Destiny and Counterpoints finally have a disagreement and it results in a very passionate debate! Check out Counterpoints ► th-cam.com/channels/9bnvsu0ZYzNFijp6mWLUjQ.html Part 2 of this video ►th-cam.com/video/u2sNLNSF91c/w-d-xo.html
Destiny has the wrong take on this. The lawyers did this intentionally in an attempt to get this thrown out and retried. It's a gamble, cus the defense wants a mistrial with prejudice over it, which means the case can't be retried. I agree with the defense here, but the judge doesn't wanna make that call. Judge wants a jury to make judgement. I really believe this should be a mistrial with prejudice, and that the defense tried to get the case retried.
Why Destiny is wrong Prosecutors are not supposed to pursue convictions they are supposed to pursue Justice. Commenting on a defendant's constitutional right to remain silent is and of itself irrefutable evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. If it is established that's what Binger did there is no argument or mitigating circumstance that would make it not a violation of civil rights as a matter of law. Also for those that haven't watched the trial minute by minute it would be hard for you to understand how shockingly unethical the prosecution has been in this case. The civil rights violation is just the simplest and most clear-cut one to explain. The prosecution is given the power of the state to bring forth charges based on available admissible evidence and a reasonable narrative. They also get the advantage of having the power of the state to decide how the game gets played and what pieces are used. The defense doesn't have to prove what happened it just has to create doubt. Because of this they are given a lot of flexibility to explore multiple narratives. If the adversarial nature of the State and the defense was to behave in an adversarial nature in the way that Destiny argues here Justice would be impossible. You wouldn't be able to create Reasonable Doubt if the state is allowed to present as many narratives as they would like based on the evidence. To try to simplify this conceptually in layman's terms you are not supposed to be playing a game of chess with the state you are supposed to be running the state's gauntlet. If you make it to the end overcoming very predictable and foreseeable hurdles you win.
@@shokrum Great comment, Mr Faux! Perfect summary! And yes, anyone who's not seen the entire trial until now is unable to see how much crap the prosecution is guilty of!
@@shokrum That's way too idealistic. A prosecutor succeeds if they convict someone. If they didn't think there might be a case here, they would not have started it. We get that the prosecutor is bad, but that doesn't mean it's totally okay to shoot people on the street and not even get tried for it. To me at least, putting 4 consequtive bullets into someone because they tried to reach for my gun seems a bit far fetched to be called "self defense". Are you telling me Rittenhouse was totally calculated there and there's nothing to question? The last bullet went to the guy's back for God's sake! That's only possible if the guy was already on the ground at close range. Shooting people already on the ground is not my idea of self defense at least. That's an execution.
I'm a right winger. You defending Kyle has definitely opened my mind to hearing you out more. I may disagree with a lot but now ik you're not coming in bad faith. Thank you destiny for not going a long with the narrative especially when it hurt you financially 🇺🇸
@Something Different so that's not what systemic racism is but nice try lolololol and we can get into all the details of that as well btw you're factually incorrect because technically it's not a mandate
@Something Different Why do you think some studies on the efficiency of vaccines grant you the authority to violate the bodily autonomy of 350 million people?
Even though I disagree with Connor a fair deal, I think he genuinely argues in good faith and cares about the positions he takes. Overall I think hes a pretty positive force on Twitch politics.
I thought in the first half he was just wrong about pretty much everything (to the point of it being comical) BUT I liked him a bit more by the end because I could see the point he was trying to make about prosecutors making really underhanded disingenuous arguments. & yeah he at least fully believes everything hes saying
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Yeah I cant stand Vaush. I dont know how anyone could possibly enjoy watching someone be so incredibly pompous & over the top with their obvious bulls***. Destiny tries to make sound arguments in as simple terms as possible that way everyone can understand his point, meanwhile Vaush is only concerned about making his language as flowery as possible in order to APPEAR smart. They are worlds apart Oh yeah & him saying you are insecure if you dont let other guys rail your gf everynight was grade A comedy. Whatever helps him sleep at night hahaha
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p They’re not on Twitch, but check out Sitch & Adam on TH-cam. They are center-left and I would argue they are on the same level in terms of integrity/good faith/anti-propaganda/caring about the truth. All that good stuff.
@@CakesWarden For sure. Sitch & Adam on 2x speed are a good listen. I often diagree strongly with Adam, but at least he and Sitch are operating from a place of good faith
In those days people didn't debate with thoughts of video recording it and making money off it people debated and argued because they were genuinely passionate about a subject. Yeah of course there were crazy people but their were also well educated people passionately making their case based on concrete facts and evidence. These twitch/youtube debates are done with the intent of making money and most of the time they're trying to cater to a certain side. That's why you end up seeing so many people debating about things they have no interest or knowledge about. They're just taking something that's in the news that's a hot topic that people are passionate/interested in and capitalizing on that interest by repeating whatever the political narrative of the audience they cater to thinks.
@Trade Bum Simmons it's gotten way worse in recent years in my opinion. I think social media is to blame a lot of people openly share their political beliefs and opinions on social media. In the past people mostly kept political opinions to themselves and maybe family/good friends. Even these days politics don't really come up in most every day conversations and for good reason it only drives people apart based on our human insticts to think in a. tribal way. My group is better then yours. My group should be in charge because we know better then you. If you disobey our rules we'll put you in a cage and we might let you out early if you admit what you did was wrong and if you swear you'll follow our rules.
@Trade Bum Simmons democrats want to ban all guns they try to pretend it's just ar 15's they want to ban even though statistics show they are used in less murders then any other guns and also used less then knives too. After they ban the ar 15 they'll go after the rest of the guns. Criminals and murderers prefer handguns because they can easily be hidden at a moments notice. Democrats don't care as much about banning handguns because democrats don't really care about stopping crime they generally win in high crime areas so why would bother changing a factor that puts them in power? Democrats did nothing to stop the riots destroying cities across the country. Many innocent people died and lost their jobs and businesses. Democrat politicians were protected by their armed security guards otherwise known as police officers that we pay for that are supposed to protect us and our property but they protected neither the taxpaying citizens or their houses/businesses that they pay taxes on. And cities like Chicago have a straight up gun ban. So if you live in Chicago and follow the law you can't have a gun to protect yourself so the only people who have guns are the gangs and other criminals. When law abiding citizens can't defend themselves with guns they're easy targets for criminals to rob them. And during those riots the police were not responding or showing up to calls so people were defenseless. But the mayor had personal armed security for herself so she didn't care about regular citizens it's not her problem that people were being robbed and shot and houses were burned down and their businesses were looted. It was mostly her voters doing the looting. She didn't want to upset her voter base.
My big issue with the prosecutor was when he questioned Kyle enacting his rights and trying to make that out as evidence of guilt of a crime which the judge got on him for. If we start letting the state push the notion that using your rights is wrong or evidence of wrong doing, that is a major issue that needs to be stomped out hard.
I'm really enjoying this debate because we get to have the entertainment of them getting really heated but it still seems pretty good-natured on some level
honest question, why do you enjoy the “heated” aspect so much? i always prefer a calm conversation throughout, but after listening to over a hundred debates, i don’t mind the heat anymore, but still wonder why so many people are drawn to it
@@retyifourthree6929 I think it's the "drama" aspect but with these two it's just their natural demeanor so it doesn't ever come off as them getting mad at each other as opposed to being pationate. Just my take though
The question is: is it OK for the state to prosecute a person in bad faith, even if they are technically not fabricating evidence and are following the law by spinning bad faith narratives and focusing on specific events they know are actually legally justified? The answer is no. It's not ok for the State's main goal to be conviction. Justice should be the ideal outcome. In this case, the ADA is not concerned with justice, he's concerned with getting a conviction.
@@DavidGFalzarano if conviction by any *legal* means necessary is moral, then sending people you know are innocent, or likely innocent, to jail is also moral because the ultimate priority is not justice, it's conviction. "Evil" is subjective. Innocent people can be evil, the State should not be trying to get convictions on people who have bad character.
@@DavidGFalzarano gunning to throw people in jail for life using false narratives you know to be untrue is incredibly unethical, but is allowed, DA has a political axe to Grind on Rittenhouse so he's going to give 200% effort to bury him
@@kwalshe15 the defense cannot act in bad faith because their priority isn't justice. The defense is only concerned with their client, they are not state actors and have no obligation to seek justice, only to exonerate their client. This is morally consistent with the philosophy underlying our justice system.
Contrary to popular belief, soy has no harmonizing effects in the human body, as they contain phytoestrogen, which is plant estrogen. Dairy on the other hand will have these effects due to the animal based mamilion estrogen. #dairyface
Did I miss the part where the prosecution brought out the drone video from a mile away and tried to say Kyle confronted Rosenbaum with his gun within that pixel? I think that would have been a great example of "muddying the water" and it was an attempt to flip the script for self defense.
Yeah this is one of those cases where the prosecution is allowed to speculate and muddy the waters. Do I agree with their assessment? Hell no, but it is something within law that they can speculate on. And to add on to the argument I get it this is a debate on improving the justice system. That said I am about 2/3 of the way through and haven't heard a solid change maybe except for a public pressure campaign on the prosecutor's office that could be an effective change here.
A prosecutor's job isn't to "achieve convictions" per se. Their duty is to see that justice is done. Pursuit of a conviction is often the means to see justice done, when that's where the facts take you. But their goal should be uncovering the truth first. Prosecutors who make it their goal to win at all costs, truth be damned, do not serve society.
@@lampad4549 No it's not. They're only supposed to prosecute cases where they believe the client is guilty of whatever they are going to charge them with. If they don't believe they committed a crime, they are supposed to not file the charges, or drop them if they realize during the trial that they were mistaken.
@@puckutubesux7356the problem is people have taken the mindset of DEFENSE attorneys and tried to give it to prosecutors. Defense attorneys can be scumbags because they aren’t agents of the state. Prosecutors should be righteous pursuers of the truth.
I agree that the prosecution was “just doing their job”. But that Doesnr mean they were acting in good faith. I’ve seen plenty of prosecutor’s that wouldn’t call Kyle on “getting dizzy and falling down” and “playing call off duty”. I agree with the creepy cop guy. He wasn’t neglecting his duties, he was going it in the most bad faith Way possible, Jesus he had to be called out by the judge twice, idk why destiny can’t just grant him that and not keep defending that he was “just doing his job the way he was supposed to”
The ex cops argument is that prosecutors shouldn’t be allowed to use all the means at their disposal because public defenders are overwhelmed and bad at their jobs. It’s just a bad argument.
th-cam.com/video/AIzj48oL6T0/w-d-xo.html The defense's moment of bad faith for this was at 5:02:25 in this video. Listen to this objection about pinching and zooming for a good laugh.
@@ZacharyLobato There was a second one on Friday. Fatlock told the judge that the people bashing cars scattered before Kyle ran in their direction, attempting to get away from Rosenbaum, and Juan Wicks video showed that they only scattered when Kyle shot Rosenbaum. There is no way Fatlock didn't know this already.
@Jim Eraklis I feel like this is really reductive and not what you actually believe. If you'd like to repeat yourself in a less hyperbolas matter, then please do.
@Jim Eraklis it's funny how you talk about that's what "leftists do" and then talk about how they can't go against anything that challenges their belief system when your comment is doing the exact same thing. You are reinforcing the idea that leftists would never ever admit when they are wrong. Broad generalizations like that are super inaccurate and should not be used as its probably your own biases + people that you watch which are causing you to see all leftists like that. "They are really emotional as well." everyone is extremely emotional and if you think you aren't then you just don't understand how emotions can affect your thought process (of course some people are actually more emotional than others)
The prosecutors job is not just to secure a conviction. Its to get "justice." If their only job was to get convictions, the State would rightly be seen as predatory in every case.
Exactly! This is the fundamental flaw in Destiny's argument. His philosophy is that court is an arena were two sides fight it out. It is based on the assumption that each side is equal in strength. Therefore it is the job of the prosecution to fight for conviction regardless of evidence to the contrary. That would be logical if the assumption of equal strength held. Not by any logical assessment can the strength of the state be compared to the strength of the individual. The state has vast and unlimited resources while the individual by definition is limited. One against the many. This is why Jefferson created a system where the state is required to seek justice not winning. The court is not are arena for combat rather an instrument of measurement to assess whether individuals behaviors conform to expected norms. This is in the self-interest of both the individual and the state.
The state is predatory when it comes to seeking conviction, if they think they cam charge someone with a crime they will do it and should do it. It's the courts and judge's job to see that Justice is done.
@@bigtex741he flaw in your argument is that the defense has way more power than the prosecution. The burden of proof is much higher on the defense side and they generally get paid more and have more resources outside of public defenders. Everything you say about the prosecution in the last part is the role of the court not just the prosecution, it sets a bad prescedent if all the role of the court is to be had by just one side.
Left or right, you can see a huge difference with people who watched the trial, WATCHED the videos, and looked for the facts to make sure what as right and wrong.
It shouldn’t be the prosecutor’s job to try to get a conviction at all costs. Pursuing a case when you good and well know that the defendant is not guilty should be punished. We shouldn’t encourage false accusations and wrongful convictions. This is why I’m more in favor of an inquisitorial approach instead of an accusatory approach in the criminal justice system
This is exactly what all other prosecutors and lawyers have been saying. They are meant to uphold justice.. not a conviction at all cost.. to the point of just making 💩 up and violating rights.. this is why they lost.. they have no facts.. no case.. they threaten witnesses to lie.. doctored evidence.. and they will be investigated.. the fact they were going to have to swear on the stand if things got worse tells you sometihng
@@AgxntOrange No. Completely wrong. Prosecution has the power to drop charges/not file. They do it all the time. Binger was repeatedly lying throughout the trial to try to get a conviction, which is illegal. Everyone is entitled to a defense, and defense attorneys are not allowed to knowingly lie in making their case. If a client tells them they're guilty, the defense attorney is no longer allowed to proclaim their client innocent in court. They can still say "the state has no case" and things of that nature, but they aren't allowed to knowingly lie and obstruct justice. Everything in the US judicial system is supposed to be weighted towards the defense.
