3 ms·

My word. Well I never. I do believe you are trolling. I haven't expressed any opinion about this Rosenbaum person who, I should stress, I just learned about in

My word. Well I never. I do believe you are trolling. I haven't expressed any opinion about this Rosenbaum person who, I should stress, I just learned about in this thread. Not everyone needs to take a side in cases like this. My opinion - uninformed or super informed - has no impact on the case (neither does yours), and I am not a stakeholder in this case. I have some trust in the justice system (and mostly, I'm pretty busy at the moment). But like I said, guy driving in from out of town with a gun to defend the property of strangers is asking for trouble. And just to ward off more weird replies like this one, I'm aware that he's not the only active party in this incident.

ALittleLight 5y ago
I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though. Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence. You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community. You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain these details. And sorry for thinking you were trolling. I definitely regret chiming in. I don't like arguing on the internet, I genuinely haven't followed the case, and I was getting hit by more replies than I expected (that were leveling weird things against me based on the few words I said). My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is essentially, "fuck this guy, and I'm not at all surprised that bad shit went down." I am from Los Angeles, and when I was a kid the Rodney King riots featured massive amounts of violence and destruction, and shopowners were defending their livelihoods with guns. If a white dude from Lancaster - who had a job "in the county" - decided to visit South Central and walk down the street prominently carrying a rifle, then I would have had the same opinion I just shared. That's it! That's all I was trying to share. He escalated an already bad situation. But yeah, if that "shooting shoplifters" video is that sketchy, I accept that. All I had heard was a headline with the judge saying it was irrelevant. And then immediately after that I saw another headline where the judge agreed with the defense that zooming in on a picture can create digital demons (did I get that right? :D).
  - Notorious_BLT 5y ago
    Not getting into the rest of it, but the reason the "pinch to zoom" discussion is important is that the piece of video they are attempting to zoom in on is the one the prosecution's final gambit hinges on. As the self-defense evidence has stacked up, the prosecution has attempted to make the case that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum's attack by pointing his gun at him. Despite the pile of video evidence available of the evening, no other evidence or testimony corroborates this claim, and in the (allegedly critical) video evidence they want to zoom in on, Rittenhouse is about 15 pixels tall. In that scenario, the specifics of how zooming will affect the video are pretty critical. There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).

ALittleLight 5y ago

I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though. Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence. You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community. You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.

ryantgtg 5y ago
That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain these details. And sorry for thinking you were trolling. I definitely regret chiming in. I don't like arguing on the internet, I genuinely haven't followed the case, and I was getting hit by more replies than I expected (that were leveling weird things against me based on the few words I said). My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is essentially, "fuck this guy, and I'm not at all surprised that bad shit went down." I am from Los Angeles, and when I was a kid the Rodney King riots featured massive amounts of violence and destruction, and shopowners were defending their livelihoods with guns. If a white dude from Lancaster - who had a job "in the county" - decided to visit South Central and walk down the street prominently carrying a rifle, then I would have had the same opinion I just shared. That's it! That's all I was trying to share. He escalated an already bad situation. But yeah, if that "shooting shoplifters" video is that sketchy, I accept that. All I had heard was a headline with the judge saying it was irrelevant. And then immediately after that I saw another headline where the judge agreed with the defense that zooming in on a picture can create digital demons (did I get that right? :D).
- Notorious_BLT 5y ago
  Not getting into the rest of it, but the reason the "pinch to zoom" discussion is important is that the piece of video they are attempting to zoom in on is the one the prosecution's final gambit hinges on. As the self-defense evidence has stacked up, the prosecution has attempted to make the case that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum's attack by pointing his gun at him. Despite the pile of video evidence available of the evening, no other evidence or testimony corroborates this claim, and in the (allegedly critical) video evidence they want to zoom in on, Rittenhouse is about 15 pixels tall. In that scenario, the specifics of how zooming will affect the video are pretty critical. There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).