Terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted on all counts

[Fizzzzle]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Were the other people who were armed, who had earlier in the night made threats to kill people from Rittenhouse’s group, who chased a minor down and fired the first shot…were they looking for a fight? 
 

Honestly, this is about as obvious a case of self-defense as you’ll ever find. I think people just don’t realize how whacky our self-defense laws generally are in this country.

You're right, the evidence that came out about Rittenhouse not being the only one with a gun changed a lot. I still think it should be a case of criminal negligence to show up that night with a gun, and I think the witness from the other day should also be charged for pointing his gun at Rittenhouse.

 

Like I said, I think our laws don't really quite cover the nuance of this situation. It was self defense, yes, but it was an act of gross negligence that led to the situation happening in the first place. The problem is no individual act seems to have been illegal beyond breaking curfew so the law kind of goes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

You're right, the evidence that came out about Rittenhouse not being the only one with a gun changed a lot. I still think it should be a case of criminal negligence to show up that night with a gun, and I think the witness from the other day should also be charged for pointing his gun at Rittenhouse.

 

Like I said, I think our laws don't really quite cover the nuance of this situation. It was self defense, yes, but it was an act of gross negligence that led to the situation happening in the first place. The problem is no individual act seems to have been illegal beyond breaking curfew so the law kind of goes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Part of, or maybe the main issue, when it comes to self defense claims in this country is firearms themselves. The calculus is so different in a scenario where the worst weapon is a blade or blunt instrument.

 

In the situation, the first person shot was attempting to take Rittenhouse’s gun from him. There are mountains of legal precedent that would say a person can reasonably assume that the attempt to take your firearm from you presents a grave risk of bodily harm, and that is generally all you need to assert self defense.

 

Imagine the same scenario occurred but all the two parties had were their own fists. Barring a lucky fatal punch, Rittenhouse likely would have needed to hit the man so many times to kill him that it couldn’t possibly be viewed as reasonable.

 

Repeal the second 

[Fizzzzle]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Part of, or maybe the main issue, when it comes to self defense claims in this country is firearms themselves. The calculus is so different in a scenario where the worst weapon is a blade or blunt instrument.

 

In the situation, the first person shot was attempting to take Rittenhouse’s gun from him. There are mountains of legal precedent that would say a person can reasonably assume that the attempt to take your firearm from you presents a grave risk of bodily harm, and that is generally all you need to assert self defense.

 

Imagine the same scenario occurred but all the two parties had were their own fists. Barring a lucky fatal punch, Rittenhouse likely would have needed to hit the man so many times to kill him that it couldn’t possibly be viewed as reasonable.

 

Repeal the second 

There is precedence for self defense not being a valid defense when you, for example, bring a gun to a fist fight. If someone punches you and you respond by shooting them in the face, in most cases you can't claim self defense, unless there are other mitigating factors like you were backed into a corner or whatever. It's an escalation of force thing.

 

That's why it was such a big deal when it came out that some of the other people involved also were armed.

 

I agree, if none of them had guns in the first place, a lot of this wouldn't have happened.

[Kal-El814]

 

 

Maybe the earth can open up and swallow everyone involved into her molten core.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

There is precedence for self defense not being a valid defense when you, for example, bring a gun to a fist fight. If someone punches you and you respond by shooting them in the face, in most cases you can't claim self defense, unless there are other mitigating factors like you were backed into a corner or whatever. It's an escalation of force thing.

 

That's why it was such a big deal when it came out that some of the other people involved also were armed.

 

I agree, if none of them had guns in the first place, a lot of this wouldn't have happened.

Being punched itself is not enough to legally meet the grave bodily harm standard, but if a person knocked you to the ground and mounted you and starts walloping you like a UFC fight, it doesn’t matter that it was a fist fight. You 100% could use deadly force to stop them at that point even if you started the fist fight.

This is actually part of the issue with the second person he killed. He had hit Rittenhouse twice in the head with his skateboard at the point Rittenhouse them fired the gun killing him. There is certainly reason to believe the grown man standing over you swinging a blunt object into your head repeatedly intends to do great bodily harm to you, and one doesn’t have to wait for that harm to occur before they pull the trigger.

 

The prosecutor is getting a lot of flack for how he is handling the case, but it really was DOA with even what was known at the time of the shooting. The NYT did a really great video breakdown only a few days after the incident that made it quite clear any prosecution was going to have at most a 20% chance of conviction.