@puckutubesux7356 we are not talking about the points where he lies both destiny and counter agree that is wrong, it's over other things that happened that counter doesn't want brought up
The job of the prosecution should be to search for the truth. And thus present the truth to the best of their ability. They shouldn't be going for the win, but they constantly do. And cops constantly lie for the benefit of the state...
Because Connor doesn't like one state actor, Binger, he's willing to abdicate the entire process of determining innocence to another theoretical state actor who he does like. Wtf kind of argument is that?
Dude, Destiny, I don’t think you understand the role of a prosecutor. When Kyle was arrested a complaint wasn’t even filed, they didn’t even know why they were arresting him, they SEARCHED FOR A CHARGE!
Prosecutors aren't supposed to seek conviction, they're supposed to seek justice. A conviction is something sought in PERSUIT of justice, if justice isn't served by a prosecution (ie, the evidence overwhelmingly favors innocence) then they do not seek one.
This. There are many cases of prosecutors dropping the case in light of new evidence, for these reasons. Unfortunately in this case, Binger is a fucking slimy piece of shit that doesn't seem to value justice over conviction.
They might not be supposed to get a conviction per definition, but they should present the strongest case possible for it, no? Just like how the defense should present the strongest case against a conviction
@@wisetrollman Yes of course, if pursuing justice they should present the strongest possible case for conviction. The argument Destiny is making is that the main goal of the prosecution IS the conviction, it isn't. When Counterpoints says that he feels like prosecutors need to be held to a higher moral standard I believe that this is what he is refering to. A prosecutor who seeks justice doesn't bring a case to court that seems frivolous or that the evidence does not support. If during the case, testimony or evidence emerges that heavily supports innocence then such a prosecutor would be looking to withdraw their case or cut a deal based on charges that are more appropriate. A prosecutor whose main goal is conviction however will seek the win no matter what. Even if the prosecutor themselves know that the defendant is likely innocent, they will warp and manipulate facts in order to achieve that conviction. It becomes a points game that is at its heart a key component to INJUSTICE and juditional corruption.
the prosecution's job shouldn't be to "win at all costs" especially when it is the state doing the prosecution. There's a reason the head DA isn't trying this case because almost every fact in it goes in support of justified self defence. The prosecution has been the side pushing the bounds of ethics during this trial because they know the facts are against them. State prosecutors usually have very high win rates because they get to choose which cases to bring. The political element to this case means it was brought despite the facts not because of them.
Well we want them to try to win at all costs... using all legal methods of evidence and disclosure. It gets sus when people skirt the laws because they're obsessed with winning cases.
@@Eval999 we want them to present the facts and evidence not push the bounds of ethics which has been the case here. that whole blurry video and blurry image is designed to muddy the waters that shouldn;t be their job, but I guess when almost no facts support your case you get desperate.
@@leightonp8496 if the prosecution is "pushing the bounds of ethics" in an attempt to "muddy the waters" why would the defense, who's incentives are diametrically opposed to that of the prosecution, simply point that out to the jury and judge?
@@leightonp8496 If they're breaching ethics, let their opposition/colleagues/the judge expose that. If the evidence they show has reason for doubt, the defence should demonstrate that in questioning and in closing.
This week, on "arguing from your conclusion..." the representatives are supposed to identify exploitative tactics to keep them from getting on record. Even if this stuff gets through there's still appeal and miss-trial. The system fails when it doesn't have resources to investigate. This isn't that.
They definitely have the resources, but how about when the DA tells investigators not to use those resources, such as when the prosecutors in this case advised against collecting Huber’s skateboard or searching Grosskreutz’s phone?
The entire point being made is that you can introduce things to the Jury that - even if stricken from the record - can change the outcome of the trial. Maybe a mistrial is declared, maybe it isn't, but if the case is already going poorly for the prosecution it means you potentially get to poison the well and if not you get another chance to convict. In my opinion it's a huge problem, it shouldn't be allowed and the punishment should be more severe than a stern talking to from the Judge.
@@TheStatisticalPizza it would have been if the judge thought it was a huge problem. That's why he admonished the same line of questioning he later allowed. After a warning or two the lawyer can be held in contempt, which has serious consequences. The judge failing to utilize these tools is more likely an admission that they weren't applicable. Neither the defense nor judge is helpless to that tactic
I appreciate the honesty and 100% open communication between these two, yet they laugh it all off after. Conversations like this really need to take place more often, just find a way forward after
This would have been a more interesting conversation if they discussed whether the prosecution should be allowed to intervene early in the discovery process. Such as advising the cops not to collect a skateboard used to hit the defendant in the back of the skull. Or advising the cops not to execute the search warrant on the phone of a certain EMT with an expired CC permit and an MIA “Do Know Harm” tattoo.
@@stephenH3369 he used it to take video. One could only imagine what was on it that he didn't want the investigators to see or hear. They also knew he lied about dropping the gun and pulling it on Kyle. That should have made the police more suspicious yet they looked the other way. Regardless his 10mil went down the toilet. He should be charged with fraud for trying to con the city out of millions.
@@stephenH3369 Sure, I'm referring to Gaige Grosskreutz. Part of his tattoo (a tribal looking rod of Asclepius w/ "Do Know Harm") was "vaporized" as he tells it. The police collected his phone from the scene and obtained a search warrant from a judge but the prosecution invoked Marsy's law to prevent the search warrant from being carried out. The phone could have contained exculpatory evidence or clarifying evidence regarding what Gaige's intentions were when he illegally concealed his pistol that night.
Most justice systems are shaped in the way Destiny is arguing for, which is that the attorney is to represent the interest of the defendant and the prosecutor is the push for the opposite and then the judge and jury rules on respective parties argumentatio. However, the excop has a point. An attorney or a prosecutor can contravene litigation rules and only get a warning, several times, without being dismissed or have their law license nullfied while STILL affect the minds of the jury and the judge subconsciously. An example is the O.J trial, you can barely argue that that trial was a fair and correct trial in establishing justice even though the defenders nor the prosecutor broke any laws. Trials are like a show, its all about how to affect the jury.
The biggest problem with CP's argument is, all these considerations about the case are generally decided upon before the DA brings charges or not. The prosecutor's office would normally attempt to gather enough information so that they can know whether it is worth issuing an arrest warrant or bringing the case to trial. I think the problem in cases like this is public pressure. The voting public and the media have made this case so controversial that the DA probably feels they have no choice on whether or not to bring charges. What most people are rightfully upset about is, the burden of proof. Based on some of the witness testimony, it seems like the prosecutors played a little bit of dirty pool while they were interviewing people. Like the dude who got shot in the arm. It seems like the DA should have had enough access to information to realize that he was the most impeachable witness ever. And that photo-journalist fella suggested some improprieties while he was interviewed as a possible witness. So people seem to be annoyed that the DA may have been ignoring exculpatory evidence when they were deciding whether or not to charge Kyle. I share some of CP's frustration because on a basic level, the legal system is way unbalanced. When they say "The state vs so-so", it really is the entire state. All the resources of the state are put up against a single individual with limited resources. I also think that misconduct has become very normalized on the prosecutorial side of the equation. From the cops making the arrests, to the prosecutors to the judges. And it's not just normalized but even incentivized in a lot of cases and this is probably an area of our system that could use some tweaking. I just don't know what the solution would be. I also understand CP's points about the unpredictability of a jury trial but a defendant does have the right to waive their right to jury trial and have a bench trial, where the judge is the sole juror. I believe there are some big risks associated with this strategy tho. I believe that a mistrial is off the table in a bench trial but I'm not 100% sure. But the idea is, a judge is much less likely to be swayed by the same nonsense that a juror would be. I believe a bench trial is a much faster process as well. I'm not sure if there is a consensus because people argue about anything these days but my buddy is a cop and in his opinion, he thinks that innocent people would probably have better odds in this kind of trial, with no jury. All that said, people may want to keep in mind that it can also be dangerous to give the DA's office too much authority to not press charges. Those guys in Georgia, who chased down that black jogger, were never arrested or charged. It appears that the only reason that charges were eventually brought was because videos of the incident were leaked. IMO, the video alone was enough to justify an arrest but all the evidence combined should have resulted in an easy decision for charges to be brought. Instead, they sat on it for 3 months and it took leaked videos and public pressure for anything to happen. So it can go both ways. The DA's office has the authority to push bad cases to trial and they can prevent legit cases from gaining any traction.
Wow thank you this is very insightful. This is also a fascinating glimpse into how horribly wrong things can go when a tinge of racism is built into the system. The way you spell this out is the crux of why I support BLM, and why it’s a shame to see the media and bad actors muddy the waters of how important it has been to expose the lack of concern regarding justice for black people, and truly anyone disenfranchised, from the police to the DA to the prosecution. Historically, so much more thought and care is put into cases with affluent non minorities, while black lives were treated like they don’t matter. BLMs message is so fucking clear but America is so fucking stupid.
The evidence speaks for itself. Kyle was acting in self defense. The prosecution is making an argument on an extremely blurry frame from a video that Kyle was pointing his gun at someone. If you watch the whole video and other videos of the same moment from different angles, it is clear that his rifle was angled downwards at the ground strapped over his shoulder while his was carrying a fire extinguisher. That the prosecution is making this argument is disgusting. If you think an unarmed person does not present a lethal threat to someone, tell that to all the people who have been choked to death.
I would edited out that choking unarmed bit bc you lost me there. Everyone has arms. Kinda makes it like all Unarmed ppl are “threatening” bc of hands.
Exactly! Binger went ass backwards- guilty till jury said not guilty. I watched every second of the trial live and I’m still pissed that a Prosecutor would blatantly lie, put liars on the stand, and do ALLLLLLLLL the crap Binger, Fatlock, AND those stupid ass Detectives did to put a kid in prison for life just to get some political points. Watching this trial felt like watching some fake Limited Series Netflix Show, especially adding how Celebrities, News, TH-camrs, Etc., lied and twisted the story/facts.
It took me until they broke it down at the very end, but I agree with Counterpoints - at least about what the problem is. The issue is that a jury might not be aware of what psychologically or physiologically happens to a person when they’re in a situation that Rittenhouse was in. Media portrayals of combat situations or violence have probably warped most people’s idea of what a person is capable of and how much ‘thinking’ a person is doing. Prosecutors, defenders, and judges are well aware of what happens. Why should a prosecutor be allowed to say something they know is a lie?
It's up to the defense to present those facts to the jury though. Connor was able to do it pretty easily while he was flustered in a twitch conversation with Destiny. You mean to tell me a defense lawyer couldn't make the same case with ample time for preparation?
While a person may act instinctively during combat scenarios, that's not necessarily always the case and even when it is they obviously still retain some measure of control. How much is up for debate, and most definitely specific to each individual scenario. So it's not a *lie* to present arguments for the extreme on either side.
@@veritasabsoluta4285 The idea behind the courts to me seems to be that through the rigorous process of trial, the extremes of either side of the interpretations of the same information are presented and picked apart by the other. This process allows the narrative that most realistically aligns with the information present to appear the most convincing. This combined with the fact that a convincing case to get someone convicted has to reach the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt", whatever that means, means that the prosecutions bad faith argument will be illuminated by the defense, further discrediting the prosecutions already flimsy narrative. Sorry if I used a bunch of pseudo-intellectual words, I'm writing an essay right now and my mind is working on that flowery language wavelength.
The legal system is adversary, sure, but the Prosecution goal is ultimately to pursue the truth, not just try to get convictions no matter what. What’s why they have discretion to decide to even prosecute or not. Defense loyalty is to their client, Prosecution loyalty is the pursuit of justice, despite the adversarial system.
I'm unfamiliar with the US court system but, I just discovered it isn't unheard of for the prosecution/officials to not bring cases to court if it looks like the charges are incorrect to available evidence. I wonder what they see in this that convinced them he was guilty enough to bring to court?
@@uppercutgrandma4425 probably because he chose to run around by himself at some point during the night which the prosecution argued that was him looking for conflict. I side more with the idea the he acted in self defense but the case isn't a clear cut not guilty imo.
So, how does a person claim self defense after they've become an active shooter? Genuine question, not loaded or leaning. Like, in this context, after Rittenhouses first shots and first kill, he's an active shooter to everyone in the vicinity. Most of those people are gonna run, some of them are gonna try to stop the shooter. So are the people trying to stop him exercising self defense, or is he exercising self defense, or are both parties, or none of them?
Just because someone fires off shots for whatever reason (nevermind legit self defense) doesnt give justification automatically for random people to attack them. This is why context is very important and using the phrase “active shooter” this loosely can contribute to a dangerous environment/mindset that can lead to more similar cases. Dont get me wrong, people can feel justified to try and stop someone who they percieve to be a threat, but that doesnt mean it wont be self defense if they get shot trying to play the hero
I would say that after you see that Rittenhouse has no intention of killing anymore e.g when people started chasing him and he didn't just unload into them, but I think its rare that you would get a cut and dry case like this where, yes, technically Rittenhouse is an active shooter as you aptly point out, but as per my knowledge Rittenhouse appears to never actively engage in violence with anyone until attacked. But yeah, it is a pretty hard thing to reconcile if you were to have a crowded area for example, where someone gets attacked, then fires in self defence, and people try to tackle him. Obviously, the people might not all know that the person was attacked, so in that sense does their ignorance of the situation give them the ability to attack, I would say yes, but again that situation is very different from the Rittenhouse one. I hope answered your question at all and wasn't just rambling to myself lol. Also destiny and vaush had a conversation about this exact topic which you might be interested in I think its this one, th-cam.com/video/LxU1pJfJfRU/w-d-xo.html somewhere arounf that timestamp.
