Quote:

---

As for why the judge allowed the enhanced photos into the record, he erred. Made a big fat mistake that hopefully doesn't come back to haunt him or Kyle.

---

Since there was no testimony from anyone saying what is supposedly depicted in the images, can the State give their opinion during closing. I would think that would be the prosecutors testifying themselves as to what they think they see.

I know you typically don't object during open/close but that would be a time where I think it would require it.

txags92 said:

---

So how can the state "add lesser charges" at this point in the trial? If they do, does the defense get to present new witnesses or testimony defending against those charges?

---

Misnomer. They are not additional charge in the true sense. They would be lesser included offenses within the charges. Like intentional murder versus voluntary manslaughter. Still a homicide but if the state can't prove intent, the jury can still hold a defendant accountable for the death, nor matter how accidental it might have been.

In the Chauvin case, much of the legal commentary before the trial was the AG Ellison had overcharged Chauvin. Not that many people are commenting about Kyle being overcharged because it is clear he did fire his weapon and two people died as a result. But his self defense claim as to all three that he shot is very strong irrespective of the actual charges. Kyle did not shoot anyone that was not attacking him.

javajaws said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

with all this talk of enlarging and pixels, how have i not heard even once a discussion of what the native resolution of the image is, and also the resolution of the display screen? seems relevant to me if we are even going to have this discussion

---

It's because none of these people are real experts on the subject matter. It's the equivalent of watching Alec Baldwin give a lecture on gun safety.

---

Many members of the media couldn't cut it in a hard science or technical field. Yet, we look to them for expertise on almost everything under the sun, because they are merely "reporting". I'm glad to be done thinking that way.

State is Requesting ADDITIONAL CHARGES Against Kyle Rittenhouse, HAPPENING RIGHT NOW

— Rekieta Media (@RekietaMedia) November 11, 2021

This is my shocked face.

Yep, Armstrong's algorithm certainly doesn't add pixels. Just turned a completely gray area white.

Quote:

---

Yep, Armstrong's algorithm certainly doesn't add pixels. Just turned a completely gray area white.

---

Not to mention the "halo" above the sign...

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

State is Requesting ADDITIONAL CHARGES Against Kyle Rittenhouse, HAPPENING RIGHT NOW

— Rekieta Media (@RekietaMedia) November 11, 2021

This is my shocked face.

---

Lesser included or new new?

aezmvp said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

State is Requesting ADDITIONAL CHARGES Against Kyle Rittenhouse, HAPPENING RIGHT NOW

— Rekieta Media (@RekietaMedia) November 11, 2021

This is my shocked face.

---

Lesser included or new new?

---

Lesser included.

Yep, I wanna say this is from State of Fear.

I still don't see anything there. Looks like there is an oompa loompa there in a glowing shirt. If I didnt know that there was a gun slung across his chest I would assume it was messenger bag. Definitely do not see pointing of anything

aggietony2010 said:

---

Yep, Armstrong's algorithm certainly doesn't add pixels. Just turned a completely gray area white.

---

Seeing those in that size, I would have a hard time even saying the subject of the two was exactly the same. too many differences. Could be two different stills taken from the drone video as far as I am concerned.

If anyone had any lingering doubts, Binger just confirmed that the Rittenhouse trial is indeed a political trial… @RekietaMedia @UncivilLaw @legalbytesmedia @TheLegalMindset @NiermanJoe @IanRunkle @plellison pic.twitter.com/6e2xfYv88u

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) November 11, 2021

aggietony2010 said:

---

Yep, Armstrong's algorithm certainly doesn't add pixels. Just turned a completely gray area white.

---

This is a hail mary to muddy the waters on the key event. They could easily call zeminsky to testify that Kyle pointed his gun at him.

What additional charges are being brought? I guess the state is hoping the jury will convict on lesser charges since they **** the bed on their case? This is ludicrous!

hbtheduce said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Yep, Armstrong's algorithm certainly doesn't add pixels. Just turned a completely gray area white.

---

This is a hail mary to muddy the waters on the key event. They could easily call zeminsky to testify that Kyle pointed his gun at him.

---

Oh absolutely. Even after the totally legit non pixel adding enhancements it's still garbage.

GarryowenAg said:

---

What additional charges are being brought? I guess the state is hoping the jury will convict on lesser charges since they **** the bed on their case? This is ludicrous!

---

That's what I was thinking, but I don't know crap about law. In my view they decided to throw a bunch of **** out there and hope that something sticks.

lunchbox said:

---

Quote:

---

As for why the judge allowed the enhanced photos into the record, he erred. Made a big fat mistake that hopefully doesn't come back to haunt him or Kyle.

---

Since there was no testimony from anyone saying what is supposedly depicted in the images, can the State give their opinion during closing. I would think that would be the prosecutors testifying themselves as to what they think they see.

I know you typically don't object during open/close but that would be a time where I think it would require it.

---

I'm bumping this question as a non-lawyer if anyone can answer? Can the state show this picture in closing and say it's a picture of Kyle pointing his gun even if no one testified to that?

