Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[Colonel_Klinck]

it's a court document that says it

You're getting really bad. Looking at your SC posting.
It's understandable.

There are no court docs in that tweet for the loon Jacek Posobiec, its just videos.

And how would you know? You got banned ages ago for your constant spouting of CT nonsense. We're still waiting for Hilary to get arrested deuse and Obama and that was just the tip of the iceberg of your rants.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec

 

[deuse]

There are no court docs in that tweet for the loon Jacek Posobiec, its just videos.

And how would you know? You got banned ages ago for your constant spouting of CT nonsense. We're still waiting for Hilary to get arrested deuse and Obama and that was just the tip of the iceberg of your rants.

Do what I did...do some home work. You know. That thing called google.
And stop blaming others for your laziness.

Just saw your posts in SC about crt in Virginia denial

Jury is now continuing deliberations.

 

[C Kent]

I like how you only list news organisations that are believed to have a left lean. And the idea that Covington was one of the biggest misinformation stories of the last few years is laughable. That story is small fry except to those involved where it become the best day of their lives as they are now set for life money wise. And are you joking putting Smollett in there? Of all the fake news and misinformation we've had over the last 6 or so years you'd put that story up there

Well you are a left leaning guy aren't you? I highly doubt you would list any perceived right leaning organisation as trustable?

So you dont think deceptively editing footage to show it was the kid that instigated anything was one of the biggest misinformation stories of the past few years? Smollett was a prime example of news outlets letting their inherent bias/narrative run rampant and not question anything - sound familiar?

Anyway be interesting to see what the judge does with the mistrial documentation, I think it's a clear case of withholding evidence by the prosecution. Evidence that's key in their ascertion that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Ziminski/Rosenbaum.

 

[Freddie1980]

Anyway be interesting to see what the judge does with the mistrial documentation, I think it's a clear case of withholding evidence by the prosecution. Evidence that's key in their ascertion that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Ziminski/Rosenbaum.

I have a sneaky suspicion that if the jury comes settles on a guilty verdict on the most serious charges then the judge will rule a mistrial

 

[i-bert]

Good post. Have you stopped frothing about black people getting scholarships yet?

I'll always stand up against racism, if that's what you meant.

 

[Jono8]

I have a sneaky suspicion that if the jury comes settles on a guilty verdict on the most serious charges then the judge will rule a mistrial

It is going to be wild if that happens.

 

[200sols]

Will there be another trial if mistrial is declared?

 

[Moley]

Will there be another trial if mistrial is declared?

That depends on the judge. If he declares a 'mistrial with prejudice' as the defense is asking for - which basically means prosecutorial misconduct - then there will be no retrial and Rittenhouse is automatically acquitted.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Well you are a left leaning guy aren't you? I highly doubt you would list any perceived right leaning organisation as trustable?

So you dont think deceptively editing footage to show it was the kid that instigated anything was one of the biggest misinformation stories of the past few years? Smollett was a prime example of news outlets letting their inherent bias/narrative run rampant and not question anything - sound familiar?

Anyway be interesting to see what the judge does with the mistrial documentation, I think it's a clear case of withholding evidence by the prosecution. Evidence that's key in their ascertion that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Ziminski/Rosenbaum.

No I consider myself a centrist and would trust NYT, WP, AP, Reuters, The Times and The Telegraph on news, not so much opinion with the last one.

No I don't. It was nothing and had no great meaning in the grand scale of things. As for Smollett, the press believed someone, who at the time they had no reason not to believe. When the truth came out they all turned on him and his career was done.

If we are looking for misinformation how can anyone not mention the election being stolen story? Probably the greatest bit of misinformation ever sold in modern history and still being pushed by more than 1 news (I use that term loosely) organisation and a large part of the American population. How do Smollett and Covington even get mentioned next to that?

But back on topic, if the prosecution did indeed do this then they've probably got him a walk. They should be sanctioned by the court as well. I just can't take seriously anything posted by loons, and I mean the tweeter, not you.

