U.S. Topic -- Predictions for the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

Are you suggesting that the defense believes this video shows what the prosecution is claiming it shows? I.e., that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at demonstrators? They do not, I assure you. 

Show me where they disputed it? They have said they would have changed their story had they seen it.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, you are giving a false story , what the defence stated is that they would have approached their defence differently if they had the full video , they didn't say that they would have *changed their story*.

   They would have used the video as exhibit number 1 to prove Kyles innocence .

   You are trying to make it appear that the defrence would have lied and changed their story .

  What they actually stated is that they would have approached their defence in a different manner .  

I quoted word for word what the defense said with a link to prove it.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Again, if the defense isn't contesting it why should I? Or you?

Although the defence did indeed contest the video , they stated that it proves nothing 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Although the defence did indeed contest the video , they stated that it proves nothing 

where?

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, ozimoron said:

where?

During the trial 

[fjb 24]

Just now, ozimoron said:

would have changed their story

Totally false, inaccurate, misleading. Rittenhouse lawyer did not say that.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

During the trial 

show us the evidence please. Links. I do that, why can't you? No evidence is lying.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

Totally false, inaccurate, misleading. Rittenhouse lawyer did not say that.

the link is above quoting the defense. What part of that sentence can't you understand? Really?

[BuckAurelius]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, you are giving a false story , what the defence stated is that they would have approached their defence differently if they had the full video , they didn't say that they would have *changed their story*.

   They would have used the video as exhibit number 1 to prove Kyles innocence .

   You are trying to make it appear that the defrence would have lied and changed their story .

  What they actually stated is that they would have approached their defence in a different manner .  

Mac, I wouldn't waste your breath arguing with ozimoron anymore. It's pointless. You're not going to change his mind no matter what the evidence is. I'm for one am done. Sadly, I suspect there is at least one, probably two, ozimorons on the jury right now, holding up the verdict. (By the way, in an earlier post I misunderstood and thought "changed their story" referred to the prosecution, my bad). 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

show us the evidence please. Links. I do that, why can't you? No evidence is lying.

Did you watch and listen to the trial ?

[fjb 24]

There seems to be no video or other evidence that shows KR pointing his AR unless he was discharging it. Apparently the ozmoron has some but refuses to share it and continues to insist on gaslighting. If there is some witness testimony, other evidence, video evidence etc produce it. My advise is to produce evidence (showing KR pointing his AR at rioters) given DURING the trial to avoid embarrassing yourself further.

Edited November 18, 2021 by fjb 24

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

the link is above quoting the defense. What part of that sentence can't you understand? Really?

Could you repost that link again, I have scrolled back but was unable to locate that specific link 

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did you watch and listen to the trial ?

I did. He's guilty because he provoked people. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I did. He's guilty because he provoked people. 

One could equally say that the rioters provoked Kyle . 

[BuckAurelius]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I did. He's guilty because he provoked people. 

How exactly? Because he was there with an AR-15 (which is no crime, by the way, not in Wisconsin, as much as you might want it to be) or you've bought into the drone-footage inkblot nonsense? It must be one or the other, because there's literally nothing else. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

How exactly? Because he was there with an AR-15 (which is no crime, by the way, not in Wisconsin, as much as you might want it to be) or you've bought into the drone-footage inkblot nonsense? It must be one or the other, because there's literally nothing else. 

Watch the closing argument and rebuttal.

[fjb 24]

They started chasing him because they were enraged that he had the audacity to extinguish a dumpster fire they had started with a fire extinguisher. The first “victim” of his shooting was seen on tape earlier yelling profanity at him, including asking Kyle to shoot him. They probably thought a scared 17 year old wouldn’t have the nerve to actually use the rifle in any capacity, even self defense. Trying to disarm a person with a firearm is best left to the police unless you want to run the very high risk of being shot, whatever your motivations are.

 

So, all I can find is KR must have "upset" hapless Rosenbaum after he extinguished the dumpster fire and this set Rosenbaum off on a tirade that culminated in his demise. Don't forget this Rosenbaum was possibly suffering from some mental illness according to the evidence presented at trial. He was the aggressive party not KR by all accounts.

 

In their closing arguments, Binger and his team suggested that Rittenhouse was responsible for provoking the "entire incident" of attacks from rioters on Aug. 25, 2020, by bringing a weapon to the city and thus could not claim self-defense in the incidents.

Binger pointed to a moment prior to the Rittenhouse's shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum in which the defendant allegedly put down a fire extinguisher and pointed a gun at a bystander."This is the provocation," the prosecutor remarked. "This is what starts the incident."

 

These statements are in Bingers closing arguments, but offers no evidence of this and are only suggestions.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/rittenhouse-prosecutor-self-defense-guns

Edited November 18, 2021 by fjb 24

[BuckAurelius]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Watch the closing argument and rebuttal.

I did watch them. I watched most of the trial. Exactly what piece, specifically, is supposed to edify me here? 

[Jingthing]

Imagine what a mess the jury room is now.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

I did watch them. I watched most of the trial. Exactly what piece, specifically, is supposed to edify me here? 

It's not one item. Its the overall argument. 

[ozimoron]

26 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

Mac, I wouldn't waste your breath arguing with ozimoron anymore. It's pointless. You're not going to change his mind no matter what the evidence is. I'm for one am done. Sadly, I suspect there is at least one, probably two, ozimorons on the jury right now, holding up the verdict. (By the way, in an earlier post I misunderstood and thought "changed their story" referred to the prosecution, my bad). 

The defense actually said "they would have approached things differently" I obviously paraphrased that because i can't find the actual quote. My bad. Nevertheless, the defense there admits what the video shows in effect and would have changed their defense had they seen the high def video. They don't call it out as fake.

[chickenslegs]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Could you repost that link again, I have scrolled back but was unable to locate that specific link 

Back on page 16

 

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-kenosha-ac4ff9ba75f00884ce6cd5e5932d5543

 

It appears that "would have changed their story" is a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

 

[fjb 24]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Imagine what a mess the jury room is now.

Empty pizza boxes piled everywhere.

[ozimoron]

Just now, chickenslegs said:

Back on page 16

 

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-kenosha-ac4ff9ba75f00884ce6cd5e5932d5543

 

It appears that "would have changed their story" is a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

 

Yes, they actually said they would have changed their defense and "approached things differently". It means the same thing.

[BuckAurelius]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Imagine what a mess the jury room is now.

I can imagine it ;). Ten or eleven people, clutching their heads in dismay, while the one or two other people sit in their chairs with their arms crossed, refusing to listen to reason or consider the evidence. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

I can imagine it ;). Ten or eleven people, clutching their heads in dismay, while the one or two other people sit in their chairs with their arms crossed, refusing to listen to reason or consider the evidence. 

You've never been on a jury have you?

[fjb 24]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

they would have changed their defense

NO...they DID NOT SAY THIS!

He said that the defense would have approached things differently if it had received the better footage earlier and that it is now asking for “a level, fair playing field.”

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, they actually said they would have changed their defense and "approached things differently". It means the same thing.

Yes, but you said that they "Would have changed their story" 

   "Changing the story" (What you claimed) and "approaching things differently" (What the defence actually said) have two very different meanings 

[ozimoron]

Just now, fjb 24 said:

NO...they DID NOT SAY THIS!

He said that the defense would have approached things differently if it had received the better footage earlier and that it is now asking for “a level, fair playing field.”

so waht do you think "approched things differently means"? I think they it means they would have changed their story.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, but you said that they "Would have changed their story" 

   "Changing the story" (What you claimed) and "approaching things differently" (What the defence actually said) have two very different meanings 

I think they mean the same thing.