aggiehawg said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Today, Binger referred to FBI video during disputed drone video jury instruction arguments saying FBI video would help reinforce drone video. I don't think FBI video was shown today.

ETA: Did judge throw out FBI testimony before or after intro of drone video footage? If after, I'm thinking state moved to remove.

---

What I heard was that FBI Agent's total testimony was stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard.

---

The FBI videt was provided by Agent Cross whose testimony was stricken was the high altitude aerial video that the state so called expert annotated and labels. I have it isolated if you want to see it.

The FBI's testimony was considered incomplete because he was describing evidence and video footage that he didn't gather and had no direct ties to. He kept referring to prepared briefing notes, if I remember right, Under cross the defense asked him if he was responsible for all the evidence he just presented to the State and he said no. The judge sent him packing since everything he was saying was hearsay and scolded Binger for misleading and not notating that his witness was testifying to evidence he has know direct knowledge or attachment to. If I'm remembering it all correctly.

Yet they still allowed the State Video guy to testify about the FBI videos and they allowed them into evidence. I found that strange.

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thank you! Thank you!

That completely corroborates what Kyle said he saw. A gun in Ziminski's hand in front and to the side of him, Rosenbaum emerging from the other side of the Duramax on fire in the interior and charging at Kyle.

Just like Kyle said it happened. As traumatized as the kid is, his memory under stress is amazing. I have been in bang, bang stressful situations when events happen in a very short period of time before and immediately afterwards the shock kind of scrambled my brain until I could calm down and then replay the loop in my head.

Much like the fantastic memory of Nathan Debruin, Kyle has that ability as well. Not saying Kyle is on the autism scale but he possesses tremendous ability of perception and reaction and then recall. All without training nor muscle memory that results from such training.

---

Let's come back to this point. Which prosecution witness claimed their memory went blank after a certain point?

Can't remember off of the top of my head.

---

It was one of the guys with Balch and Rittenhouse that night.

---

McGinnis? The reporter guy?

Now that I think about it, you may be right, it was McGinnis.

Thanks!

I don't see how video from unknown sources can be admitted. Has it been modified in any way? No way to know

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Today, Binger referred to FBI video during disputed drone video jury instruction arguments saying FBI video would help reinforce drone video. I don't think FBI video was shown today.

ETA: Did judge throw out FBI testimony before or after intro of drone video footage? If after, I'm thinking state moved to remove.

---

What I heard was that FBI Agent's total testimony was stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard.

---

The FBI videt was provided by Agent Cross whose testimony was stricken was the high altitude aerial video that the state so called expert annotated and labels. I have it isolated if you want to see it.

The FBI's testimony was considered incomplete because he was describing evidence and video footage that he didn't gather and had no direct ties to. He kept referring to prepared briefing notes, if I remember right, Under cross the defense asked him if he was responsible for all the evidence he just presented to the State and he said no. The judge sent him packing since everything he was saying was hearsay and scolded Binger for misleading and not notating that his witness was testifying to evidence he has know direct knowledge or attachment to. If I'm remembering it all correctly.

Yet they still allowed the State Video guy to testify about the FBI videos and they allowed them into evidence. I found that strange.

---

You saw that testimony? I know this is a hard request but do you have a link to that? Because none of my feeds showed it.

TIA.

Guitarsoup said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Quote:

---

Thank you for your input here. Wish you had posted a bit more when all of this crap was happening IRT.

Still appreciate your contribution.

---

I dont come to this board, I was posting on a private FB group these two weeks. Someone gave me a heads up about this on here.

If anyone has any imagery questions, feel free to fire away. Would love to be on a jury like this when a ADA is trying to bull**** his way into saying pictures show something they don't show.

---

In your opinion is the DA acting in bad faith? I've watch a good bit of the trial and have been shocked at the things that state has tried to do. Is that normal?

---

I'm not an attorney, but yes, I absolutely think the DA is acting in bad faith.

He was acting in bad faith when he questioned Kyle about asserting his 5th Amendment right to be silent.
He was acting in bad faith when he questioned the journalist about asserting his 6th Amendment right to an attorney.
He was acting in bad faith when he has continually misrepresented what Kyle said in testimony, the facts of the event in his opening, and what is visible in those pictures.