In this context Rittenhouse presumably trained his gun and shot at people who tried approaching him with what he presumed to be malicious intent. Therefore you'd have to be the one engaging him first and giving him the ''right'' to defend himself so you can't be the one who is acting in self defense. I might be wrong but that's the way I've understood this whole debacle.
How does a man, who just got attacked and defended himself with force, not have the right to defend himself again afterwards? Also he was not an active shooter, an active shooter, is per definition, someone on a mass murder spree, randomely killing those around him. Your assumptions are not only wrong but dangerously wrong…
I been thinking exactly that since the jump. In many ways Rittenhouse is now re-writing active shooter defense for the near future. People are defending him only bc the way the laws are written. Which is fair to defend but I don’t believe in this kids Integrity. Zimmerman had the law behind him and proved to be a deplorable human ever since.
Destiny doesn't get it. If it's ok for the State to do everything they can to get a conviction, as opposed to find justice, they will send innocent people to jail and there will be nothing wrong with that because they did it within the confines of the law. This is a bad argument on Destiny's part.
Innocent people get sent to jail all the time. It’s often not the prosecutions fault, but it can be. For example, how many innocent people end up in jail because of poor/bad/cheap defence attorneys? Hell, how many state assigned defence attorneys have cause innocent people to go to jail because they just don’t care about the time and money it takes for a serious defence? How many innocent people end up in jail because of bad police, false evidence, bad judges or bad DAs looking to score political points for the public. Everyone making this dumb as hell “prosecution only cares about justice” comment is bad faith and has no idea how e legal system works and clearly no clue how countless innocent people end up in jail in the first place.
@@hermithouse what's your point? Are you saying because innocent people are sent to jail for lots of reasons then it's ok for the prosecution to prosecute defendants in bad faith knowing they have no "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence just because they have good jury manipulation and story telling skills and are therefore confident they can get the conviction anyway? I'm not saying all these other reasons for unjust convictions are ok, but we're talking specifically about prosecution abusing their authority to get convictions at any cost. It sounds like you're just doing whataboutism.
Hey August, idk if you'll read this but it would be awesome if you could put the timestamp of the beginning of the vod that the video is from in the description.
The problem is that the law changed into a system where the defense no longer acts as a check to make sure the prosecution plays within the rules, the client gets a fair trial. Instead, the defense tries to do whatever it takes to get their client off innocent if they can. Or a lesser punishment if the evidence is strong and the client is being reasonably. Or the trial becomes a crazy conspiracy theory driven narrative if the evidence is strong, the defense advises the client to admit so they can go for a lower punishment, but the client demands a 'not guilty'-defense no matter what. And in response, the prosecution also 'fights' as hard as they can to get a guilty verdict no matter what. You now have a system where both sides battle each other, no holds barred. And neither side cares anymore for what would be fair, what would be good for society. As a result, a prosecutor will try to get someone to go to jail even if it is really doubtful something was criminal or if the suspect was the perpetrator. People seem to have forgotten that it is also possible for the prosecution and defense to kind of work together to do truth finding and establish what has happened for the judge/jury. In that sense, it is not the state's job to push for a conviction no matter what. You can also just let the facts play out, and let the judge/jury decide. But that can only be done if both sides play the same game. The problem is, we got these famous tv lawyers with crazy antics that got obviously guilty people off as not guilty in famous media-hyped trials.
The question is: is it OK for the State to prosecute a person in bad faith, even if they are technically not fabricating evidence and are following the law. If they're spinning bad faith narratives and focusing on specific events they know are actually legally justified in order to manipulate the jury to get a conviction. The answer is no. It's not ok for the State's priority to be conviction. Justice should be the only priority. In this case, the ADA is not concerned with justice, he's concerned with getting a conviction. A defense attorney, however, does not hold justice as his first priority, he holds the future of his client as first priority. So the defense, as opposed to the state, is allowed to spin narratives and throw out every possible defense to try and get his client off. This is not immoral based on our historical foundation of the philosophy of justice: Greek, Roman, common law etc.
@@Karen_Marie I think this is entirely debatable, from country to country, era to era. Not every country has this issue written down solidly in law and instead it is open to interpretation, and therefore in flux. For example, lawyers aren't supposed to make up information. But they do so all the time, almost always without consequences. Similarly, a 'good' prosecutor doesn't always act in good faith, because if they would, they would lose a lot more cases and be considered 'bad' at their job.
@@Prometheus4096 defense lawyers are ethically able to make up theories (not information or evidence) but the prosecution is not ethically able to do the same. There is a different standard because the state is representing justice and the people and the defense is only representing their client. There is no threat to the justice system if defense lawyers spin narratives to get their clients off (you could argue there is a threat to public safety, but not to the system of justice as a whole). There is, however, a huge threat to the justice system if the state creates narratives they know to be untrue or uses out of context arguments against defendants they know are false. For example: using Kyle's "I did" response to the guy who accused Kyle on video of pointing his laser at him earlier in the night against Kyle. The ADA spun it as if Kyle had admitted on video to pointing a gun at the guy. First of all, the state knows Kyle's gun didn't have a laser and so they know it's impossible for him to have done this. Second, Kyle testified that he said "I did" as more of a rhetorical question in order to defuse the confrontation before he walked away. The prosecution is using Kyle's testimony of admitting to saying the words "I did" into a narrative of: "Kyle is on record admitting to pointing his rifle at protesters earlier that night." This is bad faith, because we know the prosecution knows Kyle not only didn't do it, but he never actually admitted to doing it. I believe this is unethical. This is an example of the state knowingly taking two words that are either irrelevant or help Kyle (shows a disposition towards non confrontation) and spinning them into something they hope will hurt Kyle. This is only one small example. There are many more instances of similar conduct.
The proposed system reminds of the Japanese system where the prosecution doesn't bring up cases unless they're certain it'll stick. And let me tell you, that system works horrendously. Both jury and judges tend to believe the prosecution a lot more because they only bring really solid cases, right? There's a famous case of a ruling based on this "presumed strength" of the prosecution where a person was sentenced to death.
But it's not about only bringing 'really solid cases' and just believing the prosecution because they presumed the prosecution is right. That's like when people believe that if you get arrested by police you've done something wrong. It's about not bringing a shit or incorrect heavy emotional argument to the table because it sways people in one direction unfairly.
I could be wrong but the proposed system is not the Japanese style more a no BS style where if it can't pass a common sense judgment and you don't have an expert that can argue it then you shouldn't be allowed to bring it up in front of the jury. That's all he's arguing for his just asking for less poisoning the well/ muddying the waters. Though I agree with you on how f'ed up the Japanese legal system is
What @book oo0 wrote. There is also the issue about the accused not having the right to an attorney unless the crime is serious enough. And we are not talking about how misdemeanor does not afford you an attorney while felony does.
Destiny is so wrong on the role of the prosecution. Their job isn’t to sell or craft a narrative, their job is to seek justice which in this case, would of been never charging Kyle since it’s clear and cut self-defense. The public pressure and scrutiny probably made them feel like they were backed into a corner but they are not currently carrying out justice by lying during the trial lol
I just don't see how you would legislate that except for in rare instances where there is enough evidence to convict the prosecution of bad faith arguments. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" kinda stuff. Just in case Destiny didn't explain it to where it would stick, his position is that when both the prosecution and the defense has all the same information, they can craft narratives tailored to either extreme and present it in court. The defense and prosecution then pick apart one another's narratives in the presence of judge and jury, and any bad faith arguments should work against the side presenting the bad faith argument. When it doesn't work like that, it is either the fault of the defense for not properly dispelling it or the fault of the jury for being dumbasses. Again, if we could legislate it effectively I'd be all on board. Lord knows a bad faith argument has made it through the defense to the jury in the past, I just don't see a good legislative solution.
@@s-tierkeyboardwarrior-lvl4686justice seeking before a jury is the difference between prosecution and persecution. The problem is selective prosecution based on speculation, not legislation. If they were seeking justice in this case then Gaige would have been charged as well as Joshua Zeminski
A real fucking simple way to settle the drawn and drug out argument over what a prosecutor is supposed to do during a trial would have been, "Destiny, do you think the methods Binger used to try to win were ok? Were they ethical?" If the answer is yes then that's a hard pill to swallow. Binger absolutely lied constantly to make the jury believe what they see with their own eyes clear as day, wasn't actually true.
@@RP-vi8fx Probably, but you also have lawyers who work up expertise in certain kinds of cases, like defend enough sexual assault suspects, I guess you work up expertise in doing so.
@@RP-vi8fx Yes, but that doesn't mean they are seeking the truth or justice in the matter. There are some attorneys who do good, no doubt, what I said was a generalization.
Generally I agree with destiny a lot, but I think that prosecutors should have a duty to act in good faith. I think if you say that they can do anything under the principle a combative system, how do you not expand that to police and other aspects of the pro-conviction side. This would mean that police have no duty to collect evidence which could be exculpatory.
The reason why there's a difference between Photochad getting a lawyer and Kyle's 5th amendment privilege being mentioned by the state is (and I think this was precisely discussed on Nick Rekieta's livestream) Kyle is the defendant and Photochad was a witness... I think.
The prosecution has the onus to establish their argument not simply make judgements. Or they should be arguing that the person wasn’t a threat, they shouldn’t be simply stating someone is not a threat because they are unarmed.
This is probably the most informative, most good faith, and best quality Rittenhouse trial discussions I’ve seen thus far. Good job guys. Connor and Steven give me hope.
If you seriously make the "people are idiots" argument, then trials by jury are pointless to begin with and no measure of restrictions on the judicial process will be able to account for that.
What he really meant in this context is that the jurors don’t know the law. So when the prosecutor brings up for example “you shoot unarmed person” as an argument, that’s malicious because the law is clear that by grabbing the barrel of the gun, the guy is now legally considered armed. The trial is full of such malicious examples in the trial.
Prosecutors job is suppose to aid the courts in uncovering the truth. A prosecuting lawyer is duty bound to present evidence even if it harms his or her case to the point of losing. Now - naturally it doesn’t always work out that way but that is their function and duty. Destiny has that understanding wrong about a prosecutor. Applying to Rittenhouse case - if the case is as hopeless as some make out (not for me to say) and the prosecution is just simply giving it a shot and hoping for a conviction by convincing the jury whilst knowing professionally the evidence does not support his case - that in of itself is against the role of a prosecutor. They’re suppose to use their judgement to not charge an individual. Once they charge an individual they still have to play ball and give the defence as much chance as possible but still prosecute their case as hard as possible.
Correct, and because the state gets to choose which cases to bring this "should" mean the evidence and facts are on their side. I can't think of many cases where almost every fact goes against the state's case, to the point the only real piece of "evidence" they have presented is a blurry video and a still image taken from that blurry video that was manipulated for 20hrs. That's it, that's their case. The rest is trying to paint the picture that Kyle shouldn't have been there and that Kyle was threatening despite no evidence to prove that.
this case is the perfect example of the state NOT trying to uncovering the truth. Their main argument now against Kyle is that for a split second he pointed his gun at Ziminski and that was the reason Rosenbaum ran after him. To try and prove that they have used a blurry video and a still image from a blurry image that was manipulated for 20hrs. Meanwhile Ziminski has been available to be called by the prosecution as a witness and they chose not to do it because they know he's a terrible witness and known liar to the police.
@@leightonp8496 from what I have seen the motivation is political and not justice. If that’s true the prosecutors need to take a long walk on a short pier.
@@leightonp8496 Which in and of itself would be irrelevant, because Rittenhouse regained his right to self-defence as he disengaged. Which he does at every moment that he can. So even IF he did point his gun at Ziminski and that triggered Rosenbaum. Ignoring that Rittenhouse would have to have used his left hand to grab his rifle on his sling as a right handed person and using his right hand to grab the barrel in order to point at Ziminski, further ignoring that Ziminski did not give any testimony to that effect. Rittenhouse STILL disengaged at every opportunity he had. So even IF we bought that argument, it would still be self-defence.
it sounds like connor wants to nerf one side because he doesnt trust on the other side's capacity to hold up against it, which is understandable, once words are said even if they are struck off the record they cant really be unsaid
Its like if they brought up past charges of the people who were shot it would taint the jury. I wish binger kept the line of questioning with rosssinbam so we could bring up his past tbh but that is not for me to decide
I agree with this ex-cop insofar as the state ought to be held to higher standards than private companies or individuals. In Australia, these higher standards are actually legally codified, since "the Commonwealth is the best-resourced litigant in the nation” (Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, s260). We call these higher standards the "Model Litigant Obligations". I'm not aware of many other jurisdictions with such codification of higher standards, but it seems in practice in most Western democracies, state litigants make some actual or apparent attempts to follow a higher standard.
While I see your point and thought similarly for a bit, especially with this prosecutor, I got convinced by another comment. That’s not the job of the prosecution they are, in this case, representing the victims. So they are supposed to do everything to prove he is a guilty, the defense is supposed to do everything to cause doubt, in this case, justified self defense. By saying they got to have a higher standard then the defense, you are robbing the victims a bit.
@@hotvodka7641 He won't. The gun lobby alone will pay his fees, and regular people who have been watching this trial. I'm not saying I have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of it, but he won't run out of money.
@@johnbull1568 yeah binger probably believe that though and he's getting recognition from this even if he looks like a dumbass most of the time in court
Repercussions for prosecutorial misbehavior, in that they may break accepted legal rules within the trial system (see Rittenhouse prosecutor pursuing a line of questioning that was not deemed legit during pretrial hearings, and Rittenhouse prosecutor implying Rittenhouse's silence was an admission of guilt), appears to already be baked into the system via "mistrial with prejudice".
I feel like this conversation is actually really comparable to that of a court room, each person is willing to argue through each possibility to beyond a reasonable doubt prove their point. In this way the audience acts as the judge, and the debaters as defense and prosecution. They’re not willing to back down from their position no matter what, and that’s a good thing, the Decision is left to the audience to figure out what’s true.
