Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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]

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.

Exclusive: $1 billion-plus riot damage is most expensive in insurance history

The violence after George Floyd's death is the costliest since the 1992 L.A. riots.

www.axios.com

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

Kenosha unrest damages more than 100 buildings, at least 40 destroyed, alliance says

Kenosha business owners are sorting through the rubble and looking toward rebuilding after some protests after the police shooting of Jacob Blake turned violent last week.

abc7chicago.com

 

[Elixir]

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]

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]

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.

Exclusive: $1 billion-plus riot damage is most expensive in insurance history

The violence after George Floyd's death is the costliest since the 1992 L.A. riots.

www.axios.com

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

Kenosha unrest damages more than 100 buildings, at least 40 destroyed, alliance says

Kenosha business owners are sorting through the rubble and looking toward rebuilding after some protests after the police shooting of Jacob Blake turned violent last week.

abc7chicago.com

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]

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)]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They can't be left alone with it because they might add pixels

 

[marc]

They can't be left alone with it because they might add pixels

Well we all know who would really add pixels to the video

 

[blastula]

Jurors asked to see some videos on the second shooting event, they will be watching the videos by themselves in the deliberation room.

 

[SLD]

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]

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]

@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]

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)]

Never mind. blastula has clarified some things.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

@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]

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]

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.