does let everyone choose like that.
@@steviesevieria1868 Thank you for informing me.
@@nimrowd2023 he said in the video that the judge changed his policy to ALWAYS have the defendant do that as a result of a case where the optics could have been interpreted poorly. I didn't know that until now either. It does seem like a gesture of good will to the presumption of innocence, imo
Why are the theatrics good? I genuinely don't understand how that system came to be
I appreciate high profile cases being in the news getting people to discuss the laws as they are, but people seem to focus too much on the outcome they want or how everything is unfair to what they want the case to represent rather than if a judge can find one person innocent based on what the lawyers can find.
Ya thats been a thing for a long time but was inflamed due to the massive political betting placed on the trial so it not only didn't matter what the facts were, ppl in the left media just wanted to burn a white boy with a gun. not only did they want the verdict they were extorting the American people
@@pottyputter05 To be fair, the optics of the entire event suggest Rittenhouse went there with the intent to shoot some people, and the people he shot certainly didn't do themselves any favors by trying to chase him down and attack him. I think the ruling was fair based on the laws in the state, and I have no qualms about the judge's decisions that are talked about in this video, but I also think Rittenhouse provoked the attacks against him specifically so he could use the self-defense claim to get away with killing them. I suspect that I am not alone in that belief, and that is why people were looking for a guilty verdict here. Not because he's a "white boy with a gun", but because he went there with the intent to kill people and should not be getting away with it.
This verdict incentivizes others to take similar action, as we have also seen in states with "stand your ground" laws where people with guns intentionally provoke an attack so they can use lethal force in response.
@@daltigoth3970 the way it had been portrayed for a year made it look that way.
To me, informing myself about the case the weeks after it happened without just looking at headlines, it looked like he is a dorky but well-meaning kid who came to Kenosha in order to clean up the mess, put out fires and help his community. The whole medic thing made him look quite dorky to me. Also there were dozens of people with guns so he didn't stick out at all. Him knowing how to handle the gun made it seem like the "right choice" to have some kind of equalizer.
Also the fact he only shot people trying to attack him and instantly tried to retreat to the police before being approached again made it seem like he wasn't trying to engage in the situation.
Also as for the much repeated "he wasn't supposed to be there." No-one was supposed to be there. But since people were there I'd value the intent of preventing damage over the intent of causing it.
All in all it is sad it had to come this far, but I actually cannot see how anyone who looked at all the available footage could've come to the conclusion many news "pundits" and in general, outlets, came to.
Also the way Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse conducted themselves prior to the incident made it really hard for me to put the blame on Kyle.
@@oelboy I think we can just agree to disagree here. I don't think he should have involved himself, and I don't believe that he went there with the earnest intent of "preventing damage". The fact that he only shot people trying to attack him is exactly what would be done if his intent was to kill protesters and get away with it using a self-defense claim. The people that went after him were stupid for doing so, regardless of whatever provocations he may have made to incite them to do so.
The whole thing is a mess, but the fact remains that if Rittenhouse hadn't been there, those events would not have happened, and those people would probably still be alive. So the questions you should be asking yourself is: Why did they attack Rittenhouse and not any of the dozens of other people that had guns? Why is it that only Rittenhouse had to shoot people to defend himself during this entire event, and not anyone else?
Clearly the protestors were not as out of control as you are implying they were, so the answer is likely because Rittenhouse had specifically provoked them to attack him because he wanted to shoot someone. The videos that were barred from being presented as evidence suggest that Rittenhouse has a hero complex. I personally know people that have made very similar statements and would definitely have done exactly what I am suggesting if they actually had guns to do it.
The judge getting mad about the prosecutor questioning Rittenhouse practicing his right to avoid self incrimination was so satisfying to watch
AGREED!
Context is really important for the instances where the judge scolded the prosecutor; so people who just saw a clip or quick reel with commentary were easily duped into believing whatever angle the commentator or poster had that the judge was biased or didn’t handle the case properly.
In actuality, the judge was upset because the prosecutor repeatedly attempted to unlawfully bring evidence into the case that had been disallowed, and specifically when the judge got heated, pretended to play dumb as if he’d misunderstood a previous ruling.
That’s when the scolding happened; the judge knew that the prosecutor wasn’t operating in good faith, was lying, and was potentially trying to get a mistrial. Again, pretty common behavior from judges who run a strict court if you cross a legal and ethical boundary in plain sight.
Thats part of the judge’s job, is applying the law when either side starts to step outside the boundaries or (in this case) ignores a previous ruling.
