Mr lawyer Pisco jumps into callto confront Counterpoints and things get way too heated, forcing Destiny to step in and try to moderate. Enjoy! Destiny returns in 3 days... Rittenhouse Debate Suddenly Gets HEATED - Destiny Debates Ex-Cop ►kzitem.info/news/bejne/06l41GWXgaGke4o (DEBATE BEFORE PISCO)
@MRCOLOURfilld
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you giver of content.
@shanbannan17
2 жыл бұрын
there was more then kyle who heard him say am going to kill U so no hes wrong.also wrong you can her a female voice saying hit him in the head: or exact words cranium that guy
@shanbannan17
2 жыл бұрын
@Koffing 024 agree
@shanbannan17
2 жыл бұрын
@Koffing 024 yes correct
@The2012Aceman
2 жыл бұрын
Pisco really needs to follow his lawyer training and shut the fuck up when he is ignorant of the circumstances. So tired of hearing lies, and they are lies because the truth has been available on video for more than a year. Ignorance is no excuse now.
@powercore2000
2 жыл бұрын
Ah, the hidden new episode of Destiny, in moderation. Wish he would moderate more debates officially
@awgmax
2 жыл бұрын
To moderate something you need to not burn bridges with at least 2 people.
@SpikedPinapple
2 жыл бұрын
@@awgmax it's the opposite, if you burn every bridge you can't be called biased towards anyone
@Smithington_
2 жыл бұрын
@@SpikedPinapple Nah, you will just be called biased by both sides.
@ordohereticus3427
2 жыл бұрын
@Janus Zeal “Confirmation bias is also why it (slavery) was necessary.” Could you elaborate on this a little bit? Perhaps it’s your choice of words that are a bit curious.
@josephkerrigan733
2 жыл бұрын
@@SpikedPinapple "Modern problems require Modern solutions".
@lordmctheobalt
2 жыл бұрын
About the death threats in the beginning: Kyle testified that Rosenbaum made 2 threats during the evening. Both were corroborated by other witnesses. 1) "If I catch any of you M-fers alone, I'm going to fucking kill you!" That statement was first brought up by Bulch - a state's witness - on direct examination, i.e. the statement didn't come from a leading question & the question to which he answered with that came from the prosecution. 2) "I'm going to cut your fucking hearts out" was testified to by Granbo & the prosecution didn't impeach that testimony during cross. So it's not just Kyle that heard & testified about the threats, Pisco is plain wrong
@TheDomaZog
2 жыл бұрын
correct, plus the two punches while Rittenhouse was running towards police are on video. So idk wtf this Pisco dude is talking about.
@GoddessTier
2 жыл бұрын
I thought it said "Contrapoints" as in Natalie Wynn. Oh well have a great holiday!
@soonermagic6196
2 жыл бұрын
Fuck sake thank you idk why these guys don't know this
@williamkelley1971
2 жыл бұрын
Thank god someone else knows this lmao. I was going crazy. This would’ve been the easiest own on the planet for Counterpoints and he still missed the mark. There is consistent corroborating evidence that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse’s life multiple times that night. Pisco what the fuck
@baileypeternellhoover6195
2 жыл бұрын
I thought that as well. Pisco either doesn’t know what the f*ck he’s talking about, cause he didn’t follow the trial or he’s lying.
@Whitefangl
2 жыл бұрын
It’s actually incredibly frustrating listening to a debate between two people about a trial which NEITHER has watched.
@mckernan603
2 жыл бұрын
Yup. All streamers are basically a waste of time, fans of streamers are beneath contempt.
@bureaffari3694
2 жыл бұрын
Yes , they don't even know what they are talking about. The marine guy, makowski or something said that rittenhouse came to him after shooting Rosenbaum and said that he didn't shoot anyone to which rittenhouse gave the opposite testimony i.e. that he said that he shot someone. I just think that makowski misremembered as he didn't even properly remember it I think.
@sollux13
2 жыл бұрын
@@bureaffari3694 could be wrong but I'm almost certain he's talking about the Gaige Grosskreutz facebook livestream. Gaige runs up behind Kyle and yells "Who's shot? Did you shoot someone? Who did you shoot?"
@bureaffari3694
2 жыл бұрын
@@sollux13 yea could be, i haven't watched that particular video.
@bureaffari3694
2 жыл бұрын
@@sollux13 nah, watched this vidoe again, he is talking about rittehouse lying to someone after shooting rosenbaum and I'm preety sure it is the marines guy who was also there to protect property.
@nagual1992
2 жыл бұрын
“I’m not interested in the justification for the lie”- I see, so if a woman who’s raped tells her perpetrator she promises she won’t tell out of fear of her life, that should be used against her character because it’s evidence of dishonesty? What a clown show.
@caveman5421
2 жыл бұрын
No, but if she lied about inviting the guy over or letting him in or when she said “no” that might be relevant.
@IrradiatedFeline
2 жыл бұрын
@@caveman5421 but that would be something completely different.
@sommerblume9671
2 жыл бұрын
@@caveman5421 ???? wtf is wrong with you to make such a shitty comparison.
@famalam943
Жыл бұрын
And this is why pisco is bad faith af and just tries to ‘win’ all the time. He’s a dick, always had been.
@gsf23
2 жыл бұрын
Pisco is so wrong. The STATES own witness said that Rosenbaum threatened them. Granbo also said there was a threat. It wasn't just Rittenhouse that said Rosenbaum threatened him.
@strandedpb8133
2 жыл бұрын
Counterpoints said this already 4:45
@Froward_Thinker
2 жыл бұрын
@@ThatNorwegianGuy- no it isn't. Pisco made the claim only Kyle claimed Rosenbaum threatened him.
@Froward_Thinker
2 жыл бұрын
@@ThatNorwegianGuy- 5:24
@beardedraven7285
2 жыл бұрын
@@Froward_Thinker which is inaccurate there was a state's witness that confirmed the threat
@guyfanno1
Жыл бұрын
On the stand Kyle said he was threatened separately at one point by Rosenbaum. He said Rosenbaum threatened to cut his heart out. And he was present when Rosenbaum threatened the group in general that he would kill them if he got them alone. I assume he made the threat to Kyle before the threat to the group,
@YemYum
2 жыл бұрын
This is what I think Conner is trying to say: Prosecutors are the ones who decide if someone gets charged. So because prosecutors have the discretion to choose their battles, they should choose to prosecute people they think are guilty. A prosecutor who looks at the video evidence in the Kyle Rittenhouse case should immediately know that this kid did everything right in terms of self defense. The video is clear. Its going to be really hard to prove to the jury otherwise, and even if you did somehow convince a jury that Kyle is guilty through tricky lawyer tactics, its still wrong because you essentially put an innocent kid in prison. Essentially, Conner is saying prosecutors should seek justice. This prosecutor either KNOWS Kyle is not guilty but is trying to get a win anyway, or this prosecutor has a personal hate boner for Kyle. Either way, he shouldn't be taking the case. There are a lot of issues with this take, but this is what I think his overall argument is.
@mizakzee
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for accurately Steele Manning his side of the argument.
@thegreattsbob
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I don't think that is actually the point he is making. Prosecutorial discretion is the name of the thing you are saying prosecutors should use (that is at least part of it) and as a cop I am sure he is not suggesting that they don't use it. Not only that, if the Judge thought there was not enough evidence to suggest this case was valid it could have been tossed before it went to trial. There are multiple checks to make sure there is a case to be made before it gets that far and Connor is likely familiar with most if not all of them. The thing he is taking offence to are the tactics employed not the case being tried itself. He wants some kind of codified mandate that anything well known to the prosecution to be misleading should be barred from being discussed in court. He thinks this even if its true. For instance, it is true that there was no effort made by the defendant to resort to less than lethal force against attackers that were threatening with less than lethal force. Conner thinks this line of reasoning betrays an understanding of human psychology and that the prosecution should know that. He thinks its slimy tactics to argue that way.
@jca9417
2 жыл бұрын
Realistically prosecutors want to win regardless of whether or not the person is guilty or not , that's just reality and it's always been like that.
@dougfoster445
2 жыл бұрын
@@thegreattsbob actually he has another video where it’s just him and destiny where he says exactly that.
