• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic


The video allegedly showing Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Zaminski. Per someone’s request above. Feel free to slow it down. View at your leisure.


We're not in a heated debate here. You can use my name and reference my post with a quote by me, assigned to me. Here is what I had written regarding the video:
"I am open-minded. Can you show the original?"

This isn't the original. I haven't spent hours looking for the original but mostly when I do look for the original, I get inundated with news links about the trial and so forth. Then I see a few links of altered videos. This one isn't the original either. There's some kind of noise of someone typing in it and there's rewinding and playing forward then more rewinding, zooming in, slow motion et cetera and that isn't clear any of those things have been added to a non-original enhanced version. From this video, I am unsure of where the initial point is that I should be looking at or if there is another drone video that has greater length of time in it before the first shooting.

Also, I just became aware that the defense has made a claim as part of their mistrial charge that there is an unedited, high-quality version of the drone footage of a file size some 4x the one with slow motion, enhancement, etc, and so if it exists, that'd be the original.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Some people act like BLM is a tide of violence, when in reality 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful. Of ones where there was violence or vandalism, a number of them involve criminals who are not part of the protests taking advantage of them, racists trying to discredit the protests, and cops initiating the violence. At least one death of a bystander at a protest was later found to had been shot by a cop.

7% comes to a big number when it's thousands of protests though. Like when saying only 1%, of covid cases end up dead, if it's out of a large total, it adds up.


And that number is only for a couple of weeks from May to June, doesn't cover the Kenosha Blake protests, for example.

 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,135
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The civil war was expensive too. But not as expensive as the one coming up if the left resists the installation of a white supremacist regime.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,134
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The civil war was expensive too. But not as expensive as the one coming up if the left resists the installation of a white supremacist regime.
An emoji does nothing to express the sadness I feel contemplating this. I'm almost crying. At work.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,639
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Some people act like BLM is a tide of violence, when in reality 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful. Of ones where there was violence or vandalism, a number of them involve criminals who are not part of the protests taking advantage of them, racists trying to discredit the protests, and cops initiating the violence. At least one death of a bystander at a protest was later found to had been shot by a cop.

7% comes to a big number when it's thousands of protests though. Like when saying only 1%, of covid cases end up dead, if it's out of a large total, it adds up.


And that number is only for a couple of weeks from May to June, doesn't cover the Kenosha Blake protests, for example.

The point being that #BLM having the gross majority of protests being non-violent indicates that saying #BLM is responsible for all the violence is a bit over the top as clearly #BLM, of what leadership existed, pushed for peaceful / daylight protests.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,639
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Jury wants to review video evidence. Defense attorneys don't want them to watch it too many times... like more than once.

And the Judge did a great job of punting until he sees where the jury might be going with their review of the video evidence, by answering 'jury gets to watch in courtroom'.

There are a couple (dozen) reads on this. A few holdouts on innocent until they review the video. A few holdouts on guilty until they review the video and hang the jury. I would put my money on holdout on innocent.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
The prosecutors and defense attorneys practically put their faces on the screen to look at things, but the judge stayed a bit distant. So, I wonder what the rules are about how close they can get to the screen.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,954
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I thought jury deliberations were supposed to be private. Either the video evidence is admissible, or it is not. If it is admissible, then the jury should be able to look at however they wish for however long they wish.

.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,639
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Interest point. So does jury watch video individually and doesn't speak about it, do they watch in a group, can they seek consensus while watching it?
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Jurors asked to see some videos on the second shooting event, they will be watching the videos by themselves in the deliberation room.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,690
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker


The video allegedly showing Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Zaminski. Per someone’s request above. Feel free to slow it down. View at your leisure.


We're not in a heated debate here. You can use my name and reference my post with a quote by me, assigned to me. Here is what I had written regarding the video:
"I am open-minded. Can you show the original?"

This isn't the original. I haven't spent hours looking for the original but mostly when I do look for the original, I get inundated with news links about the trial and so forth. Then I see a few links of altered videos. This one isn't the original either. There's some kind of noise of someone typing in it and there's rewinding and playing forward then more rewinding, zooming in, slow motion et cetera and that isn't clear any of those things have been added to a non-original enhanced version. From this video, I am unsure of where the initial point is that I should be looking at or if there is another drone video that has greater length of time in it before the first shooting.