Again, context matters. If you operate in a way that disrespects or disregards the judge, expect to get reproached.
I appreciate these videos. Takes away the theater of media coverage and just boiling down the facts and rules of law.
Anyone who watched the case should have been able to understand this. The problem is that people allow their perception to be filtered through legacy corporate media outlets with clear agendas.
@@DarrinSK Cut some slack. Most Americans aren't taught critical thinking and the news is now mostly for ratings. This is why videos like this are needed.
Also the severe flaws with said rules of the law
@@MOOSEGUARD1 then go get a law degree, become a criminal lawyer then run for office where you can affect change.
Also, please cite an example of the “perfect” legal system. Justice is blind, the end result is often not pretty due to being a human system.
Good one, but LegalEagle has a very significant bias. He boils down facts to the parts that make good content or at worse push his personal opinions, because at the end of the day he's a lawyer. Just watch the readily available footage.
Thank you for helping us understand. It’s easy to watch the coverage of any trial and draw conclusions one way or another, but your explanations are clear and concise and matter of fact. (As we would expect, but can always use more puns.)
Seeing something critically instead of running with your own opinions on a subject is a skill a lot of reporters seem to lack
@@JapanesePiano1 the "Do more research and think for yourself" has nothing to do in court, fortunately...
@@amell.5461 There appear to be many areas where the US seems to lag behind other western nations when it comes to societal wellbeing. It almost seems ingrained in us as we grow and learn about our country that we are "rugged individuals" instead of a society that depends on, and prospers by, cooperation with our fellow neighbors.
@@JapanesePiano1 He was discussing those hypotheticals to give the audience an idea of what could’ve gotten him convicted
@@JapanesePiano1 Ho w do you know he isn't watching other sources? Stop jumping to conclusions. Why shouldn't we assume the same about you?
Criminal defendants should ALWAYS, even if previously convicted, be allowed to wear a suit, or equivalent there off, to court.
Even if the person IS convicted of ANOTHER crime, they are innocent until proven otherwise in the matter of that particular trial.
Exactly. The idea that any jury can be unbiased to a defendant in an orange jumpsuit or handcuffs is ridiculous. Unless that person has proven themselves to be a threat to others, they shouldn't be in handcuffs.
I really appreciated your objectivity in covering this. I am a pre-law student (one and a half years away from my BA in history (major) and philosophy (minor) and going off to law school) and I am by no means a pro-rittenhouse conservative. I am a political independent who had a lot of problems with what rittenhouse did. But, legally, I recognized, especially after making a concerted effort to watch large chunks of the trial, that he should be acquitted due to self-defense and that the media coverage was terrible and riddled with legal misunderstandings and misinformation. I really liked how you were able to approach these legal issues objectively and independent from the politics. I actually showed this video to several people in order to help clear up media driven misinformation and misunderstanding.
I'm curious what issues you had with rittenhouse's actions.
@@nationofpigs485 kid had no fault we have the right to bare arms,
Yes he might of have had a gun at 17 but the gun was going to be given as a birthday present to him when he was 18, but still self defense is self defense
@@Orcastruck agreed, people ask why he was there but never ask why those rioters were there.
@@nationofpigs485 yea it's wack bro
In the UK defendants always wear their own clothes in court, whether it's a custody defendant or not. Family can bring clothes into prison for people to wear to court so they look their best. Anything that stops a jury being automatically prejudiced. Of course some don't take advantage, but looking smart and tidy rather than chained and shackled in prison uniform levels the playing field.
Wouldn't that open the door to class based prejudice? I mean if a defendant is from a higher class full household that can easily have access to "nice clothes" while another person is in a situation where that is much harder to get or even they don't have a standard for what "nice clothes" look like, that may have an effect on how jurors view the defendant according to their bias.
I'm sure that that has been probably been aknowledged when making that decision, but I'm honestly curious if there is a worry for that.
@@JanInGameWTF more then wearing something that say I just came out of jail? And rich people will always have the upper hand
@@marvelsProtege i think that it would be more neutral to have everyone wear the same clothes served by the court so everyone at least gets the same initial judgement, in that way it's also much more manageable, since it would be the default apparel so everyone knows how to work around that judgement.
