Rittenhouse pleads 'Not Guilty'

[BigRed]

Is it normal for the FBI to do everything possible to destroy a non-Democrat?

It is if there is a dog, a mother, and her child involved.

I have other examples if needed.

 

[ditcherman]

No kidding, what the hell, were they supposed to be in a boy band or something?
What a bunch of A holes.

Prick mode achieved.

 

[ditcherman]

It is if there is a dog, a mother, and her child involved.

I have other examples if needed.

Are you thinking of the AFT?

(don’t @ me that’s what Brandon calls them)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I thought the drone video cam from an anonymous source with no clear chain of custody or proven veracity.

Yeah, that's what the prosecutor said. A guy came to his office and told the receptionist he had drone video of it but wouldn't give his name. He also sold it to fox news.

According to the defense it was taken by a company can't remember the name airiel something or another. The defense approached them and lied about having any video and they lied and said they didn't. The permit that was issued for them was for another location.

 

[BigRed]

Are you thinking of the AFT?

(don’t @ me that’s what Brandon calls them)

Show me the difference.

 

[Drewski]

View attachment 168242

holy shnikies - giza dreams sheets 2 for 1 AND free shipping?

thanks for the heads up

 

[BigRed]

******

 

[ghuns]

What is the background of this channel and/or the commenters? Any particular politics or tendency towards viewpoints in the past?

I would say, as far as politics, there's not a single democrat represented. They are in 100% agreement that, the kid should be acquitted, the prosecution is playing dirty, and that the defense team kinda sucks.

One of them, Robert Barnes, was on the kid's defense team at one point. He is particularly p!ssed at how poorly the defense performed in jury selection. He's been harping on that all along and sure seems to have been proven correct.

 

[jamil]

What is the background of this channel and/or the commenters? Any particular politics or tendency towards viewpoints in the past?

I’m not silure about the rest of them but Nate is a mostly sane lefty. He leaned towards Chauvin being guilty, but I got the feeling that was in good faith. I think he calls them like he sees them, though be does have his own biases. I like listening to opinions from people I respect on the other side as a check on my own biases.

I think Nate is way more intellectually honest than, say, LegalEagke is. I almost can’t stand listening to that guy. He is ideologically driven. I don’t think Nate is.

 

[jamil]

AFAIK, this is speculation, based on an enhanced screenshot of the computer Krauss was using in court. It COULD have been done that way, supposedly (and I wouldn't put it past the Prosecution to have done it) but it's only speculation so far.

Who else hopes the Judge holds a hearing on it and puts Krauss under oath for his bullcrap "explanation" of why the Defense got the cropped video file instead of what the Prosecution produced in court?

I wouldn’t mind seeing the toad squirm under oath, but the iPhone story explaining why the defense got the lower res video is plausible. What’s not plausible is why they used the lesser quality video in court.

Obviously it’s easier to plant the idea that the low res rorschach test still image means what they say it means. I don’t think the higher res video is much better. It’s harder to support the claim that KR is pointing a gun.

Nevertheless, the defense should have rebutted the claim better.

 

[KG1]

I wouldn’t mind seeing the toad squirm under oath, but the iPhone story explaining why the defense got the lower res video is plausible. What’s not plausible is why they used the lesser quality video in court.

Obviously it’s easier to plant the idea that the low res rorschach test still image means what they say it means. I don’t think the higher res video is much better. It’s harder to support the claim that KR is pointing a gun.

Nevertheless, the defense should have rebutted the claim better.

I think it was mentioned by the defense that it was unfair to them because they formed their defense strategy based upon the lower res video that they were given.

 

[KLB]

I wouldn’t mind seeing the toad squirm under oath, but the iPhone story explaining why the defense got the lower res video is plausible. What’s not plausible is why they used the lesser quality video in court.

Obviously it’s easier to plant the idea that the low res rorschach test still image means what they say it means. I don’t think the higher res video is much better. It’s harder to support the claim that KR is pointing a gun.

Nevertheless, the defense should have rebutted the claim better.

What's not plausible is why they chose that method to transfer only single file.