If he wanted to bring a provocation defense, he needed to call Ziminski, who is under subpoena. But he chose not to, because Ziminski would be an awful witness. He didn't and he didn't call a single witness that saw Kyle point a gun at anyone.

Now the cruz of his case is that Kyle pointed a gun, provoking the pedophile, and yet he produced zero clear evidence and not a single person to testify to that they witnessed Kyle point his gun at anyone that wasn't actively attacking Kyle.

I think the ADA knows that the video doesn't show what he claims it shows, but is intentionally only showing it on that ****ty TV to have the ****ty interpolation make it murky enough that maybe he is right. He wants to have a ****ty still pulled from a video and blown up to 8x its actual size.

---

It's been amazing to watch, I agree with everything you said. Crazy times! Thanks for the response.

Guitarsoup said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Quote:

---

Thank you for your input here. Wish you had posted a bit more when all of this crap was happening IRT.

Still appreciate your contribution.

---

I dont come to this board, I was posting on a private FB group these two weeks. Someone gave me a heads up about this on here.

If anyone has any imagery questions, feel free to fire away. Would love to be on a jury like this when a ADA is trying to bull**** his way into saying pictures show something they don't show.

---

In your opinion is the DA acting in bad faith? I've watch a good bit of the trial and have been shocked at the things that state has tried to do. Is that normal?

---

I'm not an attorney, but yes, I absolutely think the DA is acting in bad faith.

He was acting in bad faith when he questioned Kyle about asserting his 5th Amendment right to be silent.
He was acting in bad faith when he questioned the journalist about asserting his 6th Amendment right to an attorney.
He was acting in bad faith when he has continually misrepresented what Kyle said in testimony, the facts of the event in his opening, and what is visible in those pictures.

If he wanted to bring a provocation defense, he needed to call Ziminski, who is under subpoena. But he chose not to, because Ziminski would be an awful witness. He didn't and he didn't call a single witness that saw Kyle point a gun at anyone.

Now the cruz of his case is that Kyle pointed a gun, provoking the pedophile, and yet he produced zero clear evidence and not a single person to testify to that they witnessed Kyle point his gun at anyone that wasn't actively attacking Kyle.

I think the ADA knows that the video doesn't show what he claims it shows, but is intentionally only showing it on that ****ty TV to have the ****ty interpolation make it murky enough that maybe he is right. He wants to have a ****ty still pulled from a video and blown up to 8x its actual size.

---

Great summary of the prosecution scumbags.

I just hope the defense puts it as clearly as possible that they have no eyewitness testimony and were unwilling to call the one guy who they claim had the gun pointed at him. I hope they tell the jury the prosecution is trying to deceive them with a blurry photo where you can barely make out its Kyle let alone see a gun or it being pointed and certainly couldn't prove who this gun is pointed at because that person is no where in the photo. They need to point out that the video came into the case mysteriously after the prosecutions own witnesses backed up the self defense claims.

aggiehawg said:

---

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Today, Binger referred to FBI video during disputed drone video jury instruction arguments saying FBI video would help reinforce drone video. I don't think FBI video was shown today.

ETA: Did judge throw out FBI testimony before or after intro of drone video footage? If after, I'm thinking state moved to remove.

---

What I heard was that FBI Agent's total testimony was stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard.

---

The FBI videt was provided by Agent Cross whose testimony was stricken was the high altitude aerial video that the state so called expert annotated and labels. I have it isolated if you want to see it.

The FBI's testimony was considered incomplete because he was describing evidence and video footage that he didn't gather and had no direct ties to. He kept referring to prepared briefing notes, if I remember right, Under cross the defense asked him if he was responsible for all the evidence he just presented to the State and he said no. The judge sent him packing since everything he was saying was hearsay and scolded Binger for misleading and not notating that his witness was testifying to evidence he has know direct knowledge or attachment to. If I'm remembering it all correctly.

Yet they still allowed the State Video guy to testify about the FBI videos and they allowed them into evidence. I found that strange.

---

You saw that testimony? I know this is a hard request but do you have a link to that? Because none of my feeds showed it.

TIA.

---

actually they turned off the cameras for Agent Cross, maybe to preserve his facial anonymity but I'm pretty sure it was only audio. I'll dig around regardless

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I don't see how video from unknown sources can be admitted.

