****Kyle Rittenhouse Trial-Day 11 VERDICT WATCH****

127,041 Views | 1222 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Icecream_Ag
Señor Chang
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 11:39a, 11/16/21
AG 2000' said:
Spotted Ag said:
Multiple people on that jury voted for Biden. That is all I need to know about the decision making ability of those morons. Sucks for Kyle.
Yeah, heart sunk a bit hearing Barnes talk about how five of them were masked the whole time. What are the odds any of the covidians ended up in the alternate's list today?
If I was on the jury, I would strongly consider wearing a mask just so there's less chance I got doxxed.

But I'm guessing that's not why they are wearing masks.
Reply Quote
Aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sully Dog • 11:39a, 11/16/21
Sully Dog said:
Spotted Ag said:
Multiple people on that jury voted for Biden. That is all I need to know about the decision making ability of those morons. Sucks for Kyle.
I can't quite agree. My wife voted for Biden and has told me multiple times that she regrets having done so


Not to change subject but that shows the stupidity of people that voted for Biden without really knowing why they voted for him.
He is performing 100% as expected so if you voted for him.. you shouldn't suprised.
You should of done your homework and voted for the better presidential candidate in the first place
Reply Quote
TAMUallen
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sully Dog • 11:40a, 11/16/21
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.


That would be huge and I don't see why the case wouldn't then be dismissed
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sully Dog • 11:40a, 11/16/21
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.
Reply Quote
Who?mikejones!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40a, 11/16/21
My biggest concern is one or more of the jurors have bought into the argument that Kyle shouldn't have been there at all and him being there led to this situation even though there's no matter of illegality in his presence.

Reply Quote
Sully Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie • 11:41a, 11/16/21
Yep, I send her a weekly email reminding who she voted for and what she voted for. Its really keeping the marriage spicy.
Deplorable Neanderthal Clinger
Reply Quote
Sully Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 11:41a, 11/16/21
powerbelly said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.
These lawyers suck
Deplorable Neanderthal Clinger
Reply Quote
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NASAg03 • 11:41a, 11/16/21
Thought about that as well, might be more about concealment vs being woke.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Not a Bot • 11:42a, 11/16/21
Captain Positivity said:
All this means is that the foreperson, and likely some others, want to be methodical and walk through the law. That means they are trying their best to apply the evidence to what the instructions are.
My take is that it shows there is likely some disagreement, and they are going to work through this methodically.

It will all come down to who is leading the conversation, IMO.
Reply Quote
Stringfellow Hawke
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:42a, 11/16/21
AggieHawg should be granted temporary staff status so I can just read her posts.
Reply Quote
Marvin_Zindler
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Legalize-It-Ags • 11:43a, 11/16/21
Legalize-It-Ags said:
Emotional Support Cobra said:
Wanting individual copies does not bother me at all.
Are you a lawyer? If so, why does it not bother you? if not, why does it not bother you?
I'm a lawyer. They all want to look at the instructions at the same time as they are discussing. It's same reason everyone gets a copy of the slide deck at the big quarterly sales meeting.
Reply Quote
Legalize-It-Ags
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sully Dog • 11:43a, 11/16/21
Sully Dog said:
Yep, I send her a weekly email reminding who she voted for and what she voted for. Its really keeping the marriage spicy.
Reminding her every week of a horrible, terrible decision she made sounds like a formula for an awesome time. With my wife... it's would I rather be right, or would I rather be happy. Easy decision for me lol
Reply Quote
Not a Bot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sully Dog • 11:43a, 11/16/21
Sully Dog said:
powerbelly said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.
These lawyers suck


They objected to it being allowed into evidence. That will hopefully preserve the record so that this new information can be brought up on appeal if necessary. If you don't object to something at the time, it makes it incredibly difficult to bring it back up on appeal.
Reply Quote
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 11:44a, 11/16/21
powerbelly said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.


They might not have known. They have a lot to do right now, the lawtubers don't.
Reply Quote
Gator92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:44a, 11/16/21
Blog from Amped Software...