[SuperSpreader]

oooommmmg

[CitizenVectron]

The fact that this judge can even be a judge makes the entire thing a farce.

[CitizenVectron]

Also the fact that people are legally allowed to carry handguns in the US makes it a farce.

[BloodyHell]

10 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

The fact that this judge can even be a judge makes the entire thing a farce.

Give reasons why? Because the nonsense in the press about his rulings are basically lies. All of them have been completely in line with the law in cases where self defense is argued, and denial of the two pieces of evidence was based on very clear Wisconsin propensity laws. And if its his yelling at the prosecution, then maybe don't blatantly break tge defendants constitutional rights.

 

Why did you remain silent, Mr. Rittenhouse?

Like seriously, wtf?

 

People need to be mad at the media, not the judge. They are the ones who blatantly lied to the public about this for a year.

 

But yes, the laws that make this self defense are fucked. But the victims also never should have threatened and attacked an armed person (or anyone).

 

This is a failure of the government to protect cities and stop the criminal behavior that went with the protests, and a failure of the media for blatantly lying about the situation, even up to now.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Now that the media has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has no case, they are attacking the judge as a racist incompetent.

Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial makes inappropriate Asian food joke

WWW.CNN.COM

---

The judge presiding over the homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse confused observers after making a strange and off-color joke inside the courtroom on Thursday.

You shall not pinch to zoom: Rittenhouse trial judge disallows basic iPad feature

ARSTECHNICA.COM

---

Judge: iPad pinch-to-zoom could "insert more items" into video of shootings.

 

I'll be honest, I have no idea if the pinch-to-zoom feature uses AI interpolation in it.  How would the judge (or the prosecutor)?  If the prosecutor wanted to show video that needed to be zoomed in on, he should have brought it to the court room in a way it could be used.

[SuperSpreader]

12 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Now that the media has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has no case, they are attacking the judge as a racist incompetent.

Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial makes inappropriate Asian food joke

WWW.CNN.COM

---

The judge presiding over the homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse confused observers after making a strange and off-color joke inside the courtroom on Thursday.

You shall not pinch to zoom: Rittenhouse trial judge disallows basic iPad feature

ARSTECHNICA.COM

---

Judge: iPad pinch-to-zoom could "insert more items" into video of shootings.

 

I'll be honest, I have no idea if the pinch-to-zoom feature uses AI interpolation in it.  How would the judge (or the prosecutor)?  If the prosecutor wanted to show video that needed to be zoomed in on, he should have brought it to the court room in a way it could be used.

 

Everyone involved in this case sucks. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

he's an old white man in america he's probably racist fwiw

[AbsolutSurgen]

It's a real stretch to call the "dad joke" referenced in the CNN article racist.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

As a father I can tell you that's no dad joke, it's a BAD joke

[CitizenVectron]

Both are true (prosecution and judge suck).

[AbsolutSurgen]

Well yes, it clearly is a bad joke.

[Kal-El814]

The spin of terrible humor into “dad jokes” is some of the most obvious evidence of the patriarchy.

[AbsolutSurgen]

12 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Both are true (prosecution and judge suck).

If the prosecutor was competent, he wouldn't have tried to bring forward a murder charge.

[Ghost_MH]

55 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Now that the media has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has no case, they are attacking the judge as a racist incompetent.

Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial makes inappropriate Asian food joke

WWW.CNN.COM

---

The judge presiding over the homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse confused observers after making a strange and off-color joke inside the courtroom on Thursday.

You shall not pinch to zoom: Rittenhouse trial judge disallows basic iPad feature

ARSTECHNICA.COM

---

Judge: iPad pinch-to-zoom could "insert more items" into video of shootings.

 

I'll be honest, I have no idea if the pinch-to-zoom feature uses AI interpolation in it.  How would the judge (or the prosecutor)?  If the prosecutor wanted to show video that needed to be zoomed in on, he should have brought it to the court room in a way it could be used.

 

Neither Apple nor Google products do that for video or any pictures, not taken on the device itself. If I send you a picture or video, your phone won't enhance it with their algorithm. That hasn't ever been been a thing phones or tablets do. Those machine learning algorithms only apply to photos taken on the device with the device's own camera/s.

[stepee]

Making a big deal of that remark is silly, I mean he even managed to starve off using “oriental”.

