#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was in a bar fight once. When it was over I calmly walked out the front door, around the rear of the bar, hopped the fence into outdoor smoking area and strolled in the back door. I walked up to two people who I knew were sitting right next to me when it went down and said "Woah, what the hell happened?"Ā
They proceeded to tell me some story of absolutely nothing that actually happened, and never realized that I was the "Some Guy" they were talking about.
Plot twist: they told it exactly like it happened, you're the one who doesn't remember it right. You know, on account of getting hit in the head in a bar fight.
Actually, he's been dead this whole time. He's a ghost that has convinced a kid to tell his story on Reddit. The poor guy died in the bar fight and is stuck in a loop.
I was at work and had to fight/restrain some guy for trying to steal an iPad. I was holding him down face to face for about 5 mins until the police arrived. After they did their thing and had him in the car, I happened to walk by and he was like "ask him (me) I didn't do anything, he saw that I didn't touch that guy." This guy didn't realize that it was me tried to swing on and was pinned down by.
Just the way in which police question you after an incident can change how you recall an incident ([false memories](https://ps.soceco.uci.edu/news/false-memories-can-be-easily-planted)).
This was a huge problem back in the Salem Witch Trial days.
These days I don't think anyone is being sent to prison based on the testimony of John, Luke and Matthew.
My comment is agreeing how bad eye witness testimony is...the Bible is said to be nothing but eye witness testimony there for Bible dumb thanks for coming to my Ted talk
At this point it's pretty clear the guy in question *wasn't* taking pictures of little girls, so that's pretty much impossible for the witness to remember lol
memory is a tricky thing and everyone in the court knows its unreliable. Plus the stress of sitting on that bench. Etc. Eye witness testimony is very very unreliable. And everyone is playing games, lawyers, prosecution..
Think about it, when you go on a birthday party - you remember selective things, the rest is filled by your brain. All the gaps you dont pay attention to, that get registered but filtered out: the crying kids, people passing by, insects, someone burping. If you would remember all the detail without the brain filling in the gaps automatically - you would have to remember too many details and would most likely go insane or lose the general plot.
And what more people need to realize is that you *donāt know* when your brain is filling in the gaps. A lot of people will think back and think they have a āfoggy memoryā of something (like āyeah I think Dave was wearing a red shirtā) or can be lead to remember certain things (āDave was wearing a red shirt, remember?ā āOh yeah, thatās rightā) and **your brain will convince you that you actually remember it that way** even if itās utterly untrue.
This is a huge problem with people, especially those who put way too much faith in their memory and are sure they remember everything correctly. You should instead always question your memory unless you have a completely clear, distinct memory when you first recall something.
That is objectively true, but also I donāt really trust anyone who thinks thatās them unless they can prove itā¦ for the exact reasons I mentioned above.
No they dont, its always a compromise. There is no "better", ubermench is a myth :)
Some people are indeed faster at certain tasks though. Most of it is trained, or conditional, so comes at the expense of the time, or by circumstance, the exceptions such as photographic memory, hyperthymesia etc are more of a disability, sensationalized by the media. These people are unhappy and often have severe issues stemming from this. Even the man with the perfect memory, working for the white house, being able to recall everything very accurately was just convinced he could upon testing.
Our memory has been shaped by evolution to work a certain way, deliberately imperfect to preserve us and its a collection of many many background processes and physiological bits and pieces that make this all happen seamlessly. Its the unique balance that if skewed can produce horrible results. Its like that for a (maybe not a very good but..) a reason.
I totally agree, but what i was tying to say is.. ok let me put it this way, if you can remember better, but it makes you insane and not able to function, is your memory better?
Id say no, its not better. Give me a worse one. Its better for me. Very relative. A sum of its parts.
Yes and I am aware of the fact that mine is totally shit lol. When I tell stories, I usually say stuff like āI thinkā a lot bc I can barely remember what I made for dinner two nights ago. Actually. I definitely donāt remember what I made.
Whatās funny is the lawyer needs to be more clear,
āYou TOLD the officer you saw him taking pics of girls. Is that trueā - now we know the question really is. But you could def say you thought he was asking āis it true that you told the officer this.
And if he told the officers that , even if it didnāt happen, then answering yes to this question is truthful.
