Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Apparently he fits in the niche the legislature intended for hunting. Lousy law but sometimes it takes an edge case to expose legislative errors.

 

[Metaphor]

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."

To be honest, I thought this was already the 'background' standard you needed for self-defense, with or without 'provocation' - you need to be at risk of great bodily harm or death and you can't get out of it another way.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Apparently he fits in the niche the legislature intended for hunting. Lousy law but sometimes it takes an edge case to expose legislative errors.

So government employees (National Guard and police) will all be okay with all the minors running around the streets with weapons after the verdict because of this case law, right? And what I mean by that is that tonight or tomorrow, no one will be threatening just because they are running around with weapons and be shot....

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

See January 6th.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

At the Black Lives Matter protest I went to, the police were more trouble than the protesters. After the big march, I just wanted to step into a local coffee shop I liked, but the cops kept setting off tear gas. They were turning it into a war, so I went out to help the protesters hold the line some more. Retrospectively, I wish I had brought more water to help flush out that poison. If anything like that happens again, I'm bringing gallon jugs.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

By the way, the Black Lives Matter protests were not a riot. They were a full-fledged civil uprising. In my opinion, the police lost.

 

[Elixir]

I wasn't aware that Trump rallies end up in rioting, arson and grafitti resulting in $50m property damage a pop.

Add it to the burgeoning list of things of which you are unaware.
As of Feb 24: The cost of repairing damages from the attack on the U.S. Capitol and related security expenses have already topped $30 million and will keep rising (NPR)

To be fair, I was unaware of the multiple different "antifia" rallies that ran up costs over 50M each. Or even one of them. If I didn't know how forthright right wing extermists were, I'd suspect you pulled that number our of your ass. Can you list those protests, and link to whoever produced those damage estimates? Definitely don't want to get into cop-killing/maiming comparisons, though.... the dreaded PROPERTY DAMAGE is so much more important.

 

[Metaphor]

Add it to the burgeoning list of things of which you are unaware.

Everybody in the universe is unaware of most events in the universe.

As of Feb 24: The cost of repairing damages from the attack on the U.S. Capitol and related security expenses have already topped $30 million and will keep rising (NPR)

To be fair, I was unaware of the multiple different "antifia" rallies that ran up costs over 50M each. Or even one of them. If I didn't know how forthright right wing extermists were, I'd suspect you pulled that number our of your ass. Can you list those protests, and link to whoever produced those damage estimates? Definitely don't want to get into cop-killing/maiming comparisons, though.... the dreaded PROPERTY DAMAGE is so much more important.

All I did was visit the 'Kenosha unrest' Wikipedia page.

"Right wing extermist (sic)". Oy gevalt.

Also, you evidently seem to think property damage is vanishingly unimportant, as if fires cannot negatively affect intangible cultural and personal heritage when they burn away tangible objects and buildings. The people who had their property damaged and destroyed have stories too.

 

[Elixir]

Everybody in the universe is unaware of most events in the universe.

Agreed. Not everything in the universe is particularly relevant to this discussion.

Also, you evidently seem to think property damage is vanishingly unimportant

You (plural) seem to think property damage is transcendentally important, superseding concerns of life and limb, "law and order" or any of the other sacred calves of the right.
Sometimes I am grateful for this forum. My golden retriever, second best friend in this world, died in my arms less than an hour ago. Ask me how much propterty damage I'd suffer to have him back.
The damage to the country of my birth done by the 1/6 coup attempt dwarfs the sum of similar damage done by all other protests that preceded it, from the 60s Vietnam protests to Charlottsville.

 

[Metaphor]

You (plural) seem to think property damage is transcendentally important, superseding concerns of life and limb, "law and order" or any of the other sacred calves of the right.

Do I?

Sometimes I am grateful for this forum. My golden retriever, second best friend in this world, died in my arms less than an hour ago. Ask me how much propterty damage I'd suffer to have him back.