 

[deuse]

No I consider myself a centrist and would trust NYT, WP, AP, Reuters, The Times and The Telegraph on news, not so much opinion with the last one.

No I don't. It was nothing and had no great meaning in the grand scale of things. As for Smollett, the press believed someone, who at the time they had no reason not to believe. When the truth came out they all turned on him and his career was done.

Only you and the other libs(media) fell for it.
It was as clear as day, that it was a setup.
His trial starts this month....it will be a BLM+get your free trainers day.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Only you and the other libs(media) fell for it.
It was as clear as day, that it was a setup.
His trial starts this month....it will be a BLM+get your free trainers day.

I notice how you ignore the stolen election which you fell for hook, line and sinker. You probably still believe it today.

 

[deuse]

I notice how you ignore the stolen election which you fell for hook, line and sinker. You probably still believe it today.

I fell for nothing.
I know how the US works. Unlike you and crt

The jury in the Rittenhouse trial has asked the judge two questions: "Do we view videos in private or in the courtroom?" and "Do you need to know exact exhibit number of photos?

Wonder if they will get the new HD video?

 

[Dis86]

OK.

Well it sounds like that is declared then?

Also maybe I'm the weird one, but I don't have much to do with my adult nephews and nothing to do with my cousins - And we all (mostly) live in the same city. I wouldn't even know most of my cousins if I walked past them.

Yeah, that's weird.

 

[Freddie1980]

At lease the jury haven't rushed to a decision it looks like they are either very divided or going over all the evidence in detail before reaching a final conclusion.

 

[Jono8]

Wonder if they will get the new HD video?

The HD video is the one they have already been shown. It isn't new to the jury/the trial.

I believe the defense argument is that they themselves only received the lower res footage.

 

[Tephnos]

The HD video is the one they have already been shown. It isn't new to the jury/the trial.

I believe the defense argument is that they themselves only received the lower res footage.

Edit: Misread.

 

[crazyDAJT]

The HD video is the one they have already been shown. It isn't new to the jury/the trial.

I believe the defense argument is that they themselves only received the lower res footage.

I think there may be more to it than that. When the prosecution where arguing the he pointed his gun first they got there AV guy in and started referring to a higher quality video.

However the full res video should have been supplied. After the firearm charge has been dropped, they then switched tack to provocation and are using this video to prove it.

 

[Jono8]

I think there may be more to it than that. When the prosecution where arguing the he pointed his gun first they got there AV guy in and started referring to a higher quality video.

However the full res video should have been supplied. After the firearm charge has been dropped, they then switched tack to provocation and are using this video to prove it.

I'm afraid i don't know the ins and outs of what video they had supplied to them by the FBI and when.

I'm not sure anyone on the outside really knows exactly what happened.

As i said though, the jury have seen the HD version.

 

[C Kent]

I think there may be more to it than that. When the prosecution where arguing the he pointed his gun first they got there AV guy in and started referring to a higher quality video.

However the full res video should have been supplied. After the firearm charge has been dropped, they then switched tack to provocation and are using this video to prove it.

Yeah sorts matches my understanding, the video they were enhancing was the low rez one for example. With this high rez one being used by the prosecution during their closing arguments. It's all very suspect.

 

[Energize]

Is that meant to be neutral? I just watched 15 minutes of it and they've already mentioned that right wing lawyers are better because they think, that left wing lawyers are inferior. They aren't even pretending to be neutral. its just an attack the left channel

I never said the steam was neutral, I said it was nine lawyers commenting which is far more insightful than a layperson commenting.

And fyi the stream was linked earlier in the thread by another member so I haven't watched the other videos on the channel, but it's not really relevant to the trial. Another thing to consider is that you and the other usual suspects like jono regard everything right of left to be far right.

Maybe they are libertarians and that's why Energize likes them. Although that would defeat his argument that libertarians aren't right wing as that lot are clearly right wing.

You can't be a libertarian if you are "right wing" by your definition of the word.