Also, I just became aware that the defense has made a claim as part of their mistrial charge that there is an unedited, high-quality version of the drone footage of a file size some 4x the one with slow motion, enhancement, etc, and so if it exists, that'd be the original.

Sorry. I was a bit in a rush and couldn’t recall who asked. IAE, this is the closest I’ve found. It may not be the original, but it’s not a copy. It’s just been slowed down and rewound in parts. The resolution isn’t better in the jurors version. The evidence just isn’t there to support the prosecution’s theory that Rittenhouse pointed the gun. It’s not a matter of could have pointed the gun. Lot of things could have happened. It’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I have it’s of reasonable doubts that Rittenhouse pointed the gun. The issue is about the 6 to 8 second mark in this video.

IIRC, the other version that the defense says exists was supposed to have been lost originally by the FBI. If That does exist and the prosecutor failed to turn that over, then that will indeed be very, very good grounds for a mistrial. Even if it was destroyed then that could seriously impact the fairness of the trial and could be used to get an instruction that it was presumably favorable to the defense.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,889
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist


The video allegedly showing Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Zaminski. Per someone’s request above. Feel free to slow it down. View at your leisure.


We're not in a heated debate here. You can use my name and reference my post with a quote by me, assigned to me. Here is what I had written regarding the video:
"I am open-minded. Can you show the original?"

This isn't the original. I haven't spent hours looking for the original but mostly when I do look for the original, I get inundated with news links about the trial and so forth. Then I see a few links of altered videos. This one isn't the original either. There's some kind of noise of someone typing in it and there's rewinding and playing forward then more rewinding, zooming in, slow motion et cetera and that isn't clear any of those things have been added to a non-original enhanced version. From this video, I am unsure of where the initial point is that I should be looking at or if there is another drone video that has greater length of time in it before the first shooting.

Also, I just became aware that the defense has made a claim as part of their mistrial charge that there is an unedited, high-quality version of the drone footage of a file size some 4x the one with slow motion, enhancement, etc, and so if it exists, that'd be the original.

Sorry. I was a bit in a rush and couldn’t recall who asked. IAE, this is the closest I’ve found. It may not be the original, but it’s not a copy. It’s just been slowed down and rewound in parts. The resolution isn’t better in the jurors version. The evidence just isn’t there to support the prosecution’s theory that Rittenhouse pointed the gun. It’s not a matter of could have pointed the gun. Lot of things could have happened. It’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I have it’s of reasonable doubts that Rittenhouse pointed the gun. The issue is about the 6 to 8 second mark in this video.

IIRC, the other version that the defense says exists was supposed to have been lost originally by the FBI. If That does exist and the prosecutor failed to turn that over, then that will indeed be very, very good grounds for a mistrial. Even if it was destroyed then that could seriously impact the fairness of the trial and could be used to get an instruction that it was presumably favorable to the defense.

How do you know the above bolded?
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
@SLD, that is not the original, that is just a video download from courtroom cameras streams, it's not the original video file in evidence.

From what the lawyers have been saying, the original drone video came from an anonymous source and which was first aired publicly on Tucker Carlson show in August 2020, and provided by KR's first attorney Pierce.

Note, this is not the FBI video, the FBI video is the surveillance footage from high altitude. This was from a drone flying near the street.

It was given anonymously to the state 2 weeks ago, and the police airdropped and emailed it to a prosecutor. Apparently, the emailed version was compressed compared to the airdropped one, and that lower quality one is what was emailed to the defense. So, it appears the defense got the compressed version by inadvertence. I doubt it would have made a difference in their case, but they are claiming so now.

Jurors haven't asked for that video yet, but it will be a fight if they do. I'd say they have better footing to complain about the still image generated by software, but not against the actual video. Both sides have already given their version of what it shows anyway, so let the jurors decide.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
So jurors have now asked for the drone video footage, and it has been allowed, and they are watching it in the cleared out courtroom alone.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
@SLD, that is not the original, that is just a video download from courtroom cameras streams, it's not the original video file in evidence.

