Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Silvanus]

I'm just going with the bald child rapist on camera shouting gamer words at people, demanding them to shoot him, and then chasing down a 17 year old and then attempting to assault him. Last I checked, half the people in this thread were doing the same, just against Kyle. Even after a Not Guilty verdict, so there you go.

After a "not guilty" verdict in a highly questionable trial-- in which the judge openly expressed a personal bias, and in which the jury was hopelessly unrepresentative of the county.

Meanwhile, you're reaching these conclusions (on the hypothetical future actions of the deceased) without even having a trial at all, just basing it on the past unrelated actions of the deceased. Yeah, you're making a more egregious leap here.

Say: did Rittenhouse know the other guy was a "child rapist"? I cannot see how he would. And if he didn't, then its of complete irrelevance as to whether Rittenhouse's actions were justified.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Having lurked here and followed the trial in the news I am of the opinion that if Rittenhouse was there to provide first aid/medical support, then if he really needed something to potentially defend himself with he should have opted for a pistol that could have easily been concealed or does not draw the eye away from the medical kit.

When you are carrying a medical kit and a rifle, people are only going to see the rifle.



And here is the whole fallacy over the 'good people with guns' and 'self-defense' arguments.

When you hear shots and see someone with a gun in front of someone dead on the ground, you have no idea if the shooter just acted in self-defense or has genuinely just murdered someone and is a potential mass shooter in the making. You can only go with what you see in front of you.

Kenosha allows open carry but you need a specific licence for concealed carry.

My understanding is it's basically a "People should be well aware if you're carrying so they know what they're getting into if they start shit unless we the state can absolutely trust you and you've proven yourself ok to concealed carry which could give you more confidence in confrontation situation without other being so able to judge what they're getting into".

As for the self defence argument. It really shouldn't mean you should just take a beating if people are attacking you especially aiming for the head just because they might think something. With Mass Shooting situations the advice / rules are Run, Hide, Fight Back. First thing to try and do is to run and escape the scene and area safely, if you can't then you hide and conceal yourself and only try to fight back and tackle the shooter as a last resort

So you're just happy to assume the dead would have committed some heinous act if Rittenhouse weren't there. Even though the only deaths that night were those shot by Rittenhouse.

We can assume guilt of the dead, then? The legal standard doesn't apply?

Precedent would dictate they were likely to re-offend.

 

[Leg End]

Say: did Rittenhouse know the other guy was a "child rapist"? I cannot see how he would.

He absolutely could not, which is why regarding the specific moment, I'm going solely off of Kyle's perspective and the events that did happen.

And if he didn't, then its of complete irrelevance as to whether Rittenhouse's actions were justified.

Entirely correct. But when we're going into theoreticals, such as Kyle either not being armed at all, or not being present that night, Rosenbaum's history does give us something to work with, as do the actions he did perform that night. He was clearly unstable and set full focus on Kyle, despite there being other people that were armed. For whatever reason, he decided to hound his ass the rest of the time he was on the Earth and go after him, and actively attack him. All of that tells me that Kyle was just the unfortunate kid that had to deal with him, and depending on your theory, be the guy that put him down in forced assisted suicide.

Any other references I make to Rosenbaum's criminal history are either in relation to the guy being a bit of a nutter which might explain some of his actions in a few ways, or purely for the purposes of black humor. I wholeheartedly stand against the idea that just because of his previous history, it is entirely kosher for Kyle to have shot him regardless of the events of that night. Same for Huber and Grosskreutz.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

After a "not guilty" verdict in a highly questionable trial-- in which the judge openly expressed a personal bias, and in which the jury was hopelessly unrepresentative of the county.

Meanwhile, you're reaching these conclusions (on the hypothetical future actions of the deceased) without even having a trial at all, just basing it on the past unrelated actions of the deceased. Yeah, you're making a more egregious leap here.

