Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Endus]

I thought yesterday the same I thought today, he was likely to be acquitted unless the Defense put Kyle on the stand, and they chose poorly. Now I think Kyle's only hope is a mistrial.

I don't think a mistrial helps Rittenhouse at all. I think the judge has been so biased in the defense's favor that any balanced justice is gonna be way, way worse for the defense.

- - - Updated - - -

The defense just objected to using an iPad to zoom in on footage because "Apple has AI and logarithms that can create fake 3D images out of nothing".

I'm paraphrasing, but "Apple has AI and logarithms" is a direct quote.

Imagine being so fucking stupid, as a lawyer, you not only don't know what an "algorithm" is or how computers work, but make that ignorance the basis of your objection in court.

- - - Updated - - -

And now the judge is demanding the prosecution present an expert witness to justify that zooming in on footage doesn't modify footage.

[beanman12345]

I don't think a mistrial helps Rittenhouse at all. I think the judge has been so biased in the defense's favor that any balanced justice is gonna be way, way worse for the defense.

Well NYTimes says that the defense is asking for a mistrial and for the judge to declare it "with prejudice" which they said it would mean there could not be a another trial with a new jury. I don't know if that's gonna go through or not, this judge though wouldn't surprise me. here's the link it's a paywall though

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11...house-mistrial

[NoiseTank13]

This judge is an embarrassment to the Law.

What slime.

[Edge-]

And now the judge is demanding the prosecution present an expert witness to justify that zooming in on footage doesn't modify footage.

...did this judge just watch Super Troopers and that's the extent of his "zoom and enhance" knowledge?

[Endus]

The judge is now confusing enhancing an image with simply zooming in on one thanks to the defense raising the specter of Apple “logarithms”.

If you're this fucking ignorant about basic computer functionality you don't have any business as the assistant shift supervisor at your local Burger King, let alone sitting on a fucking bench wearing judge's robes. We just saw him playing with his smartphone during a break. How is the judge this fucking stupid?

Unless it's just a game and he's playing silly buggers to fuck the prosecution maliciously.

[Edge-]

Unless it's just a game and he's playing silly buggers to fuck the prosecution maliciously.

Given all context of his behavior to-date, this seems like an absolutely fair assessment.

[DKjaigen]

"Someone completely unrelated shot a gun and I panicked and shot an unarmed man" is a description of murder. Not lawful self defense.

yes that is a valid defense. to bad

[Endus]

yes that is a valid defense. to bad

Nah.

GTFO of here with weaksauce "NO U" nonsense. Shooting an unarmed man because you're a panicky moron is an explanation of malicious intent and criminal motive, not a valid self defense claim.

Give me any case where that was found to be justified. Literally one case.

[PhaelixWW]

yes that is a valid defense. to bad

No, it's not.

[Endus]

"You need an expert witness if you want to zoom in on a video because I need to know it doesn't change things."
"Can we adjourn so we can arrange that expert testimony, then?"
"Lol no fuck you."

Note that the video's already in evidence, so they're not asking to introduce new evidence.

[beanman12345]

"you got 15 minutes to get an expert witness even though there is another witness already on the stand, to make a key propononant of your case because i'm ignorant and won't allow you the time to fix my ignorance." what an assclown of a judge.

[Warning]

I fully expect Rittenhouse to go free given what I've seen during the trial. And that doesn't mean that the situation turned out well in any sense. What I see is an absolutely clueless and naive young guy walking around trying to play hero with an AR15 that he should never be allowed to have, but yet the country he lives in allows him to carry it walking past multiple police officers who at most have a friendly chat and offer him some water. This is to me is the essence and cause of what transpired that night.

Many people have mentioned he shouldn't have been there with that weapon, and honestly they're right. But at the same time I don't think that necessarily leads to to the conclusion that once someone IS in that situation, their right to self defense has ended entirely. Not in a country that normalizes openly carrying weapons to the degree America does. That means that as long as the facts show that he reasonably could believe he was being attacked he probably had the right to defend himself as he did. Obviously you can still call into question whether the force used was excessive given the threat (unarmed smaller man), but given Kyle was a minor and there supposedly were death threats uttered it's probably a moot point.

In general I think some of the opinions expressed on the topic have been somewhat careless and extremely politicized, turning people into caricatures rather than examining their behaviour based on the facts presented during the trial. The facts I see will probably clear Rittenhouse, but certainly indict the idiotic gun culture that has teenages walking around with assault rifles.

[Beefhammer]

If you're this fucking ignorant about basic computer functionality you don't have any business as the assistant shift supervisor at your local Burger King, let alone sitting on a fucking bench wearing judge's robes. We just saw him playing with his smartphone during a break. How is the judge this fucking stupid?

Unless it's just a game and he's playing silly buggers to fuck the prosecution maliciously.

I have do doubt he's just fucking with the prosecution.

[DKjaigen]

Nah.