From what the lawyers have been saying, the original drone video came from an anonymous source and which was first aired publicly on Tucker Carlson show in August 2020, and provided by KR's first attorney Pierce.

Note, this is not the FBI video, the FBI video is the surveillance footage from high altitude. This was from a drone flying near the street.

It was given anonymously to the state 2 weeks ago, and the police airdropped and emailed it to a prosecutor. Apparently, the emailed version was compressed compared to the airdropped one, and that lower quality one is what was emailed to the defense. So, it appears the defense got the compressed version by inadvertence. I doubt it would have made a difference in their case, but they are claiming so now.

Jurors haven't asked for that video yet, but it will be a fight if they do. I'd say they have better footing to complain about the still image generated by software, but not against the actual video. Both sides have already given their version of what it shows anyway, so let the jurors decide.
Am I confused? Shouldn't the first attorney have handed the original video over to the prosecutors and later to the new defense attorneys?
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Yes, but if he didn't, I'm not sure if that means they still have no basis to complain. They should get the same evidence. But again, they're just arguing on a technicality, it wouldn't have mattered, if they're honest. They claim it doesn't show anything against KR in either version.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,636
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Some people act like BLM is a tide of violence, when in reality 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful.
This bears repeating and with the proper context. The vast, vast majority of BLM protests are non violent. It takes a lot of effort to paint reality different and to Derec's credit he's done an excellent job screaming about the needle he's found whilst conveniently ignoring the big fucking haystack said needle was in. Because to acknowledge how popular the BLM movement diminishes the strength of his argument. Especially when compared to alt-right protests which, while nowhere as popular as BLM rallies, almost always leaves behind property damage, injuries and fatalities.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,690
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker


The video allegedly showing Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Zaminski. Per someone’s request above. Feel free to slow it down. View at your leisure.


We're not in a heated debate here. You can use my name and reference my post with a quote by me, assigned to me. Here is what I had written regarding the video:
"I am open-minded. Can you show the original?"

This isn't the original. I haven't spent hours looking for the original but mostly when I do look for the original, I get inundated with news links about the trial and so forth. Then I see a few links of altered videos. This one isn't the original either. There's some kind of noise of someone typing in it and there's rewinding and playing forward then more rewinding, zooming in, slow motion et cetera and that isn't clear any of those things have been added to a non-original enhanced version. From this video, I am unsure of where the initial point is that I should be looking at or if there is another drone video that has greater length of time in it before the first shooting.

Also, I just became aware that the defense has made a claim as part of their mistrial charge that there is an unedited, high-quality version of the drone footage of a file size some 4x the one with slow motion, enhancement, etc, and so if it exists, that'd be the original.

Sorry. I was a bit in a rush and couldn’t recall who asked. IAE, this is the closest I’ve found. It may not be the original, but it’s not a copy. It’s just been slowed down and rewound in parts. The resolution isn’t better in the jurors version. The evidence just isn’t there to support the prosecution’s theory that Rittenhouse pointed the gun. It’s not a matter of could have pointed the gun. Lot of things could have happened. It’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I have it’s of reasonable doubts that Rittenhouse pointed the gun. The issue is about the 6 to 8 second mark in this video.

IIRC, the other version that the defense says exists was supposed to have been lost originally by the FBI. If That does exist and the prosecutor failed to turn that over, then that will indeed be very, very good grounds for a mistrial. Even if it was destroyed then that could seriously impact the fairness of the trial and could be used to get an instruction that it was presumably favorable to the defense.

How do you know the above bolded?

