The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha
-
@improviso said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
BTW, Wood is NOT his lawyer now. It looks like he might have been originally.
Ms. Rittenhouse claims on the podcast that two of #FightBack’s leaders—Wood and conservative firebrand John Pierce—latched onto her son’s case for their own personal reasons.
“They used Kyle to gain money, gain Twitter followers,” Ms. Rittenhouse told Law&Crime. “I felt now they didn’t care about Kyle.”
The mother has cut ties with #FightBack to start a new legal defense fund for her son under her control called FreeKyleUSA, and she claims that Wood and Pierce have ignored repeated requests to open up their books.
“He used my son’s image to make profit off of that. And I asked for an accounting of it. And I never got it. I was ignored,” Ms. Rittenhouse said of Wood in an interview with Law&Crime. “They used a 17-year-old kid’s image for their own political shit.”
“I asked Lin, where’s the money?” Ms. Rittenhouse recalled separately. “I wanted to see the books, like the accounting books.”
In an email, Wood denied receiving any request for an audit and said FightBack would be “perfectly willing to undergo any audit required by law.”
-
-
Andrew McCarthy on the open-carry:
Openly carrying a rifle, as he was doing, is generally legal in Wisconsin — where a friend, who was also armed and seeking to protect property, gave Rittenhouse the gun to protect himself that night. The prosecutors counter that, having not yet attained the age of 18 at the time, Rittenhouse’s possession was unlawful — a misdemeanor. But the controlling statute, a densely worded muddle that prohibits most gun possession by minors, appears to exempt long guns. The law is so vague, in any event, that a conviction based on it is apt to be constitutionally unstable.
Responsible prosecutors don’t charge offenses based on statutes they cannot explain, and the prosecutors can’t explain the pertinent exemptions. Moreover, to the limited extent that Rittenhouse’s appearance should have any bearing on the case — and criminal charges focus on the operation of the accused’s mind, not spectators’ perception of the accused — his open carrying of a long gun was neither more nor less provocative than the perfectly lawful open-carrying by those on the streets who were over 18. Indeed, it was more benign than the illegal concealed-carrying of a handgun by the state’s star witnesses, over which — surprise! — the prosecutors have not filed charges.
So why is the state so insistent on stacking a minor, selective, incomprehensibly vague misdemeanor gun-possession charge on a defendant who is facing so much potential imprisonment on murder and attempted-murder charges that he’d have to live three or four lifetimes to serve the sentence prosecutors are hoping for?
Because the prosecutors know they have no case. They need the misdemeanor to distort reality such that they’ll be able to hoodwink the jury . . . if the judge is sufficiently cowed to let them get away with it by letting the misdemeanor count stand.
-
Boy, you talk about a lyin' sack of shit...
Active shooters don't discriminately only shoot the people that are trying to kill them. Nor do they walk towards the police to give themselves up. Nor do they try to get help for the people they've shot.
I understand NBC and their maniacal anti-gun focus. They've been that way for decades. But this is a helluva stretch, even by their standards...
-
Well the words were already typed, no use in letting them go to waste…
-
Well the words were already typed, no use in letting them go to waste…
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Well the words were already typed, no use in letting them go to waste…
If the young man is acquitted, I think the MSM should pay for any damages due to riots they helped incite.
-
-
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
How is that not libel?
With a good lawyer, I think it is.
-
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
How is that not libel?
With a good lawyer, I think it is.
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
With a good lawyer, I think it is.
In the UK, I'm pretty sure they'd be done for contempt of court if they wrote that, as would much of the US media for all the bullshit they're writing.
-
Read literally, it implies the Mr Rhittenhause used the word murder. Maybe he did? If not then yes of course just more leftist outrage messaging from journalists who probably lack self awareness of why the choose their words as the do. These are, after all, merely humans.
-
Read literally, it implies the Mr Rhittenhause used the word murder. Maybe he did? If not then yes of course just more leftist outrage messaging from journalists who probably lack self awareness of why the choose their words as the do. These are, after all, merely humans.
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Read literally, it implies the Mr Rhittenhause used the word murder. Maybe he did? If not then yes of course just more leftist outrage messaging from journalists who probably lack self awareness of why the choose their words as the do. These are, after all, merely humans.
It strikes me that you need better laws covering the reporting of court cases, and, I would humbly suggest, a better understanding by the general public and media at large that murder trials aren't conducted primarily for their entertainment.
I appreciate that daytime TV is a bit shit, but there's got to be some kind of alternative.
It might also help if you deported Nancy Grace to Australia.
-
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Read literally, it implies the Mr Rhittenhause used the word murder. Maybe he did? If not then yes of course just more leftist outrage messaging from journalists who probably lack self awareness of why the choose their words as the do. These are, after all, merely humans.
It strikes me that you need better laws covering the reporting of court cases, and, I would humbly suggest, a better understanding by the general public and media at large that murder trials aren't conducted primarily for their entertainment.
I appreciate that daytime TV is a bit shit, but there's got to be some kind of alternative.
It might also help if you deported Nancy Grace to Australia.
From the liveblog:
LOL of the Day for #KyleRittenhouse trial:
ADA Binger telling a witness that he's not a real journalist because real journalists don't put their opinions into their news stories.
Hahahahahahahahaha! This, in one of the most news-propagandized trials I've ever seen.
-
This is why we can't have nice things...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/11/bruce-schroeder-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-trialThere are hundreds of stories out there like this. Stay safe, George!
-
This is why we can't have nice things...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/11/bruce-schroeder-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-trialThere are hundreds of stories out there like this. Stay safe, George!
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
This is why we can't have nice things...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/11/bruce-schroeder-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-trialThere are hundreds of stories out there like this. Stay safe, George!
They didn't bother to point out he is the longest sitting judge in the state and has a reputation as a fair judge. He's never allowed attorneys to use the word "victim", as he feels it influences juries.
On that, I would have to agree.
Overall, the piece is just red meat for the Leftist dogs...
-
This is why Illinois and Wisconsin will burn this weekend
-
-
No, here’s the racist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/politics-policy/sobbing-kyle-rittenhouse-won-before-ruling-rcna5114
Seriously? Stay safe George, Kluurs, and any other forum member in the general area.
The Brad
-
Rittenhouse defense incorrectly claims iPad pinch-to-zoom modifies footage
A lack of technical knowledge may have just influenced an important court case. The New York Times reports the defense for shooter Kyle Rittenhouse incorrectly claimed that an iPad's pinch-to-zoom function could modify footage of the incident, "creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there." That sparked a debate between lawyers and Judge Schroeder, who maintained the burden was on the prosecution to show the imagery remained in its "virginal state," not on the defense to prove manipulation.
The judge may have accepted the argument. He denied the prosecution's request for an adjournment and instead called for a 15-minute recess, suggesting the team could find an expert to support their claim in that space of time. They didn't, and The Verge noted that the trial resumed with the jury watching video on a Windows PC connected to the courtroom TV.
As you might imagine, the defense's claim played fast and loose with the truth. Pinch-to-zoom on all devices may use algorithms, but only to scale the image — it doesn't change the content itself. This was an attempt to prevent the jury from getting a clearer view of the action, not a genuine challenge to the integrity of the video.
I watched this exchange yesterday.
My thoughts? "Pinch to Zoom" is perfectly fine.
But...
If the prosecution enters evidence using the technology, and the defense objects, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that it's not altered.
It's a fine legal point, and I disagree with the judge's ruling, but, when you want to "enhance" evidence, it's up to YOU to prove that it's valid.
That said, if I were the defense, I would not have raised an objection to the tech.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