@@JanInGameWTF I'm not an expert on these matters by any means, but most people in the UK seem to be able to get hold of a shirt / jacket for these sorts of occasions. I suppose it could prejudice a jury against working class defendants, but it seems that the risk of that occurring is probably minimal compared with the risks of a jury making adverse inferences from someone being brought to court in chains and a prison jumpsuit. Even if the prejudice against working class defendants does arise, the solution is surely to make sure that suitably smart clothes are provided to working class people, rather than tipping the scales even further against them by bringing them into a courtroom shackled.
@@Uthedudeful yeah yeah I was trying to get to that, having neutral clothes supplied to people who don't have of their own, not prison clothing, but i felt that achieving that goal would be an inversion that realistically wouldn't go through, so neutral jumpsuits or shirts, not necessarily shackles, are a sensible concession I think. Maybe...
7:18 "You're not allowed to convict them because they have a certain propensity towards crime... A criminal defendant can't be convicted just because they have a history of doing bad things."
I actually find that pretty surprising considering how certain individuals are generally profiled based off their criminal history.
Profiling isn't a conviction, though. Profiling is a crap attempt to make policing more efficient, but once you're in the courtroom, it's all about what happened on the night. (Or should be.)
Should be, that is the operative word. But we all know it is not levelled equally
Well cops it seems can arrest for whatever they want judges don't have to hold you guilty
I think you’re confused. Individuals aren’t profiled as much as you think during trial. Their records are considered during sentencing which is where your confusion may lie. You will get a longer sentence if you have a longer rap sheet, and vice versa. It can be confusing I know
If you’re a person of color your history matters, not if you’re white
This is a great video. Prosecutor here. You explained everything excellently. 👏🏼
THe only thing more disturbing than this entire court case, is the prosecuter, was to my knowledge the District Attorney acting like a twitter lawyer going after someone for their politics under the guise of by the book self defense against criminals and pedophiles.
I'm amazed the Judge didn't get more angry as he well should have with this failure of a lawyer.
Thank you for covering the Rittenhouse trial.
I tend liberal, (as many of your viewers likely do), and as I watched the Trial I thought and felt it seemed a lot fairer than my usual media was giving it credit for.
It seemed like the real spirit of the argument against Rittenhouse's possible aquital was that he was being treated better than a parade of example cases involving black defendants.
To me, that was trying to make a right out of a new wrong. The solution is for future such defendants to have more fairness in their trial, not for RIttenhouse to have less.
But, I doubted myself and my lack of legal expertise. I looked to your channel hoping you would shed some light on it, and you did.
Thank you. That was my exact feeling as well. I saw a lot of people make the reasonable point that a black defendant would be treated differently, from the moment of the shooting to the trial, but for the answer to be treating Kyle unfairly made no sense to me. That’s not equality - that’s retribution.
This video's actually substantially better than his original Rittenhouse video. But it does still have some very subtle Rhetoric. For example
(This first one is fairly minor)For the Rioters and Looters vs Victim thing he leaves out "The jury here could hate Gaige Grossekruetz or jumpkick man as much as they want, they're literally unable to convict them of anything. And nobody on earth could do anything to Rosenbaum or Huber, their freedom is not in danger from this Jury, Kyle's is.
He called Binger's Three-in-a-Row constitutional and evidentiary oversteps "Mistakes," not even entertaining the possibility that this very experienced trial lawyer knew DAMN WELL what he was doing and did it anyway.
He explains the Anti-Kyle evidence that was excluded as Propensity Evidence (The fight where a girl had Kyle's sister in a headlock and he beat on her headlocking arm, and the violent trash talk about the alleged shoplifters.)
But he DOESN'T explain the Other propensity evidence that was thrown out. The evidence brought by the defense that showed the first attacker to charge Kyle was a LITERAL serial child rapist, just out of a psych ward for trying to kill himself before he could be sent back to prison for beating his fiance.
And the second person shot had a history of domestic violence against his siblings and grandma. (Defense actually almost got that in when the prosecution tried to make Huber seem heroic via his great aunt. But for some reason the Defense chose to just warn the Prosecution that they'd counter the heroism story with the criminal record and let the Prosecutor drop it, maybe they felt bad about reminding the great aunt her favorite grandnephew did bad things to his family, of felt it would play badly to the jury)
He breezes over the compressed video Brady Violation(The prosecutor's duty to provide ALL potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.) Which is very serious as well.
@@DIEGhostfish Some good points.
RE: exclusion of propensity evidence from the Defense
I think he could have included some mention of them to show the even application of principals. I think the full details would be a bit tangental given the core topic of the video.
RE: The Compressed video violantion
He took it in a very different direction than I was expecting. I think he responded well to the concerns expressed about zooming in on the video*
The motion for mistrial with prejudice because the enhancements used an AI were, in my opinion, quite serious.