@thegreattsbob
2 жыл бұрын
@@dougfoster445 Maybe, but that isn't the point being pushed in this video. If that is true, its pretty strange as I said above. He is a cop and I would expect that he understands the legal system at least that well.
@Davin404
2 жыл бұрын
His lie to a person after the event isn't actually relevant, because on the stand he's told the truth. You can't impeach his character based on a lie told in the heat vs. his testimony throughout.
@elementaesthetique
2 жыл бұрын
the lie was designed to de-escalatr and save his life, too. if he had said "yes I'm the shooter" there was much higher probability the Mob would attack him, although they did that anyway
@BigSleepyOx
2 жыл бұрын
@@elementaesthetique - But is it not up to the defense to make that argument, rather than the judge simply not allowing the prosecutor to argue the point at all? (I've not followed the case, and have no dog in the debate.)
@elementaesthetique
2 жыл бұрын
@@BigSleepyOx the judge didn't rebuke the prosecution on that issue, I dont think. the judge was actually pretty fair regardless of what people are saying, he didn't let prejudicial evidence in for both sides - the jury didn't get to know about Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz's criminal records & the jury didn't get to see unrelated videos about Kyle's past either. His Wikipedia says he's been a Democrat his whole life. I didn't find him that biased (although the cellphone going off was at the very least unprofessional, at most slightly sus)
@bnbmike4731
2 жыл бұрын
@@elementaesthetique the phone was ringtone for his emails. And the prosecution and defence was sending emails to him during the trial he could have muted that's true.
@attilamarics4808
2 жыл бұрын
@@bnbmike4731 Patriotic songs are somehow sus for you guys. It think that tells us something about your mental capacity.
@falseprophet1024
2 жыл бұрын
Honestly, im with Connor on this one, to a certain extent.. Prosecutors dont get to be slimy debate bros, acting in bad faith, doing everything they can to win. The prosecution represents the state. Their job is to seek justice, not get convictions..
@PrinterStand
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, if only we as nation could have that energy when the defendant is a minority or a police officer. My firm watched the whole trial, my issue isn't with the outcome, my issue is that Counterpoints and people with his positions refuse to see that they go this hard for the prosecution to be angels, but cheer when the prosecution uses similar slimy tactics to go hard on rioters or easier on most cops.
@MrZombiekiller23
2 жыл бұрын
@@PrinterStand exactly! A year ago they wanted firing lines for 'violent graffiti' perpetrators and now they are crying a river about the prosecution using usual prosecutorial tactics against Rittenhouse, it's as if people forgot the Us court system is DebateLord Heaven
@PrinterStand
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrZombiekiller23 yup. "Justice for me but not for thee" I feel like both the far left and far right revert to this line of thinking way way too fast. Like, guys, step back and access before going off on your soapbox.
@E_Ten
2 жыл бұрын
I wish they talked about the first set of shots and reaction time. Binger was implying culpability based on when the shot was taken, rather than the physiological necessity of earlier in the interaction when the decision was made. Given that the shots were within 0.76 seconds it is 100% bullshit to evaluate what threat Rosenbaum posed at the moment of the last shot, rather than at least 0.15 sec, and more likely 0.4sec based on age, before when KR saw the visual stimulus, made the decision to fire, and executed that action. The narrative around Rosenbaum being shot in the back was "malarkey" and made on the ignorance of the jury, if not the prosecutor too. There should be a low cost resource that can be used to counter these types of impossible narratives without the high cost of an expert witness. When the difference between illegal and legal is in fractions of a second you have to factor in reaction time. This was especially true for the Adam Toledo incident.
@falseprophet1024
2 жыл бұрын
@@PrinterStand Make Rittenhouse black, and my argument is exactly the same.. i imagine connor's would be too.. If some guy had shown up to defend BLM, and got chased down and attacked, exactly like Kyle did, id be saying the same thing.. Do u really think anybody, regardless of party, that regularly watches destiny, is like "prosecutors can cheat but only against black folk."?
@Tauramehtar
2 жыл бұрын
I would like to see more of Destiny as a moderator. He does a good job.
@stalok5963
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe he should start a show, Called 'Destiny in moderation' or smth
@TorqueBow
2 жыл бұрын
agree
@stevelarry3870
2 жыл бұрын
@Janus Zeal Anarchist Andy?
@avishaiedenburg1102
2 жыл бұрын
Dunno about that, this was pretty much a 2:1.
@Askapoolme
2 жыл бұрын
@@avishaiedenburg1102 same, i think a moderator shouldn't pick a side so obviously
@subsonic3633
2 жыл бұрын
" the only evidence is from kyle" " I'm not saying there isn't other evidence". Wow just wow.
@joshuawinstead7621
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah what is this referring to? Cause there definitely is other evidence than from Kyle, it could absolutely be a misspeak.
@jay1jayf
2 жыл бұрын
@Trade Bum Simmons 5:16
@cainemangakahia4842
2 жыл бұрын
When you’re in the middle of a riot just after being attacked, you’re not under oath and you don’t owe some angry rando off the street “the truth” given it might set them off to attack you as well…
@guybentancur3130
2 жыл бұрын
Half of the prosecution witnesses lied under oath under tweeting under any given occasion.
@pestilentsleeper9152
2 жыл бұрын
True
@chickenfarmer209
2 жыл бұрын
Rittenhouse lying to a literal lynch mob is evidence he's scared, thats it. He didn't lie to the cops or prosecutor, which is who matters.
@Chopstewie
2 жыл бұрын
I imagine that is what the jury concluded right? I do like the insinuation that a dumbass Cop's opinion is important however.
@andrewg5324
2 жыл бұрын
It's almost embarrassing that 80% of the comments don't seem to even understand what they're arguing about.
@johnluca3865
2 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the exact same thing lol
@Mike_Dubayou
2 жыл бұрын
Im 12 minutes in, and they havent figured out what they're arguing about.
@Alieth
2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely, everyone is hung up on the Rittenhouse trial, when really it’s just being used as a stand in example of the broader discussions presented by Pisco and Destiny
@OKGknife
2 жыл бұрын
Pisco came in so hard with a predetermined mindset of how Conner was gonna argue and honestly annoys me because it makes the debate volatile from the very beginning.
@OKGknife
2 жыл бұрын
Also don’t know what Angle the watched him getting hit from but there is a video that is shortened and you can clearly see him take a hit to the back of the head as he then stumbles a few feet before falling over and rolling onto his back.
@Typhus-th6ud
2 жыл бұрын
Even if dr strange somehow warped reality and Kyle wasnt hit in the head the entire mob is still caught on video screaming to kill him
@The2012Aceman
2 жыл бұрын
Yea, LegalEagle clipped that part out. Don’t want to shock everyone with the truth.
@willrivera2919
2 жыл бұрын
That’s an over exaggeration 🤦🏽♂️
@Singeyy
2 жыл бұрын
@@The2012Aceman does legaleagle think that kyles actions weren't justified? lmao
@kristianvaisanen7608
2 жыл бұрын
@@Singeyy well he does have some weird takes so I wouldnt be that surprised. his video on captain Marvel was kinda nuts
@johnbaldwell3395
2 жыл бұрын
@@Singeyy leagle eagle is almost as bad as Hassan. He just says what the popular opinion is and doesn’t deviate whatsoever.
@Jrez
2 жыл бұрын
What is there even to debate with Rittenhouse? Certainly not the trial.
@JanJans123
2 жыл бұрын
@redxpen 2 be fair, concealed carry is way more dangerous right, look at gaige grosskreutz, he almost ambushed rittenhouse with the fact he had a gun, while all 3 rittenhouse attackers knew they were attacking some1 with a gun.
@JanJans123
2 жыл бұрын
I dont live in the US, and the gun laws/ gun culture in the US is way different than everywhere else in the world so I dont know much about it but from my perspective this was the most logical take.
@Sneedmire
2 жыл бұрын
@redxpen All gun control is illegal. The problem that people have with Rittenhouse having a gun is that they know that they don't have one and they can be "checked" if they attempt to commit a crime or harm said individual. I don't really think there's much complexity to the situation. Just a bunch of people who are mad that someone didn't put up with the BLM/systemic racism narrative and then was attacked by a pedophile.