 

At first actually since I saw the spin before I heard the comment itself I thought he was going to say “I hope it’s not coming from Pearl Harbor”, which I would like better both as a joke and as something to call racist.

[AbsolutSurgen]

8 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Neither Apple nor Google products do that for video or any pictures, not taken on the device itself. If I send you a picture or video, your phone won't enhance it with their algorithm. That hasn't ever been been a thing phones or tablets do. Those machine learning algorithms only apply to photos taken on the device with the device's own camera/s.

So it just increases the size of the pixels?  No interpolation?

[stepee]

Interpolation would be more with whatever the hz the device is running and the frame rate of the clip, zooming in just zooms in, it doesn’t take previous frames of data and add them into it first or something.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Neither Apple nor Google products do that for video or any pictures, not taken on the device itself. If I send you a picture or video, your phone won't enhance it with their algorithm. That hasn't ever been been a thing phones or tablets do. Those machine learning algorithms only apply to photos taken on the device with the device's own camera/s.

Image scaling does use an algorithm to create new pixels, even if it isn’t meant to “enhance” the image. Whether or not the accuracy of the interpolation is sufficient for use in a court room is a separate issue.

[Ghost_MH]

7 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

So it just increases the size of the pixels?  No interpolation?

 

Interpolation of the type you might be worried about is not about making pixels bigger. That kind of interpolation is what your TV does when you turn on frame smoothing to turn a 24fps movie into a 60fps one. The TV in court likely had it on because it's on by default on all stupid TVs these days. There is no machine learning or AI algorithm being applied to a video or picture when you zoom in on it. It's going to get fuzzy, but not in the way the defense was arguing. Their argument made zero sense and wasn't based on anything phones have ever done.

[stepee]

As far as the case itself it just seems to me to be one of those things where he legally murdered someone. Morally he’s guilty and he’s still a monster, but the law just allows it, so more so than anyone else involved it seems the problem is just the law itself. 

 

I think really the take away here is to start finding out what bars these people hang out in, pack some heat, and then call them all gay and let the chips fall where they may.

[Ghost_MH]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Image scaling does use an algorithm to create new pixels, even if it isn’t meant to “enhance” the image. Whether or not the accuracy of the interpolation is sufficient for use in a court room is a separate issue.

 

There's a difference between using software to enhance a zoomed in video and just playing something on your device's video player and just using pinch to zoom on it. Google and Apple's latest phones have the most advanced picture rendering hardware of any consumer device ever released in the history of forever, and neither has the ability to change video in realtime.

[LazyPiranha]

2 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

Give reasons why? Because the nonsense in the press about his rulings are basically lies. All of them have been completely in line with the law in cases where self defense is argued, and denial of the two pieces of evidence was based on very clear Wisconsin propensity laws. And if its his yelling at the prosecution, then maybe don't blatantly break tge defendants constitutional rights.

 

Why did you remain silent, Mr. Rittenhouse?

Like seriously, wtf?

 

People need to be mad at the media, not the judge. They are the ones who blatantly lied to the public about this for a year.

 

But yes, the laws that make this self defense are fucked. But the victims also never should have threatened and attacked an armed person (or anyone).

 

This is a failure of the government to protect cities and stop the criminal behavior that went with the protests, and a failure of the media for blatantly lying about the situation, even up to now.

To be fair, and I might be mistaken to some extent here, but recent Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that your silence can in fact be used against you unless you specifically invoke your right to remain silent.  It depends on what it’s being used for, but I believe you can use someone’s silence as a reflection on their state of mind, like if he’s claiming he was terrified for his life, felt totally guilty and horrible about what happened, but he’s just chilling in the backseat of the squad car unfazed  then you can use that information.  
 

So in theory if he didn’t explicitly invoke his right to remain silent, and if the prosecution is using it not purely to establish guilt but to show his mental state at the time, it’s probably valid to ask, but it’s a really weird area in general.

[stepee]

3 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

There's a difference between using software to enhance a zoomed in video and just playing something on your device's video player and just using pinch to zoom on it. Google and Apple's latest phones have the most advanced picture rendering hardware of any consumer device ever released in the history of forever, and neither has the ability to change video in realtime.

 

My nvidia shield tv does.

