Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

What do you think will happen?

  • Guilty on all charges

    Votes: 282 8.8%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 1,077 33.7%
  • Mistral

    Votes: 264 8.3%
  • Mixture of verdicts

    Votes: 479 15.0%
  • Minecraft

    Votes: 213 6.7%
  • Roblox

    Votes: 132 4.1%
  • Runescape

    Votes: 203 6.3%
  • Somehow Guilty Of Two Mutually Exclusive Actions

    Votes: 514 16.1%
  • KYLE WILL SUBMIT TO BBC

    Votes: 35 1.1%

  • Total voters
    3,199
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an incredibly dull witness.

I don't believe the jury are getting anything from this.

Also you can compress sound. The sound he is listening to is likely compressed. You can also slow down sound.

If any jurors are computer literate they're probably scratching their heads at some of the stuff this guy says, which will impact credibility.
Its all Richards.
When Black takes off, he sounds great but Richards is asking questions in a bad and boring way.
 
They really should have gotten 47 to do this. He has shown an ability to make things a bit animated.
Everyone's gotta get their pay somehow.

I'm hoping the cross-examination turns it more into the Defense's favor, if Binger amps things up, maybe the jury will pay attention to what Black says. Assuming Prosecution even decides to go into cross, they can just decide not to, right?
 
They really should have gotten 47 to do this. He has shown an ability to make things a bit animated.
To be honest I think anyone would struggle to make waffle about video quality interesting. I can't really blame richards its just a dull as shit topic.
 
He's not going to do an end to end video is he?
He'd be a damn fool not to, which is why he won't. He seems to totally not understand that you need to make a narrative for the jury to follow.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JohnDoe
To be honest I think anyone would struggle to make waffle about video quality interesting. I can't really blame richards its just a dull as shit topic.
When dealing with boring material, you should try to compress it as much as you can without damaging your point. Not go into it in pedantic detail.
 
I am not a religious person, but this Kyle Rittenhouse stuff is way too absurd to be explained by mere coincidence.

Dude is 17 years old, has barely experience using a rifle he owned less than half a year (iirc). After a stressful, long, tiresome day, he got ambushed, chased by an angry manlet, cornered by said manlet, managed to shoot him 4 times when he lunged for his gun, neutralizing the threat, he was chased again by an angry mob, forced to the ground, kicked, clobbered with a skateboard and threatened with a gun. He manages to shoot in perfect self defense from a compromised position, fighting off all 3 attackers successfully, gets back up and runs away to turn himself in.

And in all this.... in all of this fucking mess, he kills a pedo, a wifebeater and unarms (lol) a burglar. He does not hurt a single person unintentionally with missed shots or overpenetration. He only fires in clear self defense. And not only is all this filmed in such great detail, that there is no room for reasonable doubt to Kyle's innocence - oh no - on top of this entire clusterfuck of stuff coming together, the angles that show him shooting are lighted in such a way by the lamps in the background that you can perfectly tell when he fires, due to the illuminated smoke coming from the muzzle, so even without sound there can be no doubt that Kyle shot. Every. Single. Time. after being attacked or threatened.

Lest we forget: there's stuff like Richards and an expert talking about a guy they keep refering to as "jumpkick man" :story:

I love this expert btw. This is a long and tedious affair, but his explanations are on point and easy to understand. Dude's providing great perspective into how quick everything went and how to treat the footage, blowing the "let's go through this shit frame by frame like there were entire ice ages of possible decisionmaking between them" by Binger into smaller bits than a certain byeceps.
 
Last edited:
To be honest I think anyone would struggle to make waffle about video quality interesting. I can't really blame richards its just a dull as shit topic.
But you could make it much more visceral for the jury that it took place in only a moment.

I can't believe they didn't play the full video in real time at the end.
 
Here we go, this is better.
Okay the first part was painful in part because Richards was doing it but I like when witnesses have the jurors get involved
Making them act out how long the events took IRL is good approach. They should have done it earlier.
 
I am not a religious person, but this Kyle Rittenhouse stuff is way too absurd to be explained by mere coincidence.

Dude is 17 years old, has barely experience using a rifle he owned less than half a year (iirc). After a stressful, long, tiresome day, he got ambushed, chased by an angry manlet, cornered by said manlet, managed to shoot him 4 times when he lunged for his gun, neutralizing the threat, he was chased again by an angry mob, forced to the ground, kicked, clobbered with a skateboard and threatened with a gun. He manages to shoot in perfect self defense from a compromised position, fighting off all 3 attackes successfully, gets back up and runs away to turn himself in.

And in all this.... in all of this fucking mess, he kills a pedo, a wifebeater and unarms (lol) a burglar. He does not hurt a single person unintentionally with missed shots or overpenetration. He only fires in clear self defense. And not only is all this filmed in such great detail, that there is no room for reasonable doubt to Kyle's innocence - oh no - on top of this entire clusterfuck of stuff coming together, the angles that show him shooting are lighted in such a way by the lamps in the background that you can perfectly tell when he fires, due to the smoke coming from the muzzle, so there is even without sound there can be no doubt that Kyle shot. Every. Single. Time. after being attacked or threatened.

Lest we forget: there's stuff like Richards and an expert talking about a guy they keep refering to as "jumpkick man" :story:

I love this expert btw. This is a long and tedious affair, but his explanations are on point and easy to understand. Dude's providing great perspective into how quick everything went and how to treat the footage, blowing the "let's go through this shit frame by frame like there were entire ice ages of possible decisionmaking between them" by Binger into smaller bits than a certain byeceps.
Isn’t this a copypasta?
 
I even glad to hear this idiot again. He's gonna wake everyone up and we're gonna laugh at him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back