Fogbow

You cannot question Saint Kyle!
He will
You brute!!!
Look at his baby face!!

How dare you threaten his future career as a character actor for his portrayal of Nelson?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Face_Nelson

I've seen enough. I'm calling it for FusterCluck.

Rittenhouse just claimed that protests threw rocks at home.

Protesters were throwing rocks at the police armored vehicle, not Rittenhouse.

LM K wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:11 pm Rittenhouse just claimed that protests threw rocks at home.

Protesters were throwing rocks at the police armored vehicle, not Rittenhouse.

True, and prosecution did point that out. Along with the futility of throwing rocks at armored vehicles.

Haven't been to enough Trump rallies to verify this, but if true!

(To be clear, I believe a judge of either party is capable of being impartial, but one that has Trump's theme as his ringtone may be one toke over the line.)

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:16 pm Haven't been to enough Trump rallies to verify this, but if true!
(To be clear, I believe a judge of either party is capable of being impartial, but one that has Trump's theme as his ringtone may be one toke over the line.)

At this rate, I wonder if the prosecution will ask for a mistrial because of the judge.

Rittenhouse bullshitted himself. Color me shocked.

Didn’t he testified today that he’s also a member of the Antioch fire department?

conveniently started online classes right before his trial.

Prosecutor raised the issue of Rittenhouse saying "yeah, I did" when a protester told Rittenhouse that he, Rittenhouse, pointed his gun at him.

Rittenhouse says yes, but "I was using sarcasm" to avoid a "confrontation". Rittenhouse then clarifies that he was trying to avoid a "verbal confrontation".

Defense objects, saying that this is a murder trial and they're bickering about sarcasm?! Judge tells prosecution to continue.

Something interesting to me about Binger's line of questioning. He is trying to get Rittenhouse to admit he knew the crowd was hostile to him and that he brought his gun because he expected to be attacked and stressing the danger in other ways. And I noticed in the motion hearings he seemed to take the line that defending Car Source was fine, and that Rittenhouse's problematic behavior only starts when he goes off the original mission of defending Car Source property and crosses onto the other side of the police line among protestors, after his job protecting 59th St Car Source was successfully completed. He could just have gone home but instead he did all these risky things.

I *think* he is trying to suggest this is the start of the reckless action that created a risk of violence, but not sure. Maybe just suggesting he's inserting himself where not needed etc.

But when I think about it, the whole line seems odd. I think it could well be true that going in there increased the risk of violence. But if someone goes into a bad neighborhood and gets attacked, can you blame that person for being *reckless*? Rittenhouse was "asking for it" by thinking he might go put out a fire?

As long as his behavior was lawful, I don't think this should be a consideration. It smacks of victim blaming.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:37 pm As long as his behavior was lawful, I don't think this should be a consideration. It smacks of victim blaming.

Did you just call Rittenhouse the victim?

Asking for a friend.

Also, the lies that lying liars tell.

So I assume that the mistrial motion was denied?

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:28 pm conveniently started online classes right before his trial.

I'd tell any student about to be on trial for murder that they're batshit crazy to try to take classes while on trial for murder.

I'd then explain to Rittenhouse that, because he'll be on trial for likely 2-3 weeks (and I'd point out how busy he would be preparing for trial), he'd need to drop the class. Why? Not because he's on trial for murder. I'd recommend dropping the class because it's not my responsibility to alter deadlines for him when he knows he'll be busy with his trial for close to a month. (I'd tell any student expecting to be unable to be a student for several weeks for any reason to drop the class.)

You don't get accepted to a nursing program just before your first semester of college. You don't even apply for a nursing program until just before their junior year, which takes, at minimum, 2 years of classes.

BLATANT lie.

The jury won't appreciate Rittenhouse telling them blatant lies.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:41 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:37 pm As long as his behavior was lawful, I don't think this should be a consideration. It smacks of victim blaming.

Did you just call Rittenhouse the victim?

I 'm not in Schroeder's court. But I was talking about the argument in general. Even on the assumption that the defense theory is 100% true and all his actions prior to the chase were lawful, the argument would still blame him for creating a risk of violence and that seems weird. Under that hypothesis, it would be blaming the victim.

Ok.. listening to the defense try to explain to the judge how 'apple has artificial intelligence logarithms' means they can't use it for evidence because it is not accurate.. really makes me want to slap him.

Trial lawyers, meaning?

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:48 pm So I assume that the mistrial motion was denied?

I missed that, but my twitter feed said that he didn't deny it, but rather said that he would take it under consideration. Is that a thing?

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:37 pm
As long as his behavior was lawful, I don't think this should be a consideration. It smacks of victim blaming.

Anderes, your thoughts about this?

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:55 pm Trial lawyers, meaning?

Means nothing. They’re not required to take notes and they can lean back in their chairs with their arms and legs crossed if they want to. I think you’d have to have snoring from the jury before anyone would do anything about it.

neeneko wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:53 pm Ok.. listening to the defense try to explain to the judge how 'apple has artificial intelligence logarithms' means they can't use it for evidence because it is not accurate.. really makes me want to slap him.

Did I miss something here? He's talking about pinch-zoom, right? WTF?

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:57 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:48 pm So I assume that the mistrial motion was denied?

I missed that, but my twitter feed said that he didn't deny it, but rather said that he would take it under consideration. Is that a thing?

Yes, especially mid-trial. The judge can "take the matter under advisement" while the shipping clerk cracks some books. That way, the jury's* time isn't wasted.

* * *

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:41 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:37 pmDid you just call Rittenhouse the victim?

I 'm not in Schroeder's court.

Translation: Yes.




* Of course, the individual jurors likely would like to get back to their lives, so if the trial is going to be cut short, they'd prefer sooner rather than later.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:03 pm Did I miss something here? He's talking about pinch-zoom, right? WTF?

Yep.

And the judge actually pulled a 'well, yes we have been doing stuff like this all trial, but now that the defense objects I am going to no longer allow it unless you bring in an expert to explain how zoom works on an apple device'.

To be fair, I've seen so many flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists building their case off not understanding digital artifacts, so I can kinda see the need for some degree of validation, but I think that needs to be on a case by case basis, not requiring an expert witness to explain digital zoom.

LM K wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:58 pm Anderes, your thoughts about this?

I started draft response, but I think folks will be relieved to know I haven't posted it. I appreciate you wanting to engage with me. I'm just not sure how we can make progress on the differences without basically going round in circles. Possibly there are one or two areas where it might be possible to clear up some miscommunications, though.