Printable View
Much of today's testimony is WAY beyond my ken.
Are these attorneys doing this to somehow PROVE the validity of the videos, and the enhanced videos? In other words, they're doing this to assure the jury the videos either HAVE -- or HAVE NOT -- been tampered with to present a fake story?
Yes? No? Something different?
Most of the arguing today is over 1 blurry ass video. According to the state, it shows Kyle raising the gun before the initial pursuit starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Tory
...and they were watching the blurry ass video upscaled on a 4K TV. What they were looking at was being modified by the TVs upscaling algorithms.
State's video expert didn't know how the software algorithm was modifying the image. That was interesting.
I couldn't see squat from that video.
And at the end of it all, they put up two grainy printed out pictures that the jury got to look at for about 30 seconds. Then that was it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
I went to the Amped 5 website and looked at their "Case Studies" pages. On some items (like unwrapping a 360 degree camera view) I can see legit usage for, but for other examples there is NO way those pics are done without some kind of artificial intelligence "guesstimating" of the adjoining pixels.
I would like to hear a Tax attorney and Traffic accident attorney's take on this trial.
[gohome]
Binger is a moron.
And looks like a super douche with his lame little mustache thing.
That is all.
I was able to watch bits of the trial and the prosecution continued to step on their dicks every chance they had. I think it's going to be a mistrial or he gets off.
I like the Judge, knowledgeable and solid. He does not like the media and that's fine with me! I hope the Judge/jury is not swayed by threats of demonstrations.
Two questions, 1 - What was Kyle doing with his pen during the cross examinations of other witnesses? Looked like he was punching out dots in cardboard or something, not like taking notes. Just wondering!
2 - I'm guessing he has some go-fund-me type backing to pay for his legal fees?
Best wishes for a good outcome, this kid would be dead if he hadn't reacted the way he did. Time to show the punk BLM/Antifa crowd that the law works both ways and put a stop to this crap.
I haven?t been following any of this but from what I am reading here you guys are making the prosecution sound like incompetent morons.
Is it possible they were forced to prosecute under political duress and are doing everything they can to get the case tossed or the defendant acquitted because they think the charges are garbage and the case shouldn?t have happened in the first place?
I listen to Dan Bongino's podcast. He's not an attorney, but he has lots of experience with these types of trials as an ex-cop and retired Secret Service....Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
Bongino thinks the DA is either brilliant ... or really stupid.
He says the prosecution has already lost this case so badly -- and they know it -- so they are actually TRYING to force the judge to declare a mistrial and save them from themselves. The judge KNOWS that's what the DA is doing and is doing HIS BEST to keep from having to do this. The judge wants the JURY to have the case and declare Kyle not guilty....
It will be interesting how the jury pulls apart all the info to determine their decision on this one. Whatever it is, it will be a MAJOR lesson on your responsibility as a CCW or defensive person if somebody gets injured or dies.
The usual avenues were shut down very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
There's a website setup to accept paypal or crypto. Don't be surprised if PP cancels accounts. Fuckers. https://t.co/EdCXPCFSCk?amp=1
"Prosecutors file motion for list of people who donated to Kyle Rittenhouse defense fund"
If Nick Sandmann got $50MM for the lies the media made up about him, then Kyle Rittenhouse should seriously clean up!
[cigar] [King] [cigar]
Besides that motion. Look for a motion to remove the judge, over his "supposed" racial and biased (salute to veterans) issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Once again ANYTHING to prevent a fair trial. Typical playbook from the left.
Legal Analyst on CBS this morning opined that the judge was making sure the defendant got a fair trail.
Comment was that the verdict, whatever it is, could not be appealed based on his favoring the prosecution.
Had not considered that.
The DA pressed charges 48 hours after the incident and had not even seen any of the videos.
Kyle has been gifted and donations received in the staggering numbers. Some from crowdfunding, and some from private parties. Well over $500,000
The prosecution is asking the judge to allow for lesser charges to be applied to the murder charges. Judge has not decided if he is going to allow it.
It really has looked like the judge has been favoring KR, so it is going be be really interesting how the judge gets involved from here on. My father is a retired lawyer and he thinks Binger and the other oaf should quit practicing law.
media really have no news to cover after petito/Laundrie case?
Quote:
'How not to be a good judge': Kyle Rittenhouse judge draws new backlash with 'Asian food' joke
Drake Bentley and Joel Shannon, USA TODAY NETWORK
Fri, November 12, 2021, 5:16 AM
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/...021313125.html
seriously?
many be some are just too sensitive that their shipment from China hasn't arrived yet.