I believe the Defense even said at one point the enhanced version used AI. I would want to hear expert testimony, but if true I believe that absolutely should have caused a mistrial. I lack the experience to weigh in on the prejudice matter but ... seems like an appropriate concept.
@@DIEGhostfish Good points about the victims, but irrelevant. they're dead and not on trial. Kyle's saying whatever he needs to say at this point to get himself off the hook, and given that it's basically just his word vs. some dead guys I'm not sure the propensity evidence against him should really have been suppressed. Still, prosecution had an uphill battle in this one. The not-guilty result is morally reprehensible here but justifiable legally, I guess.
@@Datamining101
Would that line of thinking not also mean that other crimes of the "victims" were relevant to establishing criminal behavior?
The prosecutor really dropped the ball on this. They probably could've even gotten the CVS video in front of the jury on impeachment grounds had they asked Kyle the right questions. Sloppy work.
Ngl the judge sounds like the smartest person in that whole trial
judge did nothing wrong
@@johndillinger8482 I agree in terms of procedure but the veteran's day fiasco was unnecessary.
@@johndillinger8482 and compared to the rest he was actually a pretty solid judge all things considered
@@Angriestpirate that was taken out of context as well. He had asked if there were any veterans in the room, and when only the witness said he was, he acted shocked saying "really we don't have any other veterans, not even in the jury?" and asked for them to clap for him. Not at all biased, just celebrating veterans
I thought that it was a Standard practice for the American justice system that the defendant has a right to remain silent.
It is
Back in August 2020 I learned that it was against the law to cross state lines if you were unarmed and going to work and where your dad lives. The media over a thousand times said so. "And he crossed state lines"
I found watching a bunch of lawyers discussing the case while the court was live a fascinating experience that left me understanding more about the process.
It was as good as that book you just couldnt put down, but way more valuable
Yes, I did too. Especially Friday's feed when the lawyers and judge were reviewing the charges.
Is watching lawyers argue really more valuable in your life than reading a good book ? I would disagree on that as reading a book could teach you how to argue with them rather than repeating what they say.
@@HoboTango honestly there was less of argument than passionate discussion, ultimately the right answer/s become apparent.
I usually know quite a lot of the subject matter I read, so Im mostly filling detail. I have this theory that, the things you think you know are the things you know less about than you should. I found this was true with the concept of self defence and how it differs across states. Im sure there are books on it but Im not given to dive into them, a few hours online with people fighting their corners on technical issues was worth it for me on something I felt I should know more about.
@@HoboTango It was a lot of things I learned from watching the case. I think if you are learning, then it's not a waste of time. Not that I want to watch a lot more, it was interesting.
A thorough and dispassionate explanation. I think I understand these issues now. These were a bit confusing and I followed the trial pretty closely. Perhaps you can explain something from the Arbery trial. The defendants were accused of 5 counts of murder. I kinda get how malicious murder is different, but why the others? One defendant was acquitted of two counts of murder but convicted of 3. What was the distinction?
Not a legal expert, but I remember that "felony murder" is a charge related to a person killing a victim (or assisting in same) while the person (not the victim) was committing another felony. Now, there were nine total counts for each defendant. One was malice murder, four were felony murder, and four were other counts related to the killing. The one who was acquitted of one count of felony murder but not the other three was also acquitted on one of the other counts. I'm going to assume that particular defendant was acquitted of one count of felony murder because they were also acquitted of the associated crime.
I would be pretty interested to hear more about the different kinds of murder (in a legal sense) and what they all mean.
they were charged with 5 counts of "felony murder" ie a murder that results from a felony action. each underlying felony, ie assault, false imprisonment, etc, incurred a seperate felony murder charge
Those weren't murder charges, exactly. the charges were "Felony Murder" - the crime of killing someone while doing a Felony. Each count was tied to a different felony (assault, false imprisonment and conspiracy to commit a felony were the main ones here, I think).
So I actually did research into this. A felony murder is any murder that occurs during the commission of a felony. Basically if someone is doing a felony and someone is killed during that felony then felony murder is added. Each felony that is connected to the murder has the felony murder charge. The guy was aquited of one felony murder because he was aquited of one of the felonys. The sentences for them dont stack for one murder but they are charged for each
Love the segues into the ad at the end!
I love how people defend the criminals who pulled Kyle to the ground
Even though one technically committed a *war crime* : faked surrender before pulling out a weapon
I.... I think you have to be in a war to commit a war crime..
