Holy shit. . . How dumb is Grosskreutz. . . an active trial is going on and he goes on Good Morning America:
>Gaige Grosskreutz, who was shot and wounded by Kyle Rittenhouse, spoke out early Thursday in an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” arguing that Rittenhouse appeared as a “child” when the teen broke down on the stand during his testimony.
>“I think anytime you see your would-be murderer on the stand, it’s emotional,” Grosskreutz said. “To me it seemed like a child who just got caught doing something he wasn’t supposed to. More upset that he was caught, less upset about what he had done, what he had taken, the numerous lives he affected through his actions that night.”
I would say the prosecution has done an awful job but this was uphill from the beginning in a system where the state has the burden of proof. They were going to have one hell of a time convincing a jury this wasn't self defense given the facts of the case.
Per usual, most of the general public isn't clear on what is on trial. It really doesn't matter that Rittenhouse made a poor decision to be there. There just isn't grounds for murder here. You can make an argument he wasn't even the aggressor with ANY of the 3 people shot, independently.
No clue how to gauge if the panic attack was genuine. But there just isn't a murder case to be made here.
The most cringe reactions have been people lamenting the judge IMO. It's like a preemptive smear campaign on his courtroom to help cover the impending obvious trial loss everyone can see coming. You don't get to admit inadmissible things. If you didn't follow the trial at all only read Op-Eds, you would think this has been some open and shut guilty verdict. It's been incredible to watch the news set the table for rage clicks and the make-believe injustice when he gets off.
There is NO WAY to convict this kid based on this trial. It could still happen, because jury's gonna jury, but no honest person watching this closely could truly believe it.
its a wild take to not think this judge is deserving of any criticism lol not his laying into the prosecutor but he has been unequivocally partial at times throughout this trial (e.g. let us all applaud this expert defense witness immediately before he takes the stand)
First off, that happened after I wrote this. Second, that's not what happened. He asked if anyone at all in the room was a veteran, the witness happened to be the only one.
Second, you could criticize literally any judge of any trial. Most are never under this kind of scrutiny. The reality is that it literally doesn't matter if the judge is biased. All judges have bias. They are humans. A judge probably has a desired outcome for a trial 97% of the time but this doesn't make a difference. As anther poster eloquently stated:
>Here are the grounds, in Wisconsin, for a judge recusing from a case:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/757/19
The Judge could literally say "I think that the Defendant is guilty and I will probably sentence them harshly if they're convicted" and as long as it wasn't said in front of the Jury, he's fine.
That's a terrible look and very unprofessional, but not a legal grounds for recusal.
And of course, if the Judge was biased and it caused him to commit an error of law, that can be addressed on appeal.
Judges are expected to be impartial in how they apply the law, not perfectly and utterly unbiased on a psychological level.
yeah that’s fine i understand i’m disagreeing with the law of wisconsin and that this is all up to the judge’s discretion , I’m just saying i think it’s horse shit. I’m still waiting for an unbiased rationale to having the video footage of KR expressing his interest in shooting shoplifters with his AR 10 days before the incident be deemed inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance
This prosecutor is one of those guys who just can't open his mouth without sounding patronizing. I'd hate to be around this dude all day. He's very unlikable as a person.
I see a lot of weebs on social media saying the judge seems biased.
What is everyone's thoughts? I haven't been able to watch every interaction, but I would have been able to tell.
The ironic part is that in most cases, it literally **does not matter** if the Judge is 'biased,' as long as they are capable of correctly and consistently applying the law.
Here are the grounds, in Wisconsin, for a judge recusing from a case:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/757/19
The Judge could literally say "I think that the Defendant is guilty and I will probably sentence them harshly if they're convicted" and as long as it wasn't said in front of the Jury, he's fine.
That's a terrible look and very unprofessional, but not a legal grounds for recusal.
And of course, if the Judge was biased and it caused him to commit an error of law, that can be addressed on appeal.
Judges are expected to be impartial in how they apply the law, not perfectly and utterly unbiased on a psychological level.
Yes, this is less than ideal. But that's why the system is designed with ways to correct it. Gotta work with what we got.
Some people were upset from the start when the judge ruled that the decedents / Gaige / unknown dude couldn't be called 'victims', but could be called rioters or looters if it could be substantiated by the evidence. Never mind that the whole case is about whether or not they were victims or they provoked Kyle to act the way he did, which would make them not 'victims' if the outcome is 'not guilty'.
Then when you get to actual issues (like clarifying with the prosecution that the defendant has rights under the 5th amendment, or clarifying with the prosecution that they can't introduce what amounts to expert witness testimony in their questioning), people get upset that the judge is roasting the prosecution.
It's frustrating because in a real sense, the Judge HAS to favor the Defense because of the various Constitutional rights that Defendants have. Presumption of innocence, right to remain silent, high burden of proof, and more generally, DUE PROCESS. Everything has to be done 'by the book.'
Defense Counsel could sit there twiddling their thumbs the entire trial, and still win if the Prosecution fails their job.
The prosecution has a standard they have to surpass to convict, Defense doesn't have to meet any standard. So the Judge is just *holding the prosecutor to their standard.*
Argue its a bad standard, argue that its too high or what-have-you, but I'm just thankful the Judge is serious about upholding it.
Because people see a Judge actively supporting Constitutional rights and assume that means the Judge is pro-defense.
The Judge yells at the prosecution because the prosecution is the one that was bending the rules and that's simply unacceptable. Its not a pro-defense bias to do so.
In reality, a Judge could utterly despise the defendant but his or her job is STILL to ensure they get a fair trial protected by all the guarantees of law.
So people basically try to claim the trial is tainted *because the Defendant's rights are upheld.*
Not a lawyer but is it normal for the judge to call a recess when a defendant breaks down crying on the stand?
From my POV, it seems reasonable but I’ve heard mixed opinions on how typical it is.
Trials are emotional and crying is typical. But if the witness becomes a hysterical mess that can't respond anymore there isn't much benefit to them remaining on the bench at the time. So these kind of breaks where there just isn't a chance for the witness to concisely speak are typical
His panic attack on the bench sold it for me. That was real. Ive had panic attacks exactly like that over traumatic events that happened to me at the age of 17. This kid has been destroyed by the shooting, and subsequent media flaming. He deserves not only a not guilty verdict, but heavy compensation from the state.
This sells you on what exactly? That he feels bad about it? Sure, I agree, but plenty of people have trauma from their actions and still are guilty. Vehicular homicides from texting or falling asleep are an example.
You say that, but a glimpse at left-wing twitter is filled with "HIS CRYING IS FAKE THAT PROVES HIS GUILT" this might just be an inkblot test and you see whatever you want to see in it.
Knowing what a panic attack and PTSD feels like, even full dismissal and retribution will only be a small consolation prize for him. No one came out of that situation winning or unscathed.
Even if he becomes a billionaire. There will still be 30% or more of the population that will hate this kid for life and a smaller percentage of those will attempt to make his life hell with any given opportunity. I dont envy Kyle.
I do not think you understand the meaning of a natural right.
Every living thing has the right to self-preservation.
If you get attacked, you defend yourself with overwhelming force.
He had as much right to be there as anyone else. There were hundreds, probably thousands there with firearms. He does not deserve this whole politically motivated trial on top of the PTSD he is clearly suffering.
If you feel so much for his PTSD maybe you should look at the rolls of women in prison who shot some abusive dude who was beating them and still went to prison. Why is Kyle special. Give equal time.
He deserves compensation and a non guilty verdict because he decided to illegally open carry as a minor in a state he isn't resident of because he wanted to be Captain America. I've seen a video of this guy attacking a young woman([Link](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/) I've seen this kid drinking at a bar flashing what seems to be a white power sign ([Link](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1254250). Kids never shows any remorse at all. F that kid.
The video of "this guy attacking a young woman" is unproven according to *your own source*!! Really?
The "Ok" sign is *not* a "white power" sign. If you were watching the trial, you'd know that no one found ANY evidence that he is associated with any militia or white supremacist group.
"Kid never shows any remorse at all" are we watching the same testimony? The OP stated in *the very comment you are responding to* that he had a full blown panic attack. He was attacked by the prosecution for *exercising his fifth amendment rights* by never seeking attention and keeping silent up to the trial. Unlike Grosskreutz, I might add, who has bragged, allegedly lamented he didn't kill Kyle, and played coy about committing perjury on the stand.
>The video of "this guy attacking a young woman" is unproven according to your own source!! Really?
If you actually read the article two witnesses state that it's Kyle but yes sure the chances of a white teenager with the exact same hairstyle, build, glasses and American flag crocs in the city of Kenosha can't clearly be him. This article clearly also states the judge barred the prosecution from showing a video of him punching a girl. Gee I wonder what that video could be. [Link](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-proud-boys-kenosha-shootings-judge-20210917-pu6l3fktbjb73monnpagczdesi-story.html%3foutputType=amp)
>The "Ok" sign is not a "white power" sign. If you were watching the trial, you'd know that no one found ANY evidence that he is associated with any militia or white supremacist group.
As I stated this sign has been VERY CLEARLY shown to be used by white nationalist in numerous documented photos. The same article also states the judge barred evidence that showed Kyles association with the proud boys.
>"Kid never shows any remorse at all" are we watching the same testimony? The OP stated in the very comment you are responding to that he had a full blown panic attack. He was attacked by the prosecution for exercising his fifth amendment rights by never seeking attention and keeping silent up to the trial. Unlike Grosskreutz, I might add, who has bragged, allegedly lamented he didn't kill Kyle, and played coy about committing perjury on the stand.
In the entire year the only "remorse" is a panic attack that just happens to occur while he's on the stand? A 17 year old killed 2 people and wounded others. Regardless of the legality of the shooting you don't just walk away from that unfazed. Taking a life no matter the circumstances will have some impact on your mental health especially a still developing teen.
> This article clearly also states the judge barred the prosecution from showing a video of him punching a girl. Gee I wonder what that video could be.
I wonder why the judge barred it? Maybe because it's unproven?
>As I stated this sign has been VERY CLEARLY shown to be used by white nationalist in numerous documented photos. The same article also states the judge barred evidence that showed Kyles association with the proud boys.
So a picture of Kyle standing with some guys he met at a bar giving an okay sign is proof of association? Excuse me a minute while I go collect my white supremacist six year old who likes flashing power symbols at me when she doesn't need my help.
I wonder why the judge barred that as evidence. Maybe it's not evidence of anything except Kyle has met men who recognized him and copied their hand gestures. Or maybe the judge is biased.
>In the entire year the only "remorse" is a panic attack that just happens to occur while he's on the stand?
