Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[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.

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]

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.


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.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That won't happen if he gets the same judge and prosecutor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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)]

Matt Gaetz Suggests He May Hire Kyle Rittenhouse As A Congressional Intern​

"Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen on trial for killing two people at a Black Lives Matter protest last year in Wisconsin, might make a good congressional intern and said his office may reach out to see if he wanted to help the country 'in additional ways.' "

I don't get it. Is he becoming a nurse or a future politician? I guess the world is his oyster.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The video allegedly showing ....

What video?

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

 

[Swammerdami]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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.

 

[SLD]

The video allegedly showing ....

What video?

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

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

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The video allegedly showing ....

What video?

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

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!

 

[ZiprHead]

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]

The video allegedly showing ....

What video?

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

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

I read this morning that one of KR's original lawyers was given the good video but failed to pass it on to the next lawyers.

 

[blastula]

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)]

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]

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]

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.