@Sneedmire
2 жыл бұрын
@redxpen Sure, but even if they are victims, there is a point where they became a malevolent force that cannot be deprogrammed or reasoned with. The only thing that keeps them in check is maintaining a hardline stance that prevents any creep of compromise.
@LesterBrunt
2 жыл бұрын
@@Sneedmire Yup that is the impression I get with most of these anti Rittenhousers. They just don’t want somebody spoiling their fun.
@Dontthink790
2 жыл бұрын
I think one of the missed points here is the obvious double standard prosecutor would be using if he were trying the men who got shot for assault/battery. He would be emphasizing how DANGEROUS strikes from Hands/Feet, Skateboard swung as a weapon to the head, and Handguns are.
@SuperSupermanX1999
2 жыл бұрын
well that's literally the job of a prosecutor isn't it, to present the facts and argue for why someone is guilty. Regardless, a punch may be enough to warrant an assault charge but not be enough to justify being killed in self defence - that's not a double standard
@sanchoquixote1121
2 жыл бұрын
I don't understand why that's bad.
@MicahMadru
2 жыл бұрын
@@SuperSupermanX1999 it's bad because they're suppose to follow the truth to conviction.
@noahbeast7975
2 жыл бұрын
@@SuperSupermanX1999 If he was in a different case defending an assault victim he would most likely be saying "strikes from hand/feet are extremely dangerous and life threatening", but in another case he would say "strikes from hand/feet are non-life threating and dont call for lethal defence". And thats just inevitable due to the nature of defence vs prosecution. But where does the truth come in to the situation. Is saying anything you can for a win criminal if you are sending someone to jail potentially for the rest of their life?
@HamburgerHat1
2 жыл бұрын
@@noahbeast7975 the truth is “he was hit”. That’s where the truth (in your example) comes in
@guybentancur3130
2 жыл бұрын
Pisco sounds like a professional excuses giver for prosicatorial lack of evidence and overflow of hypothesis
@davethebrahman9870
2 жыл бұрын
A prior inconsistent statement is subject to all the usual evidentiary requirements. No reasonable judge would accept the admission of the evidence, as its probative value is extremely low, and there is a substantial danger that the evidence will be given too much weight by a jury. Rittenhouse was a minor, probably concussed, most certainly terrified, and in any case we do not even know precisely what was said. The evidence is not only prejudicial, it is irrelevant to any fact at issue in the proceedings. You cannot call it propensity evidence as it is not sufficiently particular, the claim is simply that it is a false statement.
@davidh4653
2 жыл бұрын
I would agree with the analysis except for "no reasonable judge would accept it". In practice, a lot of judges let this stuff in, because, imo, they are not great at doing the Rule 403 balancing test. One of the big issues is that the most common path to being a state judge is by being a prosecutor first, so in my experience the judges have a tendency to be biased (unintentionally, I'm not suggesting they are doing it on purpose) towards the prosecution on issues like this.
@KaneK1234
2 жыл бұрын
Rittenhouse is not guilty. There’s nothing to debate.
@Smithington_
2 жыл бұрын
Well, there are things to debate such as "Do we believe that the verdict should have gone the way it did, and if not, how do we change the system to be more desirable?"
@darkflmmstr
2 жыл бұрын
@@Smithington_ I', satisfied with the verdict, I don't get how people take away anything other than self defense from it.
@Sneedmire
2 жыл бұрын
@@Smithington_ That kinda' sounds likes, "I didn't get the result I wanted; burn the rulebook."
@Smithington_
2 жыл бұрын
@@Sneedmire Then please tell me how else you are going to change a system without first identifying the problems? How would you improve a system without analyzing it and discussing whether or not it is working in a desirable way? Do we believe that the cause of the people dying were Rittenhouse 'Crossing statelines', and thus should be harsher on restricting the movement of people between states? If Rittenhouse would not have had a gun, would people be more alright with him crossing the state border, and if so, should guns be removed from the general public and or removed from protests? Do we believe that the rioters provoked Rittenhouse (and others) into action, and should thus either prevent Rioters, demonstrations, or similar? Do we believe that Rittenhouse exhausted every reasonable method of extracting himself from the situation without using lethal force? Do we believe he should have had to? There are a lot of questions that could be asked and debates to be had here. You might argue that, while not a desirable outcome, this is the consequence of desirable policies. For example, you might support maximum autonomy and freedom of the individual person, and so having little to no restrictions on how people can act might be your desirable society, and creating limitations on gun ownership and the right to assemble might not be a cost you are comfortable with - even if such policies might have saved lives here by giving law enforcements time to assemble on the location. Even if people begin to question the validity of the verdict itself, it might not be a bad thing. Should cases be decided by a jury or another system? (Throw them to the twitter mob?) Were any of the rulings biased - and if so how - and should the judge be disciplined because of it or should the system change so as to not allow such a bias in the future, and if so, what consequences does that bring? A tl;dr: would be, there are things to discuss in whether or not Rittenhouse is guilty or not, and if the situations leading up to the Rittenhouse case could be prevented at a reasonable price in the future.
@Sneedmire
2 жыл бұрын
@@Smithington_ 1. All gun control is illegal. 2. You're allowed to cross state lines. 3. The police are just another street gang. 4. Humans are animals and that needs to be remembered. 5. The system will ALWAYS be flawed inherently because perfection is simply not real. If you want to improve aspects of it in terms of "fairness", then the pursuit of false narratives and unrealistic expectations needs to be dropped. 6. Taxation is theft.
@CaptainCastle
2 жыл бұрын
I think there could be an argument made for Counterpoints side that he didn't get into. It sounded like they were discussing definitions of self defense, but I think he's got a point that we do have a firm understanding of human response time. I mean we wouldn't allow a lawyer to say something like "Well why didn't you fly away?" because we know humans can't fly. I could see establishing some baseline of human response/reactions that the jury may not understand, but surely prosecutors should. If they're proposing something that isn't humanly possible should we require an expert witness to dispute it? I sympathize with his perspective.
@Darktalon0
2 жыл бұрын
I agree, I just wish he didn't lean so hard not not trusting anything but then trusting that even with this treatise/guidelines/anti-bull/whatever he was proposing that EVERY jury in ANY area would be able to transcribe, retain, or even apply all the information to a case.
@Cyllid
2 жыл бұрын
I mean he thinks the simple solution to having an expert witness in cases, is to somehow codify every single thing so you don't need expert witnesses. This guy is the initial peak of the Dunning Kruger graph of court room solutions.
@CaptainCastle
2 жыл бұрын
@@Cyllid Good for you buddy you get to score points for dunking on someone while contributing nothing.
@thegreattsbob
2 жыл бұрын
There is not much to contribute here honestly at least nothing but debunking the idea. It is just a fundamental misunderstanding of both the scope of the task being asked and the purpose of those involved. Let's be generous and grant that some things could be particularly heinous and although they are not reasonable, they are also not commonly known to be so. Trying to codify this into anything that a layman could understand while still being broad and deep enough to cover any set of circumstances is ridiculous. There are literally thousands of things that if different, could possibly change what someone thinks is reasonable about even this one situation. From the time between shots, to the number of assailants, to the distance they are from the shooter, the previous actions of the crowd, the previous actions of the shooter, the weapons or lack of weapons for every one involved, the presence or lack of presence of law enforcement, the location and time, the ages of those involved and so on. This is precisely why you would want and probably need an expert witness to testify about anything that is not public knowledge. It not that its hard, its dumb to think its possible without having years of specialized education to prepare the jury for each case (even then a witness who has experience would be helpful). It is not nor ever should it be the job of anyone other than the jury in a jury trial to determine if a line of questioning is reasonable. The judge's responsibility is to make sure no one is allowed to lie, break the law, or bring up facts that are wholly irrelevant in order to get the verdict they want. If it were simple to know what was and was not reasonable before the trial, the judge could simply tell the jury what happened. The fact that there are multiple perspectives and multiple narratives that could possibly fit the facts is why we have the trial and why its important for the jury to hear both perspectives. Besides, If any lawyer asks "well why didn't you fly away" without showing the jury that is a valid possibility, they are hurting their own case. That is a freebee debunk and it makes them look like they are grasping instead of providing a reasonable alternative.
