Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the defendant and the lawyers have to sit in the courtroom all day, every day until a verdict is announced?

I don't think so. I think the normal practice is for the court to call the various lawyers when the jury reports that they have a verdict. The lawyers and their clients are then given a little time to get to the courthouse.

It depends on the judge. I had one judge who made us wait. Courtroom benches are super uncomfortable…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the drone video was made public when it was aired on Tucker Carlson’s show during an appearance with Rittenhouse’s original counsel. That means Rittenhouse’s current counsel surely knew the video existed and could have sought out their own copy directly from the drone operator. The prosecution obtained a copy from the drone operator during the trial and then transferred it to defense counsel. Once the prosecution realized that the defense had a lower quality version, they noticed defense counsel and gave them the opportunity to come collect the original via USB.

And in the end, how did this actually affect the trial? Did the lower resolution somehow conceal or misrepresent what the uncompressed video showed? How would it have affected the defense if they had received the uncompressed version originally? And if it was such key evidence to them, why did they not seek it out from the drone operator pre-trial?

It could have. The low res could show blurred movement and the jury assumes it’s him pointing the rifle, while the hi res clearly shows that it’s his arm moving. The problem is you don’t know for sure. "Could be interpreted different" is a huge issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the drone video was made public when it was aired on Tucker Carlson’s show during an appearance with Rittenhouse’s original counsel. That means Rittenhouse’s current counsel surely knew the video existed and could have sought out their own copy directly from the drone operator. The prosecution obtained a copy from the drone operator during the trial and then transferred it to defense counsel. Once the prosecution realized that the defense had a lower quality version, they noticed defense counsel and gave them the opportunity to come collect the original via USB.

And in the end, how did this actually affect the trial? Did the lower resolution somehow conceal or misrepresent what the uncompressed video showed? How would it have affected the defense if they had received the uncompressed version originally? And if it was such key evidence to them, why did they not seek it out from the drone operator pre-trial?

It could have. The low res could show blurred movement and the jury assumes it’s him pointing the rifle, while the hi res clearly shows that it’s his arm moving. The problem is you don’t know for sure. "Could be interpreted different" is a huge issue.

And that’s what I’m asking - what is the defense’s explanation for why this was prejudicial? The hi-res version was shown in court. What would the defense have done differently?

[Anonymous]

Pizzagate boy tweeted a copy of the motion for mistrial. It’s pretty poorly written. Zero explanation of how the drone video issue affected the defense.

[Anonymous]

Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The clearer drone video was shown during the trial. Apparently the defense team didn’t even look at their copy of the video until days later, after evidence had closed. But now they’re trying to claim they would have approached the defense differently if they had the higher resolution version. It’s such a dumb argument. The defense is scared trying to drum up grounds for appeal.

Most likely the judge will let this sit until the jury returns a verdict. If he’s acquitted or it’s a hung jury, he’ll deny the motion as moot. If he’s convicted, the judge probably still denies the motion so the verdict can stand if the defense loses on appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's talk some more facts...

Victim Huber ran toward Rittenhouse and tried to disarm him, you know, since he had just killed an innocent person. Huber was trying to protect other innocent people after a rwnj had just murdered someone.

As Huber tried to disarm thug Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse shot him. There is no evidence that Huber attacked that creep Rittenhouse with his skateboard. Kyle lies a lot.

Except for the video of Huber hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The drone video is bad for the defense because it shows Rittenhouse waving his gun around at people before the shooting. This is evidence of provocation, which negates self-defense as a defense. It also undermines the defense’s claim that Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel of the gun when he was shot (which would have made a stronger case for Rittenhouse believing he was in imminent danger).

The defense knew what the unedited footage looked like because they’d seen it before - Rittenhouse’s original counsel gave it to Fox News. What they did not think about or expect was what the video would look like to the jury when zoomed in to the key moments and slowed down so the jury could get a good look at the video. The defense’s motion for mistrial implicitly argues that if they’d known exactly how the prosecution was going to use the video (which the prosecution was not required to disclose in advance) and what it would show, they wouldn’t have presented false arguments about the events of that night (that Rittenhouse never pointed the gun at anyone until he shot Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum was close enough to grab the gun barrel) as part of their defense strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The drone video is bad for the defense because it shows Rittenhouse waving his gun around at people before the shooting. This is evidence of provocation, which negates self-defense as a defense. It also undermines the defense’s claim that Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel of the gun when he was shot (which would have made a stronger case for Rittenhouse believing he was in imminent danger).

The defense knew what the unedited footage looked like because they’d seen it before - Rittenhouse’s original counsel gave it to Fox News. What they did not think about or expect was what the video would look like to the jury when zoomed in to the key moments and slowed down so the jury could get a good look at the video. The defense’s motion for mistrial implicitly argues that if they’d known exactly how the prosecution was going to use the video (which the prosecution was not required to disclose in advance) and what it would show, they wouldn’t have presented false arguments about the events of that night (that Rittenhouse never pointed the gun at anyone until he shot Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum was close enough to grab the gun barrel) as part of their defense strategy.

It also suggests that Rittenhouse had options other than shooting Rosenbaum given the wide open space he had to flee and the lead he had on Rosenbaum before he kept stopping to point the gun. Goes to whether he exhausted all options before shooting Rosenbaum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The clearer drone video was shown during the trial. Apparently the defense team didn’t even look at their copy of the video until days later, after evidence had closed. But now they’re trying to claim they would have approached the defense differently if they had the higher resolution version. It’s such a dumb argument. The defense is scared trying to drum up grounds for appeal.