I’m a half hour in and so far all I’m hearing from Counterpoints argument is “Why doesn’t the legal system just agree with all my presuppositions?” Even if you had legal precedent, you still need to argue out the merits of those defences in the context and nuisances of the case at had. Sometimes prescient is flawed. You might find new situations where old legal defences don’t hold, and in which case create new precedence for particular situations.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. I think the reason why this current system, whatever it is, can be defended is due to the fact that similar incidents can end up having different angles that the persecution can come up with, thus the defense has to put up a solid case, thereby balancing itself instead of going after the persecution in this case
Destiny is sooooo wrong. A prosecutor's job is to seek justice. They represent the State and the powerful force that is behind it. The State is or is supposed to be "the people," which includes the accused person. However, they are supposed to seek justice for all involved. That is why prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute cases. Also, that is why prosecutors that withhold evidence or other such things can be disbarred or even prosecuted themselves. That is also why the prosecutor's potential violation of Rittenhouse's 5th Amendment right could result in a mistrial with prejudice especially since the Judge seems to believe that it was done in bad faith.
Do I think prosecutors should resort to weak arguments and "muddying the waters" tactics to prove a case? No. But should they be able to? Sure. Thing is, any good defense will call out the shitty arguments they make and you'll only make the prosecution look that much worse.
I agree with Destiny that the best trial method is a conflictive method. I also agree that the prosecution is not tasked with helping the accused. However, I don’t think that fabricating evidence is an acceptable tactic to win a trial. And in the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution fabricated evidence by introducing the “enhanced” images and claiming they portray Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people. The “enhanced” images are barely discernible. Claiming they show Rittenhouse do an action that no witnesses have testified to is dishonest and should not have been allowed into evidence. The prosecution has behaved abhorrently in this case.
On the other hand, the defense could have easily objected and argued against this. On Friday they were basically winning the argument and the Judge was on their side with dismissing the jury instruction for the provocation charges. Richards fucked it all up. A witness also did testify to this, which was based on the "pinch and zoom" bullshit. And guess what, the defense was asleep again and didn't object to it.
@@onlyeveryone2253 You cannot see the gun in the “enhanced” images. You might as well introduce a Rorschach test image as evidence. It’s a manipulative tactic (the dress is blue, it’s saying Laurel).
@@onlyeveryone2253 when you are trying to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt saying "well this might happened" it's up to judge n defense to point out how weak this is. The elephant in the room here is jury selection. Rittenhouse had resources for this but for unknown reason took random jury. Opinion polls showed about third of locals would convict regardless of evidence.
In StarWars Counterpoints: I don’t think the system works. Destiny: How would you have it work? Counterpoints: We need a system where the attorneys talk about the problem, agree what’s in the best interest of all the people, and then do it. Destiny: That’s what they do but they don’t always agree, and there’s a jury to decide. Counterpoints: Then we should get rid of attorneys and the jury. Destiny: If there aren’t attorneys then who will keep cops honest? Other cops? Counterpoints: No, cops are stupid. Destiny: But someone? Counterpoints: Someone wise. Destiny: Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me. Counterpoints: well, if it works… I hate sand.
It seems like he got frustrated over the prosecutor's conduct during the trial, which is fine to feel (I don't really care super hard, but the questions they asked Kyle seemed a bit off), and then he built that frustration into a general argument of "we need to nerf all prosecutors"
@Something Different I mean, if it is then it is. From the bits I've heard it seems like the judge called out those tactics when he thought they were out of line, and then allowed them when they weren't. But also, some of it seemed more like the prosecution was trying to frame certain details unfavorably rather than outright lying, which is kinda what the legal system allows you to do. Overall though, seems more like they went in with a case that relied way more on "kid with gun kill people" than the actual dynamics of killings, if that makes sense.
This debate needs to happen between experienced lawyers, which I'm sure it is. Destiny and Counterpoints seem to not have a threshold of knowledge and experience to make this conversation productive. Too many, "I thinks" when referring to how courts work.
There wouldn’t be a debate between experience lawyers. They would all agree that the Prosecutor is malicious and weaselly. Legal Eagle, the biggest youtube lawyer and a lefty, have been awfully quiet, not a single video on the ongoing trial.
bro, you can actually feel the pivot that counterpoints does now that he sees prosecution for someone he likes. in their last discussion about law, counterpoints said that defence is bad because it gets in the way of justice because if a police officer "saw" someone doing something bad they should just believe the police officer instead of all this due process bullshit. Now, he thinks the prosecution is going too hard. lol
Can't a lawyer get disbarred in the US for knowingly misrepresenting facts? Because that's what this comes down to. Destiny is arguing in favor of the legal equivalent of Gish galloping btw.
So, first of all, job of prosecution is not to seek conviction, it's to SEEK JUSTICE. So it absolutely is their job to make sure that what they're doing is not prejudicial. What this prosecution is doing is equivalent of asking a victim of serious sexual assault who shot her attacker - 'Do you think it's possible your sexually explicit clothing may caused him to interpret it as consent to sex'? This has nothing to do with the facts of the case. The purpose of the question is to communicate to jury that victim blaming is ok. It's despicable and absolutely unethical. And second, the character evidence (or propensity evidence) is exactly what the judge ruled out. The reason is, there are cases where character evidence matters (like if someone has a propensity to violence) but this is not the case. As the judge explained, if there was an indication that Rittenhouse planned it somehow or that there was a premeditation, it would be allowed in. But prosecution has nothing and they're trying to sneak it in by backdoor. And it's going to work because this case is not about facts or law. It's about prosecution creating a justification for jury to convict based on that 'he shouldn't have been there'. That's what they're trying to do.
Like the destiny feed read my mind. I had a conversation about this same topic yesterday that (in my opinion/feeling) it seems egregious to see prosecutors resort to bullshit tactics in pursuit of a conviction. I am ok that defense attorneys by definition need to do everything they can for their client even if they know they are guilty. It feels different to see the DA (as a component of The State) employ these types of tactics when they are doing so in a way that is contrary to justice. It doesn't seem right to see the State intentionally attempting to subvert justice. The pursuit of justice should be the #1 priority for the State when it comes to law.
It only feels wrong to see the state intentionally attempting to subvert justice (with abusive tactics) if you don't trust the jury or the judge. Clearly the prosecution in this case has violated the law, which the judge addressed- that's the system working as intended. If lies are obvious to the outside observer, they *should* be as obvious to the jury, which prejudices them against conviction. It provides defense an opportunity to blow up the prosecution's entire case. I think the problem is that people are watching this case as their first major proceeding, and how passive and quiet the defense are is throwing people off. In a normal case with a good defense, they would be objecting to most willful misrepresentations, not merely the things that are illegal. It is 100% reasonable to argue that the prosecution being abusive is a danger because the defense can suck and that raises the chance of a false conviction, but changing the prosecution's behavior has the risk of allowing criminals to walk away. My opinion is that vastly more cases are scuttled by plea deals or cops fabricating evidence than overly aggressive prosecution, so it's misplaced to use this trial in isolation to start advocating any manner of system-wide changes.
Defense attorneys represent their client but what about the families of the deceased? They are as vested in a conviction as the defendant is in a non guilty verdict. As a result both prosecution and defense need to put forth a vigorous argument
@@belakthrillby except that isn't the way and spirit of our law is set up (atleast in the US). The presumption of innocence in our legal system trumps the pursuit of justice for the victims when gray area is met. Also, it is the stated goal/purpose of a defense attorney to represent the interest of his clients to the best of his ability within the boundaries of the law. (Remeber that defense attorneys are precluded from making the most "vigorous" case as you put it in certain instances). He is ultimately accountable to the well being of his client, not (whether or not that is in the interest of justice). While I am not saying that this is the way things actually work, I refuse to accept that the State as represented by a state or district attorneys purpose should be the pursuit of convictions if when those convictions may run in stark opposition to justice. In this case (with the greater than 0% chance that the prosecutor attempted to create a mistrial because he knew the facts were leading to an acquittal), I again refuse to accept that it SHOULD be his job to create a mistrial so that he can take another shot at getting a conviction that is not coming from the current trial. (And don't confuse that I am saying that this was 100% what happened here. There is just the strong possibility that it did based on the defense and judges reaction to his conduct, so I am just laying out that if this really was the case, I don't accept that this should be how prosecutors act).
@@Bingo_Bango_ yes, I am not advocating for system wide change. It is just something that struck "my feels" as wrong for a prosecutor to intentionally pursue questionable tactics to obtain a conviction when he seems to be aware that an acquittal is the appropriate decision. It just strikes me as wrong. No motive, nothing to add regarding change... it just seems wrong. At an individual level, I think Binger should be disbarred if he really did what is suspected and they can prove it. It seems akin to a defense attorney putting a person on the stand that will knowingly perjure themselves (an offense that leads to disbarment).
@@scottw9267 No disagreement on Binger in particular, he's playing this case way too hard and while I think "dirty tactics" are fine, you can't keep throwing yourself over the line of actual legality because you think you'll get away with it. Trying to show the """enhanced""" image evidence that wasn't cleared with the court or defense was also pretty egregious, but defense didn't challenge the expert when he admitted it was doctored.
Bruh, 5 days after the fact you said it was the most clear case of self defense you've ever seen. You could have figured that out after 2 days. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
The direct quote from that earlier video they bring up is Rittenhous saying "Bro, I wish I had my fucking AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them". Not sure how they remember him wishing he had is AR, but then claim not to be able to remember if he mentioned wanting to shoot people.
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Week 4 Day 1 // PRX vs RRQ | GE vs GEN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iIi2_04jGr0/mqdefault.jpg)
Destiny and Counterpoints finally have a disagreement and it results in a very passionate debate!
Check out Counterpoints ► th-cam.com/channels/9bnvsu0ZYzNFijp6mWLUjQ.html
Part 2 of this video ►th-cam.com/video/u2sNLNSF91c/w-d-xo.html
Destiny has the wrong take on this. The lawyers did this intentionally in an attempt to get this thrown out and retried. It's a gamble, cus the defense wants a mistrial with prejudice over it, which means the case can't be retried. I agree with the defense here, but the judge doesn't wanna make that call. Judge wants a jury to make judgement.
I really believe this should be a mistrial with prejudice, and that the defense tried to get the case retried.
Thank you for making chat bigger 👍
Why Destiny is wrong
Prosecutors are not supposed to pursue convictions they are supposed to pursue Justice.
Commenting on a defendant's constitutional right to remain silent is and of itself irrefutable evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
If it is established that's what Binger did there is no argument or mitigating circumstance that would make it not a violation of civil rights as a matter of law.
Also for those that haven't watched the trial minute by minute it would be hard for you to understand how shockingly unethical the prosecution has been in this case. The civil rights violation is just the simplest and most clear-cut one to explain.
The prosecution is given the power of the state to bring forth charges based on available admissible evidence and a reasonable narrative.
They also get the advantage of having the power of the state to decide how the game gets played and what pieces are used.
The defense doesn't have to prove what happened it just has to create doubt. Because of this they are given a lot of flexibility to explore multiple narratives.
If the adversarial nature of the State and the defense was to behave in an adversarial nature in the way that Destiny argues here Justice would be impossible.
You wouldn't be able to create Reasonable Doubt if the state is allowed to present as many narratives as they would like based on the evidence.
To try to simplify this conceptually in layman's terms you are not supposed to be playing a game of chess with the state you are supposed to be running the state's gauntlet. If you make it to the end overcoming very predictable and foreseeable hurdles you win.
@@shokrum Great comment, Mr Faux! Perfect summary! And yes, anyone who's not seen the entire trial until now is unable to see how much crap the prosecution is guilty of!
@@shokrum That's way too idealistic. A prosecutor succeeds if they convict someone. If they didn't think there might be a case here, they would not have started it. We get that the prosecutor is bad, but that doesn't mean it's totally okay to shoot people on the street and not even get tried for it. To me at least, putting 4 consequtive bullets into someone because they tried to reach for my gun seems a bit far fetched to be called "self defense". Are you telling me Rittenhouse was totally calculated there and there's nothing to question? The last bullet went to the guy's back for God's sake! That's only possible if the guy was already on the ground at close range. Shooting people already on the ground is not my idea of self defense at least. That's an execution.
I'm a right winger. You defending Kyle has definitely opened my mind to hearing you out more. I may disagree with a lot but now ik you're not coming in bad faith. Thank you destiny for not going a long with the narrative especially when it hurt you financially 🇺🇸
what are some disagreements?
@@garywebb2432 I don't think systemic racism exists. I'm also not a for the vaccine mandates.
@@stonnergaming420 both factually incorrect but why do you believe those things? when data exists to substantiate those claims?
@Something Different so that's not what systemic racism is but nice try lolololol and we can get into all the details of that as well btw you're factually incorrect because technically it's not a mandate
@Something Different
Why do you think some studies on the efficiency of vaccines grant you the authority to violate the bodily autonomy of 350 million people?
Even though I disagree with Connor a fair deal, I think he genuinely argues in good faith and cares about the positions he takes. Overall I think hes a pretty positive force on Twitch politics.
I thought in the first half he was just wrong about pretty much everything (to the point of it being comical) BUT I liked him a bit more by the end because I could see the point he was trying to make about prosecutors making really underhanded disingenuous arguments. & yeah he at least fully believes everything hes saying
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Yeah I cant stand Vaush. I dont know how anyone could possibly enjoy watching someone be so incredibly pompous & over the top with their obvious bulls***. Destiny tries to make sound arguments in as simple terms as possible that way everyone can understand his point, meanwhile Vaush is only concerned about making his language as flowery as possible in order to APPEAR smart. They are worlds apart
Oh yeah & him saying you are insecure if you dont let other guys rail your gf everynight was grade A comedy. Whatever helps him sleep at night hahaha
I hope he doesnt change.