---

Seldom are unless they are stipulated to before trial.

In hindsight, my opinion of the defense counsel might have been incorrect. What I was seeing during trial in the early going was great, they were doing well.

Now after they rested their case after basically a day, even less than that, and then today? If Kyle gets convicted on lesser offenses that put him in jail pending appeal, his defense attorneys screwed up, bigly.

Thanks, darlin'.

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thank you! Thank you!

That completely corroborates what Kyle said he saw. A gun in Ziminski's hand in front and to the side of him, Rosenbaum emerging from the other side of the Duramax on fire in the interior and charging at Kyle.

Just like Kyle said it happened. As traumatized as the kid is, his memory under stress is amazing. I have been in bang, bang stressful situations when events happen in a very short period of time before and immediately afterwards the shock kind of scrambled my brain until I could calm down and then replay the loop in my head.

Much like the fantastic memory of Nathan Debruin, Kyle has that ability as well. Not saying Kyle is on the autism scale but he possesses tremendous ability of perception and reaction and then recall. All without training nor muscle memory that results from such training.

---

Let's come back to this point. Which prosecution witness claimed their memory went blank after a certain point?

Can't remember off of the top of my head.

---

It was one of the guys with Balch and Rittenhouse that night.

---

McGinnis? The reporter guy?

Now that I think about it, you may be right, it was McGinnis.

Thanks!

---

Wasn't McInnis. It was one of the guys there to protect property. Had a military background I think.

Black?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Black?

---

That sounds right but can't recall.

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thank you! Thank you!

That completely corroborates what Kyle said he saw. A gun in Ziminski's hand in front and to the side of him, Rosenbaum emerging from the other side of the Duramax on fire in the interior and charging at Kyle.

Just like Kyle said it happened. As traumatized as the kid is, his memory under stress is amazing. I have been in bang, bang stressful situations when events happen in a very short period of time before and immediately afterwards the shock kind of scrambled my brain until I could calm down and then replay the loop in my head.

Much like the fantastic memory of Nathan Debruin, Kyle has that ability as well. Not saying Kyle is on the autism scale but he possesses tremendous ability of perception and reaction and then recall. All without training nor muscle memory that results from such training.

---

Let's come back to this point. Which prosecution witness claimed their memory went blank after a certain point?

Can't remember off of the top of my head.

---

It was one of the guys with Balch and Rittenhouse that night.

---

McGinnis? The reporter guy?

Now that I think about it, you may be right, it was McGinnis.

Thanks!

---

Wasn't McInnis. It was one of the guys there to protect property. Had a military background I think.

---

Jason Lackowich? (Ironic name) The one who encountered Kyle after the Rosenbaum shooting?

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thank you! Thank you!

That completely corroborates what Kyle said he saw. A gun in Ziminski's hand in front and to the side of him, Rosenbaum emerging from the other side of the Duramax on fire in the interior and charging at Kyle.

Just like Kyle said it happened. As traumatized as the kid is, his memory under stress is amazing. I have been in bang, bang stressful situations when events happen in a very short period of time before and immediately afterwards the shock kind of scrambled my brain until I could calm down and then replay the loop in my head.

Much like the fantastic memory of Nathan Debruin, Kyle has that ability as well. Not saying Kyle is on the autism scale but he possesses tremendous ability of perception and reaction and then recall. All without training nor muscle memory that results from such training.

---

Let's come back to this point. Which prosecution witness claimed their memory went blank after a certain point?

Can't remember off of the top of my head.

---

It was one of the guys with Balch and Rittenhouse that night.

---

McGinnis? The reporter guy?

Now that I think about it, you may be right, it was McGinnis.

Thanks!

---

Wasn't McInnis. It was one of the guys there to protect property. Had a military background I think.

---

Jason Lackowich? (Ironic name) The one who encountered Kyle after the Rosenbaum shooting?

---

WOW! Just tried to google that name in the Rittenhouse trial and all I got were obits. This trial's proceedings are already being memory holed.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thank you! Thank you!

That completely corroborates what Kyle said he saw. A gun in Ziminski's hand in front and to the side of him, Rosenbaum emerging from the other side of the Duramax on fire in the interior and charging at Kyle.