Quote:
According to the above:
  • Image enhancement with AI shouldn't be acceptable in general for evidentiary use.
  • Image enhancement with AI may be acceptable for investigative use, provided the following safeguards are in place:
    • Disclosure. The operator is extremely careful in making sure the results of the processing won't be used as evidence in court later on, for example informing the stakeholders and clearly labeling the image with some wording such as "not for evidentiary purposes" or similar.
    • Education. The operator has been trained on the reliability and the pitfalls of using AI processed imagery, is aware of the potential biases introduced by it, both at the technological and human levels, and there are processes in place to mitigate them.

https://blog.ampedsoftware.com/2021/10/05/can-ai-be-used-for-forensics-and-investigations/
Reply Quote
MAROON
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:44a, 11/16/21
after watching a lot of this trial I don't see how a reasonable person could vote guilty. Now I fully expect there are a few on the jury who are not reasonable and who went in with a preconceived notion to convict. For that reason I think this ends up as a hung jury.
What do you boys want for breakfast BBQ ?.....OK Chili.
Reply Quote
4stringAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:44a, 11/16/21
hawg, what happens if the jury comes back with a unanimous guilty on all counts verdict? I know Kyle will appeal but does the judge have authority to step in an reverse that verdict? I mean, anyone being objective knows the prosecution did nothing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed these guys in cold blood or to disprove the self defense claims.

To me if the verdict comes back guilty, I have to think its only a guilty based on political expediency or jury intimidation, not facts or justice.
Reply Quote
Legalize-It-Ags
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Marvin_Zindler • 11:44a, 11/16/21
Marvin_Zindler said:
Legalize-It-Ags said:
Emotional Support Cobra said:
Wanting individual copies does not bother me at all.
Are you a lawyer? If so, why does it not bother you? if not, why does it not bother you?
I'm a lawyer. They all want to look at the instructions at the same time as they are discussing. It's same reason everyone gets a copy of the slide deck at the big quarterly sales meeting.
Thats some crazy slime in the ice machine!
Reply Quote
P.H. Dexippus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sully Dog • 11:44a, 11/16/21
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.

Lol. Built in reversible error. Judge should've performed his gatekeeper function.
The story isn't that [DeSantis] "couldn't win" the primary. The story is that an overwhelming majority of our population is heinously stupid. 50% of them vote for communists. 75% of the remaining 50% vote for Trump, who cant win. When the majority of the opposition party insists on voting for an opposition candidate who can't win, you get exactly the government you deserve. - Well Endowed Ag
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 11:45a, 11/16/21
ABATTBQ11 said:
powerbelly said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.


They might not have known. They have a lot to do right now, the lawtubers don't.
Bull***** They had plenty of time and money. It is their job to know.
Reply Quote
NASAg03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gator92 • 11:45a, 11/16/21
Gator92 said:
Blog from Amped Software...


Quote:
According to the above:
  • Image enhancement with AI shouldn't be acceptable in general for evidentiary use.
  • Image enhancement with AI may be acceptable for investigative use, provided the following safeguards are in place:
    • Disclosure. The operator is extremely careful in making sure the results of the processing won't be used as evidence in court later on, for example informing the stakeholders and clearly labeling the image with some wording such as "not for evidentiary purposes" or similar.
    • Education. The operator has been trained on the reliability and the pitfalls of using AI processed imagery, is aware of the potential biases introduced by it, both at the technological and human levels, and there are processes in place to mitigate them.

https://blog.ampedsoftware.com/2021/10/05/can-ai-be-used-for-forensics-and-investigations/
Couple this with the additional video evidence and video editing, yeah the state doesn't want to do a re-try. And KR has plenty of ammo for an appeal.
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46a, 11/16/21
Legalize-It-Ags
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sully Dog • 11:46a, 11/16/21
Sully Dog said:
powerbelly said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.
These lawyers suck
Im studying for a degree in Cybersecurity and my forensics class just went over this. Not only should it not be used as evidence, it has potential for evidence tampering and grounds for a mistrial,
Reply Quote
Clob94
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46a, 11/16/21






Bru-hu hu hu hu hu tal......
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:47a, 11/16/21
Defense got limited time and resources.