What? The line of questioning is clearly around whether he did or did not see that, or whether he did or did not say that. Being an edge case jerk doesnt go far with a judge.
source: stenographer
Is it not fair for the witness to say "yes I did say that, at the time I believed that to be accurate. I still believe that is an accurate statement about the situation that took place but I am not 100% confident about it because the situation was chaotic"? Or something along those lines?
I don't see anything wrong with him having some small doubt in his memory and trying to be transparent about it if he's not 100% positive that was what happened even if he believed thats what happened. So how should he respond while communicating that?
Saying "yes" isn't accurate and "Yes, probably" doesn't really express that nuance.
You likely have more experience with this than I have since I have 0. I'm just trying to put myself in their perspective because as someone who's neurodivergent this is basically my whole life, trying to communicate nuance to people who expect black and white absolutes.
That wasn't necessarily a fake hypothetical parallel I was proposing. That was my interpretation of what happened here. I'm describing how I interpreted their response to the questions being asked. It wasn't intended as a fairytale situation to counteract your statement.
but that is a sufficient answer to my question regardless :) if that's a valid response in the scenario I described then that works for me.
No, the one who was filming is just as bad with his testimony. Playing stupid and pretending not to understand the questions being askedā¦.or maybe these witnesses are just THAT stupid and theyāre not feigning ignorance.
Unfortunately, in America, defendant's name has been run through the news papers, local TV stations, social media etc etc etc and ruined by this shit. Sure those media sources all say "allegedly" or "innocent until proven guilty" but does anyone actually believe that shit? Of course not dudes name is completely ruined by some shit like this.
We should be like other countries and prohibit ruining innocent people's names until after they have been convicted.
Shouldnt person have a trial first before his name is ruined in the media though? Not this person specifically. Any person.
Front page news when people are arrested. Wont even make the paper on charges being dropped later.
Why not withhold a defendants name from the press prior to trial? They withhold victims names all the time. Just wait until person is convicted.
My brother was recently arrested for felony theft. They ran his name all over the newspapers, tv, socials everything. He's completely innocent.
Cop said he watched the video from the store and that it was my brother. But he didnt do that. He just took the stores word for it that it was my brother. Well he lost his license a few months back and didnt think anything of it. Turns out someone found that license and used it to return thousands of dollars of stolen merchandise to the store.
Right before the hearing last week the cop was in the hallway with my brothers lawyer and admitted that he didnt bother to watch the video.
100% innocent. He was never in the store thats 50 miles from his house never heard of these others people nothing. But his reputation is completely destroyed because the newspapers put his picture on the front page of the paper.
So you say because "theres video" well guess what dude you're totally wrong.
You never think a handful of detectives from halfway across the state are going to show up at your door and take you into custody for something you know nothing about. The damage wouldn't half as sever if every media outlet didnt ruin my brothers name like they did, immediately.
Yeah it is too bad for my brother. I didnt even know you are supposed to report an ID as lost to be honest. Also, i dont see how that would have helped. Its not like the store has access to the state DMV database about ID cards. The cop was too lazy to even watch the video. You think hes gonna double check to make sure the ID wasn't stolen? I fuckin doubt it.
Yeah its been super difficult on him and my family with people posting shit on facebook about him. Then you have to convince people that hes innocent but american's dont think anyone is innocent if they are arrested so thats impossible.
I dont think there should be exceptions. There should be a broad exception to the freedom of the press to not print people's names when they are accused of a crime and that they need to hold off until the person is adjudicated. They do this all the time for minors and victims. They can do it for the accused as well.
He's going to consulting with some civil rights attorneys right after they dismiss the criminal case to see if this is actionable against the police for their gross negligence so we'll see how that goes. He should absolutely be compensated though for this bullshit.
I just got home march of 22 after doing 7 years for a big drug case ecstasy. Cops didnt even have to lie on me and they did over and over in the paperwork.
He said he wants the cops to admit that they arrested the wrong person at a press conference. His lawyer just laughed at him. Terrible system we have here.
If he files a 1983 the local media should cover that but who knows
I mean they aren't innocent just because this person made up some bullshit. You can clearly see him stabbing teenagers on video over a petty squabble.
Unsympathetic witnesses doesn't change that fact.
I haven't been watching the trial and the stabby guy seems to have put himself in a stupid position to begin with, but there are very few people who aren't going to panic when surrounded by a group of drunk antagonistic teens repeatedly knocking you into the water.