Just like Kyle said it happened. As traumatized as the kid is, his memory under stress is amazing. I have been in bang, bang stressful situations when events happen in a very short period of time before and immediately afterwards the shock kind of scrambled my brain until I could calm down and then replay the loop in my head.

Much like the fantastic memory of Nathan Debruin, Kyle has that ability as well. Not saying Kyle is on the autism scale but he possesses tremendous ability of perception and reaction and then recall. All without training nor muscle memory that results from such training.

---

Let's come back to this point. Which prosecution witness claimed their memory went blank after a certain point?

Can't remember off of the top of my head.

---

It was one of the guys with Balch and Rittenhouse that night.

---

McGinnis? The reporter guy?

Now that I think about it, you may be right, it was McGinnis.

Thanks!

---

Wasn't McInnis. It was one of the guys there to protect property. Had a military background I think.

---

Jason Lackowich? (Ironic name) The one who encountered Kyle after the Rosenbaum shooting?

---

WOW! Just tried to google that name in the Rittenhouse trial and all I got were obits. This trial's proceedings are already being memory holed.

---

Yep, which is why GG is doing media, trying to make the public have the right memory before we move on! It's sick to watch.

aggiehawg said:

---

Reminder about the problems with the gun charge.

Quote:

---

Ambiguous Gun Charge & Treacherous Jury Instructions

That still leaves Kyle, however, with one remaining charge: Count 6, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person-under-18 charge, under 948.60(a)(2). This is a mere misdemeanor charge, and if convicted Kyle is punishable by up to 9 months in jail (presumably lessened by any time served prior to trial).

This gun charge has, indeed, become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting that statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in this case.

Also, because Kyle's claim of self-defense, compelling against the felony charges against him, is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge. There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law. (Some of you may be thinking that an excuse defense of necessity or lesser harms might apply hereit would not, for reasons I'll explain below.)

The relevant part of 948.60 reads:
(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it's pretty much an open and shut conviction.

He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon ("dangerous weapon" means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, 948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to 948.60(a)(2)2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Childand specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:
[ol]

The defendant possessed an object.

The object was a dangerous weapon.

The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

[/ol]Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle's would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute 948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was "not in compliance" with 29.304 and 29.593, the 948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at allthat is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of 948.60 entirely.

So, what are 29.304 and 29.593?

The second of those, 29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditionsand therefore, they argue, Kyle is "not in compliance" with 29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that 29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore 29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of 948.60(3)(c) says it applies only "if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593." It does not read "ss. 29.304 or 29.593."

So, even if Kyle can be said to be "not in compliance" with 29.593, was he also "not in compliance" with 29.304?

If we take a closer look at 29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minutehow can Kyle be "not in compliance" with a statute that applies only to "persons under 16 years of age"? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that's precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of 29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute's age range. And if he's exempt, he can't be "not in compliance."

And if he can't be "not in compliance with ss. 29.304," he is exempt from 948.60(a)(2) "unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph 948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with 29.304.

The State's counter-argument to this plain reading of the statutory language is that, well, the legislature titled 948.60 "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18," so they must have meant some application to "persons under 18." After all, Kyle was admittedly under 18 at the time of these events

We may not understand exactly what the legislature was trying to get at, the State is arguing, but surely they were getting at somethingand therefore we should ignore the plain statutory language, and subject Kyle to criminal sanction under this statute.

In effect, the State's argument here is, pay no attention to the plain reading of the statutory language behind the curtain, because I am the great and powerful ADA Oz! Really, it's ridiculousand ridiculous ought have no role in a court of law where criminal sanctions and personal liberty are at stake.

Also, ADA Jim Kraus has engaged in some handwaving to the court, arguing that, "hey, this is just a fact question, and fact questions out to go to the jury." Well, it's true that fact questions ought to go to the jury, so that's an argument that on its face is always attractive to any trial judge.

---

Quote:

---

More importantly, ADA Kraus knows what "go the jury" meansit means the jury gets the Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instruction on 948.60(a)(2). And that jury instruction, WCJI 2176, says not one word about the (3)(c) exceptions to that gun possession statute, makes no reference whatever to 29.304, and if plainly relied on by the jury will certainly result in a conviction that would appear contrary to the plain reading of the relevant statutory language.

