Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Without establishing providence how can it be used at all?

But giving the defense a lower quality version is a big oops. That sort of thing can scuttle cases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It doesn't matter if you have a solid defense. If you're handed a potential procedural victory like this you play it anyway.

 

[Rhea]

another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online.

IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy.

This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case.

So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them.

 

[SLD]

another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online.

IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy.

This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case.

So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them.

Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, he wasn’t pointing a gun at anyone until he was chased by Rosenbaum. The prosecution hasn’t proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. He wins.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:

That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?

 

[laughing dog]

another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online.

IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy.

This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case.

So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them.

Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, he wasn’t pointing a gun at anyone until he was chased by Rosenbaum. The prosecution hasn’t proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. He wins.

You should tell Rittenhouse's jury, so they can go home.

 

[laughing dog]

Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.

What the hell are you talking about?

The seeming pro-defense bias of the judge.

 

[SLD]

another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online.

IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy.

This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case.

So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them.

Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, he wasn’t pointing a gun at anyone until he was chased by Rosenbaum. The prosecution hasn’t proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. He wins.

You should tell Rittenhouse's jury, so they can go home.

i don’t think the judge would appreciate that. But maybe if there’s a retrial, I’ll get hired by the defense team.

 

[TomC]

Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.

What the hell are you talking about?

The seeming pro-defense bias of the judge.

I don't have a strong opinion about this particular case.

But, yeah, I expect some bias in favor of the defense as a general rule. That's what I would expect from a judge who supports "legally innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

I understand that our legal system doesn't have a great track record on that. I still expect it. Judges are human, and humans have biases. What I expect from an impartial judge is a bias in favor of the defense.
Tom

 

[SLD]

Not guilty. Told ya!

 

[SLD]

These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:

That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?

Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times. The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury. At that point, I think the prosecution lost the jury entirely. That was fatal to them. You can’t look like you’re trying to pull one over. Once they lost credibility about that, they lost it about everything.

 

[jab]

Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital--

The last time the Capitol was bombed was by - checks notes - the  May 19th Communist Organization.

Listen, I am not saying that the January 6th riot was not serious, but the Left only wants to talk about that, while completely downplaying monthslong rioting in 2020 that caused far more damage - not only to property (many billions vs $30M) but also in terms of human life. The leftists rioting in 2020 also occupied territory for weeks in cities like Seattle, Atlanta and Minneapolis. Imagine if the Right proclaimed a "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" in DC? But nothing like that happened, unlike with the left-wing riots.

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.

Conversely, to the Antifa/#BLMers she totally deserved to be killed even though she was unarmed and attacked nobody - she was only guilty of trespassing. But the likes of Michael Reinoehl or Joseph Rosenbaum are considered heroes.

That terrorist thug was doing more than trespassing: she was physically at the vanguard of a mob that was threatening to capture and kill elected officials and she was leading the way crawling through a broken window into a space were, security knew, and she at least hoped, elected officials were. So, yeah, she was a threat. (It's also been suggested she had a taser, but I don't know if that true).

 

[J842P]

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

So did Grosskreutz, but he is not being admonished for that. Quite the contrary, he is being called a "hero", even by the prosecutor.

It doesn't seem like these things are equivalent. Grosskreuz brought a weapon for self-defense not with an intent to shoot looters and others. Grosskreuz kept the weapon concealed until he thought it was needed, too. KR, on the other hand, said he wanted to shoot people who were looting and was running around with a weapon out in the open. Then, in the final moments when Grosskreutz had a gun out in the open, he thought about using and gave a benefit of a doubt valuing human life.

Rittenhouse did not come to there with an intent to shoot looters.

Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.

What the hell are you talking about?

I heard that His Honor was going to adopt the little Rittenhouse boy as his own child.

So, you are just embracing the "making shit up" phase, then?

 

[laughing dog]

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

So did Grosskreutz, but he is not being admonished for that. Quite the contrary, he is being called a "hero", even by the prosecutor.

It doesn't seem like these things are equivalent. Grosskreuz brought a weapon for self-defense not with an intent to shoot looters and others. Grosskreuz kept the weapon concealed until he thought it was needed, too. KR, on the other hand, said he wanted to shoot people who were looting and was running around with a weapon out in the open. Then, in the final moments when Grosskreutz had a gun out in the open, he thought about using and gave a benefit of a doubt valuing human life.