GarryowenAg said:

---

What additional charges are being brought? I guess the state is hoping the jury will convict on lesser charges since they **** the bed on their case? This is ludicrous!

---

I'm guessing they're hoping for a compromise verdict on a lesser charge if they end up with a couple that really want to convict Kyle and no one willing to hold firm to not guilty.

Which is bull**** because if self defense is a defense to murder it should be a defense to lesser charges too.

Quote:

---

939.66 Conviction of included crime permitted. Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included crime, but not both. An included crime may be any of the following:
(1) A crime which does not require proof of any fact in addition to those which must be proved for the crime charged.
(2) A crime which is a less serious type of criminal homicide under subch. I of ch. 940 than the one charged.
(2m) A crime which is a less serious or equally serious type of battery than the one charged.
(2p) A crime which is a less serious or equally serious type of violation under s. 948.02 than the one charged.
(2r) A crime which is a less serious type of violation under s. 943.23 than the one charged.
(3) A crime which is the same as the crime charged except that it requires recklessness or negligence while the crime charged requires a criminal intent.
(4) An attempt in violation of s. 939.32 to commit the crime charged.
(4m) A crime of failure to timely pay child support under s. 948.22 (3) when the crime charged is failure to pay child support for more than 120 days under s. 948.22 (2).
(5) The crime of attempted battery when the crime charged is sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, robbery, mayhem or aggravated battery or an attempt to commit any of them.
(6) A crime specified in s. 940.285 (2) (b) 4. or 5. when the crime charged is specified in s. 940.19 (2) to (6), 940.225 (1), (2) or (3) or 940.30.
(6c) A crime that is a less serious type of violation under s. 940.285 than the one charged.
(6e) A crime that is a less serious type of violation under s. 940.295 than the one charged.
(7) The crime specified in s. 940.11 (2) when the crime charged is specified in s. 940.11 (1).

---

Link

It is an either/or proposition, not both. In that sense they are not "additional" charges. People need to calm down about this.

WTF!? A new enhanced picture

https://twitter.com/TreWillsDFS/status/1458938327307014149?t=P1Lx0ks6Axys4kdd0UHV0g&s=19

The lawyers can say what they think evidence does or does not show

SwigAg11 said:

---

lunchbox said:

---

Quote:

---

As for why the judge allowed the enhanced photos into the record, he erred. Made a big fat mistake that hopefully doesn't come back to haunt him or Kyle.

---

Since there was no testimony from anyone saying what is supposedly depicted in the images, can the State give their opinion during closing. I would think that would be the prosecutors testifying themselves as to what they think they see.

I know you typically don't object during open/close but that would be a time where I think it would require it.

---

I'm bumping this question as a non-lawyer if anyone can answer? Can the state show this picture in closing and say it's a picture of Kyle pointing his gun even if no one testified to that?

---

Short answer yes. Because someone did testify to it, albeit haltingly. Detective Antaranian. The guy related to the Mayor and City Attorney of Kenosha. He said he saw it on his phone and did the pinch zoom or whatever the hell he called it.

If this shows Kyle Rittenhouse holding the rifle, how did he suddenly become left-handed?

They can do anything with computers now! pic.twitter.com/W2m66tVvsK

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 11, 2021

aggietony2010 said:

---

Yep, Armstrong's algorithm certainly doesn't add pixels. Just turned a completely gray area white.

---

Is this the image that the prosecution claims shows Kyle pointing a gun?

Gator92 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

The fact that someone could be convicted just from a still image is frightening. Even it it wasn't enhanced, a still image can be very misleading.

I don't think the defense did a good job to this point hammering this home over and over to the jury that if it was them they wouldn't want that unfair judgment being used on them.

They better bring their A game in closing.

---

What about acquittal?

---

I'm good with acquittal.

Not conviction.

I'd rather 1000 guilty walk free than 1 innocent go to jail for life.... or something like that.

My point being depending on the angle a still picture isn't enough. It has to be the totality of evidence, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Yep, Armstrong's algorithm certainly doesn't add pixels. Just turned a completely gray area white.

---

Seeing those in that size, I would have a hard time even saying the subject of the two was exactly the same. too many differences. Could be two different stills taken from the drone video as far as I am concerned.

---

From my eye, any attempt to present this photo as showing anything even remotely resembling conclusive should be considered an ethics violation.

Spotted Ag said:

---

WTF!? A new enhanced picture

https://twitter.com/TreWillsDFS/status/1458938327307014149?t=P1Lx0ks6Axys4kdd0UHV0g&s=19

---

No that is ****ed up.

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Finally caught up on the thread after being away most of the day. Confused on a couple of things:

1) Why did the judge allow the enlarged photo for the prosecution when the "expert" admitted the pixels were added and that the image was altered as a result?

2) What are the lesser charges the prosecution will be adding? Will these be charges that this jury will have to decide upon?

3) what were they saying about Rittenhouse lying about being enrolled at ASU and where he got the bullet proof vest? Did they bring up those arguments to the jury?