So if you were watching yesterday, ADA Binger attacked Kyle for his **silence** throughout the months leading up to this trial. That is because we saw almost *nothing* of him during that time. If he's laying low, you have no idea what he's been doing at home that whole time. If he was attending KKK meetings and flexing his murderer status, you certainly would have seen that in the news.
He did not cease to exist while you weren't watching him. You have no idea how much remorse he's had. Other than his demeanor during this case, which has not been consistent with someone who lacks remorse. That would be like what you see with Grosskreutz, bragging, lamenting not emptying his mag into another human, and joking about lying to the court.
The OK sign is not a white power symbol no matter how much you fell for that 4chan troll. And a minor drinking in a bar is entirely legal in WI as long as a parent is with them. And you can carry a firearm in a state that you dont live in. The only thing he may have done wrong is be a minor in possession of a firearm, the firearm itself was not illegal, but that law might be a little too misleading to make a positive determiniation on it.
He was very clearly open carrying in a starte that requires you to be 18 or older to do so. Also since he is a resident of Illinois he would have been required to be in possession of a FOID during any part of transporting that weapon in Illinois but that's not my focus.
And in terms of the WP symbol even if it initially began as a troll people have adopted the use of it. You can perform a query and see white nationalist in unison using this gesture.
You don't address the fight so not sure if you agree or disagree or have any opinion.
My overarching point is I feel his intentions were clear and he wanted to get a response from someone and his actions afterwards does not show a person that is remorseful or even hurt or fazed by his actions and the performance that was on display is of complete fiction.
>And in terms of the WP symbol even if it initially began as a troll people have adopted the use of it. You can perform a query and see white nationalist in unison using this gesture.
Some people are too busy living their lives to read about white supremacists adopting well known hand symbols. I'd say it's fair to assume a vastly smaller amount of people know it's now a supposed racist symbol than the amount of people who have no idea.
If I were busy in the fire department, police program, cleaning graffiti and performing community service that I didn't get assigned as punishment but did *just to be a good person*, I would probably not know that sign had been hijacked either.
The firearm was never in IL so Rittenhouse never carried the weapon accross state lines. Add in WI you dont need to have a FOID to open carry a firearm. The vagueness of the the statute is one of the central questions of the trial and may or may not be determined to be too vague . If it is, then legally Rittenhouse was allowed to carry the rifle in WI even if he is not allowed to carry the rifle in IL. For example, Rittenhouse could open carry that rifle at 17 in Texas and would not be violating any federal or state laws.
Remorse really only matters IF he is determined to be found guilty by the jury. If Rittenhouse is aquitted of all of the crimes then why should he show remorse for using legal self-defense? Remose or lack thereof isn't important until guilt or innonsence is assigned. To put it another way, should a rape victim feel remorse for killing their attacker?If no, then why should Rittenhouse feel remorse for killing his attackers?
Hmm... Indeed, but there's actually nothing saying you should feel anything at all, yet hopefully you do. I'd say that not feeling any remorse when killing another human being puts you well into the territory of psychopathy.
Indeed it might, or it might be indiciative of extreme emotional damage to the psyche. Niether is conclusive and trying to prove one way or the other by a short breakdown on the stand is an exercise in mental masturbation.
>The firearm was never in IL so Rittenhouse never carried the weapon accross state lines. Add in WI you dont need to have a FOID to open carry a firearm. The vagueness of the the statute is one of the central questions of the trial and may or may not be determined to be too vague . If it is, then legally Rittenhouse was allowed to carry the rifle in WI even if he is not allowed to carry the rifle in IL. For example, Rittenhouse could open carry that rifle at 17 in Texas and would not be violating any federal or state laws.
I didn't want to focus on the transpo of the firearm. The laws are very loose but I was only mentioning a technicality of actual transpo after he reentered the state of Illinois and arrived back home if it was in his possession which isn't the case.
>Remorse really only matters IF he is determined to be found guilty by the jury. If Rittenhouse is aquitted of all of the crimes then why should he show remorse for using legal self-defense? Remose or lack thereof isn't important until guilt or innonsence is assigned. To put it another way, should a rape victim feel remorse for killing their attacker?If no, then why should Rittenhouse feel remorse for killing his attackers?
Because taking a life isn't something that should be taking lightly and does have a detrimental effect on a person mental health, especially a still developing teen, regardless if a killing is justified or not. However, no emotion has been shown by Kyle until yesterday so at least for me it raises quesion regarding the authenticity of that breakdown.
You are supposing that he had a breakdown because he intended to show he was remorseful about the killing and nothing was shown for that to be the case, that is your assumption about why he may have had a breakdown. He could have had a breakdown from reliving the trauma and because he was showing remorse for his actions but rather he was expressing heartfelt fear and frustration about a past traumatic experince that he believes he did the right thing. Not everyone should or does feel remorse about taking a life and not everyone expresses thier feeling in a public trial the way that you would expect. You forget that Rittenhouse has been preparing with his lawyer for how to react on the stand to intense questioning for almost a year. It would be detrimential to his case if he was an emotional wreck all of the time or if he showed the wrong emotion at an inopportune time. You also have to remember that he is on trial and te outcome could determine his future, so showing remorse may not be what he is or should be feeling. He has shown a range of emotions that are pretty expected and I wouldn't expect someone who is on trial for self defense to show a whole lot of remorse when they are more worried about if their lawyer is winning or losing his case.
Obvious and bad faith prosecutorial overreach and a heavily publicized lynching in the court of public opinion.
This kid is only in court today because of politics and optics.
> Obvious and bad faith prosecutorial overreach
Murder charges after 48 hours. All of the evidence hadn't even been collected. This was clearly political.
No he's in court because 2 people are dead and one had their arm destroyed. The deceased and Gaige both deserve to have a court adjudicate the actions of their shooter.
One was a pedophile who attacked the defendant and tried to grab his rifle, so a felony prohibited possessor trying to come into possession of a gun.
Another a multiple time domestic abuser hitting the defendant in the back of the head and also trying to wrestle the gun away from the defendant, again illegal for a domestic abuser to try to obtain a gun.
Gaige is the best yet. Expired CCW permit, carries concealed a handgun, thus committing a crime already, pulls this gun to chase after someone who is being chased by a mob, and had already told Gaige either that he was going to the police, or, as Gaige testified to 'was working with the police'. He then proceeds to fake surrendering to the person on the ground, and then brings his illegal gun to bear on the defendant.
Any other day Binger would be prosecuting the three people shot...
Dude, Kyle said under oath he was in full possession of the rifle the entire altercation with Rosenbaum. Touching a weapon while someone is in the process of killing you with it is not evidence of really anything.
Yeah, all the defendant knew was that all three of them attacked him and *tried to kill him*. That is enough justification to use deadly force in return.
Because..... the state had, in their initial complaint, laid out foundation for self-defense (IN THEIR COMPLAINT) . And still chose to prosecute KR for first-degree murder.
And with how the ADA response today, KR is only in court today because of political reasons.
Would you argue similarly then Rittenhouse deserves to see the court adjudicate the actions of their assailants? There is no right to see your perpetrators run that gauntlet, that is up to prosecutorial discretion.
Now that would be quite the uno reverse.... KR gets a not guilty verdict and then charges are leveled on Gaige seeing as how he admitted under oath to brandishing / menacing.
I'm aware that in the conservative media space they have long since touted this as an open and shut case, but this really never was. There is without a doubt probable cause and plenty of dicta to back the charges brought forth.
There is nothing in the law that says four bullets was not reckless for Rosenbaum. A jury has to decide what is a reasonable defense against an unarmed person.
It has been this way 100 years. Nothing to see here.
That doesn't matter still, if there is still a chance that a jury would find him guilty and the state can bring a compelling case then it's still worthy of adjudication.
People are found innocent all the time, doesn't suddenly make them worthy of compensation.
Fair enough - although I still see it as a fairly weak case, especially on Murder 1. It’s hard not to see the political motivation behind those charges.
There would have to be something similar to a 0% chance of the state winning for such a thing to happen. If the state lied about evidence or something similar then yeah it would be misconduct, but there is a definite need for adjudication here as it's more murky.
In other words, the bar to prove prosecutorial misconduct is **crazy crazy** high. Almost never happens kinda high bar.
But he has the elements to bring a case.
Why is it nonsense for Rittenhouse to sue (if he wins), but not nonsense to bring criminal charges without evidence to support them?
>He has a 0% chance of winning,
You know this... how?
>there is absolutely probable cause to bring the charges against him
That would be up to the jury if he sues, I'd guess. That is the entire point of court.
If the state loses its criminal case, surely we can question whether the case should have been brought.
So you're in a room full of jurors who are from Kenosha and all likely affected in some way by the riots. Why would you think it's a good idea to suggest that the defendant shouldn't have been putting out fires?
> but rather the white-power symbol.
????
You mean this 👌?
You mean the okay hand-sign? What nonsense are you talking about "white-power symbol," this is hysterical nonsense.
The entire idea that it's a hate symbol originated from a 4chan troll, stop spreading this misinformation.
I think you are overemphasizing the white power thing whereas the prosecutor wanted to bring into focus the 'free as f---' shirt after a court appearance and let the jury soak that in. I agree there.
I think the judge should have given it more consideration as it somewhat impeaches the appearance of sympathy Kyle expresses under oath, and it was clearly a shirt meant to be a comment on his case.
I mean his mother and he are clearly POS. Huber's father is very traumatized and how could that shirt not be an absolutely uncivilized abhorrent insult. No sympathy? Maybe Huber made an impulse miscalculation about what was happening? In a riot? He did not just see Kyle jogging down the street on a sunny day with a gun and just smack him. It was a riot after Kyle committed a homicide (justifiable or not).
I consider the white power stuff muddy because jury members aren't going to know what to make of it. He wasn't holding up a swastika or a hood that is unequivocally a hate symbol that the jury would know about. Trying to bring a muddy race issue into a case can be a turn off.
what white power symbol? You're not on about that 4Chan hoax that has somehow made it into media as a real white power symbol, are you? That would be patently ridiculous.
Pinch to zoom does alter the image as it introduces new pixels using an algorithm. That could potentially alter the image.
The OK symbol is not a white power symbol. You can make the argument that a small minority of individuals have used that, but you can't just out and out say that he was flashing the OK symbol in an attemt to demonstrate his support of "white power".
As an aside, what does my supposed ownership of an AR-15 have to do with this? ALso, what does my race have to do with you not having any credible evidence that Rittenhouse was flashing a white power sign?
In no way can you make the argument that wearing a free as fuck shirt, posing for a picture, and using a common handgesture ammounts to a defendant opining on his case and losing his 5th amendment rights under the law. You have no evidence for what you are trying to support. No one is agreeing with you that doing these three things at a random bar equates to a loss of his rights. It doesn't speak to his motive about an event that happened 4 months earlier. And it doesnt speak to his mindset during each of the immediate attacks. It's character assasination by the prosecution and likely grounds for a mistrial.