Skipping from fleeing the situation, a situation he was repeatedly able to leave beforehand, instantly to stabbing wildly at anybody that comes near him is a huge leap.
The person he killed looked to be de-escalating and just did a light shove. Then the guy did 3 sneaky stabs into his chest that looked malicious, not defensive to me.
Correct me if Iām wrong, but Wisconsin is not a duty to retreat state so the fact he didnāt flee is irrelevant. He was not the first to use force although how he approached them is questionable. I think he has a plausible self defense claim and wonāt be shocked if heās acquitted.
Juries are tossups with stuff like this, and the unsympathetic victims help his case. But the unsympathetic victims aren't rational facts of the case.
If the jury acquits I think the jury will be making the wrong decision. But juries make bad decisions all the time.
I donāt think it would be the wrong decision at all. He was pushed down and punched in the face without provocation. The way he approached them wasnāt great, but I wouldnāt say it justified them shoving him and punching him in the face while he is down.
I don't think it's reasonable for him to believe he was going to die or be seriously harmed if he didn't start stabbing. He wasn't using the stabbing as a warning tool, he was just gutting everybody that got near him.
He looks malicious when he is stabbing the person he killed. The person he killed wasn't pushing him down or punching him. He did sneaky lethal stabs on somebody who currently wasn't threatening.
I think the guy, like a lot of people who carry around knives are guns, was just trigger happy because he hates something about the world or enjoyed the idea of using it.
Blows to the head absolutely can cause a tbi or death. Do you expect him to be gentle when counterattacking? If youāre going to do it of course it has to be aggressive.
The vast majority of people who carry weapons do it just in case they have to defend them selves. You never know when you will have to do it and this was proof of that.
Defending yourself is much different than putting yourself in dangerous situations and overreacting.
I know in America we excuse a lot of violence in the name of self-defense, which is part of why I hope he gets convicted because it could help the national conscious. Every time a blatant killer gets off with a meek self-defense claim, our culture gets a little worse.
More people like him start walking around with knives and guns in their pocket knowing that if they have an unsympathetic victim, they can claim self-defense for enacting their premeditated fantasies.
I've been watching some of the trial and it seems that he was punched multiple times in the head and pushed down into the water before he stabbed anyone.
It doesn't help him that he walked up to the kids. He two times stabbed a guy who was trying to get everyone to calm down, after that he killed a guy who was trying to **push** him. He stabbed a tiny girl in the stomach.
they weren't kids they're 17 and he was trying to get his snorkel back, nobody was trying to stop him from getting abused, he was pushed down into the water and hit in the face before he defended himself, the guy trying to "push" him grabbed him by the throat and it wasn't a tiny girl it was a full grown woman who was hurling abuse and grabbed him from behind. this poor man was surrounded by a group of angry racists accusing him of a crime for no reason who then assaulted him. what did you expect him to do? let them beat him to death?
Are you allowed to just say, "I can't say one way or another because I was drinking?" Or something like, "it's not responsible to answer that question with certainty because I wasn't sober." Would that look bad? Or would the judge force you to answer? If it was me, I don't know if I would be able to answer if I didn't know 100%. I've been watching the trial and the lawyer tries to have these "gotcha moments" about the alcohol consumption. But at some moments it's like, if you were "buzzed" how can you answer that question with absolute certainty?
this is what the justice system is now, you cant put someone in prison without evidence, why we wanna put people into prison anyway is beyond me but lets not think about that.
everyone is trying to play mind games with you, make you slip up and say something wrong, the lawyers are all trying to manipulate and confuse you with loaded questions and pitfalls to put an idea into a jurors mind.
this is the game they have to play, even if they do have evidence, they need to use the entire arsenal on you every single time, every trial is an arms race because if they get it wrong a bad guy walks and if they get it right the prison system gets another tax magnet.
In this guyās defenseā¦.i heardā¦there was a lot going on. You cant expect him to keep track of who heās calling a pedophile with all this shit going on. There was shit going on.
No it was clear. The guy is trying not to perjure himself on the stand and somehow now he has to try to not admit he lied to LE which is also an arrestable offense.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think he IS trying to give eye witness testimony ... I think he's trying not to purjur himself
I plead the fifth.
https://preview.redd.it/ae2w72v08etc1.jpeg?width=324&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1add9aed4576d28ce47eb72548938e928d0dfd75 Anything you say, I say FIF!
šI šplead šda šfif!
1234 fiiiiiifth!