In truth, this is not a fact question at allthis is a question of law. And questions of law do not fall within the province of the jury, they fall within the province of the judge.

---

Read the rest HERE

---

It would seem a bit odd to try him as an adult for violation of a statute against children having a weapon.

Quote:

---

This whole time I thought the prosecution was completely inept and were grasping at straws the entire time. But they did some rope-a-dope ish the last two days. Credit Fatlock and Binger. They had one hail Mary shot to win this case, and I think they actually pulled it off.

---

They had one Hale Mary to stay in the game. They haven't won anything yet. They're still down and need an onside kick and another Hale Mary with closing arguments.

4stringAg said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Quote:

---

Thank you for your input here. Wish you had posted a bit more when all of this crap was happening IRT.

Still appreciate your contribution.

---

I dont come to this board, I was posting on a private FB group these two weeks. Someone gave me a heads up about this on here.

If anyone has any imagery questions, feel free to fire away. Would love to be on a jury like this when a ADA is trying to bull**** his way into saying pictures show something they don't show.

---

In your opinion is the DA acting in bad faith? I've watch a good bit of the trial and have been shocked at the things that state has tried to do. Is that normal?

---

I'm not an attorney, but yes, I absolutely think the DA is acting in bad faith.

He was acting in bad faith when he questioned Kyle about asserting his 5th Amendment right to be silent.
He was acting in bad faith when he questioned the journalist about asserting his 6th Amendment right to an attorney.
He was acting in bad faith when he has continually misrepresented what Kyle said in testimony, the facts of the event in his opening, and what is visible in those pictures.

If he wanted to bring a provocation defense, he needed to call Ziminski, who is under subpoena. But he chose not to, because Ziminski would be an awful witness. He didn't and he didn't call a single witness that saw Kyle point a gun at anyone.

Now the cruz of his case is that Kyle pointed a gun, provoking the pedophile, and yet he produced zero clear evidence and not a single person to testify to that they witnessed Kyle point his gun at anyone that wasn't actively attacking Kyle.

I think the ADA knows that the video doesn't show what he claims it shows, but is intentionally only showing it on that ****ty TV to have the ****ty interpolation make it murky enough that maybe he is right. He wants to have a ****ty still pulled from a video and blown up to 8x its actual size.

---

Great summary of the prosecution scumbags.

I just hope the defense puts it as clearly as possible that they have no eyewitness testimony and were unwilling to call the one guy who they claim had the gun pointed at him. I hope they tell the jury the prosecution is trying to deceive them with a blurry photo where you can barely make out its Kyle let alone see a gun or it being pointed and certainly couldn't prove who this gun is pointed at because that person is no where in the photo. They need to point out that the video came into the case mysteriously after the prosecutions own witnesses backed up the self defense claims.

---

**** no. You beat the drum of "Not one witness saw Kyle point a gun at anyone." Kyle was a peacemaker according to Drew. Kyle was cleaning graffiti off his community's buildings. You wouldn't say anything about what Ziminski would claim because it is not in evidence.

What I might do is crop into another photo. Ask the jury if they can see beyond a reasonable doubt:



Here you go, this is from admitted evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Who is this
2. What are they doing
3. what are they holding


it's a random ****ing person, and I have no clue what they are doing or what they are holding

Are you going to decide someone's life on that?

Kyle is the type of kid that enlists the day after pearl harbor. The rioters are axis saboteurs. The MSM is Tokyo Rose.

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thank you! Thank you!

That completely corroborates what Kyle said he saw. A gun in Ziminski's hand in front and to the side of him, Rosenbaum emerging from the other side of the Duramax on fire in the interior and charging at Kyle.

Just like Kyle said it happened. As traumatized as the kid is, his memory under stress is amazing. I have been in bang, bang stressful situations when events happen in a very short period of time before and immediately afterwards the shock kind of scrambled my brain until I could calm down and then replay the loop in my head.

Much like the fantastic memory of Nathan Debruin, Kyle has that ability as well. Not saying Kyle is on the autism scale but he possesses tremendous ability of perception and reaction and then recall. All without training nor muscle memory that results from such training.

---

Let's come back to this point. Which prosecution witness claimed their memory went blank after a certain point?

Can't remember off of the top of my head.

---

It was one of the guys with Balch and Rittenhouse that night.

---

McGinnis? The reporter guy?

