Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[Guest Lobo]

30 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It's all relative to the surroundings.

 

I’m Veronica Rittenhouse.  Tits McAfee has the night off

[JimmyJames 12271]

She’s a solid 8, only one beer, type. Zero beers if it’s been too long. 

[Thatguy 8894]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

You suggest Kyle should be put in jail because there is the possibility that some idiots kids may or may not emulate him in the future?  This is justice in America?

 

3 hours ago, Hate said:

So KR should be a sacrificial lamb?

   My suggestion is they look a little deeper into why he was there, who he was pointing guns at, and bring in the people who said he wasn't handling his weapon properly, but they won't so here we are.

[JBJ 3668]

23 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

Looks like judge is considering lesser charges, might manslaughter be an option for jury?

There isn't a manslaughter charge in Wisconsin, but the closest thing to it is 2nd degree reckless homicide which wasn't included (I believe) in any charge.

I tried to follow as close as possible, but it's not easy when they are using numerical codes for the charges and I'm trying to just use context from the arguments.

Edited November 12, 2021 by JBJ

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 

   My suggestion is they look a little deeper into why he was there, who he was pointing guns at, and bring in the people who said he wasn't handling his weapon properly, but they won't so here we are.

The prosecution has had a year to do this. If they had this evidence, you'd see it.

[Thatguy 8894]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

I dont see what your race has to do with the fact that this is a legitimate case for self defense.  Your personal prejudices and preferences may color your opinion on the case, but your opinion is not on trial.

Im also a minority, and my race has no bearing on the case either.

    If I was Kyle Rittenhouse I would not walk. That's what my race has to do with it. A 12 year old Black kid can't even play with a toy gun at a park, much less shoot 3 people in self defense during a riot. Benefit of the doubt would not be given. Character assassination would be the first course of action, much less character investigation. The law would exhaust every resource to find a conviction. You sure as shit wouldn't have this half ass circus you have here. There are angles and courses of action that can be taken but neither the DA nor the Judge want to pursue them. You best believe it would be different if we were talking about Tyrone Rittenhouse. That's not personal opinion. That is fact, and every one of you has seen it time and time again. Rittenhouse has a lot in common with Trayvon Martin but how were those cases handled differently?

[Thatguy 8894]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

The prosecution has had a year to do this. If they had this evidence, you'd see it.

  You mean how the law pursued those two guys who shot Arbery? The law doesn't always want to convict, which seems to be the case here. Put on a show for the people is what it looks to be about. Or are you telling me this level of ineptitude is the norm for a DA's office?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

The law would exhaust every resource to find a conviction.

Isn't that what they are doing here? 

[Thatguy 8894]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Isn't that what they are doing here? 

  No. Clearly not.

[StruggleBus 3922]

59 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Smoke show? Thinning hair, no lips and looks like bad skin covered up by caked on make-up. 

Whatever. I'd lick her butthole

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Thatguy said:

  You mean how the law pursued those two guys who shot Arbery? The law doesn't always want to convict, which seems to be the case here. Put on a show for the people is what it looks to be about. Or are you telling me this level of ineptitude is the norm for a DA's office?

Those guys who are on trial right now and are probably going to go to jail for life/death penalty?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Thatguy said:

  No. Clearly not.

Help me understand. What do you think they are not doing? You can't create evidence that doesn't exist. This case has more evidence (video/pictures/witnesses) than 99.99999% of cases. 

[Thatguy 8894]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Those guys who are on trial right now and are probably going to go to jail for life/death penalty?

  Yes. Those guys who were sitting at home eating pizza until outside forces put the pressure on the law down there to look a little harder. Had not been for a little slip up of letting that personal video out those guys never even go to court.

[Thatguy 8894]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Help me understand. What do you think they are not doing? You can't create evidence that doesn't exist. This case has more evidence (video/pictures/witnesses) than 99.99999% of cases. 

  Is everything being taken into consideration by the judge? If the answer is no then my point stands.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Thatguy said:

  Yes. Those guys who were sitting at home eating pizza until outside forces put the pressure on the law down there to look a little harder. Had not been for a little slip up of letting that personal video out those guys never even go to court.