GTFO of here with weaksauce "NO U" nonsense. Shooting an unarmed man because you're a panicky moron is an explanation of malicious intent and criminal motive, not a valid self defense claim.

Give me any case where that was found to be justified. Literally one case.

And who caused him to panic? perhaps Rosenbaum should not have persued him? perhaps that antida thug should not have fired in the air. And Kyle could not have known if Rosenbaum was armed.

Ultimately the problem is of BLM themselves. Kyle shot 3 people and all of them had a large criminal record. At this point i think that BLM's whole racial equity thing is just a cover for a criminal organisation. Perhaps we should ban them from protesting to protect innocent people.

[Endus]

And who caused him to panic?

According to testimony, the gunshot.

Not Rosenbaum.

perhaps Rosenbaum should not have persued him? perhaps that antida thug should not have fired in the air. And Kyle could not have known if Rosenbaum was armed.

The first is irrelevant; it doesn't justify use of lethal force. Neither does the second, and calling him an "antifa thug" just demonstrates how overwhelmingly biased you are.

And the third isn't how self defense with lethal force works. Rittenhouse is obliged to verify that Rosenbaum does reasonably present such a threat before he can use lethal force in self defense. If he doesn't, and just assumes it, because big man scary aaaaahhh, that's what we call "murder".

Ultimately the problem is of BLM themselves.

Thanks for coming out and admitting to being a racist, I guess.

Literally the only people who oppose BLM are racists. That opposition entails a belief that the lives of black people aren't worth as much as the lives of others. That's just pure racism.

Kyle shot 3 people and all of them had a large criminal record.

That's just an obvious lie about the facts. Grosskreutz had no criminal record whatsoever.

At this point i think that BLM's whole racial equity thing is just a cover for a criminal organisation. Perhaps we should ban them from protesting to protect innocent people.

No, this is a white supremacist's argument to try and criminalize movements for racial equality.

Nothing more.

[downnola]

Many people have mentioned he shouldn't have been there with that weapon, and honestly they're right. But at the same time I don't think that necessarily leads to to the conclusion that once someone IS in that situation, their right to self defense has ended entirely. Not in a country that normalizes openly carrying weapons to the degree America does. That means that as long as the facts show that he reasonably could believe he was being attacked he probably had the right to defend himself as he did. Obviously you can still call into question whether the force used was excessive given the threat (unarmed smaller man), but given Kyle was a minor and there supposedly were death threats uttered it's probably a moot point.

It's insulting to everyone's intelligence to claim self-defense in a scenario that you put yourself in because you are toting around a rifle with the intent to intimidate protesters in a town you don't even live in.

And yes, you can argue the force used was excessive because the guy was unarmed and was shot in close range with a rifle. It's murder plain and fucking simple.

But he'll be let go because it's been obvious from the beginning that the judge and American justice system in general is inept and clearly on the side of the white nationalist circle jerk the kid comes from.

[Warning]

It's insulting to everyone's intelligence to claim self-defense in a scenario that you put yourself in because you are toting around a rifle with the intent to intimidate protesters in a town you don't even live in.

And yes, you can argue the force used was excessive because the guy was unarmed and was shot in close range with a rifle. It's murder plain and fucking simple.

But he'll be let go because it's been obvious from the beginning that the judge and American justice system in general is inept and clearly on the side of the white nationalist circle jerk the kid comes from.

In a normal country I think it would be yeah, in America this teenager walking around with an AR-15 somehow isn't out of place, so I'm not sure it applies. The video evidence didn't really show him intimidating people, it showed a guy out of his depth offering people medical aid he wasn't really trained to provide and trying to "protect" property. Or at other times walking along with and fawning over a former military guy that should've sent him home to his mom.

[Endus]

I love that their response to the judge's bullshit about zooming was apparently (it's off-screen deliberately) to roll in a huge 4k TV and get Rittenhouse to walk up close to it.

[Kathandira]

yes that is a valid defense. to bad

Yes, it is a defense in court, but there would still be a case that he killed someone. Rather than a throw away, that should result in a lesser sentence than premeditated murder.

[Endus]

Rittenhouse admitting that Rosenbaum was unarmed and hadn't ever even touched Rittenhouse is gonna be what sinks his defense.

Like, not that he was unsure; Rittenhouse admitted he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed.

Edit: Aaaand Rittenhouse just admitted he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum, who put his hands up, before Rosenbaum made a dive at the weapon.

Edit edit: And that Rittenhouse voluntarily slowed down, rather than fleeing at full speed, before turning and shooting Rosenbaum.

- - - Updated - - -

And now that the first shot hit Rosenbaum, which eliminated any potential threat, so the three following shots after a pause couldn't possibly be self defense.

And now that Rittenhouse's motive was his own overactive panicky imagination, not what Rosenbaum actually did or said. That Rittenhouse made all that up.

Edit: And now the tears are coming because Rittenhouse hears his own testimony falling apart.

Edit: Prosecution's attack is basically "do you understand basic human empathy?" and Rittenhouse's answer is basically "no".