ozimoron

I stated my opinion as to his motives based on the media, nothing more.

Prosecutors are asking that Rittenhouse’s association with members of the Proud Boys be allowed at trial “because it goes to the defendant’s motive and intent for coming to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.” The motion describes the Proud Boys as a “violently racist organization whose members take pride in assaulting members of racial minorities, particularly Black Lives Matter protesters.” https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/prosecution-looks-to-introduce-evidence-that-rittenhouse-is-associated-with-the-proud-boys/article_9e6a8392-9308-56d9-b56b-2e2d67ef3f15.html

(looking for trouble) ...the defendant, an Illinois resident, willingly and intentionally put himself in violent situations in Wisconsin that do not involve him in order to commit further acts of violence," the motion states. Aside from this previous act of violence, prosecutors believe Rittenhouse's association with the Proud Boys, a violent white power group, should be considered at the trial. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/07/01/prosecutors-want-kyle-rittenhouses-previous-actions-considered/7836496002/

He fired an AR-15-style rifle that he was too young to have legally purchased; his friend Dominick Black had bought the gun for him months earlier. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-trial-of-kyle-rittenhouse-begins-with-gruesome-videos-and-a-plea-for-fact-finding

Looking for trouble isn't a crime, it's a motive.

It isn't possible to charge in relation to a BLM protest, but his motives are pertinent to the trial. Nobody doubts that we would not be there if it wasn't a BLM protest.

Rittenhouse' motives are relevant, he was a vigilante and went there looking for trouble. This was alleged and is therefore relevant.

you don't know it was a BLM protest?

Rittenhouse was there because it was a BLM protest.

possess is not the same as own

He wasn't legally allowed to own any gun.

The people who were shot were looters? It was BLM protest against a police shooting of a black man.

Tampering might be a bit strong. One story here alleges that it was the result of common video enhancement techniques and the other says it was the fault of the defendants computers that the video became decompressed. This normally happens in large image files when uploaded to the internet. I'm not suggesting which one is right, just presenting the arguments that I am seeing. https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22788080/kyle-rittenhouse-drone-video-compressed-iphone-android https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2021-11-11/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/17/rittenhouse-lawyers-ask-judge-to-declare-mistrial-over-video

What do you suggest? Machine gun protesters in the street? How do they pick out the arsonists from those among them who are peacefully protesting?

The outcome of this trial will undoubtedly have some bearing on the conversation about gun laws going forward so it is relevant.

Well, now it seems that the video may indeed show Rittenhouse pointed the gun at protesters and lied about it. The defense are panicking. https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-homicide-kenosha-0e4b6ad5a286af9ddbb8c8546550f1dc

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jury-rittenhouse-murder-trial-deliberate-second-day-2021-11-17/

He obtained the gun illegally, he was below the minimum age to obtain that gun. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/19-year-old-charged-illegally-supplying-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-n1247307 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

Is that because God wouldn't let it happen or because the planet is too big for mankind to affect the climate?

You denied the evidence exists. Where is your evidence that your claim is correct? The prosecutor was under oath, He showed the video. The defense has not tried to claim that it was false to my knowledge.

That is evidence produced in a court of law under oath. A video is not hearsay.

In closing arguments, prosecutor Thomas Binger said Mr Rittenhouse was a "wannabe soldier" and was "looking for trouble that night." Mr Binger repeatedly showed the jury drone video that he said depicted Mr Rittenhouse pointing the AR-style weapon at demonstrators. https://www.9news.com.au/world/kyle-rittenhouse-provoked-the-bloodshed-in-kenosha/abbea6a1-4aca-4956-bfcd-ddbdc456d03c

The prosecutor showed it to the jury repeatedly.

I'd be rich if I did. Started my career in Bangkok in 1979. Also spent 24 years in Angeles City.

By any accounts, Rittenhouse had committed a felony by taking an illegally obtained AR15 there and pointed it at demonstrators. They were justified in chasing him as they undoubtedly and reasonably feared he was going to start shooting. Show us some evidence that this is not true. The prosecutor alleged this with video evidence.