It’s digital. It’s all the same ones and zeros. The original ones and zeros are not in issue here and won’t be available To anyone. Those would only be on the device that made the image in the first place. This isn’t someone taking a video of the video. That would be indeed inappropriate. But recall two points. 1) the judge himself has commented that he can’t say it shows what the prosecution says it shows. It was blurry to him. I posted the still pictures above. They are enlargements of stills from this film and they don’t show Rittenhouse pointing a gun. They show a white blob to the left of Rittenhouse that the prosecution says is his right hand, but that same white blob appears in the video before Rittenhouse gets there. That can be clearly seen in this video. It’s part of the car, not his hand. 2) The prosecution’s case rests on the right handed Rittenhouse pointing the gun with his left hand on the trigger, opposite from the way he was carrying it just prior to that point and the way in which he shot Rosenbaum Just a few seconds later and after running away. All this time, he was shouting friendly too. These are not the actions of someone provoking deadly force. The evidence just isn’t there to convict him. He may be a shit for brains dumb fuck wannabe Rambo for going down there with a rifle, after curfew, and being underage, but he doesn’t lose the right to self defense unless he pointed that gun at someone In a threatening way. That is the only relevant issue. And it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not woulda, coulda, shoulda.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,690
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Here are the first four pages of the defense motion filed today. The issue is that the state did indeed have another version of this video and apparently got it on November 5th. That’s what they used in court. But that’s not what they shared with the defense. The version they a shared with the defense was a lower resolution.

That could be a very, very serious error in the part of the prosecution. Failing to provide the full evidence could indeed be grounds for a mistrial and with prejudice.

4CC2155A-96C3-4DF7-B233-459022397058.jpeg304A81A8-0B7F-4584-9729-101E665C8F87.jpegA4D12674-3150-42CB-BEB2-4D61AD62A67D.jpeg4FDF6025-4FF6-4756-A8E4-5A5C75F384DC.jpeg
sorry it’s backwards.

ETA: A better and full version is here: https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/roitmistrial.pdf

I downloaded it but can't seem to upload a PDF to this site. But on page 5 they argue that the prosecution must show why they didn't provide them with the full video. They're giving them a chance first to explain why they did it this way. If the Judge isn't satisfied, he can throw it out. Bad call on the part of the prosecutor. Really, really dumb. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to lose the case.
 

Attachments

  • roitmistrial.pdf
    92.6 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,889
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse The friend of Rittenhouse, 17, purchased the gun later used to allegedly fatally shoot two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, prosecutors say.

Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.

It would be ironic if his friend gets jail time and KR doesn't.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,639
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I downloaded it but can't seem to upload a PDF to this site. But on page 5 they argue that the prosecution must show why they didn't provide them with the full video. They're giving them a chance first to explain why they did it this way. If the Judge isn't satisfied, he can throw it out. Bad call on the part of the prosecutor. Really, really dumb. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to lose the case.
Haven't they already explained how that happened? And with the jury reviewing the video themselves, I can't think any of the testimony on the video will actually matter. The defense is trying to kill this on a bare technicality.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,516
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Some people act like BLM is a tide of violence, when in reality 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful. Of ones where there was violence or vandalism, a number of them involve criminals who are not part of the protests taking advantage of them, racists trying to discredit the protests, and cops initiating the violence. At least one death of a bystander at a protest was later found to had been shot by a cop.

Please. If this were a board for children, then you'd enclose the truth about Santa Claus in Hide/Spoiler tags, right? Why disillusion the kids? We have board members here whose wet dreams depend on Hannity lies about BLM violence. It's only fair to hide the truth about that in Spoiler tags for the same reason.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
I downloaded it but can't seem to upload a PDF to this site. But on page 5 they argue that the prosecution must show why they didn't provide them with the full video. They're giving them a chance first to explain why they did it this way. If the Judge isn't satisfied, he can throw it out. Bad call on the part of the prosecutor. Really, really dumb. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to lose the case.
Haven't they already explained how that happened? And with the jury reviewing the video themselves, I can't think any of the testimony on the video will actually matter. The defense is trying to kill this on a bare technicality.