Property damage won't get anyone's life back.

 

[Elixir]

You (plural) seem to think property damage is transcendentally important, superseding concerns of life and limb, "law and order" or any of the other sacred calves of the right.

Do I?

You mean "we". Yes you (plural) do so seem. That's why God invented wars, right?

Sometimes I am grateful for this forum. My golden retriever, second best friend in this world, died in my arms less than an hour ago. Ask me how much propterty damage I'd suffer to have him back.

Property damage won't get anyone's life back.

I'm familiar with the "logic". Property damage won't get anyone's life back, but sacrificing (someone else's) life can (sometimes) preserve property, or rights associated therewith. Hard to argue with that - just a matter of priorities. Also, property damage can be quantified, whereas some lives might be worth more than others, but none of them can really be objectively valued.
Some might blather about morality or ethics, but it's pretty straightforward.

 

[Metaphor]

You mean "we". Yes you (plural) do so seem. That's why God invented wars, right?

God does not exist so she can't have invented anything.

I'm familiar with the "logic". Property damage won't get anyone's life back, but sacrificing (someone else's) life can (sometimes) preserve property, or rights associated therewith.

Did the Kenosha riots preserve future lives? Would more property damage have preserved more lives?

Hard to argue with that - just a matter of priorities. Also, property damage can be quantified,

The market value of the property can be quantified. The sentimental value of the property cannot-or, at least, its value is dismissed by people who think the property destruction was warranted.

whereas some lives might be worth more than others, but none of them can really be objectively valued.
Some might blather about morality or ethics, but it's pretty straightforward.

It isn't straightforward at all.

 

[SLD]

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.



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.


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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I was not discussing the implications of evidence but instead the structure of law. Various claims of self-defense regarding each criminal charge are dependent upon a lot of things, including in this case whether or not his actions were illegal which plays into it in a nuanced way. The jury looks at evidence and makes decisions. My point was that at each turn, the judge has been removing the things that structurally apply to the prosecution's case prior to a jury evaluating the charges and evidence. My other point that I've been making for pages is to argue for a reasonable middle ground of reckless endangerment and NOT murder, and so I do not want to be in a position of trying to argue against self-defense wholesale in all instances of all things. If you look at my exchanges with the particular poster, I'd ask that you put those things in that initial context--i.e., I am discussing the judge's bias to remove elements from the prosecutor's case, even though I do not necessarily (I don't actually) agree with the extent and intensity of the prosecutor's case.

That said, I am noticing a common trend of an error being made by persons on the Internet referring to the prosecutor's evidence. They are tending to show video or stills of videos or stills. They then look at the qualities of the videos of videos or stills of stills and claim those qualities are applicable to the original evidence. So, for example, they take a snapshot of the judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer in the courtroom in front of the video in question and ask skeptically, "how can anyone see that?"


... but the thing that they are displaying and looking at is a video of a video where the outside frame is some 4 times less resolution (twice the height and twice the length) than the video inside the video. And that's a minimum because we don't know the actual resolution of the most internal image applicable. Again, I am not arguing for a definite conclusion that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt anything--that's not my point--but instead that the opposition in this case as trending on the Internet has some flaws in this regard.

So, here is a second example of this sort of trend:


At this point, when you look at your screen, your screen is an image and within that I have put an image that is of another image containing an image, and blah blah blah such nesting of images: image [of an image]ⁿ . The claim from this right-wing site defending Rittenhouse is that the image is blurry, but it's the image of the image that is blurry that they have put on display. You can tell because of the words that are blurry but that wouldn't be blurry to an observer of the actual evidence.

I am not claiming that all their arguments are invalid, but it's difficult to trust the rest of their analysis if I cannot trust the source of the images they are using. I remain agnostic on some of these points but that also doesn't mean I think that is the position a jury ought to come to when analyzing the evidence since they would have the actual evidence and be best suited to examining and thinking about it in total...assuming they had all such things to begin with and could make choices.