War crimes require wars, genius. That's why tear gas can be used by police even though it's banned in war as a chemical weapon.
The state of media in this country is so shit we have to go to a UA-cam channel to get some actual legal facts. Well done and thank you. Also that segue to Ting was so good I actually stayed and listened to the whole thing.
My advice? Don’t get news from the front page of Google or via social media. Read multiple authors takes on an issue and dissect which leanings are at play in even the seemingly unbiased writings. Not even lawyers can be totally objective, we all have our biases.
The youtube channels with lawyer panels and live coverage were the best thing to watch I found. One could hear what was happening and also get a wide range of opinions as they happened. Also a lot of these channels tended to make follow up videos explaining or discussing items as well which further helped explain things.
despite the clear far left bias of this channel.
@@TheNemesis442 Which just shows he's a good lawyer.
@@Devinfrbs Holy phuk you cultists are insane.
I want you to know how much I appreciate the way you conduct your channel. In an age where rumor is turned to fact, someone who looks at the facts in a informed manner is of great value. No matter what anyone feels about Rittenhouse, an informed look at the judge's action is of benefit to all. Thank you.
This video's actually substantially better than his original Rittenhouse video. But it does still have some very subtle Rhetoric. For example
(This first one is fairly minor)For the Rioters and Looters vs Victim thing he leaves out "The jury here could hate Gaige Grossekruetz or jumpkick man as much as they want, they're literally unable to convict them of anything. And nobody on earth could do anything to Rosenbaum or Huber, their freedom is not in danger from this Jury, Kyle's is."
He called Binger's Three-in-a-Row constitutional and evidentiary oversteps "Mistakes," not even entertaining the possibility that this very experienced trial lawyer knew DAMN WELL what he was doing and did it anyway.
He explains the Anti-Kyle evidence that was excluded as Propensity Evidence (The fight where a girl had Kyle's sister in a headlock and he beat on her headlocking arm, and the violent trash talk about the alleged shoplifters.)
But he DOESN'T explain the Other propensity evidence that was thrown out. The evidence brought by the defense that showed the first attacker to charge Kyle was a LITERAL serial child rapist.
And the second person shot had a history of domestic violence against his siblings and grandma. (Defense actually almost got that in when the prosecution tried to make Huber seem heroic via his great aunt. But for some reason the Defense chose to just warn the Prosecution that they'd counter the heroism story with the criminal record and let the Prosecutor drop it)
He breezes over the compressed video Brady Violation. Which is very serious as well.
Also they eventually did allow AI interpolated (Digital zoom that smooths the images with AI generated pixels) video in from the prosecutor and he hung nearly his whole case on that video. That was a massive mistake in the prosecutor's favor.
@@DIEGhostfish regarding the Video Brady violation he might be intending to talk about that in a separate video.
@@DIEGhostfish legal eagle is pretty clearly politically driven in most of his videos. Every reasonable person should be able to spot this.
@@Sal3600 yeah I miss his pre trump content before he became such a hardcore lefty
@@Sal3600 to be fair to LE, I’m pretty sure he’s trying to be unbiased. I don’t think they’re politically *driven*, his political view just seeps into the video content a little bit. I mean hey, being absolutely objective is almost impossible for most people
I enjoy your videos. I appreciate how you break down the complexity of the law into simple terms. And I'm a huge fan of your legal show reaction videos. I've also noticed that you speak very fast. If you speak that rapidly in court or during depos, I hope you at least take a breather in between sentences to give the court reporters a little rest.
All this video shows, is that twitter and facebook are not the best ways to get your factual 'knowledge' over a case
No, go to UA-cam instead 😅
It seems to me that if there were any failings it would be by the prosecution
As someone said in a previous video: the prosecutor was the best defense lawyer Rittenhouse could’ve asked for.
Prosecution was abysmal
This! Sadly...
The best defense Rittenhouse never paid for.
And defence. They were better prosecutors than the prosecution in itself.
Having watched your explanation I think the media coverage around the trial was guilty of sensationalism. The full context and explanation you provided were not provided my conventional media outlets. Instead it was just cherry picked tidbits of information that were seemingly designed to rile people up and get eyes on an article. Thanks for the explanation and have a happy Thanksgiving.
No sensationalism friend, outright malicious lies. They had full access to all the information in real time and many of them still flat out lie about it still. As much as i wish we didn’t live in a world where you have to personally watch every second of something to get an even semi honest opinion that is where we currently are.