@zKatari
2 жыл бұрын
@@thegreattsbob Yea and I think responsibility falls on the defense's counterarguments when it comes to things that are too fantastic or unreasonable to be real
@lordmctheobalt
2 жыл бұрын
I think the Rittenhouse case is a bad one for this debate, because there was so much prosecutorial misconduct, that things that might seem shady or reaching but still acceptable & sensible in other trials just look like malice & disingenuity coming from this prosecutor. E.g. the cause for Kyle falling. With a fair & ethical prosecutor the questions about light-headedness & being hit in the head before falling might be important to establish the truth about kyle's state of mind, cognitive ability, & how his vision & senses could be impaired when he's on the ground. Was he disoriented & just shot in a random direction that just happened to be close to JKM when JKM attacked him or was he aware enough that the shots were purposely at JKM? Because the former might be actual reckless endagerment if he just shot without knowing where JKM was because he wanted to scare people off with warning shots & the shots just happened to go in the direction of JKM. BUT, when Littlebinger asks later "it was only a foot" "it was only a skateboard" "your gun was way bigger, why should you be afraid of the guy pointing the little glock at you", then the questions about why he was falling look much more like an attempt to make Kyle look like he was completely unreasonable in his perception of danger. A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice, not conviction. When he tries to spin the situation in a way that no reasonable person could agree with, he's seeking conviction. It's completely unethical. Tl:Dr: I think the point is that Binger pursued lines of questioning that could introduce only unreasonable doubt, but makes it seem like reasonable doubt e.g. slowing down time and implying Kyle should have made decisions on a frame-to-frame basis in real-time. And that those lines of questioning should be banned for prosecution since they are supposed to pursue justice, not conviction.
@combatethics1236
2 жыл бұрын
there was zero prosecutorial misconduct in this case
@XAssassinTotX96
2 жыл бұрын
@@combatethics1236 that’s a lie. Watch the case. The prosecutor directly criticized Kyle’s 5th amendment right to a point it almost(and could have if the judge was more of a shark) lead to a mistrial with prejudice right then and there. There was also the compressed video issue, which there may or may not be a hearing over. However the biggest issue is the 5th amendment right issue, which was done in front of the jury twice, so yeah that’s misconduct right there.
@sadboipotato3382
2 жыл бұрын
While I agree here, isn't this more of a case of prosecution just doing it's job? It's why I've never really understood why people get pissed about lawyers. They are doing their job. Prosecution is supposed to prosecute, even if the evidence is questionable.
@jtzoltan
2 жыл бұрын
@@sadboipotato3382 I can't agree with this when Prosecutors and the DA have the decision of whether to try people or not and so often they are acting as careerists who have no problem aggressively pursuing convictions of people who the preliminary case, evidence and subsequent analysis shows there's little to go on and their subsequent arguments are dishonest, misleading, not infrequently unreasonable, rhetoric filled and sometimes outright lies. They're also the most susceptible to politicization of justice and will play to the uninformed biases of the media-incited masses who often result from mis-framing of the case, misrepresenting key details and omitting others to create and win political points off the case at hand. Prosecutors and DAs should only seek to pursue cases where there is actual legal question involved where they think the truth may lay somewhere likely to overturn reasonable doubt and the only pursue arguments in good faith to bring out the truth that demonstrates guilt and not use dishonest, underhanded methods to win a case.
@shadowgame0630
2 жыл бұрын
@@sadboipotato3382 they literally just said a prosecution's job is to see justice. If it was just to prosecute then theyd be going after innocent people too
@falseprophet1024
2 жыл бұрын
24:20 Do we really want prosecutors bringing cases where there is a 1% chance that the defendant is guilty? Kinda the opposite of beyond a reasonable doubt, isn't it?
@Eval999
2 жыл бұрын
Thats one 99% chance piece of evidence in a case which presumably has other, stronger evidence.
@ethanelephants4740
2 жыл бұрын
@@Eval999 what was the other stronger evidence?
@Eval999
2 жыл бұрын
@@ethanelephants4740 Key word presumably. I'm not here to make the prosecutors case, but OP implied the 1% chance from the video in the footage is necessarily the only evidence. That wasn't claimed.
@captainphoenix
2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely not. Prosecutorial discretion is paramount to the service of justice. Prosecutors should only _ever_ prosecute in good faith _and_ only when they think there is a genuine and legitimate chance of conviction of the charges filed. Otherwise they absolutely should not be prosecuting. _Only the defense_ should be using an "at-all-costs" pathway to "victory" (a "zealous" defense).
@falseprophet1024
2 жыл бұрын
@@Eval999 Im arguing based on Destiny's position. If there is a 1% chance of guilt (not on a single piece of evidence, but on the overall case), the prosecution should do everything they can, including walking through that 'grey' area (that isnt actually grey), using every trick they can to convict. Destiny would own his argument, and say yes, because it produces the best overall results.. I think its disturbing to have a state prosecuting people with that mentality. Its compunded by shit defense attorneys, an underfunded public defenders office, the judges and the juries inherent bias toward the state. How exactly do yall think those prisons were filled up? You believe in systemic racism and mass incarceration? If so, how do you think that is enacted?
@zephirol4638
2 жыл бұрын
Dude fails immediately. There was literally a witness who on the stand stated that rosenbaum said if he catches any of them alone he is going to kill them. One of the same people who said they specifically stayed with Rittenhouse because they thought he was a bit young and inexperienced.
@diiizzy1313
2 жыл бұрын
thats not whats being debated here, pisco is saying that the prosecutor, whether they seem ridiculous or not, had every right to ask the questions about being light headed or even call of duty for example. Connor doesn’t get that the prosecutor’s job is to try to make a whole narrative or story to win over the jury, whether the way they go about is as ridiculous as this prosecutor did is their choice, but Connor is trying to argue against him being allowed to ask those questions which for many other prosecutors are crucial questions in building a narrative to convict someone who actually did commit a crime.
@zephirol4638
2 жыл бұрын
The issue here is their wording. A prosecutor is held to a higher standard of ethics than a typical attorney. You could very well ask the same questions, just not in the manner stated in the video, if it did then conner's first point defeats it and there would be an ethics violation. (not that there wasn't plenty of those throughout already with the attempt to use the 5th against him twice, the video fiasco and so on) I'm not denying they are both wrong. I only took issue with the 1 guy because of his arrogant smugness. But yes when wording the actual point properly you would be right.
@the_inquisitive_inquisitor
2 жыл бұрын
@@diiizzy1313 the only crime committed was when an angry mob assaulted Kyle.
@falseprophet1024
2 жыл бұрын
@@diiizzy1313 The prosecutors job is to get to the truth. They represent the state, and the role of the state is to obtain justice, not get as many convictions as possible..
@oniondesu9633
2 жыл бұрын
@@diiizzy1313 prosecutors are given the powers of the state and are therefore held to a much higher ethical standard than the state. they are supposed to go after the truth, not a prosecution at all costs
@wojinations9594
2 жыл бұрын
21:18 We see the hat being knocked off though? Unequivocally. In fact Pisco's not even accurate on the moment his hat was knocked off, it was another unknown attacker with a rock, followed by the initial strike by Huber, he falls, gets kicked, Huber strikes again, then Grossekreutz. That's the sequence of events... So that needs to be established first and foremost... So Pisco hasn't even got the timeline right for him to know if the prosecution is lying or not.
@kingslayerdamocles3019
2 жыл бұрын
I dont know if this get corrected later but the death threat was also testified to by bulch and grambo. Also when when talking about well the prosecution cant lie. The procecution did lie about there is no such thing as a left handed gun.
@leightonp8496
2 жыл бұрын
They also said the video would show Kyle chasing Rosenbaum.
@williammurderface2377
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if the prosecution actually thought they had a chance if they knew they were lying to the jury, and their key witnesses lie on top of seemingly self-evident self-defense (the first shooting, 2nd shooting is blatant self-defense)
@lordmctheobalt
2 жыл бұрын
Connor needs to calm down, I think the points he tries to argue are often good but getting tilted instantly hinders him to make his point eloquently. I mean the last 2 minutes of the video is a prime example of how well he does when he remains calm
@the_inquisitive_inquisitor
2 жыл бұрын
I'd have lost it too when Pisco lied to my face
@giovalladares1022
2 жыл бұрын
@Koffing 024 I don’t even understand what Pisco was referring to when he said that Kyle was the only witness to some claims. The entirety of the shootings is on camera. Unless Pisco is arguing that before Rosenbaum ambushed him, Kyle secretly threatened his life or pointed his guns at people or acted provocatively. But there is no evidence of that. No reason to believe that unless you want to be conspiratorial.
