Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[zh cohen]

[chff]

Why do they need additional copies?  Did they scribble up the original?

[Dan]

Why do they need additional copies?  Did they scribble up the original?

Probably only got 1 copy and they each wanted one.

[mb1]

From cnn:

Pages 2 through 3 of the jury instructions focus on the self-defense and provocation instructions. Page 4 of the jury instructions focuses on crimes requiring intent to kill. Pages 5 and 6 focus on the first count of first-degree reckless homicide for the fatal shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum.

[as2]

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2021-11-16-the-disturbing-story-of-the-rittenhouse-cases-mysterious-jump-kick-man/


Make of that what you wish. I just found it interesting because I was wondering why he was never identified, especially after attacking someone. I guess this explains that.

[aygart]

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2021-11-16-the-disturbing-story-of-the-rittenhouse-cases-mysterious-jump-kick-man/


Make of that what you wish. I just found it interesting because I was wondering why he was never identified, especially after attacking someone. I guess this explains that.

"The Dan O'Donnell Show" is not naming Jump Kick Man, as he has not been criminally charged in connection with the Rittenhouse case.

They afraid of lashon hara?

[as2]

"The Dan O'Donnell Show" is not naming Jump Kick Man, as he has not been criminally charged in connection with the Rittenhouse case.

They afraid of lashon hara?

More likely defamation I'm guessing.

[bzam99]

This is probably the first thing I've seen on this thread that I absolutely agree with. He was dead wrong for putting himself in the position that he was in, and I think there should be consequences for his actions, but [he cannot be shown to not have been] acting in self defense at the time of the actual shootings.

How can these truth coexist?

If he was wrong for putting himself in the position in the first place then he is an instigator and placing yourself in that situation forfeits your right to self defense.

[aygart]

More likely defamation I'm guessing.

Then they are not confident that they have the right guy?

[aygart]

How can these truth coexist?

If he was wrong for putting himself in the position in the first place then he is an instigator and placing yourself in that situation forfeits your right to self defense.

You may wish that to be the case, but it is not.

[S209]

How can these truth coexist?

With nuance.

[Yehuda57]

How can these truth coexist?

If he was wrong for putting himself in the position in the first place then he is an instigator and placing yourself in that situation forfeits your right to self defense.

Nope, being a fool or being wrong-headed doesn't lose you your right to self-defense, unlawful provocation does. And even then, not entirely (in the state of Wisconsin).

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

[as2]

Then they are not confident that they have the right guy?

Definitely a possibility.

[as2]

Take a look at the paragraph entitled "Image and Video Enhancement with AI". This is the AMPED software that was used and called into question with regards to how it may alter pictures and video.


https://blog.ampedsoftware.com/2021/10/05/can-ai-be-used-for-forensics-and-investigations/

[zh cohen]

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2021-11-16-the-disturbing-story-of-the-rittenhouse-cases-mysterious-jump-kick-man/


Make of that what you wish. I just found it interesting because I was wondering why he was never identified, especially after attacking someone. I guess this explains that.

If it is true that the prosecution knows who he is (because he offered to testify) do they have an obligation to share that information with the defense? Did they?

[as2]

Reports are that 2 jurors are holding up the verdict. They Cited backlash as their concern. They're scared their names will be leaked.

[skyguy918]

Take a look at the paragraph entitled "Image and Video Enhancement with AI". This is the AMPED software that was used and called into question with regards to how it may alter pictures and video.


https://blog.ampedsoftware.com/2021/10/05/can-ai-be-used-for-forensics-and-investigations/

Where do you see anything about this specific software being used in relation to this case? The defense's objection only called out Apple, CMIIW.

[aygart]

Reports are that 2 jurors are holding up the verdict. They Cited backlash as their concern. They're scared their names will be leaked.

So bring in the alts. This wasn't part of the original questionnaire?

[as2]

Where do you see anything about this specific software being used in relation to this case? The defense's objection only called out Apple, CMIIW.

This was specifically discussed with the Witness who the state used to process their footage. He offered limited explanations, and when he realized that he didn't have the answers, he told them that. It was a big issue on the last day of presentation I believe. The judge didn't want to allow it, but did, and said if the science doesn't back it, the whole case will fall like a house of cards.

[as2]

So bring in the alts. This wasn't part of the original questionnaire?

I'm guessing that hearing the chants from outside the courthouse while inside, probably rattles people.