[flamingo]
Can someone explain why the judge is allowing charges to be added after the trial?
It seems to me the prosecution is saying "we know we didnt prove the original charges, so lets us add charges that might stick that the defendant doesnt have a chance to defend against"???
Quote:
Originally Posted by colorider
This really isn't good news for Kyle Rittenhouse. And, the judge hinted he'd be inclined to allow for this (haven't heard if he's actually riled on this yet).
Currently, these are the charges Kyle Rittenhouse faces:
- First-degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
- First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
- First-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
- Attempted first-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
- First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
- Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
- Failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government
Personally, I think the lesser charges issue should have been decided before the trial started and especially before Kyle was on the stand. Given that the Prosecution has had FULL control over how to proceed (Charge or not charge? If charging, charge with what? Offer plea deals or not, etc.). Knowing lesser charges were on the table could have drastically changed how the Defense presented their case. The Prosecution moved forward with their case to convict on 1st Degree Murder charges, etc. and they should be held to those charges. Allowing consideration for lesser charges is, in my eyes, a form a double jeopardy and asking for them is certainly a bitter loser Hail Mary effort to get Kyle Rittenhouse convicted of something - since they know they screwed the pooch on their case.
If these charges hold, I can see him being convicted of the last 2 of these charges. As to the "Failure to comply" charge, how many others in the streets that night (including his surviving "victim") have been charged with that crime? Law enforcement knows the names of PLENTY of other folks who were out that night and to only charge/convict Rittenhouse would be BS.
Consider that everyone is aware that an acquittal could result in rioting, the jury may choose to convict on lesser charges to pacify the potential protests - not fair to the defendant, but it's a reality.
Juries are also all but instructed to rule how the court wants "If the burdens are met YOU HAVE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY" etc. with heavy inference of the court.
It would be nice if there was also a jury instruction: "You don't live under a kings court, and you don't have to justify your decision to anyone." But alas, we do. 95% chance he is convicted of the < 18 weapons possession charge. Unless someone like me was on the jury [AR15], which is usually unlikely.
If I am on a jury I will fairly evaluate the evidence presented and judge per the law including my knowledge of pertinent case law.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Not disagreeing with your method, me personally, I'll also evaluate if the law is fairly applicable, constitutional, and relevant, as well as it's purpose and intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
Because there's been all sorts of things that are illegal, yet moral, and all sorts of things legal that are highly immoral. Yep, I'm the guy that may, in some cases, nullify. There is no age of possession for long guns in federal law. Usually, they can be gifted to underage people < 18 even in states that have UBC (like Colorado). The reason I would absolutely not deliver a guilty verdict on that charge is for that reason: Laws like that are often penalizing not the possession of the weapon, but in fact, the method of acquisition. I am not going to penalize someone for that alone when they wouldn't be in trouble, in the same charge, if a rich parent gifted it to them.
And while I've been subject to voir dire I've been excused thus far... lols. Nobody wants independent thought in a jury.
As I am a fair and impartial juror, I wouldn't want any posting discovered on social media to suggest that I would be otherwise nor follow the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Learned a long time ago to not guess what a jury will do. Kinda similar thinking about voters LOL.
FIFY. The curfew charge was already thrown out based on a previous case that involved the curfew. It wasn't deemed enforceable, IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
It was a tack-on charge and was part of the prosecution's case that he shouldn't have been there/shouldn't have been there with a scary gun.
Is he not guilty of murder yet?
Who, exactly, are you including in "the court"?Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Seems to me, the court includes the judge, prosecution and defense.
So you're saying the (supposedly) impartial) judge, the prosecution (fed, district, state, county, etc...) and the defense are all in cahoots from the get go to achieve a communal goal?
Your words:
Juries are also all but instructed to rule how the court wants "If the burdens are met YOU HAVE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY" etc. with heavy inference of the court.
\\
No wonder your handle changes so often.
Sent from somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
I'll throw in my 2 cents worth to say that while the judge, prosecution or plaintiff, and defense have different objectives there is the communal goal of making money for all the attorneys involved.
And Foxtart is correct that the judge's instructions to the jury are frequently designed to direct a particular outcome that fits the judge's philosophy, prejudices and personal interests. In many cases it dismantles the deliberations by ignoring the laws the judge doesn't agree with and usurps and negates the value of citizen juries.