Most likely the judge will let this sit until the jury returns a verdict. If he’s acquitted or it’s a hung jury, he’ll deny the motion as moot. If he’s convicted, the judge probably still denies the motion so the verdict can stand if the defense loses on appeal.

And so now the defense is trying to demand a mistrial because of their own negligence and incompetence? Sheesh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The drone video is bad for the defense because it shows Rittenhouse waving his gun around at people before the shooting. This is evidence of provocation, which negates self-defense as a defense. It also undermines the defense’s claim that Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel of the gun when he was shot (which would have made a stronger case for Rittenhouse believing he was in imminent danger).

The defense knew what the unedited footage looked like because they’d seen it before - Rittenhouse’s original counsel gave it to Fox News. What they did not think about or expect was what the video would look like to the jury when zoomed in to the key moments and slowed down so the jury could get a good look at the video. The defense’s motion for mistrial implicitly argues that if they’d known exactly how the prosecution was going to use the video (which the prosecution was not required to disclose in advance) and what it would show, they wouldn’t have presented false arguments about the events of that night (that Rittenhouse never pointed the gun at anyone until he shot Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum was close enough to grab the gun barrel) as part of their defense strategy.

Woo boy.

A long hinges on that... can someone still shoot and kill someone "in self defense" when it was they who provoked it in the first place? That was the whole issue with Zimmerman too - extremely problematic. Basically gives people a license to kill anyone they want. All you have to do is start a fight with someone, and when they react, shoot them and claim self defense. Legalized murder. The right wing has really made a bad move with this kind of legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The drone video is bad for the defense because it shows Rittenhouse waving his gun around at people before the shooting. This is evidence of provocation, which negates self-defense as a defense. It also undermines the defense’s claim that Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel of the gun when he was shot (which would have made a stronger case for Rittenhouse believing he was in imminent danger).

The defense knew what the unedited footage looked like because they’d seen it before - Rittenhouse’s original counsel gave it to Fox News. What they did not think about or expect was what the video would look like to the jury when zoomed in to the key moments and slowed down so the jury could get a good look at the video. The defense’s motion for mistrial implicitly argues that if they’d known exactly how the prosecution was going to use the video (which the prosecution was not required to disclose in advance) and what it would show, they wouldn’t have presented false arguments about the events of that night (that Rittenhouse never pointed the gun at anyone until he shot Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum was close enough to grab the gun barrel) as part of their defense strategy.

Woo boy.

A long hinges on that... can someone still shoot and kill someone "in self defense" when it was they who provoked it in the first place? That was the whole issue with Zimmerman too - extremely problematic. Basically gives people a license to kill anyone they want. All you have to do is start a fight with someone, and when they react, shoot them and claim self defense. Legalized murder. The right wing has really made a bad move with this kind of legislation.

No, you can’t claim self-defense in an incident you provoked. That was part of the instructions to the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The drone video is bad for the defense because it shows Rittenhouse waving his gun around at people before the shooting. This is evidence of provocation, which negates self-defense as a defense. It also undermines the defense’s claim that Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel of the gun when he was shot (which would have made a stronger case for Rittenhouse believing he was in imminent danger).

The defense knew what the unedited footage looked like because they’d seen it before - Rittenhouse’s original counsel gave it to Fox News. What they did not think about or expect was what the video would look like to the jury when zoomed in to the key moments and slowed down so the jury could get a good look at the video. The defense’s motion for mistrial implicitly argues that if they’d known exactly how the prosecution was going to use the video (which the prosecution was not required to disclose in advance) and what it would show, they wouldn’t have presented false arguments about the events of that night (that Rittenhouse never pointed the gun at anyone until he shot Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum was close enough to grab the gun barrel) as part of their defense strategy.

Woo boy.

A long hinges on that... can someone still shoot and kill someone "in self defense" when it was they who provoked it in the first place? That was the whole issue with Zimmerman too - extremely problematic. Basically gives people a license to kill anyone they want. All you have to do is start a fight with someone, and when they react, shoot them and claim self defense. Legalized murder. The right wing has really made a bad move with this kind of legislation.

No, you can’t claim self-defense in an incident you provoked. That was part of the instructions to the jury.

Cool. Then Rittenhouse is guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds to me like the defense could've raised this issue before the case was given to the jury. They probably waited to see whether the jury deliberated long enough to suggest their client was in trouble before filing a b.s. motion.

Um, they didn’t know there was a higher res version until yesterday.

Dude, they filed the motion so Monday, so clearly they knew earlier than yesterday.

My bad but it changes nothing. The material was withheld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the clearer drone video exculpatory? Does it show anything new that wasn't already shown?

If not then the the whole thing is completely irrelevant.

The clearer drone video was shown during the trial. Apparently the defense team didn’t even look at their copy of the video until days later, after evidence had closed. But now they’re trying to claim they would have approached the defense differently if they had the higher resolution version. It’s such a dumb argument. The defense is scared trying to drum up grounds for appeal.

Most likely the judge will let this sit until the jury returns a verdict. If he’s acquitted or it’s a hung jury, he’ll deny the motion as moot. If he’s convicted, the judge probably still denies the motion so the verdict can stand if the defense loses on appeal.

And so now the defense is trying to demand a mistrial because of their own negligence and incompetence? Sheesh

It's the repugnicant way!