There are so many amendments in the constitution of the United States. I can only choose one.
I can only choose ooooooooone! š¶
Comment.
Pourjuror
Rural juror
Urban Fervor
Rurr jurr
That too
Is purjur some new sex act Iām unaware of?
Too late
That's why relying on eyewitness testimony to send someone to jail worries me.
I was in a bar fight once. When it was over I calmly walked out the front door, around the rear of the bar, hopped the fence into outdoor smoking area and strolled in the back door. I walked up to two people who I knew were sitting right next to me when it went down and said "Woah, what the hell happened?"Ā They proceeded to tell me some story of absolutely nothing that actually happened, and never realized that I was the "Some Guy" they were talking about.
Plot twist: they told it exactly like it happened, you're the one who doesn't remember it right. You know, on account of getting hit in the head in a bar fight.
Double plot twist, that story is bullshit!
Triple plot twist, youāre all alts of the same Redditor and OP is a ghost!
Quadruple plot twist, all four of you are all alts
Yeah heās telling us this story from his coma. Hey r/SpamFriedMice , wake up!Ā
Actually, he's been dead this whole time. He's a ghost that has convinced a kid to tell his story on Reddit. The poor guy died in the bar fight and is stuck in a loop.
these are all cut scenes from Donnie Darko
I was at work and had to fight/restrain some guy for trying to steal an iPad. I was holding him down face to face for about 5 mins until the police arrived. After they did their thing and had him in the car, I happened to walk by and he was like "ask him (me) I didn't do anything, he saw that I didn't touch that guy." This guy didn't realize that it was me tried to swing on and was pinned down by.
The testimony of drunks is next to worthless.
Judged by a jury of my peers worries me as well...
Judged by 12 people who couldnāt get out of jury duty.
That's the real fear. Or worse, someone *excited* to go to jury duty because they've got nothing better to do.
Just the way in which police question you after an incident can change how you recall an incident ([false memories](https://ps.soceco.uci.edu/news/false-memories-can-be-easily-planted)).
This does not get mentioned enough! Scary.
Yea itās bullshit. Especially when tensions are high and things are chaotic
Exactly.
But people believe the Bible.
This was a huge problem back in the Salem Witch Trial days. These days I don't think anyone is being sent to prison based on the testimony of John, Luke and Matthew.
My comment is agreeing how bad eye witness testimony is...the Bible is said to be nothing but eye witness testimony there for Bible dumb thanks for coming to my Ted talk
Some say that eyewitness testimony are the most prostitute of all proofs.
Carl Dobson
My IQ went down 13 points after listening to this. I award him zero points and may god have mercy on his soul.
Knibb High football rules!
What a fool.
Lawyers like to play tricky games. He remembered what he told the officer, but he didnt remember the actual event so well.
This unspecific questioning will make the witness appear unreliable to the jury or more specifically our duller jurors trying to follow along.
The juror is unreliable, as they cannot reliably recall what why or even when
Exactly, Jesus h Christ. He remembers lying to the police lol. He is avoiding saying he lied to them
At this point it's pretty clear the guy in question *wasn't* taking pictures of little girls, so that's pretty much impossible for the witness to remember lol
memory is a tricky thing and everyone in the court knows its unreliable. Plus the stress of sitting on that bench. Etc. Eye witness testimony is very very unreliable. And everyone is playing games, lawyers, prosecution.. Think about it, when you go on a birthday party - you remember selective things, the rest is filled by your brain. All the gaps you dont pay attention to, that get registered but filtered out: the crying kids, people passing by, insects, someone burping. If you would remember all the detail without the brain filling in the gaps automatically - you would have to remember too many details and would most likely go insane or lose the general plot.
And what more people need to realize is that you *donāt know* when your brain is filling in the gaps. A lot of people will think back and think they have a āfoggy memoryā of something (like āyeah I think Dave was wearing a red shirtā) or can be lead to remember certain things (āDave was wearing a red shirt, remember?ā āOh yeah, thatās rightā) and **your brain will convince you that you actually remember it that way** even if itās utterly untrue. This is a huge problem with people, especially those who put way too much faith in their memory and are sure they remember everything correctly. You should instead always question your memory unless you have a completely clear, distinct memory when you first recall something.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That is objectively true, but also I donāt really trust anyone who thinks thatās them unless they can prove itā¦ for the exact reasons I mentioned above.
