Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wiscoaster said:
No!! I disagree most heartily!! We need to get in the presence of these people and oppose them. To me, Kyle is an American patriot and hero. You might argue that carrying a rifle to such a confrontation was a mistake ... I would have carried a concealed handgun ... but just going there was not a mistake or a lapse of judgment. Going there was an act of great courage, selflessness and patriotism. He was there to do good and to oppose evil. We need more of that. And I'll stand on that conviction.
Click to expand...
You’re free to regard him as a hero all you like, and even emulate him if you wish, but I still say he’s a good example of bad decision making.

Maybe next year we will all be discussing your murder trial. I’m personally not willing to give up my life or freedom to save someone’s dumpster.
 
Elkins45 said:
You’re free to regard him as a hero all you like, and even emulate him if you wish, but I still say he’s a good example of bad decision making.

Maybe next year we will all be discussing your murder trial. I’m personally not willing to give up my life or freedom to save someone’s dumpster.
Click to expand...
If you think all of this was about the destruction of a dumpster then you missed the coverage of the "fiery but peaceful protests".

this was about allowing (or not) the mob (who are reported to be NOT from there) burn your city to the ground.
 
Elkins45 said:
You’re free to regard him as a hero all you like, and even emulate him if you wish, but I still say he’s a good example of bad decision making.

Maybe next year we will all be discussing your murder trial. I’m personally not willing to give up my life or freedom to save someone’s dumpster.
Click to expand...

You're also free to utilize the rights that are eagerly defended by others who go into harms way while you stay safely at home with your NRA membership card in your pocket.
 
A) There was vastly more at stake than a burning dumpster.

B) Arguing over whether Rittenhouse should have been at the scene or not has no bearing his claim of self defense.

C) If we stray off topic long enough and far enough this thread may not survive the verdict.

It’s going to be a long , tedious night waiting for the jury to reconvene…
 
Corpral_Agarn said:
this was about allowing (or not) the mob (who are reported to be NOT from there) burn your city to the ground.
Click to expand...

He lived in Illinois, Kenosha is in Wisconsin. It wasn't his city.

Using your logic can I expect you to cross several state lines to defend my neighborhood if there's a riot here? And why should someone expend their own blood and sweat to defend a neighborhood that the residents themselves aren't willing to protect?

ColoradoMinuteMan said:
You're also free to utilize the rights that are eagerly defended by others who go into harms way while you stay safely at home with your NRA membership card in your pocket.
Click to expand...

Rittenhouse was neither a soldier nor a sworn peace officer. He was "in harm's way" most likely because he was a 17 year old boy who wanted to participate in the chaos. This wasn't a Soviet invasion, it was a riot. And I'll ask the same question as above: why should I defend a property the owners aren't even willing to defend?
 
Elkins45 said:
Rittenhouse was neither a soldier nor a sworn peace officer. He was "in harm's way" most likely because he was a 17 year old boy who wanted to participate in the chaos. This wasn't a Soviet invasion, it was a riot. And I'll ask the same question as above: why should I defend a property the owners aren't even willing to defend?
Click to expand...

The reality is it has no bearing on the law, the case or the trail, which this thread is about.
 
Elkins45 said:
He lived in Illinois, Kenosha is in Wisconsin. It wasn't his city.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the trial? Kenosha from his mom's house was shorter than most of our commutes to work.

Elkins45 said:
Using your logic can I expect you to cross several state lines to defend my neighborhood if there's a riot here? And why should someone expend their own blood and sweat to defend a neighborhood that the residents themselves aren't willing to protect?
Click to expand...
Why do state lines matter? Does the Second Amendment or right to self defense only apply to the state you reside?

Can you define, precisely, what a person's "community" is?

Elkins45 said:
Rittenhouse was neither a soldier nor a sworn peace officer. He was "in harm's way" most likely because he was a 17 year old boy who wanted to participate in the chaos. This wasn't a Soviet invasion, it was a riot. And I'll ask the same question as above: why should I defend a property the owners aren't even willing to defend?
Click to expand...
The soldiers and peace officers were content to let the city burn. Kyle (and others) were not.

If the soldiers and peace officers are not going to do their jobs, and whether you think it's okay or not, the more you will see people step up to fill those gaps.
 
Elkins45 said:
but it also might be the thing that initially drew the attention and interest of his attacker.

I think his presence there was an error in judgement from the start. We wouldn’t be discussing his trial if he had used better sense because he never would have needed to shoot anyone.
Click to expand...
Maybe all of this was a chain reaction of the actions of a mentally ill convicted pedophile that was just released from a mental institution that day, and was raising holy hell the entire night up till that point.

It may just have been the thing that drew the attention of Rosenbaum. But being that there were other people with rifles, I don't think the rifle is the sole reason why he went after KR. I'd bet he saw what he thought was an easy target. And just think what he would have done with that rifle if KR didn't shoot him. Anyway, just my opinion.
 