I agree. I was surprised at the way my workplaces would train us on how to write criminal law stories. Once I graduated from law school, I felt really dumb on the way that I was trained to write a story from my editors.
I think it was more that the media doesn't understand what is going on and they let people on social media lead stories.
Media law experts tend to be, simply, ignorant and stupid and often not even experts. Then someone on Twitter sees or hears a thing and makes a big row about it.
Instead of media law expert saying "well, no that's not what happened, this is what happened," they go with "lots of people are upset about Thing," and that becomes the story.
Their experts probably don't even comment on it. They story is now that "some on social media are upset". Also the idea of a biased judge is more exciting story anyway and "more exciting story" almost always wins over "banal reality" because money.
@@ShivaX51 Yea, that was an interesting part to me after graduating. I always used to think that the media law experts would help my story tell something new or exciting. But I realize that a lot of them are applying general rules that you learn for the bar exam.
To be fair though, you always have one or two stories due at five o clock, or else you're fired.
There's not a lot of time to look for stories to "help" create the right legal picture. To me, social media-led stories can do some good with highlighting issues that you may not usually think about. Also, it's an everyday job. You can only be selected for so long on what you are going to report on (it's not a scholarly essay). You have to sometimes be really creative as a producer or reporter to stay employed. There's both good and with everything. But that's how the most companies run seem to run it now. I even see public media starting to do this.
Absolutely. The media coverage 100% failed in this case, and painted a completely inaccurate depiction of events. And I'm saying that about both wings of media, a stipulation that is absolutely embarrassing to actually recognize as existing (as you would expect news would be anything but politically motivated). I went into this case completely baited by the media's explanation of events, and after watching the trial for a few days, was absolutely grateful I got to see this played out in a courtroom. On day one of the trial, I was all like "ha ha how cute, this idiot kid pleaded not guilty, I look forward to seeing him hanging from the gallows."
By day three, I was gesturing wildly at the prosecution, baffled as to why this case was even brought up. I was particularly upset at myself, because I let myself be baited by (let's call it what it is) politically motivated propagandists masquerading as journalists, and that I myself had failed spectacularly at assuming innocence until proven guilty. As futile as it is to wish upon a star, hoping certain court-ejected networks would stop embarrassing themselves doubling down on their proven lies long after the verdict, at least I have power over myself. These "news" networks might use this as a launching point to act even worse than they already are, but I'm using it as a reminder that I can and should be better.
You literally just sidestepped the whole point that another video that was edited down was sent to the defense, not the correct video. Even the file name was completely different.
Enjoyed your commentary, but the absolute best thing about the video was how seamlessly you made the transition to your sponsor. You sir are a true professional.
How to bungle a prosecution 101
1. File wrong charges.
2. Visually facepalm in front of the jury.
3. Have one of your key witnesses get caught lying on the witness stand
4. Brandish a gun and point it at the people in the courtroom with your finger on the trigger, while calling the defendant irresponsible with a firearm.
5. Repeatedly cause the jury to be removed from the room based upon your line of questioning.
6 .Violate the defendant's constitutional rights, be reprimanded by the judge and then do so again during the same line of questioning
7. Blame the defendant's actions on video games.
8. Tell the jury in a self-defense trial that the defendant should have just "taken the beating".
This is a really good list, one of the best I've seen on the web
I'm surprise the issue with the Handbrake application on the prosecution's computer wasn't addressed. As a software engineer, I know Handbrake is used to convert/compress videos from one format to another. When the defense asked for the drone footage from the prosecution, prosecution had the legal obligation to provide this unaltered evidence to the defense. What the prosecution provided was a lower quality version of the drone footage compared to what the prosecution had. The filenames were different and the meta data in the files proved the difference as well. It may have been an oversight on the prosecution's side, but they were claiming it was the email program which compressed the video. I'm currently not aware of any email program which compresses video while in transit.
It was going to be, the Defence knew about the software, and how the video was edited. They had a motion ready to file. But as KR was acquitted with prejudice it ultimately didn't matter.
I heard what they recieved was roughly 1/16the the quality of the original video.
Looks like evidence tampering.
@@canadadry5449 Someone compared the difference to, the defense was viewing it on a 98 iPhone and the prosecutors were using a 20 model.
It's simple.
Sour Krauss lied.
I'd like to see your thoughts on the Potter/Wright trial that just started. I'm unclear on the difference between the types of manslaughter in this case, and what defense she can possibly mount when, in this case, she was directly responsible for the death, even if it was accidental.