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p They’re not on Twitch, but check out Sitch & Adam on TH-cam. They are center-left and I would argue they are on the same level in terms of integrity/good faith/anti-propaganda/caring about the truth. All that good stuff.
@@CakesWarden For sure. Sitch & Adam on 2x speed are a good listen. I often diagree strongly with Adam, but at least he and Sitch are operating from a place of good faith
Finally good to see people with heated disagreements without resorting to adhoms and buzzwords. Reminds me of the good Ole yahoo chat days.
yahoo was full of insane people, especially the atheist vs christian days
What do you mean has his recent debates been kinda soy ?
In those days people didn't debate with thoughts of video recording it and making money off it people debated and argued because they were genuinely passionate about a subject. Yeah of course there were crazy people but their were also well educated people passionately making their case based on concrete facts and evidence. These twitch/youtube debates are done with the intent of making money and most of the time they're trying to cater to a certain side. That's why you end up seeing so many people debating about things they have no interest or knowledge about. They're just taking something that's in the news that's a hot topic that people are passionate/interested in and capitalizing on that interest by repeating whatever the political narrative of the audience they cater to thinks.
@Trade Bum Simmons it's gotten way worse in recent years in my opinion. I think social media is to blame a lot of people openly share their political beliefs and opinions on social media. In the past people mostly kept political opinions to themselves and maybe family/good friends. Even these days politics don't really come up in most every day conversations and for good reason it only drives people apart based on our human insticts to think in a. tribal way. My group is better then yours. My group should be in charge because we know better then you. If you disobey our rules we'll put you in a cage and we might let you out early if you admit what you did was wrong and if you swear you'll follow our rules.
@Trade Bum Simmons democrats want to ban all guns they try to pretend it's just ar 15's they want to ban even though statistics show they are used in less murders then any other guns and also used less then knives too. After they ban the ar 15 they'll go after the rest of the guns. Criminals and murderers prefer handguns because they can easily be hidden at a moments notice. Democrats don't care as much about banning handguns because democrats don't really care about stopping crime they generally win in high crime areas so why would bother changing a factor that puts them in power? Democrats did nothing to stop the riots destroying cities across the country. Many innocent people died and lost their jobs and businesses. Democrat politicians were protected by their armed security guards otherwise known as police officers that we pay for that are supposed to protect us and our property but they protected neither the taxpaying citizens or their houses/businesses that they pay taxes on. And cities like Chicago have a straight up gun ban. So if you live in Chicago and follow the law you can't have a gun to protect yourself so the only people who have guns are the gangs and other criminals. When law abiding citizens can't defend themselves with guns they're easy targets for criminals to rob them. And during those riots the police were not responding or showing up to calls so people were defenseless. But the mayor had personal armed security for herself so she didn't care about regular citizens it's not her problem that people were being robbed and shot and houses were burned down and their businesses were looted. It was mostly her voters doing the looting. She didn't want to upset her voter base.
A good faith shout fest - so wholesome.
@@TrueGamer22887 Does he have enough subs to have earned the right to have his name used in the title!?
Checkmate!
@@ComradeYinkai 12k subs....peasant numbers he's lucky to not have his name beeped out when it's mentioned
august you are literally edging me with these edits
All ready lost no nut November because of them
?
My big issue with the prosecutor was when he questioned Kyle enacting his rights and trying to make that out as evidence of guilt of a crime which the judge got on him for. If we start letting the state push the notion that using your rights is wrong or evidence of wrong doing, that is a major issue that needs to be stomped out hard.
And two brady violations and manipulating evidence.
Just because a prosecutor isn't breaking the law doesn't mean he's not unethical
Comments appearing so fast no one will realise I'm gay.
Nothing goes unnoticed on the internet
Too late!
Comments aren't moving. And yours is on the top. So congrats on your coming out party 🎉🎊
We already knew that
I'm really enjoying this debate because we get to have the entertainment of them getting really heated but it still seems pretty good-natured on some level
^^^
Agree 100%
honest question, why do you enjoy the “heated” aspect so much? i always prefer a calm conversation throughout, but after listening to over a hundred debates, i don’t mind the heat anymore, but still wonder why so many people are drawn to it
@@retyifourthree6929 I think it's the "drama" aspect but with these two it's just their natural demeanor so it doesn't ever come off as them getting mad at each other as opposed to being pationate. Just my take though
I genuinely like a good faith heated debate where both sides respect the others position, compared to a not heated debate.
These guys enjoy screaming at each other so much that they could definitely pass for a married couple.
The question is: is it OK for the state to prosecute a person in bad faith, even if they are technically not fabricating evidence and are following the law by spinning bad faith narratives and focusing on specific events they know are actually legally justified?
The answer is no. It's not ok for the State's main goal to be conviction. Justice should be the ideal outcome.
In this case, the ADA is not concerned with justice, he's concerned with getting a conviction.
Why is that wrong? Why would they nerf themselves? What if they actually think the defense is evil? What if they are doing this for justice?
@@DavidGFalzarano if conviction by any *legal* means necessary is moral, then sending people you know are innocent, or likely innocent, to jail is also moral because the ultimate priority is not justice, it's conviction.
"Evil" is subjective. Innocent people can be evil, the State should not be trying to get convictions on people who have bad character.
@@DavidGFalzarano gunning to throw people in jail for life using false narratives you know to be untrue is incredibly unethical, but is allowed, DA has a political axe to Grind on Rittenhouse so he's going to give 200% effort to bury him
@@Karen_Marie makes sense but sounds like it's impossible to legislate for and it only takes one side to necessitate the other tk act in bad faith.
@@kwalshe15 the defense cannot act in bad faith because their priority isn't justice. The defense is only concerned with their client, they are not state actors and have no obligation to seek justice, only to exonerate their client. This is morally consistent with the philosophy underlying our justice system.
Finally a decent argument. So bored of the Vaush debates.
You broke the soy-face-thumbnail combo. Good job.
Contrary to popular belief, soy has no harmonizing effects in the human body, as they contain phytoestrogen, which is plant estrogen. Dairy on the other hand will have these effects due to the animal based mamilion estrogen. #dairyface
@@BouncinBrandon Any askers?
Destiny has the best soy faces.
Lol I didn’t even notice
Violence in the media
I love this Destiny arc of training content creators to be better at debates.
Share your wisdom, sensei.
Did I miss the part where the prosecution brought out the drone video from a mile away and tried to say Kyle confronted Rosenbaum with his gun within that pixel? I think that would have been a great example of "muddying the water" and it was an attempt to flip the script for self defense.
They were reaching so hard with that one..
Yeah this is one of those cases where the prosecution is allowed to speculate and muddy the waters. Do I agree with their assessment? Hell no, but it is something within law that they can speculate on.
And to add on to the argument I get it this is a debate on improving the justice system. That said I am about 2/3 of the way through and haven't heard a solid change maybe except for a public pressure campaign on the prosecutor's office that could be an effective change here.
A prosecutor's job isn't to "achieve convictions" per se. Their duty is to see that justice is done. Pursuit of a conviction is often the means to see justice done, when that's where the facts take you. But their goal should be uncovering the truth first. Prosecutors who make it their goal to win at all costs, truth be damned, do not serve society.
The prosecution job is to achieve conviction, it's the court and judges job to see that Justice is done.
@@lampad4549 No it's not. They're only supposed to prosecute cases where they believe the client is guilty of whatever they are going to charge them with. If they don't believe they committed a crime, they are supposed to not file the charges, or drop them if they realize during the trial that they were mistaken.
@@lampad4549 imagine being this wrong lmao. Embarrassing.
@@puckutubesux7356the problem is people have taken the mindset of DEFENSE attorneys and tried to give it to prosecutors. Defense attorneys can be scumbags because they aren’t agents of the state. Prosecutors should be righteous pursuers of the truth.
I wish the editor included when the lawyer came on afterwards to join the discussion with these two
Maybe a separate vod?
@@nanogyth Probably
@@oddlygamers Another part 2 we'll never see.
It's going to be on the destiny vault page.
th-cam.com/video/Sza_MaDdtwo/w-d-xo.html that should be the link, time stamps in description for pisco joins the call
What do you mean “suddenly gets heated”??? it’s destiny on a Rittenhouse debate it will obviously get heated like clockwork. And the water is wet
Wdym "suddenly gets heated"??? its a destiny debate
It’s just a title to get more views, it’s not that deep bro
Your comment is more heated than the title😂
"Water wet, fire burn, Destiny and lackwit yell at each other." -Georges St Pierre.
Water is not wet
I agree that the prosecution was “just doing their job”. But that Doesnr mean they were acting in good faith. I’ve seen plenty of prosecutor’s that wouldn’t call Kyle on “getting dizzy and falling down” and “playing call off duty”. I agree with the creepy cop guy. He wasn’t neglecting his duties, he was going it in the most bad faith Way possible, Jesus he had to be called out by the judge twice, idk why destiny can’t just grant him that and not keep defending that he was “just doing his job the way he was supposed to”
The ex cops argument is that prosecutors shouldn’t be allowed to use all the means at their disposal because public defenders are overwhelmed and bad at their jobs. It’s just a bad argument.
th-cam.com/video/AIzj48oL6T0/w-d-xo.html
The defense's moment of bad faith for this was at 5:02:25 in this video. Listen to this objection about pinching and zooming for a good laugh.
@@ZacharyLobato There was a second one on Friday. Fatlock told the judge that the people bashing cars scattered before Kyle ran in their direction, attempting to get away from Rosenbaum, and Juan Wicks video showed that they only scattered when Kyle shot Rosenbaum. There is no way Fatlock didn't know this already.
@Jim Eraklis I feel like this is really reductive and not what you actually believe. If you'd like to repeat yourself in a less hyperbolas matter, then please do.
@Jim Eraklis it's funny how you talk about that's what "leftists do" and then talk about how they can't go against anything that challenges their belief system when your comment is doing the exact same thing. You are reinforcing the idea that leftists would never ever admit when they are wrong. Broad generalizations like that are super inaccurate and should not be used as its probably your own biases + people that you watch which are causing you to see all leftists like that. "They are really emotional as well." everyone is extremely emotional and if you think you aren't then you just don't understand how emotions can affect your thought process (of course some people are actually more emotional than others)
The prosecutors job is not just to secure a conviction. Its to get "justice." If their only job was to get convictions, the State would rightly be seen as predatory in every case.
Exactly! This is the fundamental flaw in Destiny's argument. His philosophy is that court is an arena were two sides fight it out. It is based on the assumption that each side is equal in strength. Therefore it is the job of the prosecution to fight for conviction regardless of evidence to the contrary. That would be logical if the assumption of equal strength held. Not by any logical assessment can the strength of the state be compared to the strength of the individual. The state has vast and unlimited resources while the individual by definition is limited. One against the many. This is why Jefferson created a system where the state is required to seek justice not winning. The court is not are arena for combat rather an instrument of measurement to assess whether individuals behaviors conform to expected norms. This is in the self-interest of both the individual and the state.
some still are because they are elected and they run on how many « criminals » they send to jail
The state is predatory when it comes to seeking conviction, if they think they cam charge someone with a crime they will do it and should do it. It's the courts and judge's job to see that Justice is done.
@@bigtex741he flaw in your argument is that the defense has way more power than the prosecution. The burden of proof is much higher on the defense side and they generally get paid more and have more resources outside of public defenders. Everything you say about the prosecution in the last part is the role of the court not just the prosecution, it sets a bad prescedent if all the role of the court is to be had by just one side.
Left or right, you can see a huge difference with people who watched the trial, WATCHED the videos, and looked for the facts to make sure what as right and wrong.
It shouldn’t be the prosecutor’s job to try to get a conviction at all costs. Pursuing a case when you good and well know that the defendant is not guilty should be punished. We shouldn’t encourage false accusations and wrongful convictions. This is why I’m more in favor of an inquisitorial approach instead of an accusatory approach in the criminal justice system
This is exactly what all other prosecutors and lawyers have been saying. They are meant to uphold justice.. not a conviction at all cost.. to the point of just making 💩 up and violating rights..
this is why they lost.. they have no facts.. no case.. they threaten witnesses to lie.. doctored evidence.. and they will be investigated.. the fact they were going to have to swear on the stand if things got worse tells you sometihng
I mean, couldn't you say the same about defence lawyers who know their client is guilty? It's just their job man. As shitty as it is.
@@AgxntOrange No. Completely wrong. Prosecution has the power to drop charges/not file. They do it all the time. Binger was repeatedly lying throughout the trial to try to get a conviction, which is illegal. Everyone is entitled to a defense, and defense attorneys are not allowed to knowingly lie in making their case. If a client tells them they're guilty, the defense attorney is no longer allowed to proclaim their client innocent in court. They can still say "the state has no case" and things of that nature, but they aren't allowed to knowingly lie and obstruct justice. Everything in the US judicial system is supposed to be weighted towards the defense.
@puckutubesux7356 we are not talking about the points where he lies both destiny and counter agree that is wrong, it's over other things that happened that counter doesn't want brought up
It's not at all costs.
The job of the prosecution should be to search for the truth. And thus present the truth to the best of their ability. They shouldn't be going for the win, but they constantly do. And cops constantly lie for the benefit of the state...
But... if its someone you know did harm to one of your family members, you want them to win... even if evidence is scarce
@@tvuser1we aren’t state prosecutors
Because Connor doesn't like one state actor, Binger, he's willing to abdicate the entire process of determining innocence to another theoretical state actor who he does like. Wtf kind of argument is that?
Dude, Destiny, I don’t think you understand the role of a prosecutor. When Kyle was arrested a complaint wasn’t even filed, they didn’t even know why they were arresting him, they SEARCHED FOR A CHARGE!
content, right in my feed. thank u august.
that's malarkey.
It's November!