Say: did Rittenhouse know the other guy was a "child rapist"? I cannot see how he would. And if he didn't, then its of complete irrelevance as to whether Rittenhouse's actions were justified.

The Judge also allowed the prosecution to get away with all kind of shenanigans in the trial so claiming the judge was biased is a bit of a joke considering people were looking for any reason to claim the judge was biased in favour of Kyle but seemingly ignore the stuff he did allow which worked against Kyle.

It also has some relevance as Rosenbaum has a history when in custody of picking fights and violent often unprovoked assaults I think his record was 15 in 2 years in jail.

 

[Silvanus]

The Judge also allowed the prosecution to get away with all kind of shenanigans in the trial so claiming the judge was biased is a bit of a joke considering people were looking for any reason to claim the judge was biased in favour of Kyle but seemingly ignore the stuff he did allow which worked against Kyle.

Like what? Anything as egregious as... disallowing video of the defendant stating several weeks prior that he wished he had a gun to shoot people he was watching come out of a store... while allowing photos of cops patting the defendant on the head like a good boy?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Like what? Anything as egregious as... disallowing video of the defendant stating several weeks prior that he wished he had a gun to shoot people he was watching come out of a store... while allowing photos of cops patting the defendant on the head like a good boy?

Allowing evidence despite the evidence being edited with software specifically stated to not be suitable for use in criminal cases. Calling out but allowing the trial to carry on despite the prosecution violating Kyle's right to remain silent a constitutionally protected right BTW. Not stopping the Prosecution trying to accuse their own witnesses of taking part in the trial due to ulterior motives the moment the witness testimony wasn't going their way despite the fact they have been the ones to summon them. Allowing the video evidence despite the prosecution having sent a different version in lower quality to the defence team.

 

[Silvanus]

Allowing evidence despite the evidence being edited with software specifically stated to not be suitable for use in criminal cases.

Is this the "pinch to zoom" bollocks? You know that's just an old tech-illiterate guy failing to understand what zooming is, right?

Calling out but allowing the trial to carry on despite the prosecution violating Kyle's right to remain silent a constitutionally protected right BTW.

It wasn't violated in the least. The prosecution questioned why he was silent. Rittenhouse didn't have to answer, and didn't. The idea that that would be grounds for a mistrial is utterly laughable.

Not stopping the Prosecution trying to accuse their own witnesses of taking part in the trial due to ulterior motives the moment the witness testimony wasn't going their way despite the fact they have been the ones to summon them.

Let's get the context. I imagine you're embellishing this, as you have with the other instances here.

Allowing the video evidence despite the prosecution having sent a different version in lower quality to the defence team.

That's a whole lot of nothing. Defence requested it by email which is what caused compression. They then didn't object to it in court when the jury viewed it.

 

[Silvanus]

He absolutely could not, which is why regarding the specific moment, I'm going solely off of Kyle's perspective and the events that did happen.

But you're not. You're hammering on the deceased being a bad person to justify Rittenhouse's actions. Poisoning the well.

Entirely correct. But when we're going into theoreticals, such as Kyle either not being armed at all, or not being present that night, Rosenbaum's history does give us something to work with, as do the actions he did perform that night. He was clearly unstable and set full focus on Kyle, despite there being other people that were armed. For whatever reason, he decided to hound his ass the rest of the time he was on the Earth and go after him, and actively attack him. All of that tells me that Kyle was just the unfortunate kid that had to deal with him, and depending on your theory, be the guy that put him down in forced assisted suicide.

This is probably why extraneous, unknowable hypotheticals aren't a good basis for judging the people involved. I'd suggest not doing it.

Here's something that did happen that might be a relevant comparison point, though: Jason Lackowski encountered Rosenbaum too, and heard a lot of the same kind of accusatory/quasi-threatening language. He (rightly) concluded he was just a bit of a nut, not a credible threat. So he didn't kill anyone. And Rosenbaum didn't kill him either.

