17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha

[slugworth]

Some of the videos - they needed to circle and title who was who - could it have been used to do that, or is it just change cormats/codecs?

PS: on all video evidence, you cannot tell who is who - wonder why the defense never said "you cannot verify my client is even in frame with the videos"

Or show me who he is supposedly aiming at???

 

[whatluck]

Some of the videos - they needed to circle and title who was who - could it have been used to do that, or is it just change cormats/codecs?

PS: on all video evidence, you cannot tell who is who - wonder why the defense never said "you cannot verify my client is even in frame with the videos"

no. you would use this software to convert a 1080p 60fps blue ray rip down to the oddball 733x1300 30fps that your phone has or whatever.

can also be used to tamper with video evidence

 

[VetteGirlMA]

At this point I am convinced that the judge is peddling the case to the jury instead of taking the hard stance of declaring a mistrial. If the jury acquits then the judge is off the hook. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict then the question is does the judge have the spine to declare a mistrial or will he look the other way. I am pretty convinced that the judge knows that Kyle is innocent. However there is sufficient reason to mistrial with prejudice since the the entire prosecutors case is based on Kraus stating that the low res drone video when blown up 3x shows Kyle's rifle horizontally however the prosecutor admitted during the trial that they had the high res video which disproves the provocation argument. What will suck if there is a mistrial then Binger and Co will pursue another trial against Kyle.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

no. you would use this software to convert a 1080p 60fps blue ray rip down to the oddball 733x1300 30fps that your phone has or whatever.

can also be used to tamper with video evidence

The 2 video files of the drone footage both had different metadata so that means someone modified it.

 

[whatluck]

The 2 video files of the drone footage both had different metadata so that means someone modified it.

I wonder how often this happens and gets past the courts, and we only know about this because some autist watched ever minute of the trial frame by frame, probably looking for something funny in the autocorrect cache or history.

 

[dingbat]

Can the judge wait to declare a mistrial after hearing the jury’s verdict?
If so, maybe he wants them to issue a verdict so if he agrees he doesn’t have to declare a mistrial.

 

[jkelly1229]

At this point I am convinced that the judge is peddling the case to the jury instead of taking the hard stance of declaring a mistrial. If the jury acquits then the judge is off the hook. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict then the question is does the judge have the spine to declare a mistrial or will he look the other way. I am pretty convinced that the judge knows that Kyle is innocent. However there is sufficient reason to mistrial with prejudice since the the entire prosecutors case is based on Kraus stating that the low res drone video when blown up 3x shows Kyle's rifle horizontally however the prosecutor admitted during the trial that they had the high res video which disproves the provocation argument. What will suck if there is a mistrial then Binger and Co will pursue another trial against Kyle.

I kinda feel like he thinks it'll be better for Kyle if the jury decides. I think he will go the right thing if it comes down to it though.

But hey what do i know

 

[Picton]

I don’t blame any judge for giving the jury a chance to render a verdict… nobody should. That’s how it’s supposed to go, so why wouldn’t the judge let it play out?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Can the judge wait to declare a mistrial after hearing the jury’s verdict?
If so, maybe he wants them to issue a verdict so if he agrees he doesn’t have to declare a mistrial.

Yes

 

[SpaceCritter]

I don’t blame any judge for giving the jury a chance to render a verdict… nobody should. That’s how it’s supposed to go, so why wouldn’t the judge let it play out?

Because it's the responsibility of the judge, when he's hearing absolute and complete horseshit, to SAY so. And rule accordingly.

Just as it's the responsible of a trial judge, when he knows his jurors are being subject to threatening harassment, to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

He didn't. He neither anticipated it nor reacted adequately to it.

 

[Hoover]

Jury just adjourned for the day. Back tomorrow

 

[Skysoldier]

They are all a bunch of jerkoffs! judge, prosecution, jury and defense.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

For some reason I get invited to participate in yougov polls and I decided to participate in the Rittenhouse case today. What I discovered is misinformation is astonishing. These are some of the comments I read today:

* He shouldn't have carried an assault rifle across state lines - Umm he didn't
* Why did his mother buy him an assault rifle? She should be on trial too - Umm no she had nothing to do with the rifle at all
* If they find Rittenhouse innocent then vigilantes will be armed at 'liberal' protests - Well if the police weren't told to eats donuts and do nothing then Kyle would have been at home playing call of duty
* Why was he crossing state lines? - Umm why were the 'protestors' coming from all across the country and besides Kyle lived only minutes away and had family in Kenosha
* Kyle showed no remorse on the stand - Umm PTSD is real dummy

Seriously there is a lot misinformation out there and convincing misinformed people that they are misinformed may be a lost cause because I feel that even if they watched the trial they wouldn't believe it.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

The 2 video files of the drone footage both had different metadata so that means someone modified it.

Silly me, I thought that tampering with evidence was a crime.

Bob

 

[maltc]

 

[SpaceCritter]

They are all a bunch of jerkoffs! judge, prosecution, jury and defense.

Yep, cuz Midwest. That's how they are there.

 

[AHM]

I don’t blame any judge for giving the jury a chance to render a verdict… nobody should. That’s how it’s supposed to go, so why wouldn’t the judge let it play out?

Did the jury deserve the chance to find that
a 17-yo carrying a rifle
violated the law against
a 16-yo carrying an SBR?

 

[Dadstoys]

The son Travis was at his drivers door, he went to the front of the truck, Arbery went to the front of the truck as well, all that is on video.

We can argue about it all day .
Watch the video.