And yet, here we are. Where is the ""outside pressure" to stop selective prosecution in the Rittenhouse case?

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  Is everything being taken into consideration by the judge? If the answer is no then my point stands.

You realize that is how trials work? Rulings tend to go back and forth.

This judge is running a fair trial.  I am watching the charge conference now and he's giving the state all sorts of instructions.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Thatguy said:

  Is everything being taken into consideration by the judge? 

Not sure what this means. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Rittenhouse should not even have been charged with anything but the weapons charge.

Grosskreutz was not charged with anything.  He should be charged with aggravated assault and illegally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.

[immortal13 4059]

36 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Is this a joke? Anything wrong with her elbows? 

Eyebrows

[Thatguy 8894]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Rittenhouse should not even have been charged with anything but the weapons charge.

Grosskreutz was not charged with anything.  He should be charged with aggravated assault and illegally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.

   GG wasn't charged because the law took into consideration that he thought there was an active shooter situation. Key phrase there was took into consideration.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   GG wasn't charged because the law took into consideration that he thought there was an active shooter situation. Key phrase there was took into consideration.

I'd like to think that's true, but my gut tells me that they needed him to testify so they granted him immunity. 

[immortal13 4059]

36 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 

   My suggestion is they look a little deeper into why he was there, who he was pointing guns at, and bring in the people who said he wasn't handling his weapon properly, but they won't so here we are.

Yeah, let's ask looters and rioters their opinion on proper and safe firearm handling. Lmao bro you are fucking KILLING IT!!

[Satoshi 129]

It seems like there’s potential for an interesting awakening for some people that have depended on traditional media for their info. One prominent example here from hedge fund slimeball, but no right winger as he says. I’ll link all the tweets for those not on Twitter 
 

 

[immortal13 4059]

29 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

    If I was Kyle Rittenhouse I would not walk. That's what my race has to do with it. A 12 year old Black kid can't even play with a toy gun at a park, much less shoot 3 people in self defense during a riot. Benefit of the doubt would not be given. Character assassination would be the first course of action, much less character investigation. The law would exhaust every resource to find a conviction. You sure as shit wouldn't have this half ass circus you have here. There are angles and courses of action that can be taken but neither the DA nor the Judge want to pursue them. You best believe it would be different if we were talking about Tyrone Rittenhouse. That's not personal opinion. That is fact, and every one of you has seen it time and time again. Rittenhouse has a lot in common with Trayvon Martin but how were those cases handled differently?

Trayvon Martin was shot by a minority

[immortal13 4059]

30 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Isn't that what they are doing here? 

They aren't doing enough in the eyes of "thatguy." Draw your own conclusions

[DDD Dad 14363]

I'd like to think that's true, but my gut tells me that they needed him to testify so they granted him immunity. 

If they had granted him immunity you would have heard about it on cross.

[immortal13 4059]

30 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   GG wasn't charged because the law took into consideration that he thought there was an active shooter situation. 

That is a lie

[JBJ 3668]

They didn't even charge him for illegal carry, which he has now testified in court that he did knowingly.

Edited November 12, 2021 by JBJ

[BabaYaga 15331]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

It's all relative to the surroundings.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

23 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If they had granted him immunity you would have heard about it on cross.

That's right.  But it may have been more of a wink, wink verbal deal they wouldn't bring charges.  They have him on illegally carrying a pistol.  And there is more evidence of agg assault by him on KR than vice versa.

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

The only thing that might be interesting to come from this case is the entire "zoom/pinch" evidence. Assuming Rittenhouse is convicted on something, this could be brought up on appeal an have an effect on future case law. "Manipulated" evidence is obviously not admissible. Are videos taken in 1040p but shown on 4k manipulated? Interesting questions.

According to this judge's reasoning, the first photo is admissible (even though it had to be enhanced using an algorithm to convert from raw data into a photo). The second photo is not admissible according to this judge (because it used an algorithm to both covert it from raw data and to "lighten" the image to show detail). 