 

[BrawlMan]

Rittenhouse is no hero, nor an innocent victim; just another cowardly, punk-ass biatch with a gun meddling where he did not belong. Anyone else that believes otherwise are intentionally ignorant and oblivious, naive, or willfully ignores heinous actions in front of them, because the other side is of a different political spectrum or color. The mother-fucker did not even get a manslaughter charge proves my point.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Is this the "pinch to zoom" bollocks? You know that's just an old tech-illiterate guy failing to understand what zooming is, right?

Not just pinch and zoom but some of the other photos used by the prosecution had been digitally upscaled.

It wasn't violated in the least. The prosecution questioned why he was silent. Rittenhouse didn't have to answer, and didn't. The idea that that would be grounds for a mistrial is utterly laughable.

The judge literally had to temporarily halt the trial to admonish the prosecution for trying to imply guilt due to Kyle exercising said right.

Let's get the context. I imagine you're embellishing this, as you have with the other instances here.

It was the photographer witness who if that helps narrow it down, sorry but I'm not going back through all the livestreams for time codes but they tried to claim he had ulterior motives after he said under oath the prosecution had asked him to change his statements about the night in question.

That's a whole lot of nothing. Defence requested it by email which is what caused compression. They then didn't object to it in court when the jury viewed it.

Not really every heard of the meta data changing and the video file changing from HD to SD due to email compression before lol

 

[Leg End]

But you're not. You're hammering on the deceased being a bad person to justify Rittenhouse's actions. Poisoning the well.

No, I just can't resist the bits that write themselves. That, and...

Here's something that did happen that might be a relevant comparison point, though: Jason Lackowski encountered Rosenbaum too, and heard a lot of the same kind of accusatory/quasi-threatening language. He (rightly) concluded he was just a bit of a nut, not a credible threat. So he didn't kill anyone. And Rosenbaum didn't kill him either.

Did Rosenbaum attack him? He was being a nut to a lot of people that night, but the difference is that he decided to actually attack Rittenhouse, with ballistics pointing towards Rosenbaum likely going for Kyle's gun.

This is the key here. Rosenbaum willfully attacked the person who then shot him. This is an important detail. Regardless of any opinions on who they are or have been in their lives, this is a case of a guy being a complete fucknob and knowingly, willfully attacking someone who is armed that then proceeded to be made into a Holy Bartender. We can sit here going in circles about everything or we can even discuss and question the mental wellness of Rosenbaum at the time and even say he's an actual victim in that respect, but the fact that he went for Rittenhouse is concrete fact. I clearly don't like the fucker, but I'm not exactly happy that he's dead either. But he shouldn't have proceeded to initiate violence against another human being who had not initiated it against him.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Rittenhouse is no hero, nor an innocent victim; just another cowardly, punk-ass biatch with a gun meddling where he did not belong. Anyone else that believes otherwise are intentionally ignorant and oblivious, naive, or willfully ignores heinous actions in front of them, because the other side is of a different political spectrum or color. The mother-fucker did not even get a manslaughter charge proves my point.

So what were the protestors doing pushing a large bin on fire towards a gas station again if not meddling where they did not belong?

 

[Silvanus]

Not just pinch and zoom but some of the other photos used by the prosecution had been digitally upscaled.

Upscaling a photo does not alter the substantive content. This was one of the most pathetic lines of argument from the defence. It was basically arguing in favour of keeping images blurry.

The judge literally had to temporarily halt the trial to admonish the prosecution for trying to imply guilt due to Kyle exercising said right.

Yep. Admonishments happen all the damn time. None of Rittenhouse's rights were infringed by asking that question. He's allowed to stay silent, and he did. Gasp!

It was the photographer witness who if that helps narrow it down, sorry but I'm not going back through all the livestreams for time codes but they tried to claim he had ulterior motives after he said under oath the prosecution had asked him to change his statements about the night in question.