They explained it, and the defense is lying when they say they would have changed their strategy if they had the better video, but it's still an error that could give the defense a free spin for another trial if they lose this one.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,954
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I downloaded it but can't seem to upload a PDF to this site. But on page 5 they argue that the prosecution must show why they didn't provide them with the full video. They're giving them a chance first to explain why they did it this way. If the Judge isn't satisfied, he can throw it out. Bad call on the part of the prosecutor. Really, really dumb. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to lose the case.
Haven't they already explained how that happened? And with the jury reviewing the video themselves, I can't think any of the testimony on the video will actually matter. The defense is trying to kill this on a bare technicality.
There is virtually no cost to the defense to try to get this case retried or thrown out on a technicality. It suggests the defense is not terribly confident that this was a clear-cut case of self-defense.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
It seems like they have a backup option where the judge is going to declare mistrial if there is any indication of any kind of conviction at all.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,639
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I downloaded it but can't seem to upload a PDF to this site. But on page 5 they argue that the prosecution must show why they didn't provide them with the full video. They're giving them a chance first to explain why they did it this way. If the Judge isn't satisfied, he can throw it out. Bad call on the part of the prosecutor. Really, really dumb. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to lose the case.
Haven't they already explained how that happened? And with the jury reviewing the video themselves, I can't think any of the testimony on the video will actually matter. The defense is trying to kill this on a bare technicality.

They explained it, and the defense is lying when they say they would have changed their strategy if they had the better video, but it's still an error that could give the defense a free spin for another trial if they lose this one.
Your Honor, we would have changed our strategy had we known the video proved our client murdered that person. The truth is, that isn't an invalid argument. Get the right judge, and you can over-rule a conviction. I'm curious what details can and can't be discerned.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,889
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
It seems like they have a backup option where the judge is going to declare mistrial if there is any indication of any kind of conviction at all.
Joyce Vance said this morning that if the judge declares a mistrial and a new trial is ordered the prosecution should demand the judge recuse himself from it.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,889
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
So MSNBC just got barred from the courtroom because an idiot producer was following the jury bus. They got stopped by police for running a red light while following it yesterday.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Allegedly, the producer is a freelancer. Suspicions and allegations abound that the freelance producer was taking pictures, but it turns out that there are no pictures. Allegedly, the producer received orders from headquarters at NBC to follow the bus but there is no substantiation of that claim. Since there are no pictures, what is the alternative cause for following a bus of jurors? Could it be to report on when exactly deliberations would start again to get a head start on those things, to watch if when jurors get off the bus if there's any kind of violent incident to be there when it happens or some nefarious reason? If it is true that the producer is the one who said orders came from NBC headquarters, then it seems valid to ban NBC from the court room, pending investigation.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
So, he'll walk.
And like every teen that gets away with shit, he'll begin to believe he's untouchable.
He'll go on to start taking pot shots at demonstrations, Democrat campaign busses, or some such.
Until his next crime is so egregious even Trump as the Judge couldn't get him off.
Statists' Senseless Static

And off we go into the wild blue-state yonder.
unlike wallowing in gore in the dripping-red-blood states in yer guys most imperfect union
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
If cops hadn’t shot up some unarmed guy whose small children were in the back of the car, there wouldn’t have been unrest in Kenosha.
Toni, give it a rest with your misinformation!
1. Jacob Blake was armed. He was holding a knife.
2. The vehicle was not his.
3. He did not have custody of the kids.
4. He had a felony sexual assault warrant.


And note that even if the shooting was not justified, rioting, looting and arson certainly is not.

If there were not dozens and dozens and dozens of other instances of cops shooting unarmed people, there would not be these demonstrations and protests that turn into riots with collateral damage, both property and human.
Most police shootings involve armed subjects. And often unarmed subjects can also be a threat justifying use of lethal force. If the police officer is too hesitant in shooting, un unarmed assailant can disarm that police officer and use his or her weapon against the cop. This has happened numerous times in the past.
Also, often armed perps also precipitate rioting. Jacob Blake was armed. Mario Woods was armed. Keith Smith was armed (it was not a book after all!)

It is hard to have peace without justice.
What justice? Jacob Blake - no matter how much Kamala Harris is proud of him - brought the shooting on himself.

He didn't have a knife in his hand. They found knife after they shot him.

It doesn't matter if it was his car or if he had custody of his kids. The police were not attempting to rescue his kids.

