4 ms·

The curious part of this is that the defense felt the need to challenge this footage, since it isn't damaging to the defendant, zoomed in or not. To me, to the

The curious part of this is that the defense felt the need to challenge this footage, since it isn't damaging to the defendant, zoomed in or not. To me, to the extent that it is clear, it shows Rittenhouse retreating and responding to attacks, rather than the reverse. Does anyone else see something in that particular video that supports the felony charges?

jboggan 5y ago
The prosecution is going to argue that the footage shows Rittenhouse raising his rifle at someone before being charged by Mr. Rosenbaum, out of sequence with his own testimony of what transpired.
- DrJones1098 5y ago
  Thanks for the info. It looked like Rosenbaum chased him for like 10 seconds while Rittenhouse was running away, threw something at him, and they're going to argue that in the last single second before the shooting he possibly raised his rifle in a grainy video where the question of pixels is an issue? That seems weak but I guess the prosecution needs something.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > That seems weak but I guess the prosecution needs something. From what I've read, the prosecution has been pretty weak. Their witness are often helping the defense at least as much as they're helping the prosecution, and the judge got angry with them the other day for likely deliberately going somewhere they weren't allowed to go. https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-directed-verdict-788879e4deb6d4639adab573ee3ff753 https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-dire...
    - hajile 5y ago
      They are lying by omission. It was WAY more than that. The prosecutor was saying that Rittenhouse must be guilty because he chose not to speak before the trial. That is an egregious violation. Judge wants a clear jury verdict due to the politicization of the case. In any other circumstances, I'd bet heavily that a mistrial with prejudice would be immediate. I'm guessing there's a non-zero chance that the prosecutor gets officially censured for this case. Between that and the testimony about coercing the witness and interfering with the detective, there's a lot of wrong stuff going on here.
  - hajile 5y ago
    Not only that, but he would have to holding the rifle left-handed here, but right-handed both before and after. Defense didn't catch this though. Maybe the'll mention it in closing arguments.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Closi 5y ago
It depends what the prosecutions reason for including the video is - these cases are sometimes not ‘smoking guns’ and are just lots of little pieces of evidence that come together to imply a narrative.
- mwint 5y ago
  Right. I watched the entire time Rittenhouse was on the stand. It seemed clear the prosecution had basically nothing, and was just trying to paint Kyle as unreliable or “looking for trouble”. And he wasn’t very successful at that, IMO.
  - Closi 5y ago
    I would agree with you in principle - although I was in a jury a year ago and saw some very similar from the prosecution and thought 'nobody would ever buy this ridiculous attempt just to paint the defendant as the kind of guy that is guilty!' And then as soon as I got in the jury room, I found that 3-4 people had fallen for this technique hook, line and sinker. Prosecutions do this because, unfortunately, it works. Often jury trials unfortunately aren't about objective proof, they are about feelings and convincing the lay-public.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cphoover 5y ago
It really threw the prosecutor off his game as he wasn't able to zoom in and had to pause his examination. This in-and-of-itself was worth it IMO

jboggan 5y ago

The prosecution is going to argue that the footage shows Rittenhouse raising his rifle at someone before being charged by Mr. Rosenbaum, out of sequence with his own testimony of what transpired.

DrJones1098 5y ago
Thanks for the info. It looked like Rosenbaum chased him for like 10 seconds while Rittenhouse was running away, threw something at him, and they're going to argue that in the last single second before the shooting he possibly raised his rifle in a grainy video where the question of pixels is an issue? That seems weak but I guess the prosecution needs something.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > That seems weak but I guess the prosecution needs something. From what I've read, the prosecution has been pretty weak. Their witness are often helping the defense at least as much as they're helping the prosecution, and the judge got angry with them the other day for likely deliberately going somewhere they weren't allowed to go. https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-directed-verdict-788879e4deb6d4639adab573ee3ff753 https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-dire...
  - hajile 5y ago
    They are lying by omission. It was WAY more than that. The prosecutor was saying that Rittenhouse must be guilty because he chose not to speak before the trial. That is an egregious violation. Judge wants a clear jury verdict due to the politicization of the case. In any other circumstances, I'd bet heavily that a mistrial with prejudice would be immediate. I'm guessing there's a non-zero chance that the prosecutor gets officially censured for this case. Between that and the testimony about coercing the witness and interfering with the detective, there's a lot of wrong stuff going on here.
- hajile 5y ago
  Not only that, but he would have to holding the rifle left-handed here, but right-handed both before and after. Defense didn't catch this though. Maybe the'll mention it in closing arguments.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Closi 5y ago

It depends what the prosecutions reason for including the video is - these cases are sometimes not ‘smoking guns’ and are just lots of little pieces of evidence that come together to imply a narrative.

mwint 5y ago
Right. I watched the entire time Rittenhouse was on the stand. It seemed clear the prosecution had basically nothing, and was just trying to paint Kyle as unreliable or “looking for trouble”. And he wasn’t very successful at that, IMO.
- Closi 5y ago
  I would agree with you in principle - although I was in a jury a year ago and saw some very similar from the prosecution and thought 'nobody would ever buy this ridiculous attempt just to paint the defendant as the kind of guy that is guilty!' And then as soon as I got in the jury room, I found that 3-4 people had fallen for this technique hook, line and sinker. Prosecutions do this because, unfortunately, it works. Often jury trials unfortunately aren't about objective proof, they are about feelings and convincing the lay-public.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cphoover 5y ago

It really threw the prosecutor off his game as he wasn't able to zoom in and had to pause his examination. This in-and-of-itself was worth it IMO