Cray, court for all intents and purposes just = judge, if you've ever read a legal opinion in your life you'd know that. In such a discussion like this I actually presumed it was common knowledge. Even a dictionary would have been of assistance to you in preventing you from announcing that you are equal measures classy and intelligent.
Court
the judge or judges presiding at a court.
noun: the court
It would also blow my mind if, in this day and age, anyone believes it is truly possible for any judge to be completely impartial. One way or the other, every individual has a desired outcome for almost every case, save those that they hate both sides in equal measure. Only a fool thinks a judge doesn't favor their outcome even if they believe themselves impartial. That said, if a judge observes their favored outcome is definitely going to win, sometimes they will shore up against appellate attacks to try to help out long term. (Seeming as if they are harsh to their favored person, yet helping them out in the long run). This is a system nearly unchanged from 1600. There are better ways, but the control rests with those with vested interest in the status quo.
Research also prevails over assumption. A judge can overturn any verdict except one of innocence. People should really research how appeals are conducted and work before doubting how much control rests with a judge as well.
I concur that judicial impartiality is likely a pipe dream in this day and age.
Regarding research, could you please cite which dictionary you are referencing in your above examle?
At your behest, I consulted 2 separate common tomes, The American Heritage Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary. Neither's entry for 'court' was remotely similar to your reference.
I only ask to satisfy my own curiosity as to the source.
And, actually, I have sat on a jury in a grievous bodily harm case. Not murder, or attempted murder, but a serious incident none the less.
Not your level of involvement with the court system for sure, but I have been exposed to it.
Carry on.
Sent from somewhere
Simply google "court definition" and either click on "law" or click on "more definitions". I believe they are sourcing from Oxford but I can't guarantee it. Another avenue would be to look at a legal dictionary (they exist).Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
Insofar as research, I'm referring to appeals there, but most of the American public has *no idea*. Just some tidbits:
1) There is no ability to appeal until a case is entirely concluded, no matter what mistakes a judge has made along the way. People can be subjected to all sorts of judicial overreach that screws their life up, there is no appeal until months after the very end. Some cases can last a decade.
2) "Discretion" is the most commonly applied standard and means even if a judge's decision was obviously bias'ed or incorrect, the appeals court is OBLIGATED to try to craft an explanation that would justify it.
3) "Error preservation" - if you did not raise your problem with the court you have a problem with, you can't appeal it. To be more clear, lets say a judge does something like gives you 5 minutes to speak and then cuts you off under threat of sanction. Well, if you didn't stand there in front of the court and lodge an oral motion/offer of proof (and get held in contempt for it), you didn't preserve your error so you can't appeal it.
This is... a TLDR version and is not 100% accurate it is maybe 95%, with hundreds of other pitfalls I am not mentioning, just simplifying here. For most people, if their attorney fucks up their case, there is no fixing it due to the lack of error preservation. If your attorney fails to research and mention case law, it really doesn't matter if your judgment/verdict/whatever contravenes settled law or is (insert problem) - your attorney didn't preserve the error, there's usually nothing you can do about it.
PS: 11ish years of professional experience. I may rant, but I've seen crazy shit. I've never been arrested or accused of any crime, ever. I have seen plenty of people's lives ruined by criminal/civil/etc. though...
ETA2: And my statistical success rate is much higher than the average. Appeals have an very bad success rate nationally (I forget exactly, 6% +/- something). I'd have to do the math but I think something like 4/10 of what I drafted became wins.
it is more question how long does jurors take for them to say not guilty on all murder charges.
possession is a different story.
Judge just dismissed the Minor in Possession of a Firearm charge, prior to jury instructions.
The statute they charged him under covers handguns, SBRs, and SBSs, not rifles. One would think that someone would have noticed that it was not applicable to the weapon he was carrying at some time prior to the end stage of the trial.
That would require more thought than "Evil black assault rifle bad, white kid racist, must punish"...Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Far too much mental effort for the libtards.
So, the prosecutor just aimed a gun at jurors with his finger on the trigger.
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/20...-usage-photos/
Quote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
I would like to say that I am shocked, but that response has dulled due to excessive use.
My suspicion is that Binger has probably never fired a real weapon, and definitely doesn't own any.
That's crazy. Yikes! There is no visible indication that gun is safe. Bolt closed. No chamber flag. Finger on the trigger.
Wow.
Attachment 88374
Why is there not a chamber flag zip tied to that damn thing? The defense had his finger on the trigger as well, although he didn't flag the crowd with it.