Prosecutors aren't supposed to seek conviction, they're supposed to seek justice. A conviction is something sought in PERSUIT of justice, if justice isn't served by a prosecution (ie, the evidence overwhelmingly favors innocence) then they do not seek one.
This. There are many cases of prosecutors dropping the case in light of new evidence, for these reasons. Unfortunately in this case, Binger is a fucking slimy piece of shit that doesn't seem to value justice over conviction.
They might not be supposed to get a conviction per definition, but they should present the strongest case possible for it, no? Just like how the defense should present the strongest case against a conviction
@@wisetrollman Yes of course, if pursuing justice they should present the strongest possible case for conviction. The argument Destiny is making is that the main goal of the prosecution IS the conviction, it isn't. When Counterpoints says that he feels like prosecutors need to be held to a higher moral standard I believe that this is what he is refering to. A prosecutor who seeks justice doesn't bring a case to court that seems frivolous or that the evidence does not support. If during the case, testimony or evidence emerges that heavily supports innocence then such a prosecutor would be looking to withdraw their case or cut a deal based on charges that are more appropriate. A prosecutor whose main goal is conviction however will seek the win no matter what. Even if the prosecutor themselves know that the defendant is likely innocent, they will warp and manipulate facts in order to achieve that conviction. It becomes a points game that is at its heart a key component to INJUSTICE and juditional corruption.
@@hajsh67 preach!!! 🤘
Someone died. It would be irresponsible of the prosecution to not present a rigorous case.
When this ex cop dude starts loosing his shit, he sounds like Seth Rogan.
Lmfao he wants to be judge dredd
He kind of looks like him too. Little bit. Makes me think humans are classes like in MMORPGs.
Rogan is a slightly deformed clone of Connor, and Rob Noerr is a very deformed clone of Rogan.
Lol went back to see and you're right
the prosecution's job shouldn't be to "win at all costs" especially when it is the state doing the prosecution. There's a reason the head DA isn't trying this case because almost every fact in it goes in support of justified self defence. The prosecution has been the side pushing the bounds of ethics during this trial because they know the facts are against them. State prosecutors usually have very high win rates because they get to choose which cases to bring. The political element to this case means it was brought despite the facts not because of them.
Well we want them to try to win at all costs... using all legal methods of evidence and disclosure. It gets sus when people skirt the laws because they're obsessed with winning cases.
@@Eval999 we want them to present the facts and evidence not push the bounds of ethics which has been the case here. that whole blurry video and blurry image is designed to muddy the waters that shouldn;t be their job, but I guess when almost no facts support your case you get desperate.
@@leightonp8496 if the prosecution is "pushing the bounds of ethics" in an attempt to "muddy the waters" why would the defense, who's incentives are diametrically opposed to that of the prosecution, simply point that out to the jury and judge?
@@leightonp8496 expecially if they are both working with a win-at-all costs mentality like in the current system.
@@leightonp8496 If they're breaching ethics, let their opposition/colleagues/the judge expose that. If the evidence they show has reason for doubt, the defence should demonstrate that in questioning and in closing.
This week, on "arguing from your conclusion..." the representatives are supposed to identify exploitative tactics to keep them from getting on record. Even if this stuff gets through there's still appeal and miss-trial. The system fails when it doesn't have resources to investigate. This isn't that.
They definitely have the resources, but how about when the DA tells investigators not to use those resources, such as when the prosecutors in this case advised against collecting Huber’s skateboard or searching Grosskreutz’s phone?
The entire point being made is that you can introduce things to the Jury that - even if stricken from the record - can change the outcome of the trial. Maybe a mistrial is declared, maybe it isn't, but if the case is already going poorly for the prosecution it means you potentially get to poison the well and if not you get another chance to convict. In my opinion it's a huge problem, it shouldn't be allowed and the punishment should be more severe than a stern talking to from the Judge.
@@sweetviolents29 I would need to look into it. It's kind of being the leaving the claim there without offering the DA's explanation- if there is one
@@TheStatisticalPizza it would have been if the judge thought it was a huge problem. That's why he admonished the same line of questioning he later allowed. After a warning or two the lawyer can be held in contempt, which has serious consequences. The judge failing to utilize these tools is more likely an admission that they weren't applicable. Neither the defense nor judge is helpless to that tactic
@@Biomechanic2010 It seems like you're agreeing with Destiny then no?
Prosecutor is reaching so hard they brought up videogames
That made me facepalm so God damn hard
Wait you haven't heard. Videos games have been the main cause of violence since cane and able
I found a hack. Put it on 2x speed during the intro, then down to 1.5x speed, and Destiny sounds like normal Destiny (2x anyone else's speed).
You and your likes people are just genius' but I agree, but here is an alternative for normal people.
> not always watching destiny at 2x
I watch the whole thing on 2.5x
I appreciate the honesty and 100% open communication between these two, yet they laugh it all off after. Conversations like this really need to take place more often, just find a way forward after
Prosecutors should act in good faith, if they don’t then that is directly against public interest, not a good argument from Destiny
So defenders should argue in good faith even if they know their client is guilty?
@@caveman5421 Yes, that’s literally their ethical boundary
@@caveman5421 prosecutors yes they have too.... defense attorneys can do whatever they want to get bitchs off...
@@caveman5421 no because defenders aren’t elected officials of the state. The are private citizens working with another citizen.
If you’re defending Binger, you’ve lost the debate.
This would have been a more interesting conversation if they discussed whether the prosecution should be allowed to intervene early in the discovery process. Such as advising the cops not to collect a skateboard used to hit the defendant in the back of the skull. Or advising the cops not to execute the search warrant on the phone of a certain EMT with an expired CC permit and an MIA “Do Know Harm” tattoo.
I'm confused about the second part with the phone and tattoo would you mind explaining the context? I'm too lazy to look it up
@@stephenH3369 Gage, he's talking about bicep boy
@@adammiller4473 I meant the context for the search warrant. What were they supposed to find on his phone
@@stephenH3369 he used it to take video. One could only imagine what was on it that he didn't want the investigators to see or hear. They also knew he lied about dropping the gun and pulling it on Kyle. That should have made the police more suspicious yet they looked the other way. Regardless his 10mil went down the toilet. He should be charged with fraud for trying to con the city out of millions.
@@stephenH3369 Sure, I'm referring to Gaige Grosskreutz. Part of his tattoo (a tribal looking rod of Asclepius w/ "Do Know Harm") was "vaporized" as he tells it. The police collected his phone from the scene and obtained a search warrant from a judge but the prosecution invoked Marsy's law to prevent the search warrant from being carried out. The phone could have contained exculpatory evidence or clarifying evidence regarding what Gaige's intentions were when he illegally concealed his pistol that night.
Most justice systems are shaped in the way Destiny is arguing for, which is that the attorney is to represent the interest of the defendant and the prosecutor is the push for the opposite and then the judge and jury rules on respective parties argumentatio. However, the excop has a point. An attorney or a prosecutor can contravene litigation rules and only get a warning, several times, without being dismissed or have their law license nullfied while STILL affect the minds of the jury and the judge subconsciously. An example is the O.J trial, you can barely argue that that trial was a fair and correct trial in establishing justice even though the defenders nor the prosecutor broke any laws. Trials are like a show, its all about how to affect the jury.
Would what counter points have suggested make that trial any more fair?
The biggest problem with CP's argument is, all these considerations about the case are generally decided upon before the DA brings charges or not. The prosecutor's office would normally attempt to gather enough information so that they can know whether it is worth issuing an arrest warrant or bringing the case to trial. I think the problem in cases like this is public pressure. The voting public and the media have made this case so controversial that the DA probably feels they have no choice on whether or not to bring charges.
What most people are rightfully upset about is, the burden of proof. Based on some of the witness testimony, it seems like the prosecutors played a little bit of dirty pool while they were interviewing people. Like the dude who got shot in the arm. It seems like the DA should have had enough access to information to realize that he was the most impeachable witness ever. And that photo-journalist fella suggested some improprieties while he was interviewed as a possible witness. So people seem to be annoyed that the DA may have been ignoring exculpatory evidence when they were deciding whether or not to charge Kyle.
I share some of CP's frustration because on a basic level, the legal system is way unbalanced. When they say "The state vs so-so", it really is the entire state. All the resources of the state are put up against a single individual with limited resources. I also think that misconduct has become very normalized on the prosecutorial side of the equation. From the cops making the arrests, to the prosecutors to the judges. And it's not just normalized but even incentivized in a lot of cases and this is probably an area of our system that could use some tweaking. I just don't know what the solution would be.
I also understand CP's points about the unpredictability of a jury trial but a defendant does have the right to waive their right to jury trial and have a bench trial, where the judge is the sole juror. I believe there are some big risks associated with this strategy tho. I believe that a mistrial is off the table in a bench trial but I'm not 100% sure. But the idea is, a judge is much less likely to be swayed by the same nonsense that a juror would be. I believe a bench trial is a much faster process as well. I'm not sure if there is a consensus because people argue about anything these days but my buddy is a cop and in his opinion, he thinks that innocent people would probably have better odds in this kind of trial, with no jury.
All that said, people may want to keep in mind that it can also be dangerous to give the DA's office too much authority to not press charges. Those guys in Georgia, who chased down that black jogger, were never arrested or charged. It appears that the only reason that charges were eventually brought was because videos of the incident were leaked. IMO, the video alone was enough to justify an arrest but all the evidence combined should have resulted in an easy decision for charges to be brought. Instead, they sat on it for 3 months and it took leaked videos and public pressure for anything to happen. So it can go both ways. The DA's office has the authority to push bad cases to trial and they can prevent legit cases from gaining any traction.
Wow thank you this is very insightful.
This is also a fascinating glimpse into how horribly wrong things can go when a tinge of racism is built into the system. The way you spell this out is the crux of why I support BLM, and why it’s a shame to see the media and bad actors muddy the waters of how important it has been to expose the lack of concern regarding justice for black people, and truly anyone disenfranchised, from the police to the DA to the prosecution. Historically, so much more thought and care is put into cases with affluent non minorities, while black lives were treated like they don’t matter. BLMs message is so fucking clear but America is so fucking stupid.
The evidence speaks for itself. Kyle was acting in self defense. The prosecution is making an argument on an extremely blurry frame from a video that Kyle was pointing his gun at someone. If you watch the whole video and other videos of the same moment from different angles, it is clear that his rifle was angled downwards at the ground strapped over his shoulder while his was carrying a fire extinguisher. That the prosecution is making this argument is disgusting.
If you think an unarmed person does not present a lethal threat to someone, tell that to all the people who have been choked to death.
I would edited out that choking unarmed bit bc you lost me there. Everyone has arms. Kinda makes it like all Unarmed ppl are “threatening” bc of hands.
@@LMO1012 nice joke. very funny. I shall spare you *walks away*
Lmao, what?
The prosecutions job is to pursue justice, not "win" at any cost bad faith or otherwise.
Exactly! Binger went ass backwards- guilty till jury said not guilty. I watched every second of the trial live and I’m still pissed that a Prosecutor would blatantly lie, put liars on the stand, and do ALLLLLLLLL the crap Binger, Fatlock, AND those stupid ass Detectives did to put a kid in prison for life just to get some political points.
Watching this trial felt like watching some fake Limited Series Netflix Show, especially adding how Celebrities, News, TH-camrs, Etc., lied and twisted the story/facts.
It took me until they broke it down at the very end, but I agree with Counterpoints - at least about what the problem is.
The issue is that a jury might not be aware of what psychologically or physiologically happens to a person when they’re in a situation that Rittenhouse was in. Media portrayals of combat situations or violence have probably warped most people’s idea of what a person is capable of and how much ‘thinking’ a person is doing. Prosecutors, defenders, and judges are well aware of what happens.
Why should a prosecutor be allowed to say something they know is a lie?
It's up to the defense to present those facts to the jury though. Connor was able to do it pretty easily while he was flustered in a twitch conversation with Destiny. You mean to tell me a defense lawyer couldn't make the same case with ample time for preparation?
@@FerociousPaul Way to miss the fucking point, lmao
@@veritasabsoluta4285 I'm directly addressing the point and providing a counterpoint. See what I did there?
While a person may act instinctively during combat scenarios, that's not necessarily always the case and even when it is they obviously still retain some measure of control. How much is up for debate, and most definitely specific to each individual scenario. So it's not a *lie* to present arguments for the extreme on either side.
@@veritasabsoluta4285 The idea behind the courts to me seems to be that through the rigorous process of trial, the extremes of either side of the interpretations of the same information are presented and picked apart by the other. This process allows the narrative that most realistically aligns with the information present to appear the most convincing. This combined with the fact that a convincing case to get someone convicted has to reach the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt", whatever that means, means that the prosecutions bad faith argument will be illuminated by the defense, further discrediting the prosecutions already flimsy narrative.
Sorry if I used a bunch of pseudo-intellectual words, I'm writing an essay right now and my mind is working on that flowery language wavelength.
This one was super fun! Thanks for doing this!
The legal system is adversary, sure, but the Prosecution goal is ultimately to pursue the truth, not just try to get convictions no matter what. What’s why they have discretion to decide to even prosecute or not.
Defense loyalty is to their client, Prosecution loyalty is the pursuit of justice, despite the adversarial system.
I'm unfamiliar with the US court system but, I just discovered it isn't unheard of for the prosecution/officials to not bring cases to court if it looks like the charges are incorrect to available evidence. I wonder what they see in this that convinced them he was guilty enough to bring to court?
My thoughts exactly.
@@uppercutgrandma4425 probably because he chose to run around by himself at some point during the night which the prosecution argued that was him looking for conflict. I side more with the idea the he acted in self defense but the case isn't a clear cut not guilty imo.