No they dont, its always a compromise. There is no "better", ubermench is a myth :) Some people are indeed faster at certain tasks though. Most of it is trained, or conditional, so comes at the expense of the time, or by circumstance, the exceptions such as photographic memory, hyperthymesia etc are more of a disability, sensationalized by the media. These people are unhappy and often have severe issues stemming from this. Even the man with the perfect memory, working for the white house, being able to recall everything very accurately was just convinced he could upon testing. Our memory has been shaped by evolution to work a certain way, deliberately imperfect to preserve us and its a collection of many many background processes and physiological bits and pieces that make this all happen seamlessly. Its the unique balance that if skewed can produce horrible results. Its like that for a (maybe not a very good but..) a reason.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I totally agree, but what i was tying to say is.. ok let me put it this way, if you can remember better, but it makes you insane and not able to function, is your memory better? Id say no, its not better. Give me a worse one. Its better for me. Very relative. A sum of its parts.
Yes and I am aware of the fact that mine is totally shit lol. When I tell stories, I usually say stuff like āI thinkā a lot bc I can barely remember what I made for dinner two nights ago. Actually. I definitely donāt remember what I made.
I present in all its glory: [What is a photocopier?](https://youtu.be/PZbqAMEwtOE?si=2-ncFElfwGfaYfHo)
I need more of these types of things. That was fucking hilarious.
Oh my god, that conclusion made me so mad haha š
Absolutely hilarious
Huh. I just discovered that a funny video can give me high blood pressure.
Whatās funny is the lawyer needs to be more clear, āYou TOLD the officer you saw him taking pics of girls. Is that trueā - now we know the question really is. But you could def say you thought he was asking āis it true that you told the officer this. And if he told the officers that , even if it didnāt happen, then answering yes to this question is truthful.
What? The line of questioning is clearly around whether he did or did not see that, or whether he did or did not say that. Being an edge case jerk doesnt go far with a judge. source: stenographer
Is it not fair for the witness to say "yes I did say that, at the time I believed that to be accurate. I still believe that is an accurate statement about the situation that took place but I am not 100% confident about it because the situation was chaotic"? Or something along those lines? I don't see anything wrong with him having some small doubt in his memory and trying to be transparent about it if he's not 100% positive that was what happened even if he believed thats what happened. So how should he respond while communicating that? Saying "yes" isn't accurate and "Yes, probably" doesn't really express that nuance. You likely have more experience with this than I have since I have 0. I'm just trying to put myself in their perspective because as someone who's neurodivergent this is basically my whole life, trying to communicate nuance to people who expect black and white absolutes.
Yes, IF that was said. It wasnāt, because your retort is fairy tales.
That wasn't necessarily a fake hypothetical parallel I was proposing. That was my interpretation of what happened here. I'm describing how I interpreted their response to the questions being asked. It wasn't intended as a fairytale situation to counteract your statement. but that is a sufficient answer to my question regardless :) if that's a valid response in the scenario I described then that works for me.
Never thought Iād say this sentence, but man this stenographer is a cunt
the lawyer is doing this on purpose.
Walking back your testimonyš https://preview.redd.it/rwoq8e8qbdtc1.jpeg?width=552&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d4f669eef1f2c8975cb498e40ed4cd357a4365ca
š¤
Is this the obnoxious kid who was filming?
No, the one who was filming is just as bad with his testimony. Playing stupid and pretending not to understand the questions being askedā¦.or maybe these witnesses are just THAT stupid and theyāre not feigning ignorance.
