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

[simpleanon]

Devil's advocate here. Maybe this was an attempt by the defence to win both the case and popular opinion. If the media could get clips of "Kyle's shady lawyers censoring evidence and jury instructions" they would obviously play it on a loop if Kyle got off.

Supposing this were true, is the possible reward of some journos maybe even considering going "oh the trial was kinda sorta fair I guess" worth the risk of "2 pixels show that you pointed a gun for 1/60th of a second, I guess you go to jail"?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Here, have a distraction from the doomposting.
View attachment 2711053

What kind of person DOESNT carry an AR and body Armor in their car?

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

Devil's advocate here. Maybe this was an attempt by the defence to win both the case and popular opinion. If the media could get clips of "Kyle's shady lawyers censoring evidence and jury instructions" they would obviously play it on a loop if Kyle got off.

The media, on the day of the prosecution’s star witness admitting he was going to shoot Kyle chose to run headlines about how he was a gud paramedic who was just so scared. No amount of fair play in the trial will sway them.

 

[BradCarter]

Supposing this were true, is the possible reward of some journos maybe even considering going "oh the trial was kinda sorta fair I guess" worth the risk of "2 pixels show that you pointed a gun for 1/60th of a second, I guess you go to jail"?

I'm not saying it's a good idea you autists. That's what devil's advocate means. You don't need to convince me it's a bad idea, I know. I'm trying to pitch ideas about what the defence's motivations are.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

The jury instructions include provisions for provocation on Kyle's behalf which would mean his claim to self defense is null and void. It is admitted due to the defense being being terrible and not fighting agaisnt it EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGE INDICATED HEAVILY HE BELIEVED THAT THE EVIDENCE USED TO SHOW PROVOCATION WAS TERRIBLE.

Holy shit. If Kyle gets convicted I sincerely hope Kyle sues for malpractice.

inb4 the incompetent prosecution argues their provocation bullshit so badly, that their utterly crap evidence is shot down by the defense in such a spectacular fashion that the jury is swayed to acquit Kyle with NAVY SEAL PRECISION.

 

[Corn Flakes]

inb4 the incompetent prosecution argues their provocation bullshit so badly, that their utterly crap evidence is shot down by the defense in such a spectacular fashion that the jury is swayed to acquit Kyle with NAVY SEAL PRECISION.

They already did. They're trying to push a split-second swing of the barrel towards Zeminski (sp?) as provocation for Rosenbaum to charge, when it might have been simply Kyle adjusting his grip on the gun, or just turning around. Rosenbaum was unlikely to even be able to see it, since he was a manlet and far shorter than the truck he was standing behind at the time.

 

[Zetton285]

I don't think the defense fought that hard on the provocation instruction because the prosecution is going to look like idiots for arguing it.

If that video is their "best" evidence, they have virtually nothing. Who in their right mind looks at that video - enhanced, slowed down or not - and thinks that it contradicts the testimony from multiple witnesses (including those the prosecution put on the stand)? It's ridiculous, just like everything else about this case.

Ok but even if you are right, why the fuck would they let it in to begin with? Why even give them the chance. That's not smart, it's arrogant and outright stupid.

 

[Quantrell Bishop]

The pixels tell me Kyle is pointing a gun at Ziminski! Technology! Science!

 

[RudeRoasts]

They already did. They're trying to push a split-second swing of the barrel towards Zeminski (sp?) as provocation for Rosenbaum to charge, when it might have been simply Kyle adjusting his grip on the gun, or just turning around. Rosenbaum was unlikely to even be able to see it, since he was a manlet and far shorter than the truck he was standing behind at the time.

I think he means argue in front of the jury.

At this point though, it's less about the prosecution's incompetence. If there's a single person in that room that can't see that, there's not much hope for this world.

The key is for the defense to make short work of the weaknesses in their argument. I can only hope that their sanguine passiveness in some key moments here is them saving up for the closing argument of the century. Because this couldn't be more clear.

 

[Zetton285]

I don't know about that. Certainly with this judge, but do you know which judge you have before you request a bench trial? If not then that seems like one huge fucking gamble.

I mean isn't it already a gamble considering you're being judged by your peers in a jury trial and your peers are fucking retarded?