Even if accidental? Why is she even being tried?
@@pmberkeley manslaughter not homicide that’s the difference on intention. This is a very common thing that occurs like with an auto accident for example if the person at fault in the accident causes a death in the other vehicle they can catch a charge vehicular manslaughter charge if they were driving recklessly or etc.
@@jimbobiv1919 ?
What about the Potter/Sirius black trial
@@capncottontail1030 JK Rowling is the real queen of England
Mr Eagle - I have a video idea suggestion that's especially relevant this time of year (Christmas shopping): today I've read that US lawmakers have announced a new legislative bill - named the Stopping Grinch Bots Act to deter / stop scalpers from "abusing" the retail market. Apparently a similar proposal was made of the BOTS act a few years ago which got the ball rolling on these type of control measures. You'd have a lot of material to cover such as how the bill is implemented and executed (defining boundaries of what is fair usage as opposed to abuse), the range of use it could have in various sectors, if it'll be effective (punishment fits the crime). Maybe you prefer more established practices over almost speculation over new ones, but I thought it was interesting and very relevant problem nowadays that would benefit from legal intervention. Either way, love your videos and work - I have nothing to do with the legal system but I just enjoy watching someone so intelligent and passionate talk about law, being the system of justice we have today. So thank you Mr.Eagle, and Merry Christmas :)
I think this is a good idea
12:45 the judge was reviewing a prosecution's piece of evidence(the "enhanced" drone video), and if I'm not mistaken the defendant is allowed and required to see all evidence brought against him. So basically he was obligated to view the video with the judge.
That is what it looked like to me. Them sitting close in that instance looked obviously like a logistics thing because they were obviously watching a video. If sitting close to someone to watch a video is proof of positive associations then the witness stand has weird implications.
I've seen this same thing in other cases as well.
It gets even worse than that ... They degraded the evidence and gave it to the defense team. So you have a Brady violation there which can easy get the case thrown out with prejudice. Plus that evidence seems per the the company that made should not be used in a trial.
He did a bad job at telling the audience with the real reason the tech was such an issue. More I watch from him about this trial shows he didn't watch it
I thought that they were required to turn the evidence over to the defense attorney not that they had to watch it together. He also talked about all the evidence needed to be approved before the trial began.
@@jss27560 they had a 1920p video and handed over a 480p video with a different name and metadata. The prosecutors were scum in this case
POPCOOOOORN! Get your popcorn here for the commentary fights! Hot, salty or sweet, get your popcorn here!
I’ll take a large movie style
Hot please!
Bland, y’know what? Just don’t pop it, give me a cob of corn.
Ima be a typical centrist, give me a mix of hot, salty and sweet. If you disagree with this, you voted for the other person in 2020.
@@JeffRennt this went political fast
I really appreciate how thoughtful this interpretation of the trial was. I know it has to be difficult for the lawyers involved to represent a case that had so much coverage and options from people who aren't looking at it from a legal standpoint. 🤔 I feel like the pressure on the lawyers to be at their best may have contributed to the mistakes that were made. But I can't help to think, if a person's life is on the line, which in essence a murder trial is, can we ever not be too careful in our pursuit of the truth?
Little binger had the added burden of being shit too
He always gets me with the ad at the end. Like I’m paying attention to legal facts and thinking critically then boom, ad lol
It should be a very difficult mountain to climb for a prosecutor to convict someone. Presumption of innocence is a very precious, even endearing, aspect in our legal system. It forces a jury to be convinced of guilt. Thats the only standard that is moral.
Yet that is the aspect under attack by the blue checkmarks
The problem is he wasn’t innocent, so the presumption is irrelevant. He’s on camera shooting people so that’s out the door. People often confuse not guilty with innocent. He definitely killed those people so there is no presumption of innocence needed.
@@ILoveGrilledCheese TROLL ALERT 📢
@@ILoveGrilledCheese The sad thing is you were probably proud of this post.
@@whitewhale9012 Eeerick doesn't live in a place where "presumption of innocence" is a judicial axiom.
That ad segue made me actually laugh out loud! Well done, eagle man!
Same, lol
but what is the ringtone? I'm going mad here
Eagle man lmao
Honestly, it just made me briefly confused and then somewhat annoyed.
@@janfeger1148 it was the same song Trump comes on stage to “God Bless The USA”
He also didn’t let the defense bring up the criminal history of the 3 people who were shot
First, it wasn't relevant. Secondly, most of the "history" was manufactured after the fact by online Rittenhouse allies.