They shot him in front of his 3 young children, in a car. They could have very easily killed one or more of his children, rather than just traumatizing them.

I realize you are perfectly fine with police shooting as many black men as possible but a lot of people are tired of this shit and they are not all black people.

Baby-Face Kyle is white, not a cop, and his victims were all, I beli
It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name
Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason

A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived.
Where do I find this in the law?
One Riot, One Ranger

It's the natural law, which had protected civilization for millennia until the thughuggers took over. Your "rule of law" is the law of your rulers. Patriots must take the law back into our own hands.

How do you tell a patriot, then, from a political thug?--oh yeah, they're on the side you agree with. To me Baby Face Rittenhouse, like Don the Con, are all-American thugs.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I guess I'm a little bit out of the loop these days wrt slang. What exactly does it even mean that Ben's wife is "dry"? She's in menopause?
I assumed it meant her vagina is dry, because Ben Shapiro does not sexually excite her.

Of course, that would be an unkind thing to say, and we know the left is always kind.
It is a reference to Shapiro going on a tear badmouthing the Cardi B song WAP (Wet Ass P****y). One statement he posted on twitter was that his wife said that is a sign of an infection. Which led people to believe he has never gotten his wife wet.
OK, that clears things up a bit. I was thinking dry, as in her eggs are "dried up" due to advancing age. I found this on Ben's Twitter feed:

Ben Shapiro's wife is dry?

As I also discussed on the show, my only real concern is that the women involved -- who apparently require a "bucket and a mop" -- get the medical care they require. My doctor wife's differential diagnosis: bacterial vaginosis, yeast infection, or trichomonis.

I don't see the connection, though, between his doctor wife's medical diagnosis of excessive vaginal fluid (not sure if its true, maybe some of the ladies can chime in here) and her not getting aroused by her husband. It doesn't follow.
Well, Kyle Rittenhouse scrunched up his Cardi B-less eyes just as hard as he could and quavered his chin like Kate Hepburn trying to act emotional--but as Dorothy Parker once wrote in a review of Miss Hepburn's acting, he ran the gamut of emotions from A to B. At least he was trying unlike the civilian shooter of an unarmed black man who, on the stand thus week, kept repeating in a more or less "manly" tone that the shooting was the most traumatic event of his life, with nary a word for the trauma of the man he shot.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I wonder if all these Rittenfans would be pleased if “Antifa” and BLMers started policing Trump rallies with AR15s.
I wasn't aware that Trump rallies end up in rioting, arson and grafitti resulting in $50m property damage a pop. No wonder presidential campaigns are so expensive.
Raise yer awareness: Jan. 6, except for the arson--but shit did get flung, and coops killed and injured
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still.

View attachment 36092

There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up.

View attachment 36093
The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum.

The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense.
So, his possible victims were supposed to call out to him, "Hey, baby Face, are you left handed?"
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
The market value of the property can be quantified. The sentimental value of the property cannot-

Oh, but it can be compared - to the "sentimental value" of a human life.
And guess what?
Right wingers have made that comparison, and determined that the sentimental value of any given inanimate object may very well exceed the sentimental value of a human. Especially a black human. Sometimes they even cite dollar values as "proof".

"Damn those property damagers - free the murderers!"
- Trumpsucker credo
Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital--remember that sweet reckless Ashley Babbit (sorry, can't be bothered to look up correct spelling of this thug's name) is a patriotic martyr to many MAGGOTS.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,711
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
If cops hadn’t shot up some unarmed guy whose small children were in the back of the car, there wouldn’t have been unrest in Kenosha.
Toni, give it a rest with your misinformation!
1. Jacob Blake was armed. He was holding a knife.
2. The vehicle was not his.
3. He did not have custody of the kids.
4. He had a felony sexual assault warrant.


And note that even if the shooting was not justified, rioting, looting and arson certainly is not.

If there were not dozens and dozens and dozens of other instances of cops shooting unarmed people, there would not be these demonstrations and protests that turn into riots with collateral damage, both property and human.
Most police shootings involve armed subjects. And often unarmed subjects can also be a threat justifying use of lethal force. If the police officer is too hesitant in shooting, un unarmed assailant can disarm that police officer and use his or her weapon against the cop. This has happened numerous times in the past.
Also, often armed perps also precipitate rioting. Jacob Blake was armed. Mario Woods was armed. Keith Smith was armed (it was not a book after all!)

