Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[Yehuda57]

...and what kind you see in one and not see in the other?

I think the key here, in terms of the difference between the two, is the zoom. The prosecution is resting much of their case on the provocation. Because if he provokes, he needs to clear a much higher bar for self defense.

Him being there with a gun was not deemed illegal and thus not a provocation. They therefore need him to have raised the gun and pointed it at people. They zoomed in to a single frame (a fraction of a second!) which they claim proves this.

Now, the prosecution has repeatedly claimed they are not relying on this evidence. But in the argument over the jury instructions when the judge agreed to include the provocation instruction, it was based on showing him this high res footage and saying that's where the picture comes from.

That photo and the high resolution video were not provided to the defense and this should not have been entered into evidence. That changes the whole case and changes the jury instruction to omit provocation, making a self defense claim almost certain.

Of course, if the judge thinks they submitted the low res file on purpose, that is grounds for a mistrial with prejudice. (even without intent, it still might be, as they were warned about using the image by the judge)

As for what you see in the actual footage. I think if the defense sees the high res footage KR wouldn't have said a word about grabbing the gun. I think it's quite clear that that didn't happen. But, I also see that each side will look at the exact same footage and have diametrically oppossed views.

1) There is no provocation from KR, he tries to run away, he even raises his gun to scare JR off as he runs, and only fires when he gets stuck in between cars and JR is virtually on top of him. He is clearly in imminent danger of great bodily harm, especially considering the violent nature of the atmosphere that night. (this may even be enough even if he did provoke, because he did retreat)

The video makes it clear he should not be found guilty.

2) The video is clear, he didn't grab the gun, he wasn't lunging at him, he was an unarmed guy running at KR. Sure, that's no picnic, but no reasonable person would fire 4 shots at almost point blank range for being chased by an unarmed guy.

He is guilty.

I think that's text book reasonable doubt.

[Dan]

Where is the dislike button? Sick and tired of all the race-baiting.

https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=114639.msg2221161#msg2221161

[Euclid]

Where is the dislike button? Sick and tired of all the race-baiting.

I didn't take CV's post as race baiting. He was observing that it seems (in the general populace, at least) that guilty/innocent opinions are split along party lines.

Not as obvious on DDF where we're more nuanced, but definitely in the WhatsApp forwards/statuses that I've seen: many, many people in our community have jumped to a conclusion (innocent) without delving into the trial.

[yesitsme]

I view Kyle as a shomrim member, sometimes you need to step in when police doesn't, everyone agrees the outcome is very unfortunate, but I believe he had good intent and he is not a provoker

[Euclid]

I view Kyle as a shomrim member, sometimes you need to step in when police doesn't, everyone agrees the outcome is very unfortunate, but I believe he had good intent and he is not a provoker

George Zimmerman

[Yehuda57]

I view Kyle as a shomrim member, sometimes you need to step in when police doesn't, everyone agrees the outcome is very unfortunate, but I believe he had good intent and he is not a provoker

Oof. This is a bit on the nose, but not in positive ways. I'll just say I'm really glad shomrim aren't armed.

[CountValentine]

I didn't take CV's post as race baiting. He was observing that it seems (in the general populace, at least) that guilty/innocent opinions are split along party lines.

Not as obvious on DDF where we're more nuanced, but definitely in the WhatsApp forwards/statuses that I've seen: many, many people in our community have jumped to a conclusion (innocent) without delving into the trial.

Anything I post certain members will twist it no matter what.
It is always telling when a member never posts in a long thread only to pop in to attack me.
Is there anyway to interpret that besides the obvious?

[Yo ssi]

Anything I post certain members will twist it no matter what.
It is always telling when a member never posts in a long thread only to pop in to attack me.
Is there anyway to interpret that besides the obvious?

Yes

[CountValentine]

I did my civic duty and served on three. How many for you? 

[yuneeq]

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

Not everyone revolves around politics. Your argument about the extra shots remind me of the debates that happen in hockey when there’s a questionable hit. Player goes in for clean hit, but the other player moves at last second and gets his head crunched against the boards. Terribly dangerous hit.

