Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you read any of the posts above?

[Anonymous]

Hope they convict this vigilante POS and make an example of him.

[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

Pretty much. But this is also par for the course in any major criminal trial. The defense tries to create appealable issues on all of the truly damaging evidence so they can try to get a conviction overturned. Mistrial motions are pretty standard fare in a case like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here, because R plead self defense, the prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is not so convince them they R did it. R stipulated to that by pleading self defense. Given all the strife and violence in the videos, I think convincing them beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense is an incredibly high bar.

But force must be proportionate to the risk. Rosenbaum had not used any force against Rittenhouse, was not armed with a weapon.

A skateboard is not a proportionate weapon to an AR-15.

Escalation of force and proportionate response are concepts that must be met when making self-defense claims. His claim of self-defense is weakest with Rosenbaum.

Hmmm......

[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

One has to wonder.......

The prosecution had used a Dropbox to share evidence with the defense throughout the process.... EXCEPT for the drone video. For this, they texted the video which was fuzzy and not really usable.
Why change the process for sharing evidence for this piece of evidence????
As a result, the defense could not use this evidence during the trial.

[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 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

One has to wonder.......

The prosecution had used a Dropbox to share evidence with the defense throughout the process.... EXCEPT for the drone video. For this, they texted the video which was fuzzy and not really usable.
Why change the process for sharing evidence for this piece of evidence????
As a result, the defense could not use this evidence during the trial.

Note that defense counsel didn’t ask for it to be sent via DropBox either, they were totally fine with the phone to phone transfer at the time. Probably because everyone was in the courtroom when the defense asked for it and the defense didn’t actually expect the video file itself to be significant to their preparation since they had already seen the video. It’s not like this was new evidence they had no awareness of previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here, because R plead self defense, the prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is not so convince them they R did it. R stipulated to that by pleading self defense. Given all the strife and violence in the videos, I think convincing them beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense is an incredibly high bar.

But force must be proportionate to the risk. Rosenbaum had not used any force against Rittenhouse, was not armed with a weapon.

A skateboard is not a proportionate weapon to an AR-15.

Escalation of force and proportionate response are concepts that must be met when making self-defense claims. His claim of self-defense is weakest with Rosenbaum.

Hmmm......

If you know someone has a severe peanut allergy, you could kill them with peanut butter, but a jar of peanut butter that you happened to be carrying still wouldn’t be considered a weapon proportional to a stranger pointing an AR-15 at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

One has to wonder.......

The prosecution had used a Dropbox to share evidence with the defense throughout the process.... EXCEPT for the drone video. For this, they texted the video which was fuzzy and not really usable.
Why change the process for sharing evidence for this piece of evidence????
As a result, the defense could not use this evidence during the trial.

Note that defense counsel didn’t ask for it to be sent via DropBox either, they were totally fine with the phone to phone transfer at the time. Probably because everyone was in the courtroom when the defense asked for it and the defense didn’t actually expect the video file itself to be significant to their preparation since they had already seen the video. It’s not like this was new evidence they had no awareness of previously.

Also, it is untrue that the defense couldn’t use the evidence during the trial. The prosecution had already had their version it admitted into evidence and shown during the trial before the defense started its case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hope they convict this vigilante POS and make an example of him.

+1000 and if they don’t I hope an example gets made of what happens when they don’t convict white supremacist POS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here, because R plead self defense, the prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is not so convince them they R did it. R stipulated to that by pleading self defense. Given all the strife and violence in the videos, I think convincing them beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense is an incredibly high bar.

But force must be proportionate to the risk. Rosenbaum had not used any force against Rittenhouse, was not armed with a weapon.

A skateboard is not a proportionate weapon to an AR-15.

Escalation of force and proportionate response are concepts that must be met when making self-defense claims. His claim of self-defense is weakest with Rosenbaum.

Hmmm......

You seem confused on facts and timeline.

Rosenbaum wasn't the one with the skateboard. That was Huber. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant, which he quite ineffectually threw after Rittenhouse was seen provoking and waving his AR around. After that, Rosenbaum was unarmed. That's when Rittenhouse shot him.

Huber didn't show up with the skateboard until after people realized Rittenhouse was running around waving his AR at people and after he had already murdered Rosenbaum.

Rittenhouse was responsible for the escalation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope they convict this vigilante POS and make an example of him.

+1000 and if they don’t I hope an example gets made of what happens when they don’t convict white supremacist POS.

Wow.
Seems almost like jury intimidation there, Skippy.

I hope he is found not guilty of all charges. You know... since it was self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here, because R plead self defense, the prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is not so convince them they R did it. R stipulated to that by pleading self defense. Given all the strife and violence in the videos, I think convincing them beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense is an incredibly high bar.

But force must be proportionate to the risk. Rosenbaum had not used any force against Rittenhouse, was not armed with a weapon.

A skateboard is not a proportionate weapon to an AR-15.

Escalation of force and proportionate response are concepts that must be met when making self-defense claims. His claim of self-defense is weakest with Rosenbaum.

Hmmm......

You seem confused on facts and timeline.

Rosenbaum wasn't the one with the skateboard. That was Huber. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant, which he quite ineffectually threw after Rittenhouse was seen provoking and waving his AR around. After that, Rosenbaum was unarmed. That's when Rittenhouse shot him.

Huber didn't show up with the skateboard until after people realized Rittenhouse was running around waving his AR at people and after he had already murdered Rosenbaum.

Rittenhouse was responsible for the escalation.

Oh, that's right. Rosenbaum is the one who reached for the gun. And, then was shot.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Anonymous]

Is a mistrial heard before the same judge? Could a mistrial be the better outcome in this case if not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope they convict this vigilante POS and make an example of him.

+1000 and if they don’t I hope an example gets made of what happens when they don’t convict white supremacist POS.

Wow you know little about this case apparently. It was self defense. The perpetrators attacked him and had criminal records.

Not only that, he isn't a white supremacist. You may want to educate yourself, or watch real news instead of tabloid news. Hope this helps you:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiHoaPKl6L0AhVRpZ4KHY53A8QQ0PADKAB6BAgLEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2021%2F11%2F17%2F10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine%2F&usg=AOvVaw3D7Df2pNg43ctNohkpr7Dd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope they convict this vigilante POS and make an example of him.

+1000 and if they don’t I hope an example gets made of what happens when they don’t convict white supremacist POS.

Wow.
Seems almost like jury intimidation there, Skippy.

I hope he is found not guilty of all charges. You know... since it was self defense.

Facts don’t matter when you have a political agenda!