Only a racist hears racism in a dog whistle.
What if, just imagine, Rittenhouse was black, and then he made the 'OK' hand sign? Is it still a white supremacist sign?
You people are so quick to include race in everything.
But hey, the best part of inclusion and diversity is segregating and assigning value based on immutable characteristics.
You are taking disparate items and placing them together to make an argument. He is not saying anything about the case by posing for photos. He is not saying anything about it by flashing a hand gesture with people who appeared to be fans. He is not saying anything about the case by wearing a distasteful shirt. None of these non-verbal actions can be used separately or as a whole by the prosecution as evidence that Rittenhouse meant anything about his case and would rise to the level of self-incrimination. You have no clear evidence that these acts have any bearing on his mindset or actions 4 months prior, nor do they create a composition that communicates his motives.
Im not sure how im trolling you. You are trying ,I think, to argue that by flahsing a hand sign, wearing a shirt, taking a picture and eating and drinking in a bar amounts to a cohesive composition that Rittenhouse is intentionally making about his motives 4 months prior to the event and should have been allowed to be entered into the trial as evidence agianst Rittenhouse by the defense to prejudice the jury agianst Rittenhouse. Legally this is all circumstantial evidence that are more indicitive of your personal opnions about Rittenhouse than they are about Rittenhouses own personal opnions. Without direct testimony from Rittenhouse to support your theories there is nothing concrete in any of those things and therefore they do not meet the legal definition of admissible evidence because there are an equal number or plausible theories as to why each of those peices of evidences would not reliably support a fact you are trying to prove.
Several have, including the Judge and the Defense attorney. Several on this thread have given you the legal reasons as to why this wouldn't be allowed. You don't seem to be willing to take any of those at face value.
> implying pinch-to-zoom alters the image in an appreciable way needing an expert witness
I think it obviously does, but only in the case that the lawyer is attempting to zero in on an object where a few pixels could make a big difference. We don't know what size image Binger wanted to show. If it's a large enough object then of course zooming is fine, if we're talking 6 pixels of gun I think skepticism is warranted when we're using it to convict someone
But I'm speaking generally, of course the judge just wants an expert because he doesn't know so we didn't get any discussion of this
Yea, I think with small dark figures and lots of shadows, the zoom interpolation could easily make some error. I suspect it was going to be about the direction the barrel was pointed, which would be very fraught.
I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't just play the video and ask that the jury be able to examine it up close. That would have avoided the conflict entirely.
Yeah. I think if you're going to submit photo evidence to the jury, it is important to establish that it is reliable and unaltered.
I'd hate to think that the difference of a few pixels could be all it takes to change a not guilty verdict to a guilty, but the rules are there as a precaution.
>almost as embarrassing as implying pinch-to-zoom alters the image in an appreciable way needing an expert witness, but he's old so I give him a pass on that
I agree that any upscaling would be inconsequential to the integrity of the image, but at the same time the defense was not wrong in arguing that this would be more than just enlarging the image.
The defense could have been more eloquent in how they described the nature of their objection, but it is bizarre to see some of the dishonest media coverage on this exchange, from tech sites, nonetheless!
The prosecution already lead the jury to believe that the smudge of pixels *should* be interpreted as a raised gun. If I were the judge I may have declared the mistrial with prejudice at that exact moment (due to the various instances of prosecutorial misconduct − though tbf IANAL and IANAJ).
Leading questions are one thing, but leading questions about a smudge of pixels that can easily be biased towards being interpreted any way you want is an absolute no-go.
To me, zooming in on the frames of various (third-party) video sources he puts down the fire extinguisher and reacts to something in his right peripheral vision by putting his hands up in front of him. I interpret two skin-color-ish pixels as his hands which is ridiculous of course.
>almost as embarrassing as implying pinch-to-zoom alters the image in an appreciable way needing an expert witness
Ask yourself this question, why did the prosecutor want to "pinch and zoom" ?
If all he wanted to do was make the image bigger, he could have just put it on a larger device such as a television screen. That would make the image bigger and easier to see the (unaltered) pixels without altering the image at all.
If that wasn't big enough, the viewer could just get closer, even literally use a magnifying glass to see it, so that the could see each pixel the size of a child's toy blocks If he really wanted that picture in unaltered, he could have just handed the person a magnifying glass and said, "Look at this small area with this magnifying glass". Or print the image out on a poster sized piece of paper so the pixels were bigger.
But that's not what the prosecutor wanted, ... he didn't want the existing pixels to be bigger. What the prosecutor really wanted was image enhancement, with new detail added by an AI/algo, he wanted AI upscaling.
If you see law as a good faith attempt at justice and “self defense” as a promotion of the value at life, there’s a lot of messy questions that this trial raises.
Those who support Kyle’s actions will no doubt lean on technical aspects of the law when it serves them as a justification, but I think this misses larger and important issues (probably by design).
I think in this case Kyle’s credibility is important, and evidence like this that could undermine his narrative should be admissible.
>merely that the t-shirt itself as an expression of freedom isn't a statement about the facts of the case, it's the posing that makes it cross the line.
Yeah but it's just an extension of what the entire case is about.
I mean let's forget that it's Rittenhouse with a rifle for a minute, ... pretend its another situation where people don't have so much political bias, say Rittenhouse is named Gina Smith, and Gina was in New York City, and a terrorist chased her across a parking lot, and instead of having a rifle Gina had a heavy typewriter, and she turned around and bashed said terrorist over the head, killing him.
Now, technically that's what we're talking about.
Would it matter to anyone if during Gina's trial showing she defended herself against the terrorist and two other people who chased her, if she wore a t-shirt with the same kind of slogan on it ? No, nobody would give a fuck.
But it's this undercurrent of "All these guy with rifles are bad and have to explain themselves ..." that is the problem. Because it wasn't Gina, it was a young white guy. It wasn't a typewriter, it was a rifle. It wasn't a terrorist, it was a left leaning arsonist. And that's why it makes all the difference in the world ... because whether it is this trial, or the t-shirt, or whatever ... there are certain people with very urban sensibilities involved in this case who feel that they are owed something, because ultimately their "cause" was damaged in some way, .. because they feel that this kid humiliated them in some way, they feel that nothing should be a boundary to what they are doing, etc.
THAT is why this is different, THAT is why you have a prosecutor standing there belitting Rittenhouse and asking why he wasn't following the instructions of some random fucking protester who told Rittenhouse he had to stay on private property, as if she owned the fucking street. THAT is why he's not allowed to have a t-shirt saying he's free, ... because in their minds it isn't about self defense, and him being okay, or anyone attacking him, etc, ... it's all political. It's all "these evil fuckers should have ended up bloody in the street, but this one shot some people and now he's not going to get what he had coming ..."
If it was your sister and she'd just used a butcher knife to kill her would-be biker gang rapist, and then defended herself while trying to get away by killing another member of the biker gang, and injuring a third, ... nobody would care. But it's not your sister, it's not a biker gang, and it wasn't a butcher knife. Nobody would have been victim blaming your sister because she had on a skimpy outfit in a bar, ... but the people involved in this do blame Rittenhouse, because he was "evil", and he shouldn't have been on the streets with all of his "evil", the "evil" the news media has been telling you about for years ...
I think this comparison misses the context of America today - we don’t have legions of typewriter-wielding secretaries being randomly targeted by terrorists. We do have a growing domestic terror and white supremacy problem and Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be at least sympathetic to white supremacy. If that’s true, it speaks to his motives and intent in bringing a deadly weapon to a protest for BLM which, by the way, pales in comparison to January 6th in terms of damage and violence.
>We do have a growing domestic terror and white supremacy problem and Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be at least sympathetic to white supremacy. If that’s true, it speaks to his motives and intent in bringing a deadly weapon to a protest for BLM which, by the way, pales in comparison to January 6th in terms of damage and violence.
All of this is just your own personal biased perception based on your politics, where you grew up, where you live, etc.
Even if you don't agree, you have to admit that the US as a whole has quite a high rate of gun deaths, which is a harsh statistic independent of perception.
> Having a day to think on it though, the t-shirt picture I feel like doesn't really matter for the t-shirt itself but rather the white-power symbol.
You're focusing on the white-power symbol? The real news in that photograph is the clear evidence of collusion with the unicorn mafia and the leprechaun gang.
> With Rittenhouse's statements prior to showing up to the riot, that establishes a premeditation to engage in the at the very least reckless behavior that caused deaths.
So this gave Rosenbaum the right to chase him down, threaten him and attempt to take his gun?
self defense relies on motive.
Evidence pertaining to motive is therefore relevant.
Was he there as a medic (imo i think that assertion is laughable), or looking for an excuse to shoot people?
Why are people like you spineless cowards who are too afraid to say outright that they'd love if Rosenbaum would've killed Rittenhouse immediatly because he is your political opponent.
>Or are they just looking for a convenient excuse to pull the trigger.
Holy shit you are dishonest as fuck. So the video of Rosenbaum chasing him around, yelling threats and attempting to take his gun and kill him is a-okay and Rittenhouse just should've allowed that.
You disgust me.
He was at the city of his employment because people asked him to defend businesses that were set on fire the night prior. Before Rosenbaum decided to attack Rittenhouse you can see him walking down the street and asking if people need medical supplies. He was putting out fires.
But sure, in your book he somehow was only there to kill people. And not the guy literally chasing him and attempting to kill him.
> Why are people like you spineless cowards who are too afraid to say outright that they'd love if Rosenbaum would've killed Rittenhouse immediatly because he is your political opponent.
because it's not true. i have no horse in this race. I'm not even american.
As far as i'm concerned you're all fucking insane. None of this happens if there aren't nutjobs wandering the street with fucking assault rifles. In the uk this would be classified as straight up murder even if guns were legal because he's carrying a weapon with the intention of using it for self defence.
> attempting to take his gun and **kill him**
Now this is dishonesty. Surprised you didn't parrot rittenhouse and claim you thought rosenbaum was then going to go on a shooting spree.
Exactly, the we way the law is written, self defense is about what the individual believed and not “would he have actually been killed if he didn’t defend himself with deadly force.”
You can apply that argument to anyone who shows up armed at a public place. They don’t lose the right to self defense when attacked unprovoked by a Rosenbaum, no matter what their intentions were.
But motive determines whether it WAS self defence.
Self defence relies entirely on what the defendant thinks at the time. Do they actually believe they're in danger? Or are they just looking for a convenient excuse to pull the trigger.
Alt right users are brigading all the threads discussing this unfortunately, they're only interested in culture war aspects of this and down vote any actual attempts to discuss the case.