@joshuawinstead7621
2 жыл бұрын
@@giovalladares1022 Also we do have evidence of belligerent behavior from Rosenbaum that night, but not from Kyle. e.g. screaming "SHOOT ME N***A"
@stfugabe
2 жыл бұрын
@Koffing 024 Pisco has done that to Connor in past debates/panels, so its also built up anger on top of this debate.
@shirmaman1886
2 жыл бұрын
the only thing connor was doing is trying to squeeze as much political points from this trail to his side, disguised as some vague point about how the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to "muddy the waters" whatever that means...
@Hdkmx
2 жыл бұрын
Destiny was not a moderator here, just another debater.
@jaysonsandoval3766
2 жыл бұрын
It’s irrelevant dude was chasing him doesn’t matter if he said he was gonna kiss his ass, he’s getting chased hears a gun shot automatically thinks he’s getting shot at so In self defense he decides to stop an imminent threat as should anyone else man woman or child.
@TecTitan
Жыл бұрын
You gotta understand These people don't care about the truth, they care about supporting the narrative the tv box tells them is most virtuous.
@fatnose0
2 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, our justice system's sword and shield having a sane conversation! Partners in non-crime teaming up again! I'm sure theyll have a lovely conversation!
@RealmRabbit
2 жыл бұрын
Great thumbnail for the video!
@BiggDaddyBubbles
2 жыл бұрын
I think the problem that Counterpoints is having trouble trying to describe is that the Prosecution, unlike the defense, is supposed to be held to a standard of Justice versus vigorous defense at all and any costs. If the State wants to bring a state against someone, it is presumed by default that the State should at least have enough evidence to have a possible chance of conviction based on the facts of the case (so not based on jury nullification, which is quite important!). Counterpoints' issue, which I am quite sympathetic to, is that the case against Rittenhouse should have never been brought in the first place when so much evidence existed that should have convinced the Prosecution that there was no possible chance (outside of the jury ignoring their instructions) for ruling on the evidence based on the law to result in a conviction. There-in lies the problem- both Destiny and Pisco are correct that once the case comes to trial both sides should provide vigorous arguments for the best presentation of both their theories of the case- but what Counterpoints is trying to argue (and rhetorically failing to do so, by the way) is that the evidence / theory of the case that the Prosecution brought is unbelievable. To that extent there is no way that the Prosecution is operating in good faith, ANDDDDDDDDDDD if the Prosecution is not operating in good faith there is no way they can be serving justice as the implication is that they are trying to use jury nullification to throw an innocent man in jail for political ends.
@yorhahoudini4531
2 жыл бұрын
I don’t think him lying to a generically angry mob who still chased him with obvious intent to harm is enough to impeach the validity of his testimony. This precedent would be terrible for abuse victims
@AlcoholAndLAG
2 жыл бұрын
I was waiting for these spicy debates
@MrWebweaver
2 жыл бұрын
Rittenhouse was not the only person to hear Rosenbaum threaten to kill people. The prosecution witness said the same thing. Impeaching Rittenhouse as a liar is fine, but doesn’t work for that point.
@TheButterAnvil
2 жыл бұрын
I think pisco was referring to the exact moment that rosenbaum tried to grab his gun, but I could easily be completely wrong
@MrWebweaver
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheButterAnvil no, McGinnis was there and would have testified to what Rosenbaum said, which he did. The partner with Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum threatened both of them. Watching this video, I don’t think either guy watched the entire trial.
@TheButterAnvil
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrWebweaver I do remember that. Idk 🤷
@nilsen93
2 жыл бұрын
Counter was not nailing the arguments in the first 2/3 imo. However his last arguments about standardized instructions for the jury that are peer-reviewed and updatet through governmental processes, seem reasonable. Sad that Pisco would not engage with these arguments and instead resort to straw-manning...
@nilsen93
2 жыл бұрын
@Koffing 024 Pisco made errors, sure. But Counter was prescribing alternative narratives because he thought it was malpractice by the prosecution and he did not demonstrate that, when subjected to scrutiny, regardless of his factual correct takes. And also Counter did make a couple of reasonable leaps, but because they were a leap you cannot prevent the prosecution in preventing a bridge being built.
@FlashxSwazy
2 жыл бұрын
Iight I've watched a few minutes. But is he arguing that Kyle lied to people that night so he shouldn't be allowed as a "witness" I'm court? If that's the case it doesn't matter. As long as he isn't lying under oath. Now If he's caught lying under oath then sure.
@FlashxSwazy
2 жыл бұрын
In*
@proudtobeme1ashkente
2 жыл бұрын
Procecutor: Mr Rittenhouse, do you understand that you shouldn't lie under oath? Rittenhouse: Yes. Prosecutor: Really? Because I have here a statement of your mother's about how you once lied about taking cookies from the cookie jar when you weren't allowed to. Rittenhouse: Wha- Prosecutor: Your honor, I demand this witness be dismissed as he has been proven to have lied before and will definitely lie again!
@diiizzy1313
2 жыл бұрын
@Koffing 024 that is not piscos argument at all
@abo88jasem
2 жыл бұрын
No. The argument is that the prosecutor should be allowed to bring evidence that is not 100% false to achieve his goal of dismissing the witness. It is then up to the judge or jury to judge the reasonableness of the prosecutor's argument. It is also up to the defence to object to the argument. Connor's point is that the prosecutor should not be able to even provide that type of evidence.
@diiizzy1313
2 жыл бұрын
@@abo88jasem thank you. someone with more than 2 iq in these comments finally
@MrMctastics
2 жыл бұрын
Blessed Pisco content
@nb4411
2 жыл бұрын
It's crazy seeing these people argue in favor of prosecution using dirty rhetorical tricks to try and get a conviction. They will then go on to claim systemic racism in criminal justice. Fucking incredible.
@caveman5421
2 жыл бұрын
The defense attorney is supposed to counter those “dirty tricks”. That’s what they’re for. Systemic racism comes in when one race gets preferential or harsher treatment, all else being equal.
@nb4411
2 жыл бұрын
@@caveman5421 The state has an obligation to justice, the defense does not. The state using dirty rhetorical tricks is meant to prejudice a jury in order to get a conviction of someone someone know is innocent. This isn't just some strategic game of chess, this is suppose to be about justice.
@leightonp8496
2 жыл бұрын
@@caveman5421 the point is the prosecution are supposed to be truth seekers, seeking justice, they are held to a higher standard. They shouldn't be arguing for the 1% possibility.
@uqs57bju
2 жыл бұрын
The attorneys who i watched look at the trial all said that Binger should be sanctioned in major ways. He was completely out of line. Several other prosecutors and defense attorneys said that.
@doroza2lol
2 жыл бұрын
@@caveman5421 "The defense attorney is supposed to counter those “dirty tricks”. That’s what they’re for. Systemic racism comes in when one race gets preferential or harsher treatment, all else being equal." What if the defense attorney is some cheap trash, what if that attorney didnt see how harmful the questions might be. Your case only works when, humans do 0 errors. Yet we had/have men getting life for crimes they didnt do. Prosecution should work with evidence and logic. Not with dirty tricks to get people behind bars.
@valipunctro
2 жыл бұрын
The destiny as moderator arc?
@Tauramehtar
2 жыл бұрын
Hope so. Maybe some debates and panels sprinkled in. I would like to see him moderate multiple people in the future. He is doing a good job here.
@Mr.Limekiller
2 жыл бұрын
"Destiny forced to step in, on Counterpoints neck" He was doing half the debate for pisco, not sure if that's moderation.