 

[Elixir]

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

 

[SLD]

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.

I was not discussing the implications of evidence but instead the structure of law. Various claims of self-defense regarding each criminal charge are dependent upon a lot of things, including in this case whether or not his actions were illegal which plays into it in a nuanced way. The jury looks at evidence and makes decisions. My point was that at each turn, the judge has been removing the things that structurally apply to the prosecution's case prior to a jury evaluating the charges and evidence. My other point that I've been making for pages is to argue for a reasonable middle ground of reckless endangerment and NOT murder, and so I do not want to be in a position of trying to argue against self-defense wholesale in all instances of all things. If you look at my exchanges with the particular poster, I'd ask that you put those things in that initial context--i.e., I am discussing the judge's bias to remove elements from the prosecutor's case, even though I do not necessarily (I don't actually) agree with the extent and intensity of the prosecutor's case.

That said, I am noticing a common trend of an error being made by persons on the Internet referring to the prosecutor's evidence. They are tending to show video or stills of videos or stills. They then look at the qualities of the videos of videos or stills of stills and claim those qualities are applicable to the original evidence. So, for example, they take a snapshot of the judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer in the courtroom in front of the video in question and ask skeptically, "how can anyone see that?"
View attachment 36095

... but the thing that they are displaying and looking at is a video of a video where the outside frame is some 4 times less resolution (twice the height and twice the length) than the video inside the video. And that's a minimum because we don't know the actual resolution of the most internal image applicable. Again, I am not arguing for a definite conclusion that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt anything--that's not my point--but instead that the opposition in this case as trending on the Internet has some flaws in this regard.

So, here is a second example of this sort of trend:
View attachment 36094

At this point, when you look at your screen, your screen is an image and within that I have put an image that is of another image containing an image, and blah blah blah such nesting of images: image [of an image]ⁿ . The claim from this right-wing site defending Rittenhouse is that the image is blurry, but it's the image of the image that is blurry that they have put on display. You can tell because of the words that are blurry but that wouldn't be blurry to an observer of the actual evidence.

I am not claiming that all their arguments are invalid, but it's difficult to trust the rest of their analysis if I cannot trust the source of the images they are using. I remain agnostic on some of these points but that also doesn't mean I think that is the position a jury ought to come to when analyzing the evidence since they would have the actual evidence and be best suited to examining and thinking about it in total...assuming they had all such things to begin with and could make choices.

You can see the original videos online. The very picture you show is where the judge is stating he can’t make it out either. You can’t. But what the picture is purported to show is someone with his left hand on the trigger and the gun up against the left shoulder. But numerous other videos he has a sling draped over his left shoulder and his medical kit draped under his left. That a right handed person wearing a sling like this would do this is nonsense. It would be an extremely awkward way for someone to point it like that. It makes no sense. Again it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s just not there. Rittenhouse is undeniably a right handed shooter. He shot Rosenbaum with his right hand. That means he would have had to almost immediately shift his hand around a second time. While running away. Sorry. The prosecution’s theory just doesn’t hold water.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I was not discussing the implications of evidence but instead the structure of law. Various claims of self-defense regarding each criminal charge are dependent upon a lot of things, including in this case whether or not his actions were illegal which plays into it in a nuanced way. The jury looks at evidence and makes decisions. My point was that at each turn, the judge has been removing the things that structurally apply to the prosecution's case prior to a jury evaluating the charges and evidence. My other point that I've been making for pages is to argue for a reasonable middle ground of reckless endangerment and NOT murder, and so I do not want to be in a position of trying to argue against self-defense wholesale in all instances of all things. If you look at my exchanges with the particular poster, I'd ask that you put those things in that initial context--i.e., I am discussing the judge's bias to remove elements from the prosecutor's case, even though I do not necessarily (I don't actually) agree with the extent and intensity of the prosecutor's case.