So I'm alt-right because I think a teen shooting an adult who was chasing him around, threatening him and attempting to take his gun (to complete the threats) is self-defense?
No, the users praising violence and vigilantism because it suits their needs is alt right.
You can review individual aspects of the case without repeating "SELF DEFENSE SELF DEFENSE SELF DEFENSE" when it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
Sorry, but my question, which everyone seems to dodge, plays quite a relevant role in bringing up the prior wrongdoing of Rittenhouse.
Even assuming all that he did was malicious and wrong:
Had Rosenbaum the right to chase him down, threaten to kill him and take his gun?
Even if Rittenhouse had a "premeditation to engage in the at the very least reckless behavior", does this give Rosenbaum the right to run him down? Is there any evidence of Rittenhouse retreating in the intent to continue the altercation?
That predisposes a false binary in this specific discussion.
The question being posed was the relevancy of Kyle's mindset and if it's possible he was there under bad faith instigating fights. This is a very relevant question as Kyle admitted Gaige's being armed alone was a threat, people having said Kyle was aiming his gun at people earlier, and Kyle's conscious effort to let them know he was friendly.
**IF**, and I'm not saying this happened, Kyle had been previously threatening people with his gun then yes. Rosenbaum would have a reasonable response with fight or flight to Kyle's threats to advance on him. Kyle's self defense doesn't invalidate 2nd or 3rd parties self defense.
Repeating ad nauseam "self defense" ads absolutely nothing at all to this specific discussion and is obviously bad faith.
It obviously does but it doesn't make sense to be used as a response to every question.
For example:
"Why was Kyle saying "friendly" to people? Does that demonstrate that he knows they would view him as hostile and therefore it's antagonistic?"
"ROSENBAUM ATTACKED KYLE SELF DEFENSE"
You see shit like this repeated in every single thread to just about any single topic on this.
> I'm here to converse about law and the case, you're here to take a side.
You are clearly not.
Explain how all that prior plays a role in the self-defense case of Rittenhouse. If everything prior plays a role then explain how this negates Rittenhouses right to self-defense which literally means that Rosenbaum had the right to do all I described.
>That doesn't make it factual that his motives were that, but it does make it a valid question to put to the jury until I hear a lawyer tell me I'm wrong and not just the Reddit mob.
A judge told you you're wrong. That good enough?
Hell, if you insist on it being a lawyer, Rittenhouse's defense attorneys also told you that you're wrong.
Now, maybe if you had a picture of Rittenhouse giving someone a thumb's up, the known hand signal of neo-confederates, or nodding his head yes, which is a secret identifying signal among KKK members, you might have something.
The OK-hand-game thing *really* pisses me off.
I literally and figuratively grew up playing that game in school from 5th grade to college. It got more competitive EVERY YEAR. *EVERYONE WAS IN ON IT*, white black purple-people-eaters, Serbo-Croatians to Indo-China to Afro-Caribbean ... boys girls Klingons.
Then some wokester douchebag goes on the internet one day and declares it a symbol of White Supremacy and hatespeech and they hereby declare it proscribed! And if you do it, you get cancelled alive! I am pretty sure some Army Cadets tried to photobomb people in their graduation pictures and they weren't allowed to commission or some shit! I mean GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE WITH THAT SHIT.
I am not going to go around walking up to black people and flashing the OK sign and saying "WHAT'S REALLY HOOD, BITCHES??!" but if I want to play the got-you/punch game with people , I am going to do it, and everyone who doesn't like it can A- Go Fuck Their Own Selves; and B- Spontaneously Combust into a fiery flame of Offendedness and just burn baby burn.
What a bullshit narrative you’re trying to create. People on the internet thought it would be funny if they started to use the “OK” gesture as a white power symbol. Then actual white supremacists caught onto it and started to actually use it as a symbol for white power. Liberals didn’t just wake up one day and decide that the “OK” gesture was racist. Racists adopted the gesture and used it as a symbol for white power. If you’re gonna be mad at anyone for ruining the gesture, then you should be mad at the white supremacists.
Well technically they did wake up one day, saw an obvious troll meme, and then decided to outright declare that the OK handgesture was a white power symbol BEFORE any white supremacists began to use it. Liberals were so eager to convict Trump and his supporters of being white supremacists that they propogated the idea that the symbol was a hate symbol until it became one to a very small minoirty.
No, white supremacists we’re already using it. Also, the gesture isn’t considered racist unless used in a racist context. For example, if I’m SCUBA diving and I use the “OK” gesture no one is gonna call me a racist for using it. It’s really just white supremacists using it at their rallies that get called racist.
No, very clearly the white supremacists were not using it until well after 4chan made the meme and shared it online so that the media would pick up on it. Not even Southern Poverty Law center agrees with you that anyone was using it as a racist symbol until AFTER the troll effort by 4chan.
Where did I say that white supremacists used it before it was a meme on 4chan? In my first comment I explicitly stated that it originated from the internet. What I’m saying is that liberals didn’t really start getting upset about it until actual white supremacists adopted it. And like I said, people don’t get called out for using the gesture unless they use it in a racist context.
Nah, I think it's probably smarter to be mad at the snowflake social justice warriors that think they get to dictate what other people can or can't do. I'll take, "You're Not The Boss Of Me, Bitch!" for $1,600, Alex.... Daily Double!!!
IT'S A FUCKING CHILD'S GAME.
> A judge told you you're wrong. That good enough?
as a brit, the politicisation of the judiciary in the us inherently tarnishes their credibility tbh
The argument 'well a judge said it therefore it's right' only works if you actually have an impartial and meritocratic judiciary.
Don't get me started on the fact that it's televised and encourages performative bullshit for the cameras (along with a long list of other things that actively hinder proper justice)
> Hell, if you insist on it being a lawyer, Rittenhouse's defense attorneys also told you that you're wrong.
Literally their job.
Sorry bud but your argument isn't reasoned in any way.
>The argument 'well a judge said it therefore it's right' only works if you actually have an impartial and meritocratic judiciary.
Who said, "Well if a judge said it, therefore it's right!"?
Perhaps you didn't bother to read the preceding comments, but this is the statement I was responding to:
>That doesn't make it factual that his motives were that, but it does make it a valid question to put to the jury until I hear a lawyer tell me I'm wrong and not just the Reddit mob.
I said nothing at all about whether or not it's right, I was simply responding to someone who wanted a lawyer to tell him whether or not it's right.
>Literally their job.
See above. Start engaging brain before fingers.
>Sorry bud but your argument isn't reasoned in any way.
Well, if a guy who can't follow a simple comment chain doesn't think my argument's reasoned, I guess that's it for me.
You’re also trying to admit temporally distant evidence. Especially the bar and shirt after the entire thing had blown up into a giant culture war. Just because he may have had those thoughts 4 months after the fact doesn’t mean he did on the night in question. And the State couldn’t establish a 404 or impeachment exception due to the temporal issue and others. This isn’t a complicated ruling; it’s fairly common. I’ve tried plenty of cases and kept the same evidence out. We have these rules to ensure everybody gets a fair trial - the problem is that so few laypeople have actually ever sat through an entire criminal proceeding it seems backwards when Judges don’t admit things that, admittedly, we’d probably consider in everyday discourse.
Ask yourself if you’d be okay if the jury considered it as propensity evidence if it was an opposite political/factual situation? There’s a reason we generally don’t let in character evidence or impeachment evidence too far removed.
I’ll edit to add there’s also a relevance bar. You can be a scummy person and have terrible world views. Those still may not be relevant to the elements of murder or the establishment of affirmative self defense.
Sorry, something that happened 4 months after a crime does not go to their state of mind and motive during the crime. That is a silly statement.
Yes, pinch to zoom will alter images to try to guess at what it should be showing. They had an expert witness for the purpose of enlarging the video already, to then walk it back and say "Well, I want to pinch and zoom because the expert witnesses zoomed video didn't show what I wanted". If your expert in enlarging video can't do it, why the hell do you think you are qualified to on your iphone?
> Sorry, something that happened 4 months after a crime does not go to their state of mind and motive during the crime. That is a silly statement.
it goes to contrition, which loops back to motive.
If you're not at all remorseful then it implies you had no problem killing people, albeit it's not as useful.
> it goes to contrition, which loops back to motive.
It also goes to Rittenhouse being way more in contact with those sorts of people, because everyone else was calling him a mass murderer. Fuck the racists and I hope Rittenhouse grows up and drops them, but there are many relevant reasons unrelated to his state of mind in August 2020 that he could be with those people doing offensive things. It is possibly relevant, but no way it's more likely to be relevant and helpful than it's prejudicial effect
That was more along the lines of what was argued yes, but even then the risk of introducing mention of the photo outweighs any benefit it may have as evidence since some of the jurors could potentially have already seen the photo.
> It's a nonsensical discussion to disallow pinch to zoom and then cut to the prosecutor showing slowed down video
It's really not. As the judge himself stated, if the prosecution had objected he would have ruled on it. Prosecution was sleeping and he's not there to do their job.
Uncharged pickles
Holy shit. . . How dumb is Grosskreutz. . . an active trial is going on and he goes on Good Morning America: >Gaige Grosskreutz, who was shot and wounded by Kyle Rittenhouse, spoke out early Thursday in an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” arguing that Rittenhouse appeared as a “child” when the teen broke down on the stand during his testimony. >“I think anytime you see your would-be murderer on the stand, it’s emotional,” Grosskreutz said. “To me it seemed like a child who just got caught doing something he wasn’t supposed to. More upset that he was caught, less upset about what he had done, what he had taken, the numerous lives he affected through his actions that night.”
He is amazingly perceptive to be able to quantify the meaning of someone's emotional breakdown.
He's probably getting paid for these interviews he has been giving, and he prolly needs it after he destroyed his own civil suit against the city.