Works for me. I will go back to Elmo:

 

[52-80 19271]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

It's all relative to the surroundings.

 

we must know who this is in the black

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

[davidg 4038]

9 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

we must know who this is in the black

I pinched and zoomed but the AI filled in too many pixels to tell exactly who that is.

 

did the judge make a final ruling on the weapon charge?  They were debating on what the law said and the judge said he had put a lot of time thinking about it but I didn’t hear the final result.

[washparkhorn 9939]

13 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

[JBJ 3668]

26 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

According to this judge's reasoning, the first photo is admissible (even though it had to be enhanced using an algorithm to convert from raw data into a photo). The second photo is not admissible according to this judge (because it used an algorithm to both covert it from raw data and to "lighten" the image to show detail). 

Incorrect, but whatever.  The debate was about the degree to which the state can manipulate photos and still enter them into evidence.  The altered image has to be authentic to the original and usually an expert witness would attest to it.

Contrast the video editing done by the defense's expert to the prosecution from yesterday.  The expert was able to accurately describe how and why he does what he does and how this evidence should be treated by the jury, including it's limitations.  The state's witness couldn't even say how he altered the image and testified that he did not compare it to the original.

Edited November 12, 2021 by JBJ

[South Austin 52636]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Why not?

[Message Board User 12396]

[52-80 19271]

1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

    If I was Kyle Rittenhouse I would not walk. That's what my race has to do with it. A 12 year old Black kid can't even play with a toy gun at a park, much less shoot 3 people in self defense during a riot. Benefit of the doubt would not be given. Character assassination would be the first course of action, much less character investigation. The law would exhaust every resource to find a conviction. You sure as shit wouldn't have this half ass circus you have here. There are angles and courses of action that can be taken but neither the DA nor the Judge want to pursue them. You best believe it would be different if we were talking about Tyrone Rittenhouse. That's not personal opinion. That is fact, and every one of you has seen it time and time again. Rittenhouse has a lot in common with Trayvon Martin but how were those cases handled differently?

You're arguing a hypothetical that (1) cant be proven or disproven (2) noone is challenging for or against (3) completely irrelevant to the rittenhouse case as discussed for last 80 pages.

You telling us character assassination HASNT been done on Rittenhouse?!??! People haven't dug up photos and videos that aren't germane to the case (clearly, as theyre not used in court)?  People in media HAVEN'T portrayed him in a certain way before he's been tried and found???

He's a proxy for the political and culture war and as such half the country already hates his guts -- dont be obtuse to tell me hes universally adored on the basis of his skin or something 🙄

Yes Trayvon was similar in that it was a cultural battleground.  But it was COMPLETELY different due to complete lack of evidence.  In this case, there is overwhelming video  to absolve him, and the fact that despite this people will push against them due to their political inclination... that is pretty embarassing.

 

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

50 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   GG wasn't charged because the law took into consideration that he thought there was an active shooter situation. Key phrase there was took into consideration.

Why would they believe a word he told them?  GG also told investigators he did not have a gun.  And then when they found it he said he had a permit.  He did not.  He also told investigators he did not draw his gun. 

He lied about 4 or 5 times to investigators.  If state who he had lied to multiple times based not charging him on what he says he thought, they were not acting in good faith. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Incorrect, but whatever.  The debate was about the degree to which the state can manipulate photos and still enter them into evidence.  The altered image has to be authentic to the original and usually an expert witness would attest to it.

Contrast the video editing done by the defense's expert to the prosecution from yesterday.  The expert was able to accurately describe how and why he does what he does and how this evidence should be treated by the jury, including it's limitations.  The state's witness couldn't even say how he altered the image and testified that he did not compare it to the original.

In 25+ years of litigating, that's not the way it works.

As for the Judge's "algo" fear - when creating images from raw data, an algorithm is used to create the "original" photo representation.

If algorithms are the judge's issue, no digital photos could be admitted under his reasoning.

 

[JBJ 3668]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

In 25+ years of litigating, that's not the way it works.