[BloodyHell]

17 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

To be fair, and I might be mistaken to some extent here, but recent Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that your silence can in fact be used against you unless you specifically invoke your right to remain silent.  It depends on what it’s being used for, but I believe you can use someone’s silence as a reflection on their state of mind, like if he’s claiming he was terrified for his life, felt totally guilty and horrible about what happened, but he’s just chilling in the backseat of the squad car unfazed  then you can use that information.  
 

So in theory if he didn’t explicitly invoke his right to remain silent, and if the prosecution is using it not purely to establish guilt but to show his mental state at the time, it’s probably valid to ask, but it’s a really weird area in general.

You cannot use silence as an indication of guilt, ever. It's one of the most basic tenets of criminal law. You have a right to remain silent, and anything you say can be used against you", and you think we should be able to use both his words, and his silence, which tells us nothing, against him?

 

I don't think you can find that ruling by the Supreme court. 

 

Look, this all sucks  because the law as written means he's innocent of all charges (even the illegal gun, because it seems exception to law is 16+ can open carry a long gun with 16" Barrel in the state of Wisconsin). This was entered into evidence pretrial. But the attacks on the judge to deflect from the prosecution not having a case is the problem. This is about legacy media protecting itself after a year of flat out calling him a murderer and a terrorist. Trying to pretend they didn't lie to you, it's the judge, jury, and defense who are at fault.

 

Something tells me that argument wouldn't hold up in court.

Change the law, Don't subvert it.

[Fizzzzle]

11 minutes ago, stepee said:

As far as the case itself it just seems to me to be one of those things where he legally murdered someone. Morally he’s guilty and he’s still a monster, but the law just allows it, so more so than anyone else involved it seems the problem is just the law itself. 

 

I think really the take away here is to start finding out what bars these people hang out in, pack some heat, and then call them all gay and let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah, I mean, it's been said a million times - he showed up to Kenosha looking for a fight and he found one, he should bear some responsibility for the consequences. Our laws don't really seem to have a way to apply to the nuance of the situation.

 

Intent should matter. He didn't show up in Kenosha that night strapped with a rifle because he wanted to sell girl scout cookies.

[Ghost_MH]

10 minutes ago, stepee said:

My nvidia shield tv does.

 

I'm not sure I'd say upscaling is what we're talking about here. The video in question looks like it came from a security camera and the procecution wanted to zoom in on a small part of the video on an iPad. No matter what, the end result would be blurry mess. There is no AI rendering of the video going on here in real time the way an iPhone would enhance a picture or video taken on it. Even then, that AI enhancement they do isn't instantaneous. Apple fakes it pretty well, but even on the latest Pixel you can see the moment when a picture goes from raw to enhanced after you've taken it. Google doesn't really hide this for whatever Google reasons you can think of.

 

Just open a random JPG on your phone that you grabbed from Google image search and zoom in as much as you can. There's no AI filtering going on there and it's no different with video.

[BloodyHell]

9 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Yeah, I mean, it's been said a million times - he showed up to Kenosha looking for a fight and he found one, he should bear some responsibility for the consequences. Our laws don't really seem to have a way to apply to the nuance of the situation.

 

Intent should matter. He didn't show up in Kenosha that night strapped with a rifle because he wanted to sell girl scout cookies.

The crux is that you can't say that practicing a constitutional right is provocation, even though we all know that's false. 

There's also the fact that two of the close people in the  crowds had guns, one fired his on camera just before kyle killed the man threatening his life and grabbing his gun. He also reported his stolen the next morning. None of them were innocent.

 

Edited: Because Wow! Stroke inducing pre edit.

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Yeah, I mean, it's been said a million times - he showed up to Kenosha looking for a fight and he found one, he should bear some responsibility for the consequences. Our laws don't really seem to have a way to apply to the nuance of the situation.

 

Intent should matter. He didn't show up in Kenosha that night strapped with a rifle because he wanted to sell girl scout cookies.

 

Yeah, for his moral guilt the best we can hope for is that a large part of the country will ostracize him and that he’s not a sociopath and that really tortures him mentally. I hope that’s what his tears are and I hope it leads him down a road of depression that causes him to execute the correct verdict himself.

[Ghost_MH]

Just now, stepee said:

Yeah, for his moral guilt the best we can hope for is that a large part of the country will ostracize him and that he’s not a sociopath and that really tortures him mentally. I hope that’s what his tears are and I hope it leads him down a road of depression that causes him to execute the correct verdict himself.

 

You say that, but he has a bright future in the House.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Moral guilt <> Legal guilt