Now that I think about it, you may be right, it was McGinnis.

Thanks!

---

Wasn't McInnis. It was one of the guys there to protect property. Had a military background I think.

---

Jason Lackowich? (Ironic name) The one who encountered Kyle after the Rosenbaum shooting?

---

I think that's him. I remember he had a funky sounding name

aTmAg said:

---

Kyle is the type of kid that enlists the day after pearl harbor. The rioters are axis saboteurs. The MSM is Tokyo Rose.

---

Deserves this meme

Bernie Goetz says, "Hold my beer."

aTmAg said:

---

Kyle is the type of kid that enlists the day after pearl harbor. The rioters are axis saboteurs. The MSM is Tokyo Rose.

---

My grandfather drove to San Antonio to enlist on Dec. 8th. From Coldspring, Texas. He went to the Pacific and told that story until he passed in 2003.

Y'all do realize that this is just a distraction. Political theater. Same with the Gabby Petito thing. Distraction.

Nothing more than soap operas to get the public's attention away from real criminal activity.

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Y'all do realize that this is just a distraction. Political theater. Same with the Gabby Petito thing. Distraction.

Nothing more than soap operas to get the public's attention away from real criminal activity.

---

No, I don't believe this is the same. This has actual real world consequences involved far beyond the defendant.

saw this and chuckled and thought all the b.a.s. sufferers could use something to lighten the mood

As a EE of 20 years working on embedded SoCs with display output and camera input capabilities, I am forced to make one of two decisions:

Either 1), the prosecution and their awful witness are complexity incompetent on the subject of imaging and digital zoom.

Or 2), they know more than they let on and put a dumbass on the stand in bad faith who could truthfully answer "I don't know" when pressed by the defense on the issue of scaling, interpolation, or decimation.

Option 2 seems far more plausible to me. Just as I stated in the other thread I think this forensic analyst was nothing more than a software operator who knows how to select functions from the menu bar. That alone should had been disqualifying in regards to this image. The prosecution should have been asked to produce an actual imaging expert or have the zoomed photo rejected.

To that end, I was completely disappointed the defense did not completely shred the so-called expert and his image. It sucks immensely that this was a late admisssion and they likely didn't have time to have a real expert talk more in-depth or provide photographic samples of enlargement vs digital zoom, etc. it is also frustrating to no end that the idea of the images being displayed on phone screens, 4k TVs or the judge's monitor was not explored and defined.

For instance the video today was shown basically fullscreen on a 4K TV that has a relatively good hardware scaler. Not once was the native resolution of the image or video even questioned. So even though the defense hemmed and hawed about the expert zooming the submitted image, it is also likely the display used was upscaling as well.

In an era of displays and cameras everywhere, I was appalled at the basic lack of technical understanding all around the courthouse today relative to imagining. This is stuff that I expert interns and new grads to know when interviewing.

I probably missed this but can somebody remind me why neither of Zaminskis testified. Allegedly Kyle pointed a gun at them and that's what triggered Rosenbaum to chase so shouldn't they be questioned. Also they fired the first shot and do we know why

Dan Scott said:

---

I probably missed this but can somebody remind me why neither of Zaminskis testified. Allegedly Kyle pointed a gun at them and that's what triggered Rosenbaum to chase so shouldn't they be questioned. Also they fired the first shot and do we know why

---

Cause the prosectors are dirty, rotten, and liars.

Dan Scott said:

---

I probably missed this but can somebody remind me why neither of Zaminskis testified. Allegedly Kyle pointed a gun at them and that's what triggered Rosenbaum to chase so shouldn't they be questioned. Also they fired the first shot and do we know why

---

Both Ziminskis face arson and disorderly conduct charges from the events of that night. I'm sure their attorneys would instruct them to invoke the 5th. Judge should have allowed them to be called and take the 5th in front of the jury on very narrow questions though.

BTW, Gaige Grosskreutz had criminal charges of his own that were dropped by the prosecution just days before he testified.

Defense can bring up the fact that they didn't testify, right? Would be a pretty powerful argument to make. If the prosecution thinks that a gun was being pointed at them, which provoked the entire incident, then why didn't they put them on the stand to testify to that fact?