As for the Judge's "algo" fear - when creating images from raw data, an algorithm is used to create the "original" photo representation.

If algorithms are the judge's issue, no digital photos could be admitted under his reasoning.

Lol.  How do you get evidence admitted without a witness to attest to the authenticity?  Even an investigative photographer has to testify that they took the photos and that  they are of the crime scene and they were taken at so-and-so date.  Hard to believe you have 25+ years under your belt and don't have a laymen's understanding of evidence.

The judge's issue was whether they were a faithful recreation of the original video, which the state (understandably in some regards) couldn't attest to very firmly.  So  much so that the they spent another 30 minutes today reviewing it again.

Edited November 12, 2021 by JBJ

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Lol.  How do you get evidence admitted without a witness to attest to the authenticity?  Even an investigative photographer has to testify that they took the photos and that  they are of the crime scene and they were taken at so-and-so date.  Hard to believe you have 25+ years under your belt and don't have a laymen's understanding of evidence.

You don't have to have the photographer. Just someone familiar with what is pictured at the time it was taken to testify it accurately represents.

[JBJ 3668]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You don't have to have the photographer. Just someone familiar with what is pictured at the time it was taken to testify it accurately represents.

Well, yeah.  It was an example.  The person on stand doing that in this case said he didn't compare it to the original and wasn't aware how he had manipulated the evidence or even why he chose the interpolation methods that he did.  It was an easy rejection, but the judge has been consistently lenient all trial.  I don't really have an issue with him accepting it because that has been his MO all trial.  I'm more mad that the prosecutor was lying to the judge to get it admitted.

Edited November 12, 2021 by JBJ

[immortal13 4059]

Shenanigans?

 

[washparkhorn 9939]

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Well, yeah.  It was an example.  The person on stand doing that in this case said he didn't compare it to the original and wasn't aware how he had manipulated the evidence or even why he chose the interpolation methods that he did.  It was an easy rejection, but the judge has been consistently lenient all trial.  I don't really have an issue with him accepting it because that has been his MO all trial.  I'm more mad that the prosecutor was lying to the judge to get it admitted.

I think the emotion is getting to you, which is natural and human. I have zero respect and patience for a dishonest prosecutor. The State has heavy weaponry in criminal cases. 

But - ponder the evidentiary problems that arise when when working with digital images that all require an algo to render an image. This judge is about 20 years behind in tech. A good primer for those interested in the subject. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2000/berg.htm

Like I said, I have no problem going back to Elmos and transparencies, but there is fuckery with that as well. 

And just so we are clear, the problem of deep-fakes is something every conscientious courtroom lawyer should be aware of and on guard against. They are becoming a significant issue.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Shenanigans?

Just a coincidence, I'm sure. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

And just so we are clear, the problem of deep-fakes is something every conscientious courtroom lawyer should be aware of and on guard against. They are becoming a significant issue.

This scares the shit out of me.

[52-80 19271]

13 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 

But - ponder the evidentiary problems that arise when when working with digital images that all require an algo to render an image. This judge is about 20 years behind in tech. A good primer for those interested in the subject. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2000/berg.htm

 

Old Man Judge not knowing the tech was embarassing but expected.  Kinda expected the attorneys to bring in the right experts to clear it up though.

[South Austin 52636]

8 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Shenanigans?

Not sure.  The optics of the timing don't look good.  It suggests a possible deal in exchange for testimony, but I don't know why you'd need to cut that kind of a deal for a victim, as opposed to a co-defendant/co-conspirator type of witness.  A victim should testify freely against a defendant without the inducement of a dismissal or plea deal on other criminal charges.

And simple criminal charges against a witness aren't admissible at trial, at least they aren't in Texas.  You need an actual criminal conviction for it to be admissible as impeachment evidence, and it then depends on the type of crime.  Charges aren't good enough.

Maybe there's a nuance of Wisconsin criminal law I'm missing, but I need more info to know if there's anything qualifying as shenanigans.  

Not like the state needs anything else to make itself look bad in this case.