So, how does a person claim self defense after they've become an active shooter? Genuine question, not loaded or leaning. Like, in this context, after Rittenhouses first shots and first kill, he's an active shooter to everyone in the vicinity. Most of those people are gonna run, some of them are gonna try to stop the shooter. So are the people trying to stop him exercising self defense, or is he exercising self defense, or are both parties, or none of them?
Just because someone fires off shots for whatever reason (nevermind legit self defense) doesnt give justification automatically for random people to attack them. This is why context is very important and using the phrase “active shooter” this loosely can contribute to a dangerous environment/mindset that can lead to more similar cases.
Dont get me wrong, people can feel justified to try and stop someone who they percieve to be a threat, but that doesnt mean it wont be self defense if they get shot trying to play the hero
I would say that after you see that Rittenhouse has no intention of killing anymore e.g when people started chasing him and he didn't just unload into them, but I think its rare that you would get a cut and dry case like this where, yes, technically Rittenhouse is an active shooter as you aptly point out, but as per my knowledge Rittenhouse appears to never actively engage in violence with anyone until attacked. But yeah, it is a pretty hard thing to reconcile if you were to have a crowded area for example, where someone gets attacked, then fires in self defence, and people try to tackle him. Obviously, the people might not all know that the person was attacked, so in that sense does their ignorance of the situation give them the ability to attack, I would say yes, but again that situation is very different from the Rittenhouse one. I hope answered your question at all and wasn't just rambling to myself lol. Also destiny and vaush had a conversation about this exact topic which you might be interested in I think its this one, th-cam.com/video/LxU1pJfJfRU/w-d-xo.html somewhere arounf that timestamp.
In this context Rittenhouse presumably trained his gun and shot at people who tried approaching him with what he presumed to be malicious intent. Therefore you'd have to be the one engaging him first and giving him the ''right'' to defend himself so you can't be the one who is acting in self defense. I might be wrong but that's the way I've understood this whole debacle.
How does a man, who just got attacked and defended himself with force, not have the right to defend himself again afterwards? Also he was not an active shooter, an active shooter, is per definition, someone on a mass murder spree, randomely killing those around him. Your assumptions are not only wrong but dangerously wrong…
I been thinking exactly that since the jump. In many ways Rittenhouse is now re-writing active shooter defense for the near future. People are defending him only bc the way the laws are written. Which is fair to defend but I don’t believe in this kids Integrity.
Zimmerman had the law behind him and proved to be a deplorable human ever since.
Destiny doesn't get it. If it's ok for the State to do everything they can to get a conviction, as opposed to find justice, they will send innocent people to jail and there will be nothing wrong with that because they did it within the confines of the law. This is a bad argument on Destiny's part.
Innocent people get sent to jail all the time. It’s often not the prosecutions fault, but it can be. For example, how many innocent people end up in jail because of poor/bad/cheap defence attorneys? Hell, how many state assigned defence attorneys have cause innocent people to go to jail because they just don’t care about the time and money it takes for a serious defence? How many innocent people end up in jail because of bad police, false evidence, bad judges or bad DAs looking to score political points for the public. Everyone making this dumb as hell “prosecution only cares about justice” comment is bad faith and has no idea how e legal system works and clearly no clue how countless innocent people end up in jail in the first place.
@@hermithouse what's your point? Are you saying because innocent people are sent to jail for lots of reasons then it's ok for the prosecution to prosecute defendants in bad faith knowing they have no "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence just because they have good jury manipulation and story telling skills and are therefore confident they can get the conviction anyway?
I'm not saying all these other reasons for unjust convictions are ok, but we're talking specifically about prosecution abusing their authority to get convictions at any cost.
It sounds like you're just doing whataboutism.
Hey August, idk if you'll read this but it would be awesome if you could put the timestamp of the beginning of the vod that the video is from in the description.
The problem is that the law changed into a system where the defense no longer acts as a check to make sure the prosecution plays within the rules, the client gets a fair trial. Instead, the defense tries to do whatever it takes to get their client off innocent if they can. Or a lesser punishment if the evidence is strong and the client is being reasonably. Or the trial becomes a crazy conspiracy theory driven narrative if the evidence is strong, the defense advises the client to admit so they can go for a lower punishment, but the client demands a 'not guilty'-defense no matter what. And in response, the prosecution also 'fights' as hard as they can to get a guilty verdict no matter what. You now have a system where both sides battle each other, no holds barred. And neither side cares anymore for what would be fair, what would be good for society. As a result, a prosecutor will try to get someone to go to jail even if it is really doubtful something was criminal or if the suspect was the perpetrator. People seem to have forgotten that it is also possible for the prosecution and defense to kind of work together to do truth finding and establish what has happened for the judge/jury. In that sense, it is not the state's job to push for a conviction no matter what. You can also just let the facts play out, and let the judge/jury decide. But that can only be done if both sides play the same game. The problem is, we got these famous tv lawyers with crazy antics that got obviously guilty people off as not guilty in famous media-hyped trials.
The question is: is it OK for the State to prosecute a person in bad faith, even if they are technically not fabricating evidence and are following the law. If they're spinning bad faith narratives and focusing on specific events they know are actually legally justified in order to manipulate the jury to get a conviction.
The answer is no. It's not ok for the State's priority to be conviction. Justice should be the only priority.
In this case, the ADA is not concerned with justice, he's concerned with getting a conviction.
A defense attorney, however, does not hold justice as his first priority, he holds the future of his client as first priority. So the defense, as opposed to the state, is allowed to spin narratives and throw out every possible defense to try and get his client off. This is not immoral based on our historical foundation of the philosophy of justice: Greek, Roman, common law etc.
@@Karen_Marie I think this is entirely debatable, from country to country, era to era. Not every country has this issue written down solidly in law and instead it is open to interpretation, and therefore in flux. For example, lawyers aren't supposed to make up information. But they do so all the time, almost always without consequences. Similarly, a 'good' prosecutor doesn't always act in good faith, because if they would, they would lose a lot more cases and be considered 'bad' at their job.
@@Prometheus4096 defense lawyers are ethically able to make up theories (not information or evidence) but the prosecution is not ethically able to do the same. There is a different standard because the state is representing justice and the people and the defense is only representing their client. There is no threat to the justice system if defense lawyers spin narratives to get their clients off (you could argue there is a threat to public safety, but not to the system of justice as a whole). There is, however, a huge threat to the justice system if the state creates narratives they know to be untrue or uses out of context arguments against defendants they know are false.
For example: using Kyle's "I did" response to the guy who accused Kyle on video of pointing his laser at him earlier in the night against Kyle. The ADA spun it as if Kyle had admitted on video to pointing a gun at the guy. First of all, the state knows Kyle's gun didn't have a laser and so they know it's impossible for him to have done this. Second, Kyle testified that he said "I did" as more of a rhetorical question in order to defuse the confrontation before he walked away. The prosecution is using Kyle's testimony of admitting to saying the words "I did" into a narrative of: "Kyle is on record admitting to pointing his rifle at protesters earlier that night." This is bad faith, because we know the prosecution knows Kyle not only didn't do it, but he never actually admitted to doing it. I believe this is unethical. This is an example of the state knowingly taking two words that are either irrelevant or help Kyle (shows a disposition towards non confrontation) and spinning them into something they hope will hurt Kyle.
This is only one small example. There are many more instances of similar conduct.
.
@@Karen_Marie Are you talking about your own ethical framework? If not, which ethical and legal system are you talking about?
This is sick!
7:30 you could still claim self defense, as long as you run away.
If something gets to court, I don't think there's much room for calm collaborative discussion. It sort of necessarily needs to be combative.
It's very interesting seeing the difference in open-mindedness in this discussion.
"I'm a cop, you can't expect me to be trustworthy when it comes to assessing the police!"
I mean, at least he’s aware of his bias, that’s refreshing.
Yeah, more people should be aware of their own bias
The proposed system reminds of the Japanese system where the prosecution doesn't bring up cases unless they're certain it'll stick.
And let me tell you, that system works horrendously.
Both jury and judges tend to believe the prosecution a lot more because they only bring really solid cases, right?
There's a famous case of a ruling based on this "presumed strength" of the prosecution where a person was sentenced to death.
There is no perfect system. Only systems are not as bad as others.
But it's not about only bringing 'really solid cases' and just believing the prosecution because they presumed the prosecution is right. That's like when people believe that if you get arrested by police you've done something wrong. It's about not bringing a shit or incorrect heavy emotional argument to the table because it sways people in one direction unfairly.
I could be wrong but the proposed system is not the Japanese style more a no BS style where if it can't pass a common sense judgment and you don't have an expert that can argue it then you shouldn't be allowed to bring it up in front of the jury. That's all he's arguing for his just asking for less poisoning the well/ muddying the waters.
Though I agree with you on how f'ed up the Japanese legal system is
Damn, I forgot Japan still has the death penalty.
What @book oo0 wrote.
There is also the issue about the accused not having the right to an attorney unless the crime is serious enough.
And we are not talking about how misdemeanor does not afford you an attorney while felony does.
Destiny is so wrong on the role of the prosecution. Their job isn’t to sell or craft a narrative, their job is to seek justice which in this case, would of been never charging Kyle since it’s clear and cut self-defense. The public pressure and scrutiny probably made them feel like they were backed into a corner but they are not currently carrying out justice by lying during the trial lol
I just don't see how you would legislate that except for in rare instances where there is enough evidence to convict the prosecution of bad faith arguments. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" kinda stuff.
Just in case Destiny didn't explain it to where it would stick, his position is that when both the prosecution and the defense has all the same information, they can craft narratives tailored to either extreme and present it in court. The defense and prosecution then pick apart one another's narratives in the presence of judge and jury, and any bad faith arguments should work against the side presenting the bad faith argument. When it doesn't work like that, it is either the fault of the defense for not properly dispelling it or the fault of the jury for being dumbasses.
Again, if we could legislate it effectively I'd be all on board. Lord knows a bad faith argument has made it through the defense to the jury in the past, I just don't see a good legislative solution.
@@s-tierkeyboardwarrior-lvl4686justice seeking before a jury is the difference between prosecution and persecution. The problem is selective prosecution based on speculation, not legislation. If they were seeking justice in this case then Gaige would have been charged as well as Joshua Zeminski
A real fucking simple way to settle the drawn and drug out argument over what a prosecutor is supposed to do during a trial would have been, "Destiny, do you think the methods Binger used to try to win were ok? Were they ethical?"
If the answer is yes then that's a hard pill to swallow. Binger absolutely lied constantly to make the jury believe what they see with their own eyes clear as day, wasn't actually true.
what game is Destiny playing?
Attorneys seem to seek out victory even despite truth. And if the client was swapped, they would just as vehemently argue on their behalf.
That's why people hate lawyers.
@@toddfulton2280 aren't there lawyers that work exclusively to help certain people
@@RP-vi8fx Probably, but you also have lawyers who work up expertise in certain kinds of cases, like defend enough sexual assault suspects, I guess you work up expertise in doing so.
@@RP-vi8fx Yes, but that doesn't mean they are seeking the truth or justice in the matter. There are some attorneys who do good, no doubt, what I said was a generalization.
@@Northex23 So how do we decide who shouldnt be defended properly then?
Woah, we got all 6 Destinys for this panel?
Generally I agree with destiny a lot, but I think that prosecutors should have a duty to act in good faith. I think if you say that they can do anything under the principle a combative system, how do you not expand that to police and other aspects of the pro-conviction side. This would mean that police have no duty to collect evidence which could be exculpatory.
Destiny thinks everything should go to trial because all the arguments should be had. #Democracyforeverything
What game is he playing?
The reason why there's a difference between Photochad getting a lawyer and Kyle's 5th amendment privilege being mentioned by the state is (and I think this was precisely discussed on Nick Rekieta's livestream) Kyle is the defendant and Photochad was a witness... I think.
The prosecution has the onus to establish their argument not simply make judgements. Or they should be arguing that the person wasn’t a threat, they shouldn’t be simply stating someone is not a threat because they are unarmed.
I just wanna know what game this is playing in the background. Also, Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.
This is probably the most informative, most good faith, and best quality Rittenhouse trial discussions I’ve seen thus far. Good job guys. Connor and Steven give me hope.
If you seriously make the "people are idiots" argument, then trials by jury are pointless to begin with and no measure of restrictions on the judicial process will be able to account for that.
What he really meant in this context is that the jurors don’t know the law.
So when the prosecutor brings up for example “you shoot unarmed person” as an argument, that’s malicious because the law is clear that by grabbing the barrel of the gun, the guy is now legally considered armed.
The trial is full of such malicious examples in the trial.
Very excited to watch this
6:09 based Counterpoints
Prosecutors job is suppose to aid the courts in uncovering the truth. A prosecuting lawyer is duty bound to present evidence even if it harms his or her case to the point of losing. Now - naturally it doesn’t always work out that way but that is their function and duty. Destiny has that understanding wrong about a prosecutor.
Applying to Rittenhouse case - if the case is as hopeless as some make out (not for me to say) and the prosecution is just simply giving it a shot and hoping for a conviction by convincing the jury whilst knowing professionally the evidence does not support his case - that in of itself is against the role of a prosecutor. They’re suppose to use their judgement to not charge an individual. Once they charge an individual they still have to play ball and give the defence as much chance as possible but still prosecute their case as hard as possible.
Correct, and because the state gets to choose which cases to bring this "should" mean the evidence and facts are on their side. I can't think of many cases where almost every fact goes against the state's case, to the point the only real piece of "evidence" they have presented is a blurry video and a still image taken from that blurry video that was manipulated for 20hrs. That's it, that's their case. The rest is trying to paint the picture that Kyle shouldn't have been there and that Kyle was threatening despite no evidence to prove that.
this case is the perfect example of the state NOT trying to uncovering the truth. Their main argument now against Kyle is that for a split second he pointed his gun at Ziminski and that was the reason Rosenbaum ran after him. To try and prove that they have used a blurry video and a still image from a blurry image that was manipulated for 20hrs. Meanwhile Ziminski has been available to be called by the prosecution as a witness and they chose not to do it because they know he's a terrible witness and known liar to the police.