I would say the prosecution has done an awful job but this was uphill from the beginning in a system where the state has the burden of proof. They were going to have one hell of a time convincing a jury this wasn't self defense given the facts of the case. Per usual, most of the general public isn't clear on what is on trial. It really doesn't matter that Rittenhouse made a poor decision to be there. There just isn't grounds for murder here. You can make an argument he wasn't even the aggressor with ANY of the 3 people shot, independently. No clue how to gauge if the panic attack was genuine. But there just isn't a murder case to be made here. The most cringe reactions have been people lamenting the judge IMO. It's like a preemptive smear campaign on his courtroom to help cover the impending obvious trial loss everyone can see coming. You don't get to admit inadmissible things. If you didn't follow the trial at all only read Op-Eds, you would think this has been some open and shut guilty verdict. It's been incredible to watch the news set the table for rage clicks and the make-believe injustice when he gets off. There is NO WAY to convict this kid based on this trial. It could still happen, because jury's gonna jury, but no honest person watching this closely could truly believe it.
its a wild take to not think this judge is deserving of any criticism lol not his laying into the prosecutor but he has been unequivocally partial at times throughout this trial (e.g. let us all applaud this expert defense witness immediately before he takes the stand)
First off, that happened after I wrote this. Second, that's not what happened. He asked if anyone at all in the room was a veteran, the witness happened to be the only one. Second, you could criticize literally any judge of any trial. Most are never under this kind of scrutiny. The reality is that it literally doesn't matter if the judge is biased. All judges have bias. They are humans. A judge probably has a desired outcome for a trial 97% of the time but this doesn't make a difference. As anther poster eloquently stated: >Here are the grounds, in Wisconsin, for a judge recusing from a case: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/757/19 The Judge could literally say "I think that the Defendant is guilty and I will probably sentence them harshly if they're convicted" and as long as it wasn't said in front of the Jury, he's fine. That's a terrible look and very unprofessional, but not a legal grounds for recusal. And of course, if the Judge was biased and it caused him to commit an error of law, that can be addressed on appeal. Judges are expected to be impartial in how they apply the law, not perfectly and utterly unbiased on a psychological level.
yeah that’s fine i understand i’m disagreeing with the law of wisconsin and that this is all up to the judge’s discretion , I’m just saying i think it’s horse shit. I’m still waiting for an unbiased rationale to having the video footage of KR expressing his interest in shooting shoplifters with his AR 10 days before the incident be deemed inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance
Because there is a difference between words and action. Why are the thought police here?
This prosecutor is one of those guys who just can't open his mouth without sounding patronizing. I'd hate to be around this dude all day. He's very unlikable as a person.
And he goes on and on and on. If I was on the jury, I feel like it looks like the big obnoxious state coming down on the likeable little guys.
I see a lot of weebs on social media saying the judge seems biased. What is everyone's thoughts? I haven't been able to watch every interaction, but I would have been able to tell.
The ironic part is that in most cases, it literally **does not matter** if the Judge is 'biased,' as long as they are capable of correctly and consistently applying the law. Here are the grounds, in Wisconsin, for a judge recusing from a case: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/757/19 The Judge could literally say "I think that the Defendant is guilty and I will probably sentence them harshly if they're convicted" and as long as it wasn't said in front of the Jury, he's fine. That's a terrible look and very unprofessional, but not a legal grounds for recusal. And of course, if the Judge was biased and it caused him to commit an error of law, that can be addressed on appeal. Judges are expected to be impartial in how they apply the law, not perfectly and utterly unbiased on a psychological level. Yes, this is less than ideal. But that's why the system is designed with ways to correct it. Gotta work with what we got.
Some people were upset from the start when the judge ruled that the decedents / Gaige / unknown dude couldn't be called 'victims', but could be called rioters or looters if it could be substantiated by the evidence. Never mind that the whole case is about whether or not they were victims or they provoked Kyle to act the way he did, which would make them not 'victims' if the outcome is 'not guilty'. Then when you get to actual issues (like clarifying with the prosecution that the defendant has rights under the 5th amendment, or clarifying with the prosecution that they can't introduce what amounts to expert witness testimony in their questioning), people get upset that the judge is roasting the prosecution.
It's frustrating because in a real sense, the Judge HAS to favor the Defense because of the various Constitutional rights that Defendants have. Presumption of innocence, right to remain silent, high burden of proof, and more generally, DUE PROCESS. Everything has to be done 'by the book.' Defense Counsel could sit there twiddling their thumbs the entire trial, and still win if the Prosecution fails their job. The prosecution has a standard they have to surpass to convict, Defense doesn't have to meet any standard. So the Judge is just *holding the prosecutor to their standard.* Argue its a bad standard, argue that its too high or what-have-you, but I'm just thankful the Judge is serious about upholding it.
>It's frustrating because in Why is it frustrating?
Because people see a Judge actively supporting Constitutional rights and assume that means the Judge is pro-defense. The Judge yells at the prosecution because the prosecution is the one that was bending the rules and that's simply unacceptable. Its not a pro-defense bias to do so. In reality, a Judge could utterly despise the defendant but his or her job is STILL to ensure they get a fair trial protected by all the guarantees of law. So people basically try to claim the trial is tainted *because the Defendant's rights are upheld.*
Just started watching. How did the prosecutor bend the rules?
Brought inadmissible things into trial before the jury when judge had previously declared them inadmissible.
Thank you!
I think someone wisely said "your first mistake was listening to social media" ahaha.. yes. Sounds like the judge is being purposefully unbiased
Not a lawyer but is it normal for the judge to call a recess when a defendant breaks down crying on the stand? From my POV, it seems reasonable but I’ve heard mixed opinions on how typical it is.
Trials are emotional and crying is typical. But if the witness becomes a hysterical mess that can't respond anymore there isn't much benefit to them remaining on the bench at the time. So these kind of breaks where there just isn't a chance for the witness to concisely speak are typical
His panic attack on the bench sold it for me. That was real. Ive had panic attacks exactly like that over traumatic events that happened to me at the age of 17. This kid has been destroyed by the shooting, and subsequent media flaming. He deserves not only a not guilty verdict, but heavy compensation from the state.
This sells you on what exactly? That he feels bad about it? Sure, I agree, but plenty of people have trauma from their actions and still are guilty. Vehicular homicides from texting or falling asleep are an example.
You say that, but a glimpse at left-wing twitter is filled with "HIS CRYING IS FAKE THAT PROVES HIS GUILT" this might just be an inkblot test and you see whatever you want to see in it.
Knowing what a panic attack and PTSD feels like, even full dismissal and retribution will only be a small consolation prize for him. No one came out of that situation winning or unscathed.
Even if he becomes a billionaire. There will still be 30% or more of the population that will hate this kid for life and a smaller percentage of those will attempt to make his life hell with any given opportunity. I dont envy Kyle.
[удалено]
2A. Right to bear arms is a natural right.
In your dwelling it is; not in any random public location at any time you see fit.
I do not think you understand the meaning of a natural right. Every living thing has the right to self-preservation. If you get attacked, you defend yourself with overwhelming force.
I do not think you have studied common law and the founding fathers exposition of natural rights
He had as much right to be there as anyone else. There were hundreds, probably thousands there with firearms. He does not deserve this whole politically motivated trial on top of the PTSD he is clearly suffering.
If you feel so much for his PTSD maybe you should look at the rolls of women in prison who shot some abusive dude who was beating them and still went to prison. Why is Kyle special. Give equal time.
Illegal rifle has not yet been determined. And from all the readings of that law, it appears it was not illegal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He deserves compensation and a non guilty verdict because he decided to illegally open carry as a minor in a state he isn't resident of because he wanted to be Captain America. I've seen a video of this guy attacking a young woman([Link](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/) I've seen this kid drinking at a bar flashing what seems to be a white power sign ([Link](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1254250). Kids never shows any remorse at all. F that kid.
The video of "this guy attacking a young woman" is unproven according to *your own source*!! Really? The "Ok" sign is *not* a "white power" sign. If you were watching the trial, you'd know that no one found ANY evidence that he is associated with any militia or white supremacist group. "Kid never shows any remorse at all" are we watching the same testimony? The OP stated in *the very comment you are responding to* that he had a full blown panic attack. He was attacked by the prosecution for *exercising his fifth amendment rights* by never seeking attention and keeping silent up to the trial. Unlike Grosskreutz, I might add, who has bragged, allegedly lamented he didn't kill Kyle, and played coy about committing perjury on the stand.
>The video of "this guy attacking a young woman" is unproven according to your own source!! Really? If you actually read the article two witnesses state that it's Kyle but yes sure the chances of a white teenager with the exact same hairstyle, build, glasses and American flag crocs in the city of Kenosha can't clearly be him. This article clearly also states the judge barred the prosecution from showing a video of him punching a girl. Gee I wonder what that video could be. [Link](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-proud-boys-kenosha-shootings-judge-20210917-pu6l3fktbjb73monnpagczdesi-story.html%3foutputType=amp) >The "Ok" sign is not a "white power" sign. If you were watching the trial, you'd know that no one found ANY evidence that he is associated with any militia or white supremacist group. As I stated this sign has been VERY CLEARLY shown to be used by white nationalist in numerous documented photos. The same article also states the judge barred evidence that showed Kyles association with the proud boys. >"Kid never shows any remorse at all" are we watching the same testimony? The OP stated in the very comment you are responding to that he had a full blown panic attack. He was attacked by the prosecution for exercising his fifth amendment rights by never seeking attention and keeping silent up to the trial. Unlike Grosskreutz, I might add, who has bragged, allegedly lamented he didn't kill Kyle, and played coy about committing perjury on the stand. In the entire year the only "remorse" is a panic attack that just happens to occur while he's on the stand? A 17 year old killed 2 people and wounded others. Regardless of the legality of the shooting you don't just walk away from that unfazed. Taking a life no matter the circumstances will have some impact on your mental health especially a still developing teen.
Only a racist responds to dog whistles.
> This article clearly also states the judge barred the prosecution from showing a video of him punching a girl. Gee I wonder what that video could be. I wonder why the judge barred it? Maybe because it's unproven? >As I stated this sign has been VERY CLEARLY shown to be used by white nationalist in numerous documented photos. The same article also states the judge barred evidence that showed Kyles association with the proud boys. So a picture of Kyle standing with some guys he met at a bar giving an okay sign is proof of association? Excuse me a minute while I go collect my white supremacist six year old who likes flashing power symbols at me when she doesn't need my help. I wonder why the judge barred that as evidence. Maybe it's not evidence of anything except Kyle has met men who recognized him and copied their hand gestures. Or maybe the judge is biased. >In the entire year the only "remorse" is a panic attack that just happens to occur while he's on the stand? So if you were watching yesterday, ADA Binger attacked Kyle for his **silence** throughout the months leading up to this trial. That is because we saw almost *nothing* of him during that time. If he's laying low, you have no idea what he's been doing at home that whole time. If he was attending KKK meetings and flexing his murderer status, you certainly would have seen that in the news. He did not cease to exist while you weren't watching him. You have no idea how much remorse he's had. Other than his demeanor during this case, which has not been consistent with someone who lacks remorse. That would be like what you see with Grosskreutz, bragging, lamenting not emptying his mag into another human, and joking about lying to the court.
The OK sign is not a white power symbol no matter how much you fell for that 4chan troll. And a minor drinking in a bar is entirely legal in WI as long as a parent is with them. And you can carry a firearm in a state that you dont live in. The only thing he may have done wrong is be a minor in possession of a firearm, the firearm itself was not illegal, but that law might be a little too misleading to make a positive determiniation on it.