 

[watchman]

But here is where the limitless resources come into play. If the case is retried, no sweat off Binger's sack (Krous's is probably always sweating). They will not think twice about retrying. It is not their money, it is the state of Wisconsin's money - the people of Wisconsin's money. Rittenhouse will have to go through this whole ordeal again, with real money being spent - if raised, and while enjoying his constitutional presumption of innocence he will have his freedom curtailed and every aspect of his existence scrutinized.

Hopefully, if this truly happens, some well known criminal defense attorneys will step up and take it pro-bono and beat the living snot out of the next prosecution team.

 

[Picton]

Did the jury deserve the chance to find that
a 17-yo carrying a rifle
violated the law against
a 16-yo carrying an SBR?

I’m not sure what you mean. He dismissed that one. Before they started deliberations.

Now that they’re deliberating? Why not let it play out? A jury verdict is obviously the best outcome. If he disagrees with it, he can just set it aside…

 

[SpaceCritter]

I’m not sure what you mean. He dismissed that one. Before they started deliberations.

Now that they’re deliberating? Why not let it play out? A jury verdict is obviously the best outcome. If he disagrees with it, he can just set it aside…

I would like - very, very much - to think you're right. I have a BAAAAD feeling - especially knowing how Midwesterners are - you're not. They're FUNNY, FUNNY nonconfrontational. They tend to fold, quickly, when confronted.

 

[wilson911]

For some reason I get invited to participate in yougov polls and I decided to participate in the Rittenhouse case today. What I discovered is misinformation is astonishing. These are some of the comments I read today:

* He shouldn't have carried an assault rifle across state lines - Umm he didn't
* Why did his mother buy him an assault rifle? She should be on trial too - Umm no she had nothing to do with the rifle at all
* If they find Rittenhouse innocent then vigilantes will be armed at 'liberal' protests - Well if the police weren't told to eats donuts and do nothing then Kyle would have been at home playing call of duty
* Why was he crossing state lines? - Umm why were the 'protestors' coming from all across the country and besides Kyle lived only minutes away and had family in Kenosha
* Kyle showed no remorse on the stand - Umm PTSD is real dummy

Seriously there is a lot misinformation out there and convincing misinformed people that they are misinformed may be a lost cause because I feel that even if they watched the trial they wouldn't believe it.

The reason you are selected is because you respond. Put them in you spam.

 

[wilson911]

I’m not sure what you mean. He dismissed that one. Before they started deliberations.

Now that they’re deliberating? Why not let it play out? A jury verdict is obviously the best outcome. If he disagrees with it, he can just set it aside…

He will never, ever, ever, ever, never in a million years set it aside.

An unjust jury verdict is the worst. Rotting away in a cell waiting for appeals to expire. This is Kyle's best chance. This judge effed it up.

 

[SpaceCritter]

He will never, ever, ever, ever, never in a million years set it aside.

...especially a Midwesterner, cuz nonconfrontational.

Especially against the Big Bosses, who I'm sure already told him which way this thing was to go.

 

[Picton]

He will never, ever, ever, ever, never in a million years set it aside.

An unjust jury verdict is the worst. Rotting away in a cell waiting for appeals to expire. This is Kyle's best chance. This judge effed it up.

Well, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Anyone who expects a "fair trial," EVER, should always be prepared for disappointment. In the end, it's an artificial process with no pretense at "truth" or "fairness;" everyone involved in the legal industry admits that.

At this point? the process is well underway. If we don't like it, there's nothing stopping us from going to law school and becoming a judge in some middle-of-nowhere town in Wisconsin.

 

[Waher]

Hopefully, if this truly happens, some well known criminal defense attorneys will step up and take it pro-bono and beat the living snot out of the next prosecution team.

They had Robert Barnes and the current defense team disagreed with his jury consultant and kicked Barnes off the team at the start of the trial.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

The reason you are selected is because you respond. Put them in you spam.

Someone has to be the voice of reason out there, The leftists can't keep controlling the story with falsehoods and propaganda.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Well, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Anyone who expects a "fair trial," EVER, should always be prepared for disappointment. In the end, it's an artificial process with no pretense at "truth" or "fairness;" everyone involved in the legal industry admits that.

At this point? the process is well underway. If we don't like it, there's nothing stopping us from going to law school and becoming a judge in some middle-of-nowhere town in Wisconsin.

No pretense? It's nothing BUT pretense, and that's what's sold to the general population so they don't suddenly realize what they're actually living under and commence to nailing mayors, state reps, building inspectors, and (if lucky) someone higher upon whom they can lay hands to the nearest tree.

 

[Bonesinium]

They had Robert Barnes and the current defense team disagreed with his jury consultant and kicked Barnes off the team at the start of the trial.

Smart decision. There’s nobody with a more overinflated view of themselves than him.

 

[Sweeney]

For some reason I get invited to participate in yougov polls and I decided to participate in the Rittenhouse case today. What I discovered is misinformation is astonishing. These are some of the comments I read today:

* He shouldn't have carried an assault rifle across state lines - Umm he didn't
* Why did his mother buy him an assault rifle? She should be on trial too - Umm no she had nothing to do with the rifle at all
* If they find Rittenhouse innocent then vigilantes will be armed at 'liberal' protests - Well if the police weren't told to eats donuts and do nothing then Kyle would have been at home playing call of duty
* Why was he crossing state lines? - Umm why were the 'protestors' coming from all across the country and besides Kyle lived only minutes away and had family in Kenosha
* Kyle showed no remorse on the stand - Umm PTSD is real dummy

Seriously there is a lot misinformation out there and convincing misinformed people that they are misinformed may be a lost cause because I feel that even if they watched the trial they wouldn't believe it.

I never understood the argument that 'The defendant shows no remorse'. Why would you show remorse if you had done nothing wrong?