 

[KLB]

I would say, as far as politics, there's not a single democrat represented. They are in 100% agreement that, the kid should be acquitted, the prosecution is playing dirty, and that the defense team kinda sucks.

One of them, Robert Barnes, was on the kid's defense team at one point. He is particularly p!ssed at how poorly the defense performed in jury selection. He's been harping on that all along and sure seems to have been proven correct.

I don't know about that. LegalBytes was an ADA in California and Nate is definitely left leaning. Viva is a Canadian that still has left leanings. He changed his opinion of the whole thing as he learned more.

I think what you have is a group of lawyers that are looking at the case from that perspective instead of through a political lens. The agreement of opinion is more an indicator of how bad the case is rather than political bias.

 

[rob63]

I wouldn’t mind seeing the toad squirm under oath, but the iPhone story explaining why the defense got the lower res video is plausible. What’s not plausible is why they used the lesser quality video in court.

Obviously it’s easier to plant the idea that the low res rorschach test still image means what they say it means. I don’t think the higher res video is much better. It’s harder to support the claim that KR is pointing a gun.

Nevertheless, the defense should have rebutted the claim better.

I didn't watch the trial, but it bothers me that you mention that the defense should have rebutted the claim better. It is remarkably easy to convince people that something is on video, or in a photo, if you tell them first what they are going to see and then show them the video. Most people will "see" what you told them they are going to see.

 

[Bugzilla]

Sure, why not? Armed, primarily black men do it all the time with impunity. See Chicago, Baltimore, Indianapolis, etc., etc.,...

If they were as accurate at hitting only criminals as Rittenhouse, we would soon be living in a crime free country.

 

[KLB]

I didn't watch the trial, but it bothers me that you mention that the defense should have rebutted the claim better. It is remarkably easy to convince people that something is on video, or in a photo, if you tell them first what they are going to see and then show them the video. Most people will "see" what you told them they are going to see.

There were a LOT of things that the defense could/should have done better. If there is an acquittal it will be in spite of the defense, not because of it.

 

[thunderchicken]

Ok, I wasn't able to watch the trial and have only seen short bits on news coverage and what has been posted here. So, for those saying the defense could/should have done a better job, can you give some examples?

 

[JEBland]

Ok, I wasn't able to watch the trial and have only seen short bits on news coverage and what has been posted here. So, for those saying the defense could/should have done a better job, can you give some examples?

On my phone about to head into work so I won't provide much context. Basically, the defense isn't advocating for their client. They are way too passive. They haven't taken notes and seen how the prosecution manipulates the judge and emoloy the same tactics. They aren't even citing case law in their motion to dismiss with prejudice. They allow the prosecution to saw that it's not the state's responsibility to give the defense a proper copy of the submitted evidence. Reports are that the defense has shut out anyone not directly involved - they're too arrogant/proud to use the sun of knowledge from the internet. WTFs all around.






I liked Richards' closing except for the end. He mentions privilege but didn't translate it for the layman. He didn't hammer home jury instructions. But it was awesome to see how it just upended the prosecution's rebuttal.

 

[KLB]

Ok, I wasn't able to watch the trial and have only seen short bits on news coverage and what has been posted here. So, for those saying the defense could/should have done a better job, can you give some examples?

Here is an article on their closing argument written by a lawyer

Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Delivers Disappointingly Weak Closing Argument

Rittenhouse deserved a great deal more than Attorney Mark Richards delivered.

legalinsurrection.com

It is one example. The lawyers on the feed we keep referencing have brought up a lot. Lack of objections.

Not pushing lines of questioning after the prosecutors opened the door.

Letting evidence get admitted that never should have been. This last video is a great example of that. An "anonymous source" drops it off. No way to verify it is legitimate. No one to question about how it was made. Not even the original of the video.

Not using a jury expert to help pick the jury.

Not getting the use of force expert to say anything useful. All they got him to do was talk about how long things took.

 

[Cavman]

I am just hoping for a not guilty. Icing on the cake would be if the judge ordered the immediate release of his rifle back to him and must include his optics mag and ammo. And make the prosecutor give it to him personally