Posted on 11/13/2021 3:38:30 AM PST by MtnClimber
Up until Friday, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was very clear: Easily understood videos and witness testimony (including testimony from the prosecution witnesses) showed that Kyle, despite trying hard to avoid conflict, was attacked by a crazed child rapist, whom Kyle shot as the rapist was grabbing Kyle’s gun, at which point a mob went after Kyle. He then shot and killed a domestic abuser trying to bash his head in with a skateboard, and shot and wounded a felon aiming a loaded, illegal gun at his head. On Thursday, however, the court allowed prosecutors to enter into evidence a fuzzy photo from a late-produced drone, an image prosecutors argue shows Kyle “provoking” the attacks against him. Provocation destroys Kyle’s assertion that he acted in self-defense.
Andrew Branca explains how well the prosecution did on Friday. The “unicorn” evidence that the prosecutors successfully fought to get admitted is the drone footage that they just coincidentally found at the last minute before the trial. According to the prosecution, an incredibly fuzzy photo that was computer-enhanced (meaning that AI made “educated” guesses about where pixels should go) shows Kyle pointing his gun at Joshua Ziminski, who fired the first shot that saw Rosenbaum, who had earlier threatened to kill Kyle, chase after the boy.
The problem for Kyle is that, under Wisconsin law (as is the case under most states’ laws), a person who provokes an attack may not then claim self-defense. If the jury accepts the drone footage as showing Kyle threatening people with the gun, then it was he who triggered (pun intended) all subsequent events, including his shooting three people. However, Wisconsin law also holds that, even if someone provokes things, if he withdraws from the fight but pursuit continues, he can regain the self-defense privilege.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Defense attorney needs to strongly remind jury that it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove a crime has been committed “beyond a reasonable doubt”. A fuzzy photo, introduced as a “Hail Mary”, which even the expert who produced it can not attest to what prosecutors claim it shows, does not come close to meeting that standard.
How can the defense properly prepare a defense if the charges are added at the end of a trial and evidence is submitted at the end of a trial?l
Does the court have the ORIGINAL footage? If not then the validity of the images is unproven and can hardly be used in a murder case! The defense MUST be given the opportunity to use their own image enhancement software to verify the claims.
“Waste of time to analyze what happened before he was in retreat.”
Its not a waste of time to them if they can use the “Kyle started it argument” to claim that a not guilty verdict is an injustice and therefore an excuse to riot.
Yours was the question I want answered.
They are not fully analyzing the statute.
There are important exceptions and additional requirements to the provocation rule.
I had to read it several times before posting this, but first, the provocation has to be an illegal act. So Kyle pointing the gun has to be illegal under the circumstances. Maybe.
But then he can still use self defense, he just can’t use deadly force unless he has exhausted every other means to defend himself without using deadly force, and he is himself facing deadly force.
Once he’s on the ground and the gun barrel is grabbed and about to be pulled from his hands, the question would be is he facing the use of deadly force, and has he exhausted all other means to avoid it.
I think the whole defense argument is that Kyle reasonably believed Rosenbaum was going to take that gun and shoot him.
It’s a gray area but I think it’s another way for the jury to acquit Kyle, in addition to the fact Kyle was fleeing and being pursued.
The statute is confusing enough that the jury can find ways to acquit.
I’m not even sure that briefly pointing the gun in response to a gunshot was a reasonable provocation for people to attack Kyle.
The average person would understand you briefly raising your gun, and shouldn’t be provoked into chasing after you.
If Kyle had raised the gun and shot someone that would be a much clearer provocation.
Even if I was in a direct argument with someone, I’m not sure I’d be reasonably “provoked” if they pointed their gun for a second but then pointed it away again and stopped all aggressive activity.
Provoking would be more like punching someone, or illegally holding a gun on someone.
I could be mistaken, but the jury ends up in a room with the statute and they then have to figure out its meaning. The judge’s instructions will be important but the judge won’t tell them anything that goes around the wording of the statute.
Who knew Dominion was into photo enhancement technology? But I guess, if you can create votes out of thin air, you can create photos out of thin air.
If the Ziminskis were pointing out KR and encouraging Rosenbaum to “get him”, then they should be the ones on trial — they seem to have provoked the whole chain of events.
I can see why the prosecutor did not want the Ziminskis on the witness stand — they would illustrate the sort of scary criminal scum that converted protests” into riots. In closing, the Defense should point out to the jury that the Ziminskis were facing the scene and only feet away from where they claim KR was “pointing a rifle”. Yet the State didn’t call them as witnesses. Why was that? Because the Ziminskis DIDN’T see what the State claims, and the State knows it. They want you to use a modified yet still unintelligible video they have doctored as an way for those biased against KR to justify conviction. Does this grainy enhanced photo meet the standard of PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT Rittenhouse did NOT act in self defense? Obviously not. In addition, video shows Rosenbaum running at KR BEFORE the moment the State erroneously claims KR raised his rifle. An action made AFTER Rosenbaum started charging cannot possibly have provoked Rosenbaum into charging. The State’s whole premise is illogical — they have no case whatsoever and are making things up with shameless cynicism.
I just don’t see the jury unanimously agreeing to co vict this kid of at the homicide charge after the crap show they witnessed.
Well, I think you are an optimist. Opinion only of course, but another possibility is the Judge, in spite of death threats, issues a directed verdict, or the jury convicts no matter the evidence. What one juror will decide to be a martyr knowing that they and their family will be marked for severe consequences and maybe death?
Don’t rail on Johnson - his district is historically left. Get rid of him over some personal pique and get someone like old yellow face, Puss Feingold.
I don’t know the name of the legal self defense precedent is. Whether or not a person can claim self defense is mitigated by the comparison of the subject to the threat which he/she faces. In other words a small female would be able to use deadly force to defend herself against a closed fist lunge from a 200 pound male. In my mind this precedent would apply to Rittenhouse if he raised his firearm at a mob which was verbally threatening him and lunging at him.
“”””How can the defense properly prepare a defense if the charges are added at the end of a trial and evidence is submitted at the end of a trial?l””””
2 The defense has lived and breathed all of the factors of this case for months. Given their vast knowledge of every aspect of the case, it probably takes them but less than an hour to write/outline their closing arguments.
3. In light of prosecution being unable to present a clear case against Rittenhouse, the defense lawyers are probably relaxing this weekend so as to be ready to go Monday morning.
Coincidentally Found = Photo Shop
The prosecutors have everything to lose for doing a sloppy job the will try anything for a win surprised money hasn’t been offered yet.
“Fuzzy image, fuzzy case. The prosecution has woefully failed to meet its burden. You must acquit.”
Those would be my closing words to the jury.
They are not going to get to a unanimous decision to convict. No friggin’ way.
I have a bad feeling the kid is going to be railroaded. He is a sacrificial lamb for the disarmament movement.
Is that a “for real”?
Of course they can. Even if they had said no, the answer is still yes.
You and I know that, But that question is ever so important at this point in the game considering that video and a tech ignorant judge. It may be too late now because they did not ask that question while the timing was right. Had that question been asked he just may have not allowed it to be entered.
I know one thing... The defense has one hell of a irrefutable appeal at this point. Binger is handing it to them on a silver platter. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.