@DavidBentley23
2 жыл бұрын
2:08 Pisco95 has to be joking...that has too be a joke 3:33 OMG...The only evidence that he was hit in the head was Kyle himself? ...WTF is this? 4:12 Kyle is the only one that heard Rosenbaum threaten him? What? Ryan Balch testified that at one point that evening, prior to the shooting, Rosenbaum had clearly grown enraged with Balch, Rittenhouse, and a third armed member of their group. Balch testified that the other member of his group had at one point prevented Rosenbaum from lighting something on fire. Rosenbaum then began shouting at Balch and Rittenhouse when Balch tried to calm him down, according to Balch. "When I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming," Balch said. "I said, 'Back up, chill, I don't know what your problem is.' He goes, 'I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to fucking kill you.'" When Binger asked Balch to clarify that Rosenbaum's remarks were directed at both Balch and Rittenhouse, Balch responded, "The defendant was there, so yes."
@dark91911
2 жыл бұрын
Piss-co is just being willfully ignorant. And he is willfully ignorant because he hates kyle
@DavidBentley23
2 жыл бұрын
@@dark91911 I'm so sick of these people on the left. It's not hard too learn about the truth. That ignorance is dividing the country by race.
@colkestrel
2 жыл бұрын
Clearly yall never watched the trial. The guy "guarding" Kyle also testified that potato file threatened to kill Kyle and him AND Grandbo testified that the potato file threatened to kill the group in general.
@Myk_Osborne
2 жыл бұрын
I think Pisco and Destiny are missing Sean's point. In their defense I didn't hear him make it, but what I think he was trying to say is this. The point I think he was trying to make was that the district attorney is supposed to seek justice, and in this case that seemed not to be the situation where you have a prosecutorial team that seemed far more interested in a conviction rather than justice.
@uqs57bju
2 жыл бұрын
Like the prosecution midway through the trial changed tactics from Rosenbaum getting shot in the back to Kyle proviking him? 100% agree with you.
@leightonp8496
2 жыл бұрын
It's not the state's job to argue for a 1% possibility. It is their job to be truth seekers and fact finders even if it hurts their case.
@lampad4549
Жыл бұрын
No it is not to be truth seekers and fact finders that's not what they do in court, they put forth all the arguments to prosecute someone, that's literally what they do, if they are truth seekers than what is the defense job.
@thecactus7950
2 жыл бұрын
I just finished listning to this and I have no idea what the argument was about.
@jerrittglaser
2 жыл бұрын
What the fuck ever happened to a hundred guilty men should go free in order to prevent a single innocent person being convicted What I mean is stupid arrogant prosecutors should pursue justice. NOT CONVICTIONS
@Freakismsyndrom
2 жыл бұрын
The only testimony solely backed by Kyle is how siminsky acted once He arrived at Car source 3. All the Other threats are testified to by Fiedler aka Grambo and the big Marine Guy. Srsly If youre gonna debate this, get the Basic facts right.
@LBPalich
2 жыл бұрын
Pisco is the Lebron James of pissing Conner off
@jacobnolan510
2 жыл бұрын
30 minutes in and it seems like Counterpoints expression just reads "I've had enough of this shit"
@calculator91
2 жыл бұрын
Rittenhouse content is basically Tsukiyomi at this point.
@majdjinn5042
2 жыл бұрын
So if Kyle trip and fell in a pothole and people are still chasing him? His back is against the wall which gives him the right to defend himself. Kyle had a lot of ground to shoot a lot of people that day and only waited for those who were 4 feet of him Kyle has no duty to retreat. This case was to be tossed by the DA but the DA was too politically motivated but didn't want to do it themselves.
@sjs334
2 жыл бұрын
Unless the jury finds that he provoked those who are chasing him, in which case the Wisconsin self-defense law says that he can't use deadly force unless he has "exhausted EVERY other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm."
@majdjinn5042
2 жыл бұрын
@@sjs334 Not at all. That would be a duty to retreat. With that many people it's unrealistic to assume you can out run them all.
@sjs334
2 жыл бұрын
@@majdjinn5042 I was responding to your comment that Kyle had no duty to retreat. Under certain circumstances (provocation) there is not only a duty to retreat under the law of Wisconsin, but also a duty to exhaust all other means to avoid the harm (examples might include using the butt of the gun to strike back, kicking, firing warning shots, calling for help or otherwise signaling that you are not presenting an ongoing threat, etc.). If provocation was found then that duty exists under the law, but it's up to the jury to determine whether that duty was breached under the circumstances.
@majdjinn5042
2 жыл бұрын
@@sjs334 That's if the provocation would be seen fit. We can assume simply out of how Binger is now just threatening to drain Dominick Black's finances. It's to get a charge, not for the truth or justice Black is charged with the 2 counts of the gun charge Kyle had tossed with a plea deal of just one. During the hearing he threatened appeal. I do not believe any of this was good faith and would be tossed. Thank god I live in Florida, this would be tossed by a judge. (Sorry for the edits)
@sjs334
2 жыл бұрын
@@majdjinn5042 I'm not following your point on Black, but provocation was part of the charge to the jury and was central part of the prosecution's case presentation.
@josiahclarke3535
2 жыл бұрын
I generally like Counterpoints but he needs to not talk like Demonmama. Even if it's just a joke holy shit it drives me nuts.
@ruanniemann2604
2 жыл бұрын
How did that allegation become a lie? A Witness testified to Rosenbaum threatening Rittenhouse.
@ruanniemann2604
2 жыл бұрын
Also, the videos 100% support his version of events.
@oniflrog4487
2 жыл бұрын
Oh, right. The Pizco. The Pizco for Kuzco, the Pizco chosen especially to kill Kuzco, Kuzco's Pizco. That Pizco?
@harryb12993
2 жыл бұрын
@@oniflrog4487 i liked it more before the explanation
@yay4yoyos
2 жыл бұрын
I'm going to need an explanation for this comment
@harryb12993
2 жыл бұрын
@@yay4yoyos Its better without it.
@ergovisavis
2 жыл бұрын
Lmao at chaotic neutral Destiny cracking up in the background. Edit: tbf he did really a good job at moderating impartially.
@luciddreamer616
2 жыл бұрын
Seems like Pisco was pointlessly hostile, but at least for the first 15 minutes or so, he's spot on about all of the technical points he presented. That said, I understand Conner's frustration with the prosecution and I completely share it. Seeing the extent to which lawyers are permitted to go in order to provide a rigorous case is a bit like seeing how sausage is made, and there's nothing even remotely creepy about being disgusted with it.
@elenhin
2 жыл бұрын
I completely agree w both of you.
@the_inquisitive_inquisitor
2 жыл бұрын
Sorry Lucid, but Pisco was just wrong.
@teilzeitteemo6190
2 жыл бұрын
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor fortunately "just wrong" isnt really an argument either.
@the_inquisitive_inquisitor
2 жыл бұрын
@@teilzeitteemo6190 I wasn't arguing, I was just letting you know.
@luciddreamer616
2 жыл бұрын
@Koffing 024 Within the first 15 minutes or so, most of the claims Pisco made were about the process of trial itself, and I think they're applicable even if he was wrong about the specifics: a prosecutor should have the right to try and impeach a defendant for lying even if there were a ton of mitigating circumstances because the defendant's credibility is paramount. Where I found that I began to diverge was when we get into this idea that a prosecutor's job is to tear down the defense's claims merely by presenting possible alternatives. I'm way, way more partial to CounterPoints's argument that the defense should not be permitted to just throw shit to the wall and see what sticks, but should instead be obligated to provide evidence that the defense's case is false. That said, I also recognize that a lawyer with a strong enough knowledge of case law may be able to provide me with an example of a case where being able to present speculative counterfactuals are crucial to putting a guilty man behind bars. It's just that without hearing any such examples, all of my intuitions are screaming at me that this is how you convict innocent people.
@denverboyd9953
2 жыл бұрын
This was really good.
@billygowhoop
2 жыл бұрын
I too wish that there was a perfect flowchart for the legal system but I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
@joser.4494
2 жыл бұрын
Piss Corporation and Brutal Cop debate so hard a Woman's Name has to step in
@alexpendley4588
2 жыл бұрын
I didn't know Kyle was under oath when he told that lie
@TecTitan
Жыл бұрын
I didn't know we were legally bound to tell the truth at all times no matter what lol
@phoboskittym8500
2 жыл бұрын
Kyle was in fact struck twice with the skate board Neither side in the this debate are well versed on the trail specifics...
@phoboskittym8500
2 жыл бұрын
The footage provided was both in Raw format and a synced version of two videos, The video issue is that the DA gave the defense a super low resolution version of a video that the DA bought in as evidence.