Elkins45 said:
He lived in Illinois, Kenosha is in Wisconsin. It wasn't his city.....
Click to expand...
No, that's not a correct characterization. Antioch, IL and Kenosha, WI are only about 15 miles apart. It is the nearest "metro" area to his home. He regarded it as his "neighborhood". His dad lives there. This is a case of where state lines are irrelevant in his mind because he crosses that state line going in both directions frequently. The fact that laws differ on one side of that line or the other is not foremost in his daily thought processes. That state line is pretty much invisible in his case. Yes, I think in his mind, Kenosha is "his city".
 
Elkins45 said:
You’re free to regard him as a hero all you like, and even emulate him if you wish, but I still say he’s a good example of bad decision making.

Maybe next year we will all be discussing your murder trial. I’m personally not willing to give up my life or freedom to save someone’s dumpster.
Click to expand...

[Well, thanks for the help.]

Hopefully more kids step up and kill child molesters this year. Cops and courts sure as heck ain't getting the job done when an entire mob of child molesters and violent career criminals exist, and are welcome to burn down a city.

''YOU CAN'T KILL EVIL DEAD ENOUGH.''
 
old lady new shooter said:
I have an iPhone. I use gmail on it but not the gmail app, the mail app is the one the iPhone comes with. Whenever I want to send a non-trivial-size attachment, it ASKS me if I want to send the original or a choice of several smaller versions, and I have to affirmatively pick the version I want (original or one of the smaller ones) before it will send it.
Click to expand...

As it turns out, here's the list of shenanigans related to this video:

1. The file name of the video sent to the defense is different from the file name of the file played by the prosecution and sent by the prosecution to the crime lab.
2. The video sent to the defense is approximately 33% the size of the one sent to the prosecution.
3. The aspect ratio of the video sent to the defense is about 480x244 pixels, while the one played by the prosecution and sent to the crime lab is 1920x844. To the best of my knowledge, this could only happen from editing the video and not from any automatic file compression.
4. File compression for attachment size limits happens on the sender side. It wouldn't make sense to compression to happen on the receiver side, that defeats the purpose of having an attachment size limit, which after all only impacts transmission of the file.
5. The screen capture of ADA Kraus's computer when he played the video also revealed that he had a software program called Handbrake installed. This is a video transcoder software that can be used to compress video files. ADA Kraus argued that he was unfamiliar with video compression or how this file may have transformed before getting to the defense counsel. But if he knows nothing about it, why's he got software capable of doing it on his work laptop?
 
What struck me is how in earth is it ok for these people to be passing around evidence using airdrop and and Gmail? Isn’t there a forensic process utilized here to preserve digital media in its original state? Every file has meta data associated with it such as the timestamp, details around the conditions the media was created within such as geo tagging, lens focus length, aperture, device type, etc. these can all potentially be used to validate the authenticity of file, or things like distance between objects etc. All those seem relevant, particularly in the age of deep fakes etc. how can they not maintain a chain of custody and forensically preserve the digital media? How can an attorney use their own personal email and devices knowing that this now potentially makes their personal email and devices open to discovery, particularly in such a high profile case where they will be subject to immense scrutiny. I’m no expert but this certainly gives me the sense of malpractice.

Madcap_Magician said:
As it turns out, here's the list of shenanigans related to this video:

1. The file name of the video sent to the defense is different from the file name of the file played by the prosecution and sent by the prosecution to the crime lab.
2. The video sent to the defense is approximately 33% the size of the one sent to the prosecution.
3. The aspect ratio of the video sent to the defense is about 480x244 pixels, while the one played by the prosecution and sent to the crime lab is 1920x844. To the best of my knowledge, this could only happen from editing the video and not from any automatic file compression.
4. File compression for attachment size limits happens on the sender side. It wouldn't make sense to compression to happen on the receiver side, that defeats the purpose of having an attachment size limit, which after all only impacts transmission of the file.
5. The screen capture of ADA Kraus's computer when he played the video also revealed that he had a software program called Handbrake installed. This is a video transcoder software that can be used to compress video files. ADA Kraus argued that he was unfamiliar with video compression or how this file may have transformed before getting to the defense counsel. But if he knows nothing about it, why's he got software capable of doing it on his work laptop?
Click to expand...
 
Madcap_Magician said:
ADA Kraus argued that he was unfamiliar with video compression or how this file may have transformed before getting to the defense counsel. But if he knows nothing about it, why's he got software capable of doing it on his work laptop?
Click to expand...

I would argue that, in this day and age, his claim of ignorance on the subject of video compression or any other similar digital file issues is irrelevant at best.

He's an attorney. He's supposed to be an expert on the law. This means he's at least got a passing familiarity with pretty much anything which could be introduced as evidence, as well as issues which could be brought up to object to its introduction.