It is hard to have peace without justice.
What justice? Jacob Blake - no matter how much Kamala Harris is proud of him - brought the shooting on himself.

He didn't have a knife in his hand. They found knife after they shot him.

It doesn't matter if it was his car or if he had custody of his kids. The police were not attempting to rescue his kids.

They shot him in front of his 3 young children, in a car. They could have very easily killed one or more of his children, rather than just traumatizing them.

I realize you are perfectly fine with police shooting as many black men as possible but a lot of people are tired of this shit and they are not all black people.

Baby-Face Kyle is white, not a cop, and his victims were all, I beli
It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name
Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason

A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived.
Where do I find this in the law?
One Riot, One Ranger

It's the natural law, which had protected civilization for millennia until the thughuggers took over. Your "rule of law" is the law of your rulers. Patriots must take the law back into our own hands.

How do you tell a patriot, then, from a political thug?--oh yeah, they're on the side you agree with. To me Baby Face Rittenhouse, like Don the Con, are all-American thugs.

Thug, yes.

I prefer to stick to the law and to do our utmost as citizens to hold our criminal justice system to the highest standards.

Rittenhouse is still a kid, albeit one who probably has little chance of actual redemption, given the hero worship he's garnered. To call Trump a thug is extremely euphemistic.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,690
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker


The video allegedly showing ....

What video?

I declare a mistrial and that SLD should be disbarred immediately!:mad:

Yeah it’s not on YouTube anymore. It’s a conspiracy!

But I can't argue the point with you anymore and I had these really good points I was going to make. MISTRIAL!


So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still.

View attachment 36092

There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up.

View attachment 36093
The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum.

The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense.
So, his possible victims were supposed to call out to him, "Hey, baby Face, are you left handed?"
WTF?

No. The issue is did he point the rifle, with malicious intent (if while he was setting down the fire extinguisher the rifle swung around in a small arc and may have accidentally fanned someone is not sufficient), at anyone before Rosenbaum started to chase him? More specifically has the prosecution proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt? That's the ultimate question in this trial. I don't think they have and the fact that he is right handed not left handed shows it far more clearly that he most likely did not point the rifle at anyone. No one here has presented any evidence that he did. I am unaware of any witness stating that they saw him do that. Zaminski didn't testify because he's under indictment for his part as well, including firing a weapon a few seconds before. He was also accused by Rittenhouse of telling Rosenbaum to kill him and to my knowledge, that fact also remains undisputed by any testimony or video evidence.

If you've got other evidence, let me know. I'd like to see it. A dozen eyewitnesses saying he pointed his gun at Zaminski would be damning. Another video showing it clearly happening would too. But frankly it doesn't make sense that he would. He's going around trying to play the medical hero moments before - anyone need medical? One guy mocks him for doing so while carrying a weapon. He backs away from that rather than confronts him. He's not acting aggressive in any of these situations that happen before hand.

Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit. You don't have to like the guy. I don't either. But deal with the law and not speculation. If he didn't point that gun at anyone at that moment, he should be acquitted.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Allegedly, the producer is a freelancer. Suspicions and allegations abound that the freelance producer was taking pictures, but it turns out that there are no pictures. Allegedly, the producer received orders from headquarters at NBC to follow the bus but there is no substantiation of that claim. Since there are no pictures, what is the alternative cause for following a bus of jurors? Could it be to report on when exactly deliberations would start again to get a head start on those things, to watch if when jurors get off the bus if there's any kind of violent incident to be there when it happens or some nefarious reason? If it is true that the producer is the one who said orders came from NBC headquarters, then it seems valid to ban NBC from the court room, pending investigation.

I heard a court reporter say it's typical for the media to try to get jurors' license plate numbers so they can identify and contact them after a verdict. Creepy job.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,962
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit.

Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.
 
Top Bottom