@SirBigDee
2 жыл бұрын
The problem with this discussion is that Counterpoint makes a subjective evaluation of the (non-sanctionable) ethics of the prosecutor's case, which a lot of people as well as attorneys would agree with. A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice. This prosecutor was only seeking a conviction. While Destiny and Pisco are making the objective evaluation of the allowability of what the prosecutor was doing (or the "system"). Counterpoint's problem is he is attacking the wrong part of the process to find a solution to his problem. He should be looking to fix the process that results in the prosecution: grand jury, prosecutorial discretion, probable cause hearings, etc... In other words, the checks to bringing a "bad" case. However, Counterpoint's biases made it hard for him to approach the issue clearly.
@queensharkeisha4479
2 жыл бұрын
But pisco and destiny are smart enough to realize what they are arguing is disingenuous. This case is only up for political clout reasons. Arguing that asking Kyle why he didn't do things outside the realm of physical ability... He might as well of walked up there and ask why he didn't block the bullets with his mind powers. Saying prosecutors exist to get a conviction is only correct so far in that conviction is shorthand for "Justice" and a conviction in this case is fucking insane.
@thegreattsbob
2 жыл бұрын
No actually, seeking a conviction is the job of the prosecution. Justice is what the system as a whole is supposed to provide. By your statements here, someone could claim that the defense is trying to defeat or prevent justice. As both Destiny and Pisco are saying, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here that it seems many people share. No one is completely sure if the defendant is guilty or innocent of the crime. Convictions are justice, so are acquittals. Justice is whatever happens as a result of the process. Everyone involved is seeking justice. They all just have different jobs in order to do that. The only ones who are in the business of determining if something is reasonable or not should be the jury. If we try to mandate what is and isnt reasonable to be heard in court we are almost necessarily tossing out more than we need to.
@SirBigDee
2 жыл бұрын
@@thegreattsbob the reason what you say doesn't make sense is that, if what you are saying is true, then there would be no such thing as prosecutorial descretion because the prosecutor's job is to convict when a crime is alleged. Also, there would (or shouldn't) be rules requiring disclosure of exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor is a representative of the State and the State is not supposed to take sides because, as the State, it represents all citizens even ones accused of a crime. Therefore its job is not to take a position against the accused but to seek justice for all which includes the accused.
@thegreattsbob
2 жыл бұрын
@@SirBigDee Uh, what? The cases are actually named The People of the State of ______ vs some other party. I am not sure you know what prosecutorial discretion is. A prosecutor can drop a case due to lack of evidence, but its not just that. They can offer plea deals to allow the court system a bit of rest, or lessen/drop charges to incentivize testimony for getting a more heinous criminal. I am not sure why you think the fact that the prosecution is trying to get a conviction means they cant have the option to not do so. The prosecution is supposed to try to convict you and you have a legal right to a defense attorney and a trial. Without these systems people would be powerless to protect themselves from the State. Judicial System was created to allow a fair trial, but the prosecution is not neutral. I guess it was just a matter of time before I met someone with this perspective. Just scroll down a bit and you will undoubtedly read someone else in this same comments section complaining about how much more money the state pushes into prosecution vs defense (rightly so). You should maybe freshen up on this a bit. Who told you that prosecutors are neutral?
@SirBigDee
2 жыл бұрын
@@thegreattsbob , now I know you don't understand the point and don't have the educational background to. The style of criminal cases are labeled the way they are because the crime is against the people of the State as a whole, not the government. I understand prosecutorial discretion, apparently you do not because you don't understand the core reason for it. Why would a prosecutor decide not to pursue a criminal case or plead a case down if his job is to seek a conviction for the crime?! If he did, he would not be doing his job, right? If his job was to seek justice, then there are all kinds of situations where not pursuing a conviction or where pleading a crime down would serve justice. I never said the prosecution is neutral. I simply pointed out that their job is to seek justice not convictions.
@pommiebears
2 жыл бұрын
The prosecution committed Brady violations by withholding the drone footage. Which is exculpatory evidence. I think Binger should be punished for it.
@joshuawinstead7621
2 жыл бұрын
I've heard of attorneys being disbarred for less.
@KerrMalygos
2 жыл бұрын
what? Rittenhouse lied about shooting somebody instead of admitting it to the mob? say it ain't so
@miecatt
2 жыл бұрын
What game is Destiny playing in the background?
@luciddreamer616
2 жыл бұрын
Okay, by the end of it, I definitely had to agree with Connor. Prosecutors should be tearing down affirmative defenses with hard evidence, not presenting alternative explanations that are entirely unsubstantiated by evidence but might be vaguely consistent with it in some hypothetical universe. There are also substantial problems with the fact that the state is well-funded to prosecute cases at leisure, whereas public defenders are notoriously overworked and underfunded. One possible solution to this is to bind the prosecutions hand so that every argument they make requires a decent burden of justification. There may be better ways to address that, and it's entirely possible that the knock-on effects would cause way more issues, but I'd have to see them demonstrated to me. That said, I often find Destiny will pretend that a problem doesn't exist or isn't worth pointing out unless the other guy has a solution immediately at hand. It's aggravating. And this was way more of a 2v1 than a moderated conversation, so Conner's frustration near the end was super relatable.
@Chopstewie
2 жыл бұрын
I mean, it nice to see a conservative finally recognize an issue with the prosecutorial side of the equation. This issue is I can know his concern is entirely self-serving and disingenuous. Conservatives are evil, and conner is among them in only being forced into action by conceit. His whining about prosecutorial overreach ends the nano-second Saint Rittenhouse drops out the the news cycle. Insofar as I'm concerned he deserves to be lied too and to be mad about it for the rest of this life.
@peppyclown7406
2 жыл бұрын
Is this a serious argument? I mean the trial was fairly clear cut. They even had a year to make thier case.
@lefrenchbaguette3782
2 жыл бұрын
What about a system where: if the jury thinks an argument made by the prosecution (or defense) is one that they themselves couldn't possibly believe, then the jury can issue some sort of penalty? IOW, if the jury thinks "beyond reasonable doubt" that you're just talking piss, you get a penalty to dissuade people from making bad faith arguments in a trial (like the one about split second decision making during a violent pursuit). Could something like that work, or am i missing some obvious counter? I'm not saying it's even a desirable system though, i'm just wondering if it could serve the function that counterpoints is talking about.
@beardedraven7285
2 жыл бұрын
39:17 Did you forget burden of proof is on the state and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If their narrative is 1% that is the opposite of beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution absolutely is supposed to not bring charges if they have a shit case because trials are expensive and justice isnt served when you impose financial penalties for offenses you cant prove. We literally have a bias towards the defense
@abo88jasem
2 жыл бұрын
Destiny does not know how to moderate. It's like his brain is on debate mode all the time. I liked when he stopped to provide factual information. That is a nice touch as most moderators let bullshit fly. But he basically was arguing against Connor and it made it seem like a 2v1. In the end, i understood Connor's frustration with them
@MarcinP2
2 жыл бұрын
The prosecutor was muddying waters. Because Groskovitz was lying to police after the fact. He wanted to make it appear as if that's somehow the same thing.
@n0-one0
2 жыл бұрын
Counterpoints got emotional but Pisco was arguing in bad faith here.
@ZodaSoda
2 жыл бұрын
And hes prolly not even aware hes doing it, precisely why he doesnt understand how Binger was also arguing the case many times in bad faith, not that i entirely agree with the other dude.
@dougfoster445
2 жыл бұрын
I think the problem with the rittenhouse case and others like it, is that it’s the prosecution that decides which case that they will try. This case was so clearly self defense that it should never have been tried in the first place. And I agree with the fact that there should be some body that looks into why the hell it was tried in the first place. In my opinion it was so clear that this was a political case.
@ericangle1760
2 жыл бұрын
Lol I’m glad I got here early. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!
@DrStealthbug
2 жыл бұрын
Pisco is surprisingly inept at explaining things. It's like the only thing he's interested in is getting an own.
@The2012Aceman
2 жыл бұрын
NO MORE RITTENHOUSE DEBATE WITHOUT THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO. I hate hearing people make dumbass misleading arguments that are easily resolved by the video we’ve all had for more than a year.