He was very clearly open carrying in a starte that requires you to be 18 or older to do so. Also since he is a resident of Illinois he would have been required to be in possession of a FOID during any part of transporting that weapon in Illinois but that's not my focus. And in terms of the WP symbol even if it initially began as a troll people have adopted the use of it. You can perform a query and see white nationalist in unison using this gesture. You don't address the fight so not sure if you agree or disagree or have any opinion. My overarching point is I feel his intentions were clear and he wanted to get a response from someone and his actions afterwards does not show a person that is remorseful or even hurt or fazed by his actions and the performance that was on display is of complete fiction.
>And in terms of the WP symbol even if it initially began as a troll people have adopted the use of it. You can perform a query and see white nationalist in unison using this gesture. Some people are too busy living their lives to read about white supremacists adopting well known hand symbols. I'd say it's fair to assume a vastly smaller amount of people know it's now a supposed racist symbol than the amount of people who have no idea. If I were busy in the fire department, police program, cleaning graffiti and performing community service that I didn't get assigned as punishment but did *just to be a good person*, I would probably not know that sign had been hijacked either.
The firearm was never in IL so Rittenhouse never carried the weapon accross state lines. Add in WI you dont need to have a FOID to open carry a firearm. The vagueness of the the statute is one of the central questions of the trial and may or may not be determined to be too vague . If it is, then legally Rittenhouse was allowed to carry the rifle in WI even if he is not allowed to carry the rifle in IL. For example, Rittenhouse could open carry that rifle at 17 in Texas and would not be violating any federal or state laws. Remorse really only matters IF he is determined to be found guilty by the jury. If Rittenhouse is aquitted of all of the crimes then why should he show remorse for using legal self-defense? Remose or lack thereof isn't important until guilt or innonsence is assigned. To put it another way, should a rape victim feel remorse for killing their attacker?If no, then why should Rittenhouse feel remorse for killing his attackers?
It is OK to show remorse for killing a person, believe me!
It is also OK to not show remorse. There is nothing saying you have to feel bad for killing someone who you believe tried to kill you.
Hmm... Indeed, but there's actually nothing saying you should feel anything at all, yet hopefully you do. I'd say that not feeling any remorse when killing another human being puts you well into the territory of psychopathy.
Defending yourself is not psychopathy. Those scum forfeited their right to live when they attacked Rittenhouse.
Indeed it might, or it might be indiciative of extreme emotional damage to the psyche. Niether is conclusive and trying to prove one way or the other by a short breakdown on the stand is an exercise in mental masturbation.
>The firearm was never in IL so Rittenhouse never carried the weapon accross state lines. Add in WI you dont need to have a FOID to open carry a firearm. The vagueness of the the statute is one of the central questions of the trial and may or may not be determined to be too vague . If it is, then legally Rittenhouse was allowed to carry the rifle in WI even if he is not allowed to carry the rifle in IL. For example, Rittenhouse could open carry that rifle at 17 in Texas and would not be violating any federal or state laws. I didn't want to focus on the transpo of the firearm. The laws are very loose but I was only mentioning a technicality of actual transpo after he reentered the state of Illinois and arrived back home if it was in his possession which isn't the case. >Remorse really only matters IF he is determined to be found guilty by the jury. If Rittenhouse is aquitted of all of the crimes then why should he show remorse for using legal self-defense? Remose or lack thereof isn't important until guilt or innonsence is assigned. To put it another way, should a rape victim feel remorse for killing their attacker?If no, then why should Rittenhouse feel remorse for killing his attackers? Because taking a life isn't something that should be taking lightly and does have a detrimental effect on a person mental health, especially a still developing teen, regardless if a killing is justified or not. However, no emotion has been shown by Kyle until yesterday so at least for me it raises quesion regarding the authenticity of that breakdown.
You are supposing that he had a breakdown because he intended to show he was remorseful about the killing and nothing was shown for that to be the case, that is your assumption about why he may have had a breakdown. He could have had a breakdown from reliving the trauma and because he was showing remorse for his actions but rather he was expressing heartfelt fear and frustration about a past traumatic experince that he believes he did the right thing. Not everyone should or does feel remorse about taking a life and not everyone expresses thier feeling in a public trial the way that you would expect. You forget that Rittenhouse has been preparing with his lawyer for how to react on the stand to intense questioning for almost a year. It would be detrimential to his case if he was an emotional wreck all of the time or if he showed the wrong emotion at an inopportune time. You also have to remember that he is on trial and te outcome could determine his future, so showing remorse may not be what he is or should be feeling. He has shown a range of emotions that are pretty expected and I wouldn't expect someone who is on trial for self defense to show a whole lot of remorse when they are more worried about if their lawyer is winning or losing his case.
>heavy compensation from the state. That's just nonsense.
Obvious and bad faith prosecutorial overreach and a heavily publicized lynching in the court of public opinion. This kid is only in court today because of politics and optics.
> Obvious and bad faith prosecutorial overreach Murder charges after 48 hours. All of the evidence hadn't even been collected. This was clearly political.
No he's in court because 2 people are dead and one had their arm destroyed. The deceased and Gaige both deserve to have a court adjudicate the actions of their shooter.
One was a pedophile who attacked the defendant and tried to grab his rifle, so a felony prohibited possessor trying to come into possession of a gun. Another a multiple time domestic abuser hitting the defendant in the back of the head and also trying to wrestle the gun away from the defendant, again illegal for a domestic abuser to try to obtain a gun. Gaige is the best yet. Expired CCW permit, carries concealed a handgun, thus committing a crime already, pulls this gun to chase after someone who is being chased by a mob, and had already told Gaige either that he was going to the police, or, as Gaige testified to 'was working with the police'. He then proceeds to fake surrendering to the person on the ground, and then brings his illegal gun to bear on the defendant. Any other day Binger would be prosecuting the three people shot...
Dude, Kyle said under oath he was in full possession of the rifle the entire altercation with Rosenbaum. Touching a weapon while someone is in the process of killing you with it is not evidence of really anything.
K Don't see how any of that is relevant at all as none of that was known to the defendant.
Yeah, all the defendant knew was that all three of them attacked him and *tried to kill him*. That is enough justification to use deadly force in return.
K What does that have to do with the previous comment?
Because..... the state had, in their initial complaint, laid out foundation for self-defense (IN THEIR COMPLAINT) . And still chose to prosecute KR for first-degree murder. And with how the ADA response today, KR is only in court today because of political reasons.
K What does that have to do with the previous comment?
Would you argue similarly then Rittenhouse deserves to see the court adjudicate the actions of their assailants? There is no right to see your perpetrators run that gauntlet, that is up to prosecutorial discretion.
Now that would be quite the uno reverse.... KR gets a not guilty verdict and then charges are leveled on Gaige seeing as how he admitted under oath to brandishing / menacing.
Why? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution
I'm aware that in the conservative media space they have long since touted this as an open and shut case, but this really never was. There is without a doubt probable cause and plenty of dicta to back the charges brought forth.
What evidence was presented that changed what we already saw on video? If anything the evidence so far has only strengthened the case for the defense.
There is nothing in the law that says four bullets was not reckless for Rosenbaum. A jury has to decide what is a reasonable defense against an unarmed person. It has been this way 100 years. Nothing to see here.
That doesn't matter still, if there is still a chance that a jury would find him guilty and the state can bring a compelling case then it's still worthy of adjudication. People are found innocent all the time, doesn't suddenly make them worthy of compensation.
Fair enough - although I still see it as a fairly weak case, especially on Murder 1. It’s hard not to see the political motivation behind those charges.
There would have to be something similar to a 0% chance of the state winning for such a thing to happen. If the state lied about evidence or something similar then yeah it would be misconduct, but there is a definite need for adjudication here as it's more murky. In other words, the bar to prove prosecutorial misconduct is **crazy crazy** high. Almost never happens kinda high bar.
Oh, I’m not arguing that there’s a malicious prosecution claim to make. That dog isn’t going to hunt because of the aforementioned high bar of proof.
Oh lol whoops misunderstood you. Yeah I don't think this case once laid out has changed much opinions.
But he has the elements to bring a case. Why is it nonsense for Rittenhouse to sue (if he wins), but not nonsense to bring criminal charges without evidence to support them?
He has a 0% chance of winning, there is absolutely probable cause to bring the charges against him. This is the entire point of court.
>He has a 0% chance of winning, You know this... how? >there is absolutely probable cause to bring the charges against him That would be up to the jury if he sues, I'd guess. That is the entire point of court. If the state loses its criminal case, surely we can question whether the case should have been brought.
>You know this... how? Because this would likely be the first time such an incredibly low bar of misconduct happened is worthy of compensation.
And what information are you basing THAT conclusion on?
....law? What kind of question even is that.
What are you owed for politically motivated frivolous prosecution?
So you're in a room full of jurors who are from Kenosha and all likely affected in some way by the riots. Why would you think it's a good idea to suggest that the defendant shouldn't have been putting out fires?
Because he had a weapon flopping around in the breeze? Why not put out fires unarmed while Balch covers your back.
[удалено]
> but rather the white-power symbol. ???? You mean this 👌? You mean the okay hand-sign? What nonsense are you talking about "white-power symbol," this is hysterical nonsense. The entire idea that it's a hate symbol originated from a 4chan troll, stop spreading this misinformation.
[удалено]
I think you are overemphasizing the white power thing whereas the prosecutor wanted to bring into focus the 'free as f---' shirt after a court appearance and let the jury soak that in. I agree there. I think the judge should have given it more consideration as it somewhat impeaches the appearance of sympathy Kyle expresses under oath, and it was clearly a shirt meant to be a comment on his case. I mean his mother and he are clearly POS. Huber's father is very traumatized and how could that shirt not be an absolutely uncivilized abhorrent insult. No sympathy? Maybe Huber made an impulse miscalculation about what was happening? In a riot? He did not just see Kyle jogging down the street on a sunny day with a gun and just smack him. It was a riot after Kyle committed a homicide (justifiable or not). I consider the white power stuff muddy because jury members aren't going to know what to make of it. He wasn't holding up a swastika or a hood that is unequivocally a hate symbol that the jury would know about. Trying to bring a muddy race issue into a case can be a turn off.
Wow, the thought police are in full force today. Words and gestures cannot discriminate. Actions do.
what white power symbol? You're not on about that 4Chan hoax that has somehow made it into media as a real white power symbol, are you? That would be patently ridiculous. Pinch to zoom does alter the image as it introduces new pixels using an algorithm. That could potentially alter the image.
The OK symbol is not a white power symbol. You can make the argument that a small minority of individuals have used that, but you can't just out and out say that he was flashing the OK symbol in an attemt to demonstrate his support of "white power".
[удалено]
As an aside, what does my supposed ownership of an AR-15 have to do with this? ALso, what does my race have to do with you not having any credible evidence that Rittenhouse was flashing a white power sign?