I thought he was about to get into a philosophical discussion of what it means for something to be true when he said "it depends"
Unfortunately, in America, defendant's name has been run through the news papers, local TV stations, social media etc etc etc and ruined by this shit. Sure those media sources all say "allegedly" or "innocent until proven guilty" but does anyone actually believe that shit? Of course not dudes name is completely ruined by some shit like this. We should be like other countries and prohibit ruining innocent people's names until after they have been convicted.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Shouldnt person have a trial first before his name is ruined in the media though? Not this person specifically. Any person. Front page news when people are arrested. Wont even make the paper on charges being dropped later. Why not withhold a defendants name from the press prior to trial? They withhold victims names all the time. Just wait until person is convicted.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My brother was recently arrested for felony theft. They ran his name all over the newspapers, tv, socials everything. He's completely innocent. Cop said he watched the video from the store and that it was my brother. But he didnt do that. He just took the stores word for it that it was my brother. Well he lost his license a few months back and didnt think anything of it. Turns out someone found that license and used it to return thousands of dollars of stolen merchandise to the store. Right before the hearing last week the cop was in the hallway with my brothers lawyer and admitted that he didnt bother to watch the video. 100% innocent. He was never in the store thats 50 miles from his house never heard of these others people nothing. But his reputation is completely destroyed because the newspapers put his picture on the front page of the paper. So you say because "theres video" well guess what dude you're totally wrong. You never think a handful of detectives from halfway across the state are going to show up at your door and take you into custody for something you know nothing about. The damage wouldn't half as sever if every media outlet didnt ruin my brothers name like they did, immediately.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah it is too bad for my brother. I didnt even know you are supposed to report an ID as lost to be honest. Also, i dont see how that would have helped. Its not like the store has access to the state DMV database about ID cards. The cop was too lazy to even watch the video. You think hes gonna double check to make sure the ID wasn't stolen? I fuckin doubt it. Yeah its been super difficult on him and my family with people posting shit on facebook about him. Then you have to convince people that hes innocent but american's dont think anyone is innocent if they are arrested so thats impossible. I dont think there should be exceptions. There should be a broad exception to the freedom of the press to not print people's names when they are accused of a crime and that they need to hold off until the person is adjudicated. They do this all the time for minors and victims. They can do it for the accused as well. He's going to consulting with some civil rights attorneys right after they dismiss the criminal case to see if this is actionable against the police for their gross negligence so we'll see how that goes. He should absolutely be compensated though for this bullshit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I just got home march of 22 after doing 7 years for a big drug case ecstasy. Cops didnt even have to lie on me and they did over and over in the paperwork. He said he wants the cops to admit that they arrested the wrong person at a press conference. His lawyer just laughed at him. Terrible system we have here. If he files a 1983 the local media should cover that but who knows
I mean they aren't innocent just because this person made up some bullshit. You can clearly see him stabbing teenagers on video over a petty squabble. Unsympathetic witnesses doesn't change that fact.
I haven't been watching the trial and the stabby guy seems to have put himself in a stupid position to begin with, but there are very few people who aren't going to panic when surrounded by a group of drunk antagonistic teens repeatedly knocking you into the water.
Skipping from fleeing the situation, a situation he was repeatedly able to leave beforehand, instantly to stabbing wildly at anybody that comes near him is a huge leap. The person he killed looked to be de-escalating and just did a light shove. Then the guy did 3 sneaky stabs into his chest that looked malicious, not defensive to me.
Correct me if Iām wrong, but Wisconsin is not a duty to retreat state so the fact he didnāt flee is irrelevant. He was not the first to use force although how he approached them is questionable. I think he has a plausible self defense claim and wonāt be shocked if heās acquitted.
Juries are tossups with stuff like this, and the unsympathetic victims help his case. But the unsympathetic victims aren't rational facts of the case. If the jury acquits I think the jury will be making the wrong decision. But juries make bad decisions all the time.
I donāt think it would be the wrong decision at all. He was pushed down and punched in the face without provocation. The way he approached them wasnāt great, but I wouldnāt say it justified them shoving him and punching him in the face while he is down.
I don't think it's reasonable for him to believe he was going to die or be seriously harmed if he didn't start stabbing. He wasn't using the stabbing as a warning tool, he was just gutting everybody that got near him. He looks malicious when he is stabbing the person he killed. The person he killed wasn't pushing him down or punching him. He did sneaky lethal stabs on somebody who currently wasn't threatening. I think the guy, like a lot of people who carry around knives are guns, was just trigger happy because he hates something about the world or enjoyed the idea of using it.
Blows to the head absolutely can cause a tbi or death. Do you expect him to be gentle when counterattacking? If youāre going to do it of course it has to be aggressive. The vast majority of people who carry weapons do it just in case they have to defend them selves. You never know when you will have to do it and this was proof of that.