@LaptopmenaceMTK
2 жыл бұрын
I love these 4 am uploads. Degen hours baby
@Malum95
2 жыл бұрын
9:30 pm ish for the editor, no debauchery here grandpa
@LaptopmenaceMTK
2 жыл бұрын
@@Malum95 ok cringe kid, get back to hasan's chat where you belong
@Channel-23s
2 жыл бұрын
2:38 he said he was going to the police right after that too and heat of the moment while being attacked if he stayed death would come for him aka shot or beat to death he wanted to turn himself in immediately.
@ennieminee4470
2 жыл бұрын
Counter point is kinda right in my opinion. I don’t think destiny would feel okay in his trial if he hears the prosecution try to “frame” a story that’s OBVIOUSLY false and hope that the jury where 6 of them are in Vaush merch and the other a wear hasan shirts doesn’t get TRICKED into believing the LIE.
@SuperSupermanX1999
2 жыл бұрын
well in that situation if it's OBVIOUSLY false and not remotely up to interpretation it would be pretty easy for the defence to create reasonable doubt, wouldn't it. Which is all you need. This kind of situation only really happens if everyone approaches it in ultimate bad faith AND the defence cannot string two sentences together to show how the thing that's supposedly obvious is even potentially true. The process of jury selection and lawyers having to train and pass a ton of exams are pretty decent barriers to that situation. In reality, if there's serious contention then it's very rarely obvious what the truth is.
@ennieminee4470
2 жыл бұрын
@@SuperSupermanX1999 with all the evidence in kyles favor the amount of time it took the jury to review this video (that doesn’t even show him raise the weapon but it was passed off as if he did) concerns me. There could have been a hung jury and a repeat of this phantasmagoria. the time to review the “enhanced” video could see that the white spec wasn’t his hand holding the rifle but some other object…and THAT LIE was allowed in and presented to the Jury and for the prosecution to claim this was a picture of him raising his rifles in provocation is complete garbage and makes people question the intent of the state(at-least I do)! The judge seemed to be hinting that the prosecution was gonna cause a mistrial yet let the jury still see this evidence and let the prosecution LIE about what’s being shown! He was like “let’s hope for the best” yet there is no guarantee of Kyle being able to get a second appeal, and then if he does that’s still a ton of money he’d have to come up with to go through a trial again.
@ExsoLam
2 жыл бұрын
Who gets to decide which "lies" are "obvious?" What factual inaccuracies did the prosecution rely on? None. They told a story about the facts. It's the only way shit works
@ennieminee4470
2 жыл бұрын
@@ExsoLam they showed a pixelated mess of a video and claimed a photo showed rittenhouse raised his rifle. The video upon review doesn’t show that AT ALL that white pixel isn’t his hand. Yet we all know about about the whole video fiasco yet the prosecution brought it up and the judge allowed it. That video is what caused that whole hold up from the jury.
@SuperSupermanX1999
2 жыл бұрын
@@ennieminee4470 Are you really arguing that it's a bad thing for the jury to take their time and carefully consider the case? Plus the prosecution didn't lie, they presented their interpretation of what was in the video (which was largely obscured in many important areas) and the defence then introduced reasonable doubt. The fact that you have decided something is true has no baring on what should be argued in a court of law, especially when it's entirely possible for you to be wrong.
@kento2771
2 жыл бұрын
Ah yes destiny uploading at 2 am again.
@darthhogan8191
2 жыл бұрын
Lawyers make me laugh. Because they're supposed to be the smartest among us. But half their job is "pretending" like they're stupid.
@kingryan69
2 жыл бұрын
this pisco guy is just beyond extra. seriously dude, you lost.
@eskimo5274
2 жыл бұрын
Destiny does an amazing job as a moderator, he needs to do this more
@chebby111
2 жыл бұрын
First youtube video in this sphere of people screaming at each other where the moderator is doing a good job
@Matthew.Moulton
2 жыл бұрын
What is recorded before or after the verdict?
@jjjj-cy3vz
2 жыл бұрын
ok. i usually like you destiny despite disagreeing politically, but i stopped at about the 11 minute mark on this one. maybe rittenhouse rode into kenosha on a unicorn and started shooting fairy dust from his AR-15, but wtf does that have to do with reality? and what does him telling an angry mob that hes running to the police have to do with him being the only person threatened by rosenbaum during an event where he was the only witness present(even though this never happened, i watched the entire case and he only ever said that he was threatened alongside other people)? the only time i remember binger bringing up being stopped from impeaching kyles character was over his previous statement regarding looters from a video unrelated to the event.
@abelrosnovski574
2 жыл бұрын
Counterpoints is arguing for an inquisitorial system in place of the adversarial system but doesn't realize it. Does anybody else see it this way?
@joshuawinstead7621
2 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure he said that the court should investigate on behalf of the prosecution, did he? If he did, then yes, otherwise it sounds different to me.
@phoboskittym8500
2 жыл бұрын
Rittenhouse litterally told Gage that he shot someone when asked its litterally on the video...
@gabestrenk5471
2 жыл бұрын
Affirmative defenses have an initial burden of production -- basically produce sufficent evidence for the judge to give a jury instruction (often can be as easy as stating that you acted in self-defense), then burden shifts to state to prove that self-defense was not justifiable beyond a reasonable doubt.
@xaviersgiantego1453
2 жыл бұрын
I love Pisco's ability to anger people lmfao
@NateJones10
2 жыл бұрын
Ironically, part of what Connor is asking for (i.e. detailed written guides on the charges) is provided to the Jurors. Jurors are given plain english instructions on the charges and what each entails so they can reach a verdict on each charge. There is no "malarkey" in that sense. Defense affording expert witnesses are another matter.
@Kmg0
2 жыл бұрын
What's the game at 5:30?
@falseprophet1024
2 жыл бұрын
25:30 Did pisco tap destiny in at this point? Interesting format where you can tap in the 'moderator ' to help you..
@Karen_Marie
2 жыл бұрын
The prosecution shouldn't be trying to get a conviction on innocent people just because he can "tell a story" that the jury may buy. That is not justice. His job is to seek justice, not to seek conviction. When he's throwing around theories he knows are false, because maybe the jury will believe it and convict, that is not justice. Maybe it's legal but it's not justice.
@harryb12993
2 жыл бұрын
Actually a prosecutions job is not justice. It is trying to get a conviction, no matter their personal views on the defendant.
@Karen_Marie
2 жыл бұрын
@@harryb12993 that is not true. Because if they come across new evidence that exonerates the defendant they will dismiss charges as opposed to continue to seek a conviction. If their only job was conviction they would never drop charges upon learning new information or finding new evidence.
@harryb12993
2 жыл бұрын
@@Karen_Marie if it exonerates the defendant then they have no case and continuing would be a waste of time as they’d just lose. This doesn’t refute the point that all they are after is a conviction.
@erichooper2794
2 жыл бұрын
@@harryb12993 you mean like what happened in this case where they had multiple videos that exonerated Kyle?
@Karen_Marie
2 жыл бұрын
@@harryb12993 If their only job was to get a conviction, they would continue with the case anyway and try to spin the new evidence or impeach the new witness testimony in order to seek a conviction. Maybe they'd lose because their theory is just so ridiculous (just like in the Rittenhouse case) but they would nonetheless try if that were their one and only goal. Some unethical prosecutors who seek conviction over justice actually do do this, other more ethical prosecutors will dismiss the case as they should. As a society we recognize the value of seeking justice as a priority over that of seeking conviction and we expect our prosecutors not to attempt to convict simply because they have the skills and resources to tell the jury a bullshit but possibly convincing story.
@caseycoker1051
2 жыл бұрын
This was actually a pretty great conversation to listen to, even if it wasn't exactly productive overall. I like when all parties involved can get a bit heated but not end up hating each other in the end.
@andresbonifacio6359
2 жыл бұрын
Never hate your enemies, it clouds your judgement.
@E_Ten
2 жыл бұрын
5:37 This was not KR's statement alone. It was also testified to by Ryan Balch. KR certainly heard Ryan Balch's testimony but Pisco's statement is wrong here. There was another statement from Rosenbaum testified to by JoAnn Fiedler, which KR repeated in his own testimony a similar statement at the same time. KR also heard her testimony.
Пікірлер: 1,1 М.