Nathan DeBruin? He was a defence witness, not a prosecution witness. James Kraus asked him if he had brought his own articles (photographs) in order to enrich his photography career. Which... is fine. The prosecution gets to cross-examine defence witnesses and ask stuff like that. It's literally their job.

Not really every heard of the meta data changing and the video file changing from HD to SD due to email compression before lol

I don't think you've heard of it happening here, either. It's quite obvious you're just putting out vague half-remembrances and insinuations, without anything substantial.

Did Rosenbaum attack him? He was being a nut to a lot of people that night, but the difference is that he decided to actually attack Rittenhouse, with ballistics pointing towards Rosenbaum likely going for Kyle's gun.

This is the key here. Rosenbaum willfully attacked the person who then shot him. This is an important detail. Regardless of any opinions on who they are or have been in their lives, this is a case of a guy being a complete fucknob and knowingly, willfully attacking someone who is armed that then proceeded to be made into a Holy Bartender. We can sit here going in circles about everything or we can even discuss and question the mental wellness of Rosenbaum at the time and even say he's an actual victim in that respect, but the fact that he went for Rittenhouse is concrete fact. I clearly don't like the fucker, but I'm not exactly happy that he's dead either. But he shouldn't have proceeded to initiate violence against another human being who had not initiated it against him.

"Likely", right, so we're back to assumption, based (quite clearly) on personal distaste for the guy rather than anything substantive. Rosenbaum was unarmed. He threw a bag of toiletries at Rittenhouse. If that's your bar for the level of violence that justifies lethal force in return, then I'd hate to run into you in a crowded club night if people rowdy.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Upscaling a photo does not alter the substantive content. This was one of the most pathetic lines of argument from the defence. It was basically arguing in favour of keeping images blurry.

Well due to how it works and the specific software used saying it was not for forensic analysis or court use due to the perceived issues with reliability of it due to it giving an interpretation of what it believed the image showed when applied.

Yep. Admonishments happen all the damn time. None of Rittenhouse's rights were infringed by asking that question. He's allowed to stay silent, and he did. Gasp!

And the Judge admonished the prosecution for trying to use exercising said right against Kyle

Nathan DeBruin? He was a defence witness, not a prosecution witness. James Kraus asked him if he had brought his own articles (photographs) in order to enrich his photography career. Which... is fine. The prosecution gets to cross-examine defence witnesses and ask stuff like that. It's literally their job.

And he was summoned to court to provide evidence. Also again he was linked to the prosecution as they were on about using his photos in a number of possible future cases.

I don't think you've heard of it happening here, either. It's quite obvious you're just putting out vague half-remembrances and insinuations, without anything substantial.

No that was part of the defence claims about the issue with the evidence. The file size was like half the size of the original being used. Again that's some very funky email compression I've never heard of or seen happen before.

 

[Silvanus]

Well due to how it works and the specific software used saying it was not for forensic analysis or court use due to the perceived issues with reliability of it due to it giving an interpretation of what it believed the image showed when applied.

Citation for its impropriety in court? All I can find is an expert witness describing it as "industry standard".

And the Judge admonished the prosecution for trying to use exercising said right against Kyle

Who gives a shit? His rights weren't infringed, so there's absolutely no grounds for a mistrial.

And he was summoned to court to provide evidence. Also again he was linked to the prosecution as they were on about using his photos in a number of possible future cases.

Love how the goalposts just shift whenever it turns out you were talking out of your ass. You said the prosecution called him, and it turned out they didn't... "Oh, well, he's linked to the prosecution in this other vague way!"

He was summoned to court. He provided evidence. The prosecution asked him a perfectly fine question, as is their job. He answered. There's nothing improper here at all.

No that was part of the defence claims about the issue with the evidence. The file size was like half the size of the original being used. Again that's some very funky email compression I've never heard of or seen happen before.

Citation on the severity of the downscaling?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Citation for its impropriety in court? All I can find is an expert witness describing it as "industry standard".