Captain Positivity said:

---

Defense can bring up the fact that they didn't testify, right? Would be a pretty powerful argument to make. If the prosecution thinks that a gun was being pointed at them, which provoked the entire incident, then why didn't they put them on the stand to testify to that fact?

---

No reason to mention them.

Defense will absolutely say that not a single person testified to seeing Kyle Rittenhouse instigate or provoke anything.

All testimony and video prior to Rosenbum chasing Kyle shows Kyle being a peacemaker, rendering first aid, and putting out fires.

There is not a single clear photo or video to contradict all the testimony they heard.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Captain Positivity said:

---

Defense can bring up the fact that they didn't testify, right? Would be a pretty powerful argument to make. If the prosecution thinks that a gun was being pointed at them, which provoked the entire incident, then why didn't they put them on the stand to testify to that fact?

---

No reason to mention them.

Defense will absolutely say that not a single person testified to seeing Kyle Rittenhouse instigate or provoke anything.

All testimony and video prior to Rosenbum chasing Kyle shows Kyle being a peacemaker, rendering first aid, and putting out fires.

There is not a single clear photo or video to contradict all the testimony they heard.

---

Criminal trial closing arguments are not the same as civil trial arguments. There are a lot of things that are not allowed. Most of the prohibitions are on the prosecution but some are on defense counsel as well.

Commenting on the absence of certain witnesses that have been mentioned during trial but not called to the stand is one of those for the defense. They can do it obliquely but not directly. Reason being is the jury is supposed to decide the case on the evidence adduced at trial and not speculate on what they didn't see, nor the how and why they didn't see it.

Where it gets tricky here is that the defense knows the prosecution is going to use that provocation charge heavily in order to try to get the jury to negate the self defense claim. But because neither Ziminski testified, the evidence of such provocation is only a blob of a photo. Defense can attack that exhibit directly and then add that there has been no other live witness testimony of anyone who was there that night of Kyle in any way was being aggressive or screaming or confrontational. Defense can mention a detective thought Kyle might of raised his rifle (show the blob photo) from this but he wasn't there that night. Then hammer it home, there has been absolutely no testimony of anyone with knowledge that night of Kyle provoking anyone because it never happened.

aggiehawg said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Captain Positivity said:

---

Defense can bring up the fact that they didn't testify, right? Would be a pretty powerful argument to make. If the prosecution thinks that a gun was being pointed at them, which provoked the entire incident, then why didn't they put them on the stand to testify to that fact?

---

No reason to mention them.

Defense will absolutely say that not a single person testified to seeing Kyle Rittenhouse instigate or provoke anything.

All testimony and video prior to Rosenbum chasing Kyle shows Kyle being a peacemaker, rendering first aid, and putting out fires.

There is not a single clear photo or video to contradict all the testimony they heard.

---

Criminal trial closing arguments are not the same as civil trial arguments. There are a lot of things that are not allowed. Most of the prohibitions are on the prosecution but some are on defense counsel as well.

Commenting on the absence of certain witnesses that have been mentioned during trial but not called to the stand is one of those for the defense. They can do it obliquely but not directly. Reason being is the jury is supposed to decide the case on the evidence adduced at trial and not speculate on what they didn't see, nor the how and why they didn't see it.

Where it gets tricky here is that the defense knows the prosecution is going to use that provocation charge heavily in order to try to get the jury to negate the self defense claim. But because neither Ziminski testified, the evidence of such provocation is only a blob of a photo. Defense can attack that exhibit directly and then add that there has been no other live witness testimony of anyone who was there that night of Kyle in any way was being aggressive or screaming or confrontational. Defense can mention a detective thought Kyle might of raised his rifle (show the blob photo) from this but he wasn't there that night. Then hammer it home, there has been absolutely no testimony of anyone with knowledge that night of Kyle provoking anyone because it never happened.

---

Yeah, the defense wouldn't need to stay anything about the Ziminskis because they werent called.

But they can talk about the testimony of the dozen or so eye witnesses that did testify and not a single one of them testified that Kyle was a provocateur.

They absolutely wouldn't speculate about what the Ziminskis would have said. There's no need.

No one in the room felt the need to say or do anything about an ‘accused double murderer’ leaning over the judge from behind, completely unshackled

Tells you everything you need to know pic.twitter.com/PhgtwaYQEa

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 13, 2021