@@WyvernYT Rosenbaum was a literal child rapist who was on a sex offender registry and did time in prison, that wasnt manufactured but rather confirmed. The other two I have no idea about their histories however. Maybe go tell the kid that Rosenbaum brutally raped that it never happened.
@@WyvernYTmanufactured?
Rosenbaum: literal pedo
Huber: domestic assailant
Grosskreutz: armed burglar
Their previous convictions are the facts
He knew that the prosecution didn’t have a case 😂😂😂
“The prosecution has the burden of proof” I think that’s where most people get lost in this case. People forget the most basic “innocent until proven guilty.”
That's because despite it being the law as written, it's so rarely the reality as practiced for so many people. The double standard gets noticed.
@@scienceandponies No, it does apply to everyone, which is why Darrell Brooks was allowed to leave jail and commit mass murder at the Waukesha parade.
@@aolson1111 the man had skipped bail in another state you can't tell me there wasn't a warrant for his arrest.
People remember "innocent until proven guilty" just fine, it's just that they always convince themselves that the defendant already has been proven guilty before the trial ends (For context, for this case I was one of those that prejudged Kyle as guilty)
That's the first problem. It should be guilty until proven innocent.
Two mistakes by the prosecution? That seemed very intentional. We are presumed innocent and the burden falls on the State. We definitely want to favor US not the STATE
I said kyle was innocent at the beginning and people slandered me for it. As entitled as I feel, I have not once asked for an apology from everyone who has defamed me. An apology that is not sought out by the guilty party is no apology at all
Your segue into Ting mobile was a thing of beauty haha -- ive never heard of them before but now ill never forget them. Well played, sir.
That transition was one of the smoothiest and funniest I've ever seen, especially considering the actually quite politically charged and serious topic at hand.
The transition from yesterday's zero to today's hero was indeed smooth.
11:05 you could have gone into more details here:
The prosecution didn't give the defense the original high resolution drone footage. They sent them a cropped version with 1/16th of the original resolution, newly encoded into a new file 20 minutes younger than the original with a different file name. Kraus pretended he knew nothing about all this and that this had to be done by sending it via email (lol) but you could clearly see a video encoding software on his laptop in court and the file name + file creation date clearly speaks for them sending a small version not by accident but on purpose. That's another reason for a mistrial and prosecutorial misconduct.
The prosecutor should be disbarred, and put on trial HIMSELF for MULTIPLE blatant violations of the defendant's civil rights!
Prosecutorial misconduct is incredibly common and rarely has consequences.
@@davidtucker9498 You guys have no idea because it's usually not recorded and you sympathize with this defendant. This behavior is too common, and is a major reason we need criminal justice reform.
Imagine kyle had to rely on a public defender. His attorney would throw the case, pressure kyle to take a plea deal for 15 years all for future favors from the DA.That's just business as usual. Then people would call the plea deal a "confession" of sorts. Same level of innocence.
Not everyone has the my pillow guy funding their defense and bonding them out of jail. He's a lucky kid.
@@whitewhale9012 I agree with you, if he didn't had plenty video footage of the incident and financial support, he'd be railroaded by the prosecutors. People shouldn't let their hatred of Kyle blind them from what happened during the trial, this prosecutors were very corrupt and very politically motivated. All their cases should be reviewed, i bet they have put innocent people on the jail.
@@buxadonoff While I agree with the premise, I disagree that someone who goes into an active protest armed with a loaded AR-15 and whos past videos admit that he wanted to kill people for shoplifting/looting + the people he killed being unarmed = innocent. KR didn't commit murder but he is also FAR from some innocent guy being unfairly targeted.
Loved this. Thank you! Will you be doing one on the Duggar case? My SO works in a related field I will not disclose but can probably be guessed at so it’s led to some interesting conversations on the case. Curious about your take on it!
Way more people need to watch this video! Thank you for making it
TL:DR legal takes from social media are usually wrong, wait to hear from the experts. Great breakdown as always.
Hope you're not implying the "experts" on legacy media like CNN?
He’s a lawyer. I think he knows what he’s talking about.
@@sharpfang he said social media, not news media.
@@sharpfang especially when the "witness" openly lied on there channel
saying the things he said on trail wasn't true(which if he did lie in the court the case would not only be dropped but also he would be in major trouble for lying in court)
@@michaelsnydermusic He said "hear from the experts". The news media get various "experts" to speak on air, saying what the media want them to say.