Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[CountValentine]

So is the prosecution also lying about having better quality footage?

Possible but needs to be determined. Did they have the high resolution video all the time and purposely gave the defense a low resolution video?

[CountValentine]

We keep talking about what a reasonable person would. Would a reasonable person think about the consequences every time he pulled the trigger. Or would he just keep pulling the trigger, at some point stop and then worry about the consequences?

[avromie7]

We keep talking about what a reasonable person would. Would a reasonable person think about the consequences every time he pulled the trigger. Or would he just keep pulling the trigger, at some point stop and then worry about the consequences?

When your life is on the line and you made the decision to pull, the latter. Save your life and worry about everything later, if you start with worrying about the consequences, you may no longer have the option to save your life.

It's easy for us to sit here and dissect everything, you keep mentioning the shattered pelvis as if he should be expected to know that. Even if the reason it looked like R lunged toward KR is because he was falling due to a shattered pelvis, it's irrelevant because KR couldn't have known why he was lunging. In the split second it's unreasonable to expect him to know that he was incapacitated.

[Yehuda57]

You mean like the charging like a bull and diving BS? 
They have played fast and loose/lied but have not been called out on it. I wonder why that is in this thread, NOT!!!

There is a difference between providing an argument or a story to present your case and a lie. Every defense lawyer will try spin the evidence to create a story that exonerates their client, and the prosecution will do the same. The judge allowed for this and overruled objections from both sides even when the arguments stretched credibility - he's leaving it for the jury to decide. But then there are lies, for instance, "guns don't have a handedness." I'm no firearms buff by any stretch, but even I know that's simply not true. If you have a lie the defense made, by all means, point it out.

In any case, the motion is not about lies, but about using evidence that wasn't submitted to the defense. IANAL, but it seems from what I'm reading that that is grounds for a mistrial. And calling the difference between high res and low res a nothingburger beggars belief.

This is not video resolution, and I'm not an expert in the field, but I think this will give you an idea. here is a full resolution image:

Here's the full res:
http://i.dansdeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/18165818/DSC02473.jpg

Here is the same image, but in the 1920 pixel resolution the prosecution was using (I maintained aspect ratio, so the shorter side is much larger, 1275, than the prosecution's 844)



Zoom in and you can see people's faces and all kinds of details.

Here is the same image in 480 x 318 (prosecutions video is 480 x 212)



Zoom in and what do you see?

[YitzyS]

Jury just sent out a question "Do we watch videos in the courtroom or in private, and do we need to know the exact number of the exhibit?"

ETA: Judge's answer: In courtroom, a general description of the video is sufficient.

[YitzyS]

Just just said that he read in a newspaper that law professors thought it was odd that he didn't rule on the motion to dismiss. He said that he just got the motion yesterday and the state didn't respond yet, so it's not at all odd that he didn't rule on it yet.

[zh cohen]

Defense mentions this -

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/

Judge asked prosecutor for response and he said "That's not in evidence."

[YitzyS]

Two additional questions.

[as2]

Defense mentions this -

Judge asked prosecutor for response and he said "That's not in evidence."

Link? I didn't see that in the live stream.

[CountValentine]

When your life is on the line and you made the decision to pull, the latter. Save your life and worry about everything later, if you start with worrying about the consequences, you may no longer have the option to save your life.

It's easy for us to sit here and dissect everything, you keep mentioning the shattered pelvis as if he should be expected to know that. Even if the reason it looked like R lunged toward KR is because he was falling due to a shattered pelvis, it's irrelevant because KR couldn't have known why he was lunging. In the split second it's unreasonable to expect him to know that he was incapacitated.

That is showing a total disregard for human life.
Every time you pull that trigger you are using deadly force.

[zh cohen]

Link? I didn't see that in the live stream.

I heard part of it on a livestream on facebook. See https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-verdict-watch-mistrial-with-prejudice/ also.

[as2]

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/benandjerrys/status/1458964448924819460

[CountValentine]

https://twitter.com/benandjerrys/status/1458964448924819460

Trial would be going the same way but those who feel he is innocent/guilty would be flipped.

[Ver hut gazugt]

https://twitter.com/benandjerrys/status/1458964448924819460

how can it be a racist company crosses country lines  to racially discriminate by refusing to serve ice cream based on race.

[Shmulie]

I think I am in that picture somewhere

[chff]

https://twitter.com/benandjerrys/status/1458964448924819460

If the jury convicts, will they get lifetime free ice cream?

[Yo ssi]

Hidden camera anybody?

[Yehuda57]

#nothingburger

The metadata is different, they provided the defense a different file! There are procedures in place for a reason, if you don't follow the procedures in a life sentence case it's a big deal. The only question is if there was intent, and the judge has already said "I don't believe you" to the prosecution claiming good faith. Even without intent, it could still be grounds for a mistrial, and combined with the 5th amendment issue and going against court instruction, a mistrial with prejudice is very much on the cards if there is a guilty verdict. The judge said today, "there will have to be a day of reckoning", and if there are problems with the evidence "it's gonna be ugly."

[CountValentine]

If there is a conviction and he declares a mistrial that is one thing. If it is with prejudice I agree with:

"there will have to be a day of reckoning"