He also knows that digital forensics exists and avails himself of such expertise. He knows how chain of custody works, he knows withholding, altering, or falsifying evidence is wrong.

In other words, his ignorance on HOW video compression works on a digital level makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE because he's familiar with all the LEGAL aspects of handling it as evidence.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I would argue that, in this day and age, his claim of ignorance on the subject of video compression or any other similar digital file issues is irrelevant at best.

He's an attorney. He's supposed to be an expert on the law. This means he's at least got a passing familiarity with pretty much anything which could be introduced as evidence, as well as issues which could be brought up to object to its introduction.

He also knows that digital forensics exists and avails himself of such expertise. He knows how chain of custody works, he knows withholding, altering, or falsifying evidence is wrong.

In other words, his ignorance on HOW video compression works on a digital level makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE because he's familiar with all the LEGAL aspects of handling it as evidence.
Click to expand...

We can also be assured that the ADA would be unwilling to accept the situation that ignorance of the legal nuances of possessing certain types of firearms, as a minor, is an excuse to not file charges against Rittenhouse. He should be held to not only the same standard as the public for ignorance of the law but at an extremely high standard as a sworn officer of the court.
 
Last edited:
Madcap_Magician said:
As it turns out, here's the list of shenanigans related to this video:

1. The file name of the video sent to the defense is different from the file name of the file played by the prosecution and sent by the prosecution to the crime lab.
2. The video sent to the defense is approximately 33% the size of the one sent to the prosecution.
3. The aspect ratio of the video sent to the defense is about 480x244 pixels, while the one played by the prosecution and sent to the crime lab is 1920x844. To the best of my knowledge, this could only happen from editing the video and not from any automatic file compression.
4. File compression for attachment size limits happens on the sender side. It wouldn't make sense to compression to happen on the receiver side, that defeats the purpose of having an attachment size limit, which after all only impacts transmission of the file.
5. The screen capture of ADA Kraus's computer when he played the video also revealed that he had a software program called Handbrake installed. This is a video transcoder software that can be used to compress video files. ADA Kraus argued that he was unfamiliar with video compression or how this file may have transformed before getting to the defense counsel. But if he knows nothing about it, why's he got software capable of doing it on his work laptop?
Click to expand...
#5 is the most damning of all.
 
old lady new shooter said:
Madcap_Magician said: ↑
As it turns out, here's the list of shenanigans related to this video:

1. The file name of the video sent to the defense is different from the file name of the file played by the prosecution and sent by the prosecution to the crime lab.
2. The video sent to the defense is approximately 33% the size of the one sent to the prosecution.
3. The aspect ratio of the video sent to the defense is about 480x244 pixels, while the one played by the prosecution and sent to the crime lab is 1920x844. To the best of my knowledge, this could only happen from editing the video and not from any automatic file compression.
4. File compression for attachment size limits happens on the sender side. It wouldn't make sense to compression to happen on the receiver side, that defeats the purpose of having an attachment size limit, which after all only impacts transmission of the file.
5. The screen capture of ADA Kraus's computer when he played the video also revealed that he had a software program called Handbrake installed. This is a video transcoder software that can be used to compress video files. ADA Kraus argued that he was unfamiliar with video compression or how this file may have transformed before getting to the defense counsel. But if he knows nothing about it, why's he got software capable of doing it on his work laptop?
Click to expand...
#5 is the most damning of all.
Click to expand...
#5 is the most circumstantial and obvious one, which shows he basically didn't care at all.

#1- a renamed file: that's the doozy for me.

Firearms is one of my hobbies. Photography is another, as well as 3D rendering and imaging. I've played around with all for, at this point, over 2 decades.
Digital media (files) do not get renamed arbitrarily, or accidentally. If you make a copy (in the same format), or download multiple copies of the same file, the default setting is to A) replace the file. B) save with a filename of your choosing C) add a (-1, etc) to the end of the name. If you copy to a different format, it will default to original filename, either including the original format name or not, followed by .new format. Example Myphoto.jpg --> Myphoto.jpg.png

There's no way in hell Kraus (or anyone else) RECIEVED a file, and then SENT a file with a different name, without doing it manually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fine Figure of a Man
  • Locked
What happens after Rittenhouse is acquitted?
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
5K
Walkalong
Walkalong
G
  • Locked
Weapons type at trial
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
193
Views
7K
Deanimator
Deanimator
Craig_AR
  • Locked
SAF, et al., Sues MD over Concealed Carry Process
Replies
7
Views
1K
JTHunter
JTHunter
Good Ol' Boy
  • Locked
Bench Or Jury?
Replies
20
Views
2K
lemaymiami
lemaymiami
DeepSouth
  • Locked
Protecting the community
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top