That said, I am noticing a common trend of an error being made by persons on the Internet referring to the prosecutor's evidence. They are tending to show video or stills of videos or stills. They then look at the qualities of the videos of videos or stills of stills and claim those qualities are applicable to the original evidence. So, for example, they take a snapshot of the judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer in the courtroom in front of the video in question and ask skeptically, "how can anyone see that?"
View attachment 36095

... but the thing that they are displaying and looking at is a video of a video where the outside frame is some 4 times less resolution (twice the height and twice the length) than the video inside the video. And that's a minimum because we don't know the actual resolution of the most internal image applicable. Again, I am not arguing for a definite conclusion that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt anything--that's not my point--but instead that the opposition in this case as trending on the Internet has some flaws in this regard.

So, here is a second example of this sort of trend:
View attachment 36094

At this point, when you look at your screen, your screen is an image and within that I have put an image that is of another image containing an image, and blah blah blah such nesting of images: image [of an image]ⁿ . The claim from this right-wing site defending Rittenhouse is that the image is blurry, but it's the image of the image that is blurry that they have put on display. You can tell because of the words that are blurry but that wouldn't be blurry to an observer of the actual evidence.

I am not claiming that all their arguments are invalid, but it's difficult to trust the rest of their analysis if I cannot trust the source of the images they are using. I remain agnostic on some of these points but that also doesn't mean I think that is the position a jury ought to come to when analyzing the evidence since they would have the actual evidence and be best suited to examining and thinking about it in total...assuming they had all such things to begin with and could make choices.

You can see the original videos online. The very picture you show is where the judge is stating he can’t make it out either. You can’t.

I am open-minded. Can you show the original?

But what the picture is purported to show is someone with his left hand on the trigger and the gun up against the left shoulder. But numerous other videos he has a sling draped over his left shoulder and his medical kit draped under his left.

Marching around with a weapon on your shoulder can be tiring and I have switched shoulders as a result of long marches. I have done the same thing with book bags (in high school) or laundry bags when I used to walk miles to get laundry done. One side is more comfortable, more natural feeling, and the other is backup, in my experience.

That a right handed person wearing a sling like this would do this is nonsense. It would be an extremely awkward way for someone to point it like that. It makes no sense.

I am military trained and right-handed. YES, I definitely pull the trigger with my right hand and hold the gun steady with my left hand from the bottom. I am a great shot, too. If I were in a town with people acting chaotically, I wouldn't bring the rifle, I wouldn't buy it illegally, I wouldn't be out after curfew, etc, but moreover if I DID point it at someone for some reason as a threat or whatever, it might easily not be really in the same manner as I normally would hold the gun when shooting, especially if it was to communicate to move along or a message, "hey I have a gun" as opposed to "hey I am about to shoot you." Such message, however, by the receiver isn't necessarily the same message that is intended and such action can easily turn into an accident regardless of intent.

 

[laughing dog]

The jury has been deliberating for over 3 hours, so I guess it was not a clear cut case of self-defense to 12 jurors.

 

[Jarhyn]

What I am going to recognize here is that no matter what the word of the law says about technicalities of rifle size or who was attacking who in the situation:

He went into a place of unrest, knowing there was unrest, and he brought a weapon.

There is intent there, in the knowing of unrest and the bringing of the weapon, to use it and see violence.

What arguments are made for the innocence of this person for some specific thing of rote matter not against the reality of dark intent, to see and act in violence.

You will not that they don't even try to argue against that. They won't. They can't. All they can do is pretend to ignore it while the lawful evil spirit dances on technicalities.

The spirit of lawful good may look at this and say "and so the law must change to prevent such shenanigans!" And then it would be changed. Instead the same people crying crocodile tears for this "poor self defending soul" are in there tearing up a couple black boys over a girl a cop shot.

I will give zero fucks for the concerns of lawful evil in retaining the law.