---

Number three was dropped by the prosecution when they rested their rebuttal case. Those are off the table and the jury never heard about that.

As for why the judge allowed the enhanced photos into the record, he erred. Made a big fat mistake that hopefully doesn't come back to haunt him or Kyle.

It is standard in many states that juries get instructed on lesser included offenses to the charges. Like if one is charged with intentional homicide, jury can also be instructed on voluntary manslaughter if the element of intent is in doubt. Gives the jury an out for a compromise verdict instead of being hung.

---

Hawg, as to bolded above, do judges ever get late-night phone calls from colleagues etc. who think he/she might have erred on a ruling, or is that kind of pre-verdict communication out-of-bounds?

Going back to the "lesser charges" thing for a minute, if say a manslaughter lesser charge is added to give the jury a compromise charge, can the jury instructions include a statement like "if you feel that the defendant did this in self defense, you must enter an acquittal vote on ALL related lesser charges to the original charge"

I guess I can't get past this notion that if he killed these guys in self-defense, he shouldn't be convicted of any charge whether that's murder, or manslaughter. Seems a "compromise" is bull**** and still sends this kid to jail just because the jury feels like "he did something".

BMX Bandit said:

---

The lawyers can say what they think evidence does or does not show

---

Well, yes and no. Binger can't stand there and say, "You all heard Kyle Rittenhouse say he came to Kenosha that night to kill as many people as he could! But he found out it's not that easy to just indiscriminately shoot people so he stopped with three. It's only after he was caught by the police that he claimed self defense."

But given how much Binger has lied thus far, I wouldn't put such a scenario past him. He's really really bad on his voice intonations, facial expressions and body language.

How many times have you openly rolled your eyes at a judge?

ETA: Early in my career, I once made the mistake of looking down at my notes while a judge was addressing me without yet asking me a question as I was preparing my response to his question that I was anticipating. Judge barked at me, "When the court is addressing you, young lady, you have your eyes on me!" Turns out that particular Judge, Judge Cole, was really hard on new lawyers and let them know how he ran his courtroom in no uncertain terms. Thing was he never ruled against me though.

4stringAg said:

---

Going back to the "lesser charges" thing for a minute, if say a manslaughter lesser charge is added to give the jury a compromise charge, can the jury instructions include a statement like "if you feel that the defendant did this in self defense, you must enter an acquittal vote on ALL related lesser charges to the original charge"

I guess I can't get past this notion that if he killed these guys in self-defense, he shouldn't be convicted of any charge whether that's murder, or manslaughter. Seems a "compromise" is bull**** and still sends this kid to jail just because the jury feels like "he did something".

---

The only charges that self defense don't specifically address are the reckless endangerment and the gun charge, IMO.

4stringAg said:

---

Going back to the "lesser charges" thing for a minute, if say a manslaughter lesser charge is added to give the jury a compromise charge, can the jury instructions include a statement like "if you feel that the defendant did this in self defense, you must enter an acquittal vote on ALL related lesser charges to the original charge"

I guess I can't get past this notion that if he killed these guys in self-defense, he shouldn't be convicted of any charge whether that's murder, or manslaughter. Seems a "compromise" is bull**** and still sends this kid to jail just because the jury feels like "he did something".

---

Waaaay to many people make decisions based on their feelings instead of reality and logic. The old saying, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six doesn't really apply anymore because the 12 that may be judging you could be freaking moronic communists. Our country as it is right now is not one in which I want to be judged by my peers because there are only a handful of people that I would trust to make a decision of this magnitude and I know they wouldn't be on the jury.

I know why the prosecution want's to include the "photo" of Kyle "pointing" his weapon at Rosenbaum. They think they can argue a "provocation" exception to the shooting. Supposedly his pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum provoked his attack.

Ignoring the fact that those enhanced photos don't show sheiet, simply pointing your weapon at someone and then running away is not sufficient to justify a "provoked" attack, especially in light of the fact that Rosenbaum threatened Kyle earlier in the evening which makes him pointing his weapon at him justified in the first place.

This is a Hale Mary by the prosecution.

AggieUSMC said:

---

I know why the prosecution want's to include the "photo" of Kyle "pointing" his weapon at Rosenbaum. They think they can argue a "provocation" exception to the shooting. Supposedly his pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum provoked his attack.

Ignoring the fact that those enhanced photos don't show sheiet, simply pointing your weapon at someone and then running away is not sufficient to justify a "provoked" attack, especially in light of the fact that Rosenbaum threatened Kyle earlier in the evening which makes him pointing his weapon at him justified in the first place.

This is a Hale Mary by the prosecution.

---

And there was at least one witness today that testified that Rosenbaum was stalking Kyle before the shooting took place.

Quote:

---

Waaaay to many people make decisions based on their feelings instead of reality and logic. The old saying, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six doesn't really apply anymore because the 12 that may be judging you could be freaking moronic communists. Our country as it is right now is not one in which I want to be judged by my peers because there are only a handful of people that I would trust to make a decision of this magnitude and I know they wouldn't be on the jury.

---

As the saying goes, the jury is basically 12 people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.