 

[Corn Flakes]

Ok but even if you are right, why the fuck would they let it in to begin with? Why even give them the chance. That's not smart, it's arrogant and outright stupid.

The final word on whether or not evidence gets accepted is the judge's, and in this case the defense did object strongly against it. But if the judge is afraid of being considered biased on what is clearly a political trial, that's on the judge's conscience.

The defense has let a lot of dumb shit slide, but in this case they couldn't have done much more than that. Pounding the table and yelling "YOUR HONOR, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!" is fine in movies, but not so much in real life. Not when you're trying to retain goodwill with the judge, who is then going to instruct the jury on the proceedings.

I think he means argue in front of the jury.

At this point though, it's less about the prosecution's incompetence. If there's a single person in that room that can't see that, there's not much hope for this world.

The key is for the defense to make short work of the weaknesses in their argument. I can only hope that their sanguine passiveness in some key moments here is them saving up for the closing argument of the century. Because this couldn't be more clear.

That "evidence" wasn't shown to the jury yet, was it? They were trying to get it shown to the jury during deliberation, but even then they can't have Binger and Krauss pointing at the screen and going "see?! Do you see it?! Squint harder you dumb bitch!" to try to force them into seeing something that's not there.

 

[BradCarter]

I mean isn't it already a gamble considering you're being judged by your peers in a jury trial and your peers are fucking exceptional?

Yea but with a jury of your peers you have 12 chances to convince someone you're innocent instead of 1. In theory anyways

 

[Some JERK]

I mean isn't it already a gamble considering you're being judged by your peers in a jury trial and your peers are fucking exceptional?

Convincing 12 people seems a lot harder than convincing one.

 

[Matt Damon]

The pixels tell me Kyle is pointing a gun at Ziminski! Technology! Science!

The prosecutor can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in his time.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

This is exactly what these goofs don't understand.

BLM is predicated on breaking the law freely while expecting average uninvolved citizens to follow the law.

If you can't lawfully defend your neighborhood from a literal terrorist organizations then there's absolutely nothing stopping a home owner from dressing in all black, going down to the woodline of their neighborhood and letting off anything from a few well placed shots to a 60 round drum at "peaceful protestors' then disappearing into the night.

The reality is unless you tell someone, or you wore something people recognized there's very little chance of getting caught. Catch your brass as it ejects, go swap out your barrel / upper, and what evidence do the police have?

Nothing

This is doubly true if your AR15 is chambered in .223 and you carry out this mindcraft attack with a .300 BLK upper that suddenly disappears.

Again i'm not advocating violence, but this is the reality when people wake up to the law not being on their side and literally exactly what happens in other countries that fell to mob rule.

I wouldn't try that. Ask yourself, what was the FBI drone footage actually used for? It certainly wasn't used to prosecute rioters for serious felonies. So why was it there?

Open confrontation will not work. It will continue to be done quietly in the shadows. Very little of what is going on sees the light of day or is openly talked about. The actions and inactions are coordinated behind closed doors and there are many people involved who go to great lengths to assure that things play out the way they want.

Gifting them some vigilante gunman for every resource to be mobilized to find would be the biggest propaganda victory since Jan 6.

 

[BradCarter]

Convincing 12 people seems a lot harder than convincing one.

It takes a unanimous vote by the jury to convict someone of murder. So you only need 1.

 

[Zetton285]

Convincing 12 people seems a lot harder than convincing one.

I would argue that convincing someone versed in law is still easier than 12 paste eating morons tbh.

 

[McMitch]

Convincing 12 people seems a lot harder than convincing one.

You’re not convincing twelve people, you’re getting twelve chances to convince one.

 

[GeorgeHWBush]

So they are done for the day?

 

[Evilronald]

The defense has made so many missteps in this case. They’re doing this “Wisconsin nice” bullshit instead of zealously advocating for their client. They needed to play dirty and get rosenbaums history of violence in. The weakest part of their case was always the first shooting and while it’s clearly self-defense, it’s the least obvious instance of it based on the video evidence. They needed to focus like a laser on that first encounter and attack anything that the prosecution tried to bring in last minute. Instead they just let it all in because “why not the facts are on our side.” I bet a lot of innocent people thought that before they were wrongly imprisoned.