Discussion Poll: Should opinion being given more improtance over facts by a judge be an exception for retrial, and added to double jeapordy clause?

[Amol S.]

We saw what happened at the KR trial. KR was acquitted on all charges, and it would take another case against the judge himself to convert the verdict into a mistrial. However, if only there was an exceptional clause in the Double Jeopardy clause where by, an act of a judge giving more importance to opinion rather than facts and evidence is grounds for a retrial by the acquitted, would things be different. We do not know what the jury was thinking, and the judge does have the right to disagree with the jury's decision.

 

[Jaskalas]

We saw what happened at the KR trial.

We also all saw the video, where no trial or charges were needed. Yet here we are.
So maybe you could explain the issue you have with the verdict and the Judge.

Is it where the Judge dropped the underage weapon charge?

 

[SmCaudata]

That is your opinion. Many people believe that he was the aggressor by going into a situation armed for war. The victims felt threatened and were trying to disarm him. Video shows him pointing a gun before being attacked.

The judges ruling saying the prosecution couldnt call the dead people victims while the defense could call them looters and that bs with pinch to zoom meant that the jury saw a biased case from day one.

 

[rommelrommel]

Who gets to decide that it’s “exceptional” enough to violate double jeopardy?

 

[nickqt]

You start too many new threads.

 

[Luna1968]

you lost get over it. its over. say it with me. ITS OVER.

but i am curious, what facts did you see that makes you "feel" KR is guilty?

 

[Jaskalas]

you lost get over it. its over. say it with me. ITS OVER.

Nothing is over in this civil war.
When they describe "Many people believe that he was the aggressor by going into a situation armed for war. The victims felt threatened and were trying to disarm him."
They advocate for violent attacks, if not killings, of people "not them".
They describe the verdict not on evidence, but on tribal grounds. Without common facts, law and order will falter and yield to the use of force. This is far from over.

 

[brandonbull]

Nothing is over in this civil war.
When they describe "Many people believe that he was the aggressor by going into a situation armed for war. The victims felt threatened and were trying to disarm him."
They advocate for violent attacks, if not killings, of people "not them".
They describe the verdict not on evidence, but on tribal grounds. Without common facts, law and order will falter and yield to the use of force. This is far from over.

What about Gaige Grosskreutz ? He was armed and pointed his gun first. I missed criminal charges against him. Just like the Trump-Russia investigation, more people on the prosecution side will be punished than the target of the investigation. I hope MSM outlets are ready to be sued by Rittenhouse.

 

[rommelrommel]

What about Gaige Grosskreutz ? He was armed and pointed his gun first. I missed criminal charges against him. Just like the Trump-Russia investigation, more people on the prosecution side will be punished than the target of the investigation. I hope MSM outlets are ready to be sued by Rittenhouse.

He has a pretty good self defence case too, and he didn't hurt anyone. Probably not in the public interest to charge him for anything.

 

[Greenman]

We saw what happened at the KR trial. KR was acquitted on all charges, and it would take another case against the judge himself to convert the verdict into a mistrial. However, if only there was an exceptional clause in the Double Jeopardy clause where by, an act of a judge giving more importance to opinion rather than facts and evidence is grounds for a retrial by the acquitted, would things be different. We do not know what the jury was thinking, and the judge does have the right to disagree with the jury's decision.

So you want to hold trial after trial until the verdict you want is reached. What's the point? Why not just be honest about it and convict based on public opinion? Of course you risk the public having the wrong opinion, so you'll have to come up with a system where only people with the correct opinion get a voice. A political purity test would do the job. Then we could have fair trials where the correct verdict was always reached.

 

[woolfe9998]

You can't make subjective, open ended "exceptions" to Constitutional rights. Or Constitutional rights have no meaning.

 

[HomerJS]

My biggest problems with the judge

Insisting everyone applaud for a defense witness. It puts in the mind of jurors his testimony carries more weight over something totally unrelated to this case. This goes directly opposite of voir dire. Juries are asked if they are more or less likely to believe a witness if they are law enforcement.

Not allowing victim to be used.

Not allowing his association with the Proud Boys and his desire to shoot someone. Goes to mindset.