You now have fans taking the video, splitting it up frame by frame proving how the checker was able to see the victim in a vulnerable position, and therefore he must’ve intentionally intended to injure the other player. Then you have others like me that watch the replay in real-time speed and notice thats it’s a bang bang play. Many times,  even the best trained athletes cannot react fast enough. Heck, players sometimes destroy their own teammates by mistake.

You are free to disagree but I hope your opinion isn’t based on politics either.

[123-Rosh]

I did my civic duty and served on three. How many for you? 

While you were sitting on juries and finding poor innocent black men guilty, putting them in jail for life and destroying their families, I was out campaigning to save our planet.

[Yehuda57]

While you were sitting on juries and finding poor innocent black men guilty, putting them in jail for life and destroying their families, I was out campaigning to save our planet.

Go away

[CountValentine]

Not everyone revolves around politics.

Unfortunately to much today does.

As far as your analogy it is useless. What matters is what the judge says the law is. That is why I said I would have questions for the judge.

[YitzyS]

Of course, if the judge thinks they submitted the low res file on purpose, that is grounds for a mistrial with prejudice. (even without intent, it still might be, as they were warned about using the image by the judge)

There's one point that you allude to but has to be spoken out clearly.

People see the claim of "the prosecutor has to share all testimony and he didn't so let's declare it a mistrial" as a technical loophole to have the case thrown out. But it's not. It's a fundamental issue.

If the defense is not equipped with all the testimony prior to the trial, and they don't fully understand what they are being accused of, they cannot possibly defend themselves properly. If the defense was not aware that they were charging him with provocation, they naturally won't bring witnesses to counter that claim. Meaning, that if someone is convicted of a crime when the evidence was not disclosed prior to the trial, they essentially were convicted without having a right to defend themselves.

I've seen this clearly with Rabbi Eisemann, where the judge altered the jury instructions after the defense rested their case, opening up the option of conviction on the very counts he was subsequently convicted of.

[YitzyS]

Unfortunately to much today does.

As far as your analogy it is useless. What matters is what the judge says the law is. That is why I said I would have questions for the judge.

Well, write them in the Milwaukee Centennial. Maybe he'll address them in court... 

[yuneeq]

Unfortunately to much today does.

As far as your analogy it is useless. What matters is what the judge says the law is. That is why I said I would have questions for the judge.

Most of us here aren’t sitting on the jury, nor sitting through the entire hearing, nor tasked with making a life and death determination. I am perfectly comfortable sharing and discussing our non-legally binding opinions based on the facts we know, and what we feel is moral.

[CountValentine]

There's one point that you allude to but has to be spoken out clearly.

People see the claim of "the prosecutor has to share all testimony and he didn't so let's declare it a mistrial" as a technical loophole to have the case thrown out. But it's not. It's a fundamental issue.

I think you mean evidence and not testimony?

I don't look at it as loophole. I want to know all the facts before passing judgement. The most important one is when did you have possession of the high resolution video?

[YitzyS]

I think you mean evidence and not testimony?

I don't look at it as loophole. I want to know all the facts before passing judgement. The most important one is when did you have possession of the high resolution video?

Yes, meant evidence.

You are saying a good point, but I'm stressing a different point. It's not necessarily about the jury, but about the ability for the defendant to properly defend themselves.

[CountValentine]

Most of us here aren’t sitting on the jury, nor sitting through the entire hearing, nor tasked with making a life and death determination. I am perfectly comfortable sharing and discussing our non-legally binding opinions based on the facts we know, and what we feel is moral.

That is fine. I am just trying to see if we all have the same facts. The testimony of the forensic expert stated when KR fired the first shot that shattered R's pelvis R was in an upright position. Some if not many here did not know that.

Now here is my counter analogy. 
In a boxing match fighter A throws a left hook that knocks down fighter B. As fighter B is falling to the ground fighter A hits him again in hand and twice more after that to the back of the head. Fighter A will be disqualified for those hits to the back of the head.

[CountValentine]

It's not necessarily about the jury, but about the ability for the defendant to properly defend themselves.

I hope no one disagrees with this. As I said earlier we should all be able to agree on basic facts.
I was talking about the motion and not the jury when I said "passing judgement".