Well the defence quoted from the software manual I believe it was

Who gives a shit? His rights weren't infringed, so there's absolutely no grounds for a mistrial.

No only because the Judge stepped in to admonish the prosecution.

Love how the goalposts just shift whenever it turns out you were talking out of your ass. You said the prosecution called him, and it turned out they didn't... "Oh, well, he's linked to the prosecution in this other vague way!"

And they tried to discredit his providing the evidence as seeking publicity........ super weird and sketchy there. Also sorry I thought he was a prosecution witness because he been talking with the prosecution previously and providing them copies of his photos of the night as evidence for other cases the DA etc had been looking into

He was summoned to court. He provided evidence. The prosecution asked him a perfectly fine question, as is their job. He answered. There's nothing improper here at all.

Except them asking him to change his statements lol

Citation on the severity of the downscaling?

The Defence closing arguments / objections section in the final day.

 

[Leg End]

"Likely", right, so we're back to assumption, based (quite clearly) on personal distaste for the guy rather than anything substantive.

Video evidence of Rittenhouse actively trying to escape Rosenbaum, who is doing his best to close ground and go for Rittenhouse. Ballistics pointing to few other conclusions to draw besides going for the weapon. This is the same shit that was about to free or damn Rittenhouse.

Rosenbaum was unarmed. He threw a bag of toiletries at Rittenhouse.

Those are contradictory statements. He throws a bag at the guy he's trying to directly engage up close.

None of this is from personal bias. This is on video that appeared during the trial if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Silvanus]

Well the defence quoted from the software manual I believe it was

Can you just provide the source? I literally cannot find any articles etc about what you're claiming.

No only because the Judge stepped in to admonish the prosecution.

So you're just assuming that the prosecution would have compelled him to give up his silence. Even though that wasn't what they asked.

OK, well, I don't pay any credence to your assumptions, so we can move on.

And they tried to discredit his providing the evidence as seeking publicity........ super weird and sketchy there. Also sorry I thought he was a prosecution witness because he been talking with the prosecution previously and providing them copies of his photos of the night as evidence for other cases the DA etc had been looking into

They "tried to discredit his providing the evidence". Uhrm, yes, that's the purpose of cross-examination of the opposition's witness. It's literally an integral part of the trial.

Except them asking him to change his statements lol

Didn't happen.

The Defence closing arguments / objections section in the final day.

Source. Again, I cannot find any supporting evidence for what you're claiming.

 

[Silvanus]

Video evidence of Rittenhouse actively trying to escape Rosenbaum, who is doing his best to close ground and go for Rittenhouse. Ballistics pointing to few other conclusions to draw besides going for the weapon. This is the same shit that was about to free or damn Rittenhouse.

"Close ground", right, so he basically approached him. As literally thousands of people in club altercations do on a daily basis when they're a bit drunk.

And no, what was about to "damn" Rittenhouse was the fact he travelled 20 miles to insert himself into a dangerous situation, and killed two people.

Those are contradictory statements. He throws a bag at the guy he's trying to directly engage up close.

How is that contradictory? It's literally not.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Can you just provide the source? I literally cannot find any articles etc about what you're claiming.

Pretty sure I saw it on the Rekieta Law livestream of the final day of the trial so best I could do easily is give you the video link

So you're just assuming that the prosecution would have compelled him to give up his silence. Even though that wasn't what they asked.

OK, well, I don't pay any credence to your assumptions, so we can move on.

Except it was being inferred as a sign of guilt enough that even the judge chose to step in and admonish the prosecution for it.

They "tried to discredit his providing the evidence". Uhrm, yes, that's the purpose of cross-examination of the opposition's witness. It's literally an integral part of the trial.

By trying to claim he was only after attention / money.......... when his evidence are photographs.........hardly the greatest plan to discredit the photos there.

Didn't happen.

Source. Again, I cannot find any supporting evidence for what you're claiming.

See the 9 hour+ video linked at the top.