Rittenhouse did not come to there with an intent to shoot looters.

No one knows what Rittenhouse's intent was but Rittenhouse. And he had no incentive to be truthful on the stand.

 

[J842P]

Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital--

The last time the Capitol was bombed was by - checks notes - the  May 19th Communist Organization.

Listen, I am not saying that the January 6th riot was not serious, but the Left only wants to talk about that, while completely downplaying monthslong rioting in 2020 that caused far more damage - not only to property (many billions vs $30M) but also in terms of human life. The leftists rioting in 2020 also occupied territory for weeks in cities like Seattle, Atlanta and Minneapolis. Imagine if the Right proclaimed a "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" in DC? But nothing like that happened, unlike with the left-wing riots.

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.

Conversely, to the Antifa/#BLMers she totally deserved to be killed even though she was unarmed and attacked nobody - she was only guilty of trespassing. But the likes of Michael Reinoehl or Joseph Rosenbaum are considered heroes.

That terrorist thug was doing more than trespassing: she was physically at the vanguard of a mob that was threatening to capture and kill elected officials and she was leading the way crawling through a broken window into a space were, security knew, and she at least hoped, elected officials were. So, yeah, she was a threat. (It's also been suggested she had a taser, but I don't know if that true).

Absolutely. Babbitt was entering a restricted area -- basically the room right before the House Chamber. She had been ordered to stop, the doors had been barricaded. She was warned many times.

Furthermore, she has no excuse to not expect that to happen. She was in the USAAF, and was actually a security forces controller, and would understand that in such a situation a trespasser would be shot. She was in charge of manning a security gate!

 

[J842P]

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.

He was threatened with that kind of force. Do you think the law makes it so you have to take a beating? No. You are just making that up.

 

[J842P]

Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.

What the hell are you talking about?

The seeming pro-defense bias of the judge.

What pro-defense bias? There is no evidence of a pro-defense bias. At least, not more than any trial is in a defendant's favor, but that certainly cannot be what Jimmy Higgens is referring to?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Somehow, I suspect this is what was going through the judge's mind.

"What a fabulous jury, everyone. Let's all give them a big round of applause. Hip hip hurray! Hip hip hurray!"

"It's a good thing they declared him innocent or I'd have to call that mistrial flag on the play."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:

That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?

Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times.

Okay.

The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury.

I agree that initially it is a problem because there's a narrative and then the defense proposes a different narrative that in some [other] world of things could be true in theory. To me, the reasonableness of the defense's proposition is dependent upon evidence, first and foremost, and I do not observe any evidence of a lunge forward while falling down, dying, that would create any imminent danger of death. Also--secondary to evidence are inferences from evidence, and so I deduce at the moment and subsequent moments that Rosenbaum is falling, dying, the risk of any harm to Rittenhouse is very diminished. It was already exaggerated a bit claiming he was trapped when he wasn't, but it's even more diminished at any moment where JR's back is exposed. These are deductions one can make from the video(s) evidence and the forensic witness on autopsy wounds can only speak to plausibility of narratives based on wounds where the defense came with a prepared counter-narrative (their job), but the rest of the evidence doesn't seem to show a chance of imminent harm later on.

 

[SLD]

These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:

That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?

Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times.

Okay.

The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury.

I agree that initially it is a problem because there's a narrative and then the defense proposes a different narrative that in some [other] world of things could be true in theory. To me, the reasonableness of the defense's proposition is dependent upon evidence, first and foremost, and I do not observe any evidence of a lunge forward while falling down, dying, that would create any imminent danger of death. Also--secondary to evidence are inferences from evidence, and so I deduce at the moment and subsequent moments that Rosenbaum is falling, dying, the risk of any harm to Rittenhouse is very diminished. It was already exaggerated a bit claiming he was trapped when he wasn't, but it's even more diminished at any moment where JR's back is exposed. These are deductions one can make from the video(s) evidence and the forensic witness on autopsy wounds can only speak to plausibility of narratives based on wounds where the defense came with a prepared counter-narrative (their job), but the rest of the evidence doesn't seem to show a chance of imminent harm later on.

I hear you. But the benefit of the doubt goes to Rittenhouse. It’s not to him to provide evidence of his innocence. It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Anytime a forensic witness agrees with the defense theory then that’s created reasonable doubt. That’s all that happened here.