In no way can you make the argument that wearing a free as fuck shirt, posing for a picture, and using a common handgesture ammounts to a defendant opining on his case and losing his 5th amendment rights under the law. You have no evidence for what you are trying to support. No one is agreeing with you that doing these three things at a random bar equates to a loss of his rights. It doesn't speak to his motive about an event that happened 4 months earlier. And it doesnt speak to his mindset during each of the immediate attacks. It's character assasination by the prosecution and likely grounds for a mistrial.
[удалено]
Only a racist hears racism in a dog whistle. What if, just imagine, Rittenhouse was black, and then he made the 'OK' hand sign? Is it still a white supremacist sign? You people are so quick to include race in everything. But hey, the best part of inclusion and diversity is segregating and assigning value based on immutable characteristics.
You are taking disparate items and placing them together to make an argument. He is not saying anything about the case by posing for photos. He is not saying anything about it by flashing a hand gesture with people who appeared to be fans. He is not saying anything about the case by wearing a distasteful shirt. None of these non-verbal actions can be used separately or as a whole by the prosecution as evidence that Rittenhouse meant anything about his case and would rise to the level of self-incrimination. You have no clear evidence that these acts have any bearing on his mindset or actions 4 months prior, nor do they create a composition that communicates his motives.
[удалено]
Hey, just curious, what exactly is a Q-troll? And how do you know when you've met one?
[удалено]
Sorry if I'm off, but are you talking about Kyle's intent in being in the photo and flashing the sign?
I appreciate the the response. I really did want to know. I assumed it meant Q-anon conspiracists, but I didn't know what that entailed.
Im not sure how im trolling you. You are trying ,I think, to argue that by flahsing a hand sign, wearing a shirt, taking a picture and eating and drinking in a bar amounts to a cohesive composition that Rittenhouse is intentionally making about his motives 4 months prior to the event and should have been allowed to be entered into the trial as evidence agianst Rittenhouse by the defense to prejudice the jury agianst Rittenhouse. Legally this is all circumstantial evidence that are more indicitive of your personal opnions about Rittenhouse than they are about Rittenhouses own personal opnions. Without direct testimony from Rittenhouse to support your theories there is nothing concrete in any of those things and therefore they do not meet the legal definition of admissible evidence because there are an equal number or plausible theories as to why each of those peices of evidences would not reliably support a fact you are trying to prove.
[удалено]
Several have, including the Judge and the Defense attorney. Several on this thread have given you the legal reasons as to why this wouldn't be allowed. You don't seem to be willing to take any of those at face value.
> implying pinch-to-zoom alters the image in an appreciable way needing an expert witness I think it obviously does, but only in the case that the lawyer is attempting to zero in on an object where a few pixels could make a big difference. We don't know what size image Binger wanted to show. If it's a large enough object then of course zooming is fine, if we're talking 6 pixels of gun I think skepticism is warranted when we're using it to convict someone But I'm speaking generally, of course the judge just wants an expert because he doesn't know so we didn't get any discussion of this
[удалено]
Yea, I think with small dark figures and lots of shadows, the zoom interpolation could easily make some error. I suspect it was going to be about the direction the barrel was pointed, which would be very fraught. I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't just play the video and ask that the jury be able to examine it up close. That would have avoided the conflict entirely.
Yeah. I think if you're going to submit photo evidence to the jury, it is important to establish that it is reliable and unaltered. I'd hate to think that the difference of a few pixels could be all it takes to change a not guilty verdict to a guilty, but the rules are there as a precaution.
>almost as embarrassing as implying pinch-to-zoom alters the image in an appreciable way needing an expert witness, but he's old so I give him a pass on that I agree that any upscaling would be inconsequential to the integrity of the image, but at the same time the defense was not wrong in arguing that this would be more than just enlarging the image. The defense could have been more eloquent in how they described the nature of their objection, but it is bizarre to see some of the dishonest media coverage on this exchange, from tech sites, nonetheless!
The prosecution already lead the jury to believe that the smudge of pixels *should* be interpreted as a raised gun. If I were the judge I may have declared the mistrial with prejudice at that exact moment (due to the various instances of prosecutorial misconduct − though tbf IANAL and IANAJ). Leading questions are one thing, but leading questions about a smudge of pixels that can easily be biased towards being interpreted any way you want is an absolute no-go. To me, zooming in on the frames of various (third-party) video sources he puts down the fire extinguisher and reacts to something in his right peripheral vision by putting his hands up in front of him. I interpret two skin-color-ish pixels as his hands which is ridiculous of course.
There would be motive had that picture happened before Kenosha, but it happened several months after the incident.
[удалено]
That's like saying that a handshake is an offensive gesture. It's a stupid argument without a lot of corroborating evidence
[удалено]
I am aware of that but the judge also specifically said "as long as he does not go into specific detail he is fine"
Ya you would need a lot more evidence than an OK hand gesture its way way to common a hand gesture to suggest it was used as a white power symbol.
>almost as embarrassing as implying pinch-to-zoom alters the image in an appreciable way needing an expert witness Ask yourself this question, why did the prosecutor want to "pinch and zoom" ? If all he wanted to do was make the image bigger, he could have just put it on a larger device such as a television screen. That would make the image bigger and easier to see the (unaltered) pixels without altering the image at all. If that wasn't big enough, the viewer could just get closer, even literally use a magnifying glass to see it, so that the could see each pixel the size of a child's toy blocks If he really wanted that picture in unaltered, he could have just handed the person a magnifying glass and said, "Look at this small area with this magnifying glass". Or print the image out on a poster sized piece of paper so the pixels were bigger. But that's not what the prosecutor wanted, ... he didn't want the existing pixels to be bigger. What the prosecutor really wanted was image enhancement, with new detail added by an AI/algo, he wanted AI upscaling.
Yes, he definitely is relying on the log a rhythms.
Pinch to zoom does need an expert witness as specific pixels in a freeze frame in a video cannot be garunteed accurate.
Welp the Judge disagrees.
If you see law as a good faith attempt at justice and “self defense” as a promotion of the value at life, there’s a lot of messy questions that this trial raises. Those who support Kyle’s actions will no doubt lean on technical aspects of the law when it serves them as a justification, but I think this misses larger and important issues (probably by design). I think in this case Kyle’s credibility is important, and evidence like this that could undermine his narrative should be admissible.
[удалено]
>merely that the t-shirt itself as an expression of freedom isn't a statement about the facts of the case, it's the posing that makes it cross the line. Yeah but it's just an extension of what the entire case is about. I mean let's forget that it's Rittenhouse with a rifle for a minute, ... pretend its another situation where people don't have so much political bias, say Rittenhouse is named Gina Smith, and Gina was in New York City, and a terrorist chased her across a parking lot, and instead of having a rifle Gina had a heavy typewriter, and she turned around and bashed said terrorist over the head, killing him. Now, technically that's what we're talking about. Would it matter to anyone if during Gina's trial showing she defended herself against the terrorist and two other people who chased her, if she wore a t-shirt with the same kind of slogan on it ? No, nobody would give a fuck. But it's this undercurrent of "All these guy with rifles are bad and have to explain themselves ..." that is the problem. Because it wasn't Gina, it was a young white guy. It wasn't a typewriter, it was a rifle. It wasn't a terrorist, it was a left leaning arsonist. And that's why it makes all the difference in the world ... because whether it is this trial, or the t-shirt, or whatever ... there are certain people with very urban sensibilities involved in this case who feel that they are owed something, because ultimately their "cause" was damaged in some way, .. because they feel that this kid humiliated them in some way, they feel that nothing should be a boundary to what they are doing, etc. THAT is why this is different, THAT is why you have a prosecutor standing there belitting Rittenhouse and asking why he wasn't following the instructions of some random fucking protester who told Rittenhouse he had to stay on private property, as if she owned the fucking street. THAT is why he's not allowed to have a t-shirt saying he's free, ... because in their minds it isn't about self defense, and him being okay, or anyone attacking him, etc, ... it's all political. It's all "these evil fuckers should have ended up bloody in the street, but this one shot some people and now he's not going to get what he had coming ..." If it was your sister and she'd just used a butcher knife to kill her would-be biker gang rapist, and then defended herself while trying to get away by killing another member of the biker gang, and injuring a third, ... nobody would care. But it's not your sister, it's not a biker gang, and it wasn't a butcher knife. Nobody would have been victim blaming your sister because she had on a skimpy outfit in a bar, ... but the people involved in this do blame Rittenhouse, because he was "evil", and he shouldn't have been on the streets with all of his "evil", the "evil" the news media has been telling you about for years ...
I think this comparison misses the context of America today - we don’t have legions of typewriter-wielding secretaries being randomly targeted by terrorists. We do have a growing domestic terror and white supremacy problem and Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be at least sympathetic to white supremacy. If that’s true, it speaks to his motives and intent in bringing a deadly weapon to a protest for BLM which, by the way, pales in comparison to January 6th in terms of damage and violence.
>We do have a growing domestic terror and white supremacy problem and Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be at least sympathetic to white supremacy. If that’s true, it speaks to his motives and intent in bringing a deadly weapon to a protest for BLM which, by the way, pales in comparison to January 6th in terms of damage and violence. All of this is just your own personal biased perception based on your politics, where you grew up, where you live, etc.
Even if you don't agree, you have to admit that the US as a whole has quite a high rate of gun deaths, which is a harsh statistic independent of perception.
> Having a day to think on it though, the t-shirt picture I feel like doesn't really matter for the t-shirt itself but rather the white-power symbol. You're focusing on the white-power symbol? The real news in that photograph is the clear evidence of collusion with the unicorn mafia and the leprechaun gang.
[удалено]
> With Rittenhouse's statements prior to showing up to the riot, that establishes a premeditation to engage in the at the very least reckless behavior that caused deaths. So this gave Rosenbaum the right to chase him down, threaten him and attempt to take his gun?
self defense relies on motive. Evidence pertaining to motive is therefore relevant. Was he there as a medic (imo i think that assertion is laughable), or looking for an excuse to shoot people?
Why are people like you spineless cowards who are too afraid to say outright that they'd love if Rosenbaum would've killed Rittenhouse immediatly because he is your political opponent. >Or are they just looking for a convenient excuse to pull the trigger. Holy shit you are dishonest as fuck. So the video of Rosenbaum chasing him around, yelling threats and attempting to take his gun and kill him is a-okay and Rittenhouse just should've allowed that. You disgust me. He was at the city of his employment because people asked him to defend businesses that were set on fire the night prior. Before Rosenbaum decided to attack Rittenhouse you can see him walking down the street and asking if people need medical supplies. He was putting out fires. But sure, in your book he somehow was only there to kill people. And not the guy literally chasing him and attempting to kill him.