@@leightonp8496 from what I have seen the motivation is political and not justice. If that’s true the prosecutors need to take a long walk on a short pier.
@@1601tgc because it has a massive political element to it they probably had to bring it. But there's a reason the head DA isn't trying this case.
@@leightonp8496 Which in and of itself would be irrelevant, because Rittenhouse regained his right to self-defence as he disengaged. Which he does at every moment that he can. So even IF he did point his gun at Ziminski and that triggered Rosenbaum. Ignoring that Rittenhouse would have to have used his left hand to grab his rifle on his sling as a right handed person and using his right hand to grab the barrel in order to point at Ziminski, further ignoring that Ziminski did not give any testimony to that effect. Rittenhouse STILL disengaged at every opportunity he had.
So even IF we bought that argument, it would still be self-defence.
Damn, what a cliffhanger.
it sounds like connor wants to nerf one side because he doesnt trust on the other side's capacity to hold up against it, which is understandable, once words are said even if they are struck off the record they cant really be unsaid
Its like if they brought up past charges of the people who were shot it would taint the jury. I wish binger kept the line of questioning with rosssinbam so we could bring up his past tbh but that is not for me to decide
I agree with this ex-cop insofar as the state ought to be held to higher standards than private companies or individuals. In Australia, these higher standards are actually legally codified, since "the Commonwealth is the best-resourced litigant in the nation” (Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, s260). We call these higher standards the "Model Litigant Obligations". I'm not aware of many other jurisdictions with such codification of higher standards, but it seems in practice in most Western democracies, state litigants make some actual or apparent attempts to follow a higher standard.
While I see your point and thought similarly for a bit, especially with this prosecutor, I got convinced by another comment. That’s not the job of the prosecution they are, in this case, representing the victims. So they are supposed to do everything to prove he is a guilty, the defense is supposed to do everything to cause doubt, in this case, justified self defense. By saying they got to have a higher standard then the defense, you are robbing the victims a bit.
The Dumb always agree with the dumb
Of course it was intentional. The prosecution would love a mistrial. Take a stance Destiny.
Yeah they can do this shit until Rittenhouse runs out of money lol
@@hotvodka7641 He won't. The gun lobby alone will pay his fees, and regular people who have been watching this trial. I'm not saying I have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of it, but he won't run out of money.
@@johnbull1568 yeah binger probably believe that though and he's getting recognition from this even if he looks like a dumbass most of the time in court
Why would they love getting their case dismissed with prejudice? That's like one of the worst things that can happen to a prosecutor.
Repercussions for prosecutorial misbehavior, in that they may break accepted legal rules within the trial system (see Rittenhouse prosecutor pursuing a line of questioning that was not deemed legit during pretrial hearings, and Rittenhouse prosecutor implying Rittenhouse's silence was an admission of guilt), appears to already be baked into the system via "mistrial with prejudice".
I feel like this conversation is actually really comparable to that of a court room, each person is willing to argue through each possibility to beyond a reasonable doubt prove their point. In this way the audience acts as the judge, and the debaters as defense and prosecution. They’re not willing to back down from their position no matter what, and that’s a good thing, the Decision is left to the audience to figure out what’s true.
Destiny
Steven
Kenneth
Bonnell
II
I’m a half hour in and so far all I’m hearing from Counterpoints argument is “Why doesn’t the legal system just agree with all my presuppositions?”
Even if you had legal precedent, you still need to argue out the merits of those defences in the context and nuisances of the case at had.
Sometimes prescient is flawed. You might find new situations where old legal defences don’t hold, and in which case create new precedence for particular situations.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. I think the reason why this current system, whatever it is, can be defended is due to the fact that similar incidents can end up having different angles that the persecution can come up with, thus the defense has to put up a solid case, thereby balancing itself instead of going after the persecution in this case
Where is part 2 of this convo
Connor is right. In an ideal world, the DA should have used their power of prosecutorial discretion to NOT prosecute.
An hour of free content right in my feed 🤤
Destiny is sooooo wrong. A prosecutor's job is to seek justice. They represent the State and the powerful force that is behind it. The State is or is supposed to be "the people," which includes the accused person. However, they are supposed to seek justice for all involved. That is why prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute cases. Also, that is why prosecutors that withhold evidence or other such things can be disbarred or even prosecuted themselves. That is also why the prosecutor's potential violation of Rittenhouse's 5th Amendment right could result in a mistrial with prejudice especially since the Judge seems to believe that it was done in bad faith.
Do I think prosecutors should resort to weak arguments and "muddying the waters" tactics to prove a case? No.
But should they be able to? Sure.
Thing is, any good defense will call out the shitty arguments they make and you'll only make the prosecution look that much worse.
dude actually wants kangaroo courts. what a weird debate lol.
I agree with Destiny that the best trial method is a conflictive method. I also agree that the prosecution is not tasked with helping the accused. However, I don’t think that fabricating evidence is an acceptable tactic to win a trial. And in the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution fabricated evidence by introducing the “enhanced” images and claiming they portray Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people. The “enhanced” images are barely discernible. Claiming they show Rittenhouse do an action that no witnesses have testified to is dishonest and should not have been allowed into evidence. The prosecution has behaved abhorrently in this case.
Agree. Putting teen in jail for life based a few smudges is bogus.
A possible interpretation of the frames is that he pointed the gun towards the crowd. Is this a wrong thing to say and show?
On the other hand, the defense could have easily objected and argued against this. On Friday they were basically winning the argument and the Judge was on their side with dismissing the jury instruction for the provocation charges. Richards fucked it all up. A witness also did testify to this, which was based on the "pinch and zoom" bullshit. And guess what, the defense was asleep again and didn't object to it.
@@onlyeveryone2253 You cannot see the gun in the “enhanced” images. You might as well introduce a Rorschach test image as evidence. It’s a manipulative tactic (the dress is blue, it’s saying Laurel).
@@onlyeveryone2253 when you are trying to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt saying "well this might happened" it's up to judge n defense to point out how weak this is.
The elephant in the room here is jury selection. Rittenhouse had resources for this but for unknown reason took random jury. Opinion polls showed about third of locals would convict regardless of evidence.
In StarWars
Counterpoints: I don’t think the system works.
Destiny: How would you have it work?
Counterpoints: We need a system where the attorneys talk about the problem, agree what’s in the best interest of all the people, and then do it.
Destiny: That’s what they do but they don’t always agree, and there’s a jury to decide.
Counterpoints: Then we should get rid of attorneys and the jury.
Destiny: If there aren’t attorneys then who will keep cops honest? Other cops?
Counterpoints: No, cops are stupid.
Destiny: But someone?
Counterpoints: Someone wise.
Destiny: Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
Counterpoints: well, if it works… I hate sand.
What state matters because some states have a duty to retreat and some don't.
Does anyone else skip his first 30 seconds intro because of spoilers 🤣
Okay forgive the dumb question as I'm a Soylent slurping TH-cam clip watcher, but what game is destiny playing in the background?
It kinda looks fun
Riftbreaker, and it is fun!
@Danny Dreadnought pepela
Absolutely no witness has come forward to claim that Rittenhouse was instigating anything that evening.
Zactly. Huge amount of video showing Kyle acting non threatening. Binger trying to convict based on a couple blurry pixels.
That cliff hanger tho
It seems like he got frustrated over the prosecutor's conduct during the trial, which is fine to feel (I don't really care super hard, but the questions they asked Kyle seemed a bit off), and then he built that frustration into a general argument of "we need to nerf all prosecutors"
@Something Different I mean, if it is then it is. From the bits I've heard it seems like the judge called out those tactics when he thought they were out of line, and then allowed them when they weren't. But also, some of it seemed more like the prosecution was trying to frame certain details unfavorably rather than outright lying, which is kinda what the legal system allows you to do. Overall though, seems more like they went in with a case that relied way more on "kid with gun kill people" than the actual dynamics of killings, if that makes sense.
This debate needs to happen between experienced lawyers, which I'm sure it is. Destiny and Counterpoints seem to not have a threshold of knowledge and experience to make this conversation productive. Too many, "I thinks" when referring to how courts work.
There wouldn’t be a debate between experience lawyers. They would all agree that the Prosecutor is malicious and weaselly.
Legal Eagle, the biggest youtube lawyer and a lefty, have been awfully quiet, not a single video on the ongoing trial.
bro, you can actually feel the pivot that counterpoints does now that he sees prosecution for someone he likes. in their last discussion about law, counterpoints said that defence is bad because it gets in the way of justice because if a police officer "saw" someone doing something bad they should just believe the police officer instead of all this due process bullshit. Now, he thinks the prosecution is going too hard. lol
Can't a lawyer get disbarred in the US for knowingly misrepresenting facts? Because that's what this comes down to.
Destiny is arguing in favor of the legal equivalent of Gish galloping btw.
Now I want to hear to following convo lol
So, first of all, job of prosecution is not to seek conviction, it's to SEEK JUSTICE. So it absolutely is their job to make sure that what they're doing is not prejudicial. What this prosecution is doing is equivalent of asking a victim of serious sexual assault who shot her attacker - 'Do you think it's possible your sexually explicit clothing may caused him to interpret it as consent to sex'?
This has nothing to do with the facts of the case. The purpose of the question is to communicate to jury that victim blaming is ok. It's despicable and absolutely unethical.
And second, the character evidence (or propensity evidence) is exactly what the judge ruled out. The reason is, there are cases where character evidence matters (like if someone has a propensity to violence) but this is not the case. As the judge explained, if there was an indication that Rittenhouse planned it somehow or that there was a premeditation, it would be allowed in. But prosecution has nothing and they're trying to sneak it in by backdoor.
And it's going to work because this case is not about facts or law. It's about prosecution creating a justification for jury to convict based on that 'he shouldn't have been there'. That's what they're trying to do.
I mean the prosecution almost opened the door of propensity on rosssinbam themselves they should have learned the first time
Like the destiny feed read my mind. I had a conversation about this same topic yesterday that (in my opinion/feeling) it seems egregious to see prosecutors resort to bullshit tactics in pursuit of a conviction. I am ok that defense attorneys by definition need to do everything they can for their client even if they know they are guilty. It feels different to see the DA (as a component of The State) employ these types of tactics when they are doing so in a way that is contrary to justice. It doesn't seem right to see the State intentionally attempting to subvert justice. The pursuit of justice should be the #1 priority for the State when it comes to law.
It only feels wrong to see the state intentionally attempting to subvert justice (with abusive tactics) if you don't trust the jury or the judge. Clearly the prosecution in this case has violated the law, which the judge addressed- that's the system working as intended. If lies are obvious to the outside observer, they *should* be as obvious to the jury, which prejudices them against conviction. It provides defense an opportunity to blow up the prosecution's entire case.
I think the problem is that people are watching this case as their first major proceeding, and how passive and quiet the defense are is throwing people off. In a normal case with a good defense, they would be objecting to most willful misrepresentations, not merely the things that are illegal.
It is 100% reasonable to argue that the prosecution being abusive is a danger because the defense can suck and that raises the chance of a false conviction, but changing the prosecution's behavior has the risk of allowing criminals to walk away. My opinion is that vastly more cases are scuttled by plea deals or cops fabricating evidence than overly aggressive prosecution, so it's misplaced to use this trial in isolation to start advocating any manner of system-wide changes.
Defense attorneys represent their client but what about the families of the deceased? They are as vested in a conviction as the defendant is in a non guilty verdict. As a result both prosecution and defense need to put forth a vigorous argument
@@belakthrillby except that isn't the way and spirit of our law is set up (atleast in the US). The presumption of innocence in our legal system trumps the pursuit of justice for the victims when gray area is met. Also, it is the stated goal/purpose of a defense attorney to represent the interest of his clients to the best of his ability within the boundaries of the law. (Remeber that defense attorneys are precluded from making the most "vigorous" case as you put it in certain instances). He is ultimately accountable to the well being of his client, not (whether or not that is in the interest of justice). While I am not saying that this is the way things actually work, I refuse to accept that the State as represented by a state or district attorneys purpose should be the pursuit of convictions if when those convictions may run in stark opposition to justice. In this case (with the greater than 0% chance that the prosecutor attempted to create a mistrial because he knew the facts were leading to an acquittal), I again refuse to accept that it SHOULD be his job to create a mistrial so that he can take another shot at getting a conviction that is not coming from the current trial. (And don't confuse that I am saying that this was 100% what happened here. There is just the strong possibility that it did based on the defense and judges reaction to his conduct, so I am just laying out that if this really was the case, I don't accept that this should be how prosecutors act).
@@Bingo_Bango_ yes, I am not advocating for system wide change. It is just something that struck "my feels" as wrong for a prosecutor to intentionally pursue questionable tactics to obtain a conviction when he seems to be aware that an acquittal is the appropriate decision. It just strikes me as wrong. No motive, nothing to add regarding change... it just seems wrong. At an individual level, I think Binger should be disbarred if he really did what is suspected and they can prove it. It seems akin to a defense attorney putting a person on the stand that will knowingly perjure themselves (an offense that leads to disbarment).
@@scottw9267 No disagreement on Binger in particular, he's playing this case way too hard and while I think "dirty tactics" are fine, you can't keep throwing yourself over the line of actual legality because you think you'll get away with it. Trying to show the """enhanced""" image evidence that wasn't cleared with the court or defense was also pretty egregious, but defense didn't challenge the expert when he admitted it was doctored.
Bruh, 5 days after the fact you said it was the most clear case of self defense you've ever seen. You could have figured that out after 2 days. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
The direct quote from that earlier video they bring up is Rittenhous saying "Bro, I wish I had my fucking AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them". Not sure how they remember him wishing he had is AR, but then claim not to be able to remember if he mentioned wanting to shoot people.