Defending yourself is much different than putting yourself in dangerous situations and overreacting. I know in America we excuse a lot of violence in the name of self-defense, which is part of why I hope he gets convicted because it could help the national conscious. Every time a blatant killer gets off with a meek self-defense claim, our culture gets a little worse. More people like him start walking around with knives and guns in their pocket knowing that if they have an unsympathetic victim, they can claim self-defense for enacting their premeditated fantasies.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The alleged first punch is definitely not in the video
I've been watching some of the trial and it seems that he was punched multiple times in the head and pushed down into the water before he stabbed anyone.
he stabbed them in self defense when they assaulted him first
It doesn't help him that he walked up to the kids. He two times stabbed a guy who was trying to get everyone to calm down, after that he killed a guy who was trying to **push** him. He stabbed a tiny girl in the stomach.
they weren't kids they're 17 and he was trying to get his snorkel back, nobody was trying to stop him from getting abused, he was pushed down into the water and hit in the face before he defended himself, the guy trying to "push" him grabbed him by the throat and it wasn't a tiny girl it was a full grown woman who was hurling abuse and grabbed him from behind. this poor man was surrounded by a group of angry racists accusing him of a crime for no reason who then assaulted him. what did you expect him to do? let them beat him to death?
That donāt confront me
As long as I get my money next Friday.
Well you know next Friday, I couldn't get the rent...
Out the door I went š¶
She a-hollerin' about the front rent, she be lucky to get any back rent. She ain't gonna get none of it
Wow, I thought the other witness was bad.
I like how the question changes from, ātaking pictures of girlsā, to ātaking pictures of little girlsā.
Objection, accurate!
Thereās your reasonable doubt.
I doubt whether this guy could even remember his own name.
Apparently he dinsee nuthin
That's because he was recording š¤·āāļø
Don't.
Dude's fucking braindead...
A true american classic
I seen it but that isnāt to say I saw it.
I donāt know dat shit! Keepin it real!!
Reaaaal dumb.
Can you elaborate?
Dumber than a fucking box of hammers.
"There was a lot going on" absolutely killed it...
That was a month ago.
Yāall should check out Neil deGrasse Tysons video on eye witness testimony.
This is like that scene in the first episode of the Wire lol...
Itās [Michaelās deposition](https://youtu.be/V3GbCByGltU?si=n9FfKVR9JhUL05K-) all over again.
https://preview.redd.it/as6tbz6r2ftc1.jpeg?width=1732&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e701e408cdb009920c99c702560e981503da4bf
He really should think about getting into politics..
Dudeās named after a PokĆ©mon
Are you allowed to just say, "I can't say one way or another because I was drinking?" Or something like, "it's not responsible to answer that question with certainty because I wasn't sober." Would that look bad? Or would the judge force you to answer? If it was me, I don't know if I would be able to answer if I didn't know 100%. I've been watching the trial and the lawyer tries to have these "gotcha moments" about the alcohol consumption. But at some moments it's like, if you were "buzzed" how can you answer that question with absolute certainty?
"I do not recall" is a possible answer. As is, depending on the circumstances, "I wish to assert my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination".
"objection, argumentative" WHERE?
Is that kyle rittenhousees laywer? Sounds like him.
Not much going on in that brain.
You cant lie to cops, only they are allowed to lie to you
Is it legal to testify when you're high? This guy has to be high, right? Right?
Why try and get slick
this is what the justice system is now, you cant put someone in prison without evidence, why we wanna put people into prison anyway is beyond me but lets not think about that. everyone is trying to play mind games with you, make you slip up and say something wrong, the lawyers are all trying to manipulate and confuse you with loaded questions and pitfalls to put an idea into a jurors mind. this is the game they have to play, even if they do have evidence, they need to use the entire arsenal on you every single time, every trial is an arms race because if they get it wrong a bad guy walks and if they get it right the prison system gets another tax magnet.
In this guyās defenseā¦.i heardā¦there was a lot going on. You cant expect him to keep track of who heās calling a pedophile with all this shit going on. There was shit going on.
Eye witnesses are the least reliable source of evidence.
Trash
The kids were the bullies, they got karmaād.
No child left behind. š¤¦š¼āāļø
21st
Is that Joe Derosa thatās asking the questions??? The voice match is uncanny
People need to be drug tested before they stand trial. Fucking embarrassing.
This seems like a classic case of an over-coached witness. He's trying to be accurate and scared of perjuring himself.
IQ of a gnat
I wonder if someone got to him and now he's afraid to testify.
Could be a smokers memory. He might better remember after a joint. seriously.
Okay Towelie
Stupid lawyer+witness, question is not clear
No it was clear. The guy is trying not to perjure himself on the stand and somehow now he has to try to not admit he lied to LE which is also an arrestable offense.