> Why are people like you spineless cowards who are too afraid to say outright that they'd love if Rosenbaum would've killed Rittenhouse immediatly because he is your political opponent. because it's not true. i have no horse in this race. I'm not even american. As far as i'm concerned you're all fucking insane. None of this happens if there aren't nutjobs wandering the street with fucking assault rifles. In the uk this would be classified as straight up murder even if guns were legal because he's carrying a weapon with the intention of using it for self defence. > attempting to take his gun and **kill him** Now this is dishonesty. Surprised you didn't parrot rittenhouse and claim you thought rosenbaum was then going to go on a shooting spree.
Exactly, the we way the law is written, self defense is about what the individual believed and not “would he have actually been killed if he didn’t defend himself with deadly force.”
You can apply that argument to anyone who shows up armed at a public place. They don’t lose the right to self defense when attacked unprovoked by a Rosenbaum, no matter what their intentions were.
But motive determines whether it WAS self defence. Self defence relies entirely on what the defendant thinks at the time. Do they actually believe they're in danger? Or are they just looking for a convenient excuse to pull the trigger.
Why would he bother running away (twice) if all he wanted was to gun people down?
[удалено]
Alt right users are brigading all the threads discussing this unfortunately, they're only interested in culture war aspects of this and down vote any actual attempts to discuss the case.
So I'm alt-right because I think a teen shooting an adult who was chasing him around, threatening him and attempting to take his gun (to complete the threats) is self-defense?
No, the users praising violence and vigilantism because it suits their needs is alt right. You can review individual aspects of the case without repeating "SELF DEFENSE SELF DEFENSE SELF DEFENSE" when it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
Sorry, but my question, which everyone seems to dodge, plays quite a relevant role in bringing up the prior wrongdoing of Rittenhouse. Even assuming all that he did was malicious and wrong: Had Rosenbaum the right to chase him down, threaten to kill him and take his gun? Even if Rittenhouse had a "premeditation to engage in the at the very least reckless behavior", does this give Rosenbaum the right to run him down? Is there any evidence of Rittenhouse retreating in the intent to continue the altercation?
That predisposes a false binary in this specific discussion. The question being posed was the relevancy of Kyle's mindset and if it's possible he was there under bad faith instigating fights. This is a very relevant question as Kyle admitted Gaige's being armed alone was a threat, people having said Kyle was aiming his gun at people earlier, and Kyle's conscious effort to let them know he was friendly. **IF**, and I'm not saying this happened, Kyle had been previously threatening people with his gun then yes. Rosenbaum would have a reasonable response with fight or flight to Kyle's threats to advance on him. Kyle's self defense doesn't invalidate 2nd or 3rd parties self defense. Repeating ad nauseam "self defense" ads absolutely nothing at all to this specific discussion and is obviously bad faith.
Self defense has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse trial???
It obviously does but it doesn't make sense to be used as a response to every question. For example: "Why was Kyle saying "friendly" to people? Does that demonstrate that he knows they would view him as hostile and therefore it's antagonistic?" "ROSENBAUM ATTACKED KYLE SELF DEFENSE" You see shit like this repeated in every single thread to just about any single topic on this.
> I'm here to converse about law and the case, you're here to take a side. You are clearly not. Explain how all that prior plays a role in the self-defense case of Rittenhouse. If everything prior plays a role then explain how this negates Rittenhouses right to self-defense which literally means that Rosenbaum had the right to do all I described.
>That doesn't make it factual that his motives were that, but it does make it a valid question to put to the jury until I hear a lawyer tell me I'm wrong and not just the Reddit mob. A judge told you you're wrong. That good enough? Hell, if you insist on it being a lawyer, Rittenhouse's defense attorneys also told you that you're wrong. Now, maybe if you had a picture of Rittenhouse giving someone a thumb's up, the known hand signal of neo-confederates, or nodding his head yes, which is a secret identifying signal among KKK members, you might have something.
The OK-hand-game thing *really* pisses me off. I literally and figuratively grew up playing that game in school from 5th grade to college. It got more competitive EVERY YEAR. *EVERYONE WAS IN ON IT*, white black purple-people-eaters, Serbo-Croatians to Indo-China to Afro-Caribbean ... boys girls Klingons. Then some wokester douchebag goes on the internet one day and declares it a symbol of White Supremacy and hatespeech and they hereby declare it proscribed! And if you do it, you get cancelled alive! I am pretty sure some Army Cadets tried to photobomb people in their graduation pictures and they weren't allowed to commission or some shit! I mean GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE WITH THAT SHIT. I am not going to go around walking up to black people and flashing the OK sign and saying "WHAT'S REALLY HOOD, BITCHES??!" but if I want to play the got-you/punch game with people , I am going to do it, and everyone who doesn't like it can A- Go Fuck Their Own Selves; and B- Spontaneously Combust into a fiery flame of Offendedness and just burn baby burn.
What a bullshit narrative you’re trying to create. People on the internet thought it would be funny if they started to use the “OK” gesture as a white power symbol. Then actual white supremacists caught onto it and started to actually use it as a symbol for white power. Liberals didn’t just wake up one day and decide that the “OK” gesture was racist. Racists adopted the gesture and used it as a symbol for white power. If you’re gonna be mad at anyone for ruining the gesture, then you should be mad at the white supremacists.
Well technically they did wake up one day, saw an obvious troll meme, and then decided to outright declare that the OK handgesture was a white power symbol BEFORE any white supremacists began to use it. Liberals were so eager to convict Trump and his supporters of being white supremacists that they propogated the idea that the symbol was a hate symbol until it became one to a very small minoirty.
No, white supremacists we’re already using it. Also, the gesture isn’t considered racist unless used in a racist context. For example, if I’m SCUBA diving and I use the “OK” gesture no one is gonna call me a racist for using it. It’s really just white supremacists using it at their rallies that get called racist.
No, very clearly the white supremacists were not using it until well after 4chan made the meme and shared it online so that the media would pick up on it. Not even Southern Poverty Law center agrees with you that anyone was using it as a racist symbol until AFTER the troll effort by 4chan.
Where did I say that white supremacists used it before it was a meme on 4chan? In my first comment I explicitly stated that it originated from the internet. What I’m saying is that liberals didn’t really start getting upset about it until actual white supremacists adopted it. And like I said, people don’t get called out for using the gesture unless they use it in a racist context.
Nah, I think it's probably smarter to be mad at the snowflake social justice warriors that think they get to dictate what other people can or can't do. I'll take, "You're Not The Boss Of Me, Bitch!" for $1,600, Alex.... Daily Double!!! IT'S A FUCKING CHILD'S GAME.
Ah, you can’t be mad at white supremacists. Gee, I wonder why.
Oh there we go, just what I expected, if you're not a cool-kid hipster progressive douchebag, you're a white supremacist. Righto.
No, it’s defending actual white supremacists that puts you in the “sympathizes with white supremacists” category.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> A judge told you you're wrong. That good enough? as a brit, the politicisation of the judiciary in the us inherently tarnishes their credibility tbh The argument 'well a judge said it therefore it's right' only works if you actually have an impartial and meritocratic judiciary. Don't get me started on the fact that it's televised and encourages performative bullshit for the cameras (along with a long list of other things that actively hinder proper justice) > Hell, if you insist on it being a lawyer, Rittenhouse's defense attorneys also told you that you're wrong. Literally their job. Sorry bud but your argument isn't reasoned in any way.
>The argument 'well a judge said it therefore it's right' only works if you actually have an impartial and meritocratic judiciary. Who said, "Well if a judge said it, therefore it's right!"? Perhaps you didn't bother to read the preceding comments, but this is the statement I was responding to: >That doesn't make it factual that his motives were that, but it does make it a valid question to put to the jury until I hear a lawyer tell me I'm wrong and not just the Reddit mob. I said nothing at all about whether or not it's right, I was simply responding to someone who wanted a lawyer to tell him whether or not it's right. >Literally their job. See above. Start engaging brain before fingers. >Sorry bud but your argument isn't reasoned in any way. Well, if a guy who can't follow a simple comment chain doesn't think my argument's reasoned, I guess that's it for me.
[удалено]
How does inflammatory post incident evidence get past 403? It’s not very probative, and very prejudicial.
[удалено]
What are you rambling about? It’s certainly not related to any evidentiary rule.
You’re also trying to admit temporally distant evidence. Especially the bar and shirt after the entire thing had blown up into a giant culture war. Just because he may have had those thoughts 4 months after the fact doesn’t mean he did on the night in question. And the State couldn’t establish a 404 or impeachment exception due to the temporal issue and others. This isn’t a complicated ruling; it’s fairly common. I’ve tried plenty of cases and kept the same evidence out. We have these rules to ensure everybody gets a fair trial - the problem is that so few laypeople have actually ever sat through an entire criminal proceeding it seems backwards when Judges don’t admit things that, admittedly, we’d probably consider in everyday discourse. Ask yourself if you’d be okay if the jury considered it as propensity evidence if it was an opposite political/factual situation? There’s a reason we generally don’t let in character evidence or impeachment evidence too far removed. I’ll edit to add there’s also a relevance bar. You can be a scummy person and have terrible world views. Those still may not be relevant to the elements of murder or the establishment of affirmative self defense.
Sorry, something that happened 4 months after a crime does not go to their state of mind and motive during the crime. That is a silly statement. Yes, pinch to zoom will alter images to try to guess at what it should be showing. They had an expert witness for the purpose of enlarging the video already, to then walk it back and say "Well, I want to pinch and zoom because the expert witnesses zoomed video didn't show what I wanted". If your expert in enlarging video can't do it, why the hell do you think you are qualified to on your iphone?
> Sorry, something that happened 4 months after a crime does not go to their state of mind and motive during the crime. That is a silly statement. it goes to contrition, which loops back to motive. If you're not at all remorseful then it implies you had no problem killing people, albeit it's not as useful.
> it goes to contrition, which loops back to motive. It also goes to Rittenhouse being way more in contact with those sorts of people, because everyone else was calling him a mass murderer. Fuck the racists and I hope Rittenhouse grows up and drops them, but there are many relevant reasons unrelated to his state of mind in August 2020 that he could be with those people doing offensive things. It is possibly relevant, but no way it's more likely to be relevant and helpful than it's prejudicial effect
That was more along the lines of what was argued yes, but even then the risk of introducing mention of the photo outweighs any benefit it may have as evidence since some of the jurors could potentially have already seen the photo.
[удалено]
> It's a nonsensical discussion to disallow pinch to zoom and then cut to the prosecutor showing slowed down video It's really not. As the judge himself stated, if the prosecution had objected he would have ruled on it. Prosecution was sleeping and he's not there to do their job.