Its a mistake to get too caught up in any one evidentiary issue.

Put it on the record and move on.
Reply Quote
Sea Speed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 11:47a, 11/16/21
powerbelly said:
ABATTBQ11 said:
powerbelly said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.


They might not have known. They have a lot to do right now, the lawtubers don't.
Bull***** They had plenty of time and money. It is their job to know.


I think there may be a chance the company just added that after their product ended up in one of the biggest trials in the last few years.

Not saying that is the case, but certainly would make sense they revised that when it all ofbthe sudden got some public attention.
Reply Quote
GTdad
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MAROON • 11:49a, 11/16/21
MAROON said:
after watching a lot of this trial I don't see how a reasonable person could vote guilty. Now I fully expect there are a few on the jury who are not reasonable and who went in with a preconceived notion to convict. For that reason I think this ends up as a hung jury.
If there's disagreement in the jury room, I wouldn't be shocked if the jury comes back with a "guilty" on a lesser charge like reckless endangerment. Juries aren't supposed to cut deals like that, but they sometimes do if deliberations carry on too long, particularly with a holiday coming up.
Reply Quote
Gator92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sea Speed • 11:51a, 11/16/21
Goto bottom of link.

Says it was posted Oct 5, 2021...

https://blog.ampedsoftware.com/2021/10/05/can-ai-be-used-for-forensics-and-investigations/
Reply Quote
The Fife
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Señor Chang • 11:51a, 11/16/21
Señor Chang said:
AG 2000' said:
Spotted Ag said:
Multiple people on that jury voted for Biden. That is all I need to know about the decision making ability of those morons. Sucks for Kyle.
Yeah, heart sunk a bit hearing Barnes talk about how five of them were masked the whole time. What are the odds any of the covidians ended up in the alternate's list today?
If I was on the jury, I would strongly consider wearing a mask just so there's less chance I got doxxed.

But I'm guessing that's not why they are wearing masks.
Luchador mask, FTW!
Reply Quote
neAGle96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMUallen • 11:52a, 11/16/21
TAMUallen said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.


That would be huge and I don't see why the case wouldn't then be dismissed


Is that the Rekieta Law feed?
Reply Quote
TAMUallen
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sea Speed • 11:52a, 11/16/21
Sea Speed said:
powerbelly said:
ABATTBQ11 said:
powerbelly said:
Sully Dog said:
Anyone listening to the lawtubers?


Apparently the software used for the blurry Kyle photos expressly says the software shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
I am not shocked the defense didn't bring this up. They missed a lot of opportunities.


They might not have known. They have a lot to do right now, the lawtubers don't.
Bull***** They had plenty of time and money. It is their job to know.


I think there may be a chance the company just added that after their product ended up in one of the biggest trials in the last few years.

Not saying that is the case, but certainly would make sense they revised that when it all ofbthe sudden got some public attention.


It was posted on October 5, 2021
Reply Quote
NASAg03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GTdad • 11:52a, 11/16/21
GTdad said:
MAROON said:
after watching a lot of this trial I don't see how a reasonable person could vote guilty. Now I fully expect there are a few on the jury who are not reasonable and who went in with a preconceived notion to convict. For that reason I think this ends up as a hung jury.
If there's disagreement in the jury room, I wouldn't be shocked if the jury comes back with a "guilty" on a lesser charge like reckless endangerment. Juries aren't supposed to cut deals like that, but they sometimes do if deliberations carry on too long, particularly with a holiday coming up.
The judge made it pretty clear that self defense is kind of all or nothing. I no longer see how you can say not guilty for one charge that involves self defense, and guilty for others. That might be what they are arguing over.
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Reply Quote
BTHOB-98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:53a, 11/16/21
https://babylonbee.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-asked-to-step-outside-and-defend-the-courthouse-while-verdict-is-being-read
Reply Quote
MAROON
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GTdad • 11:53a, 11/16/21
could be. I've only been on one jury (murder) and we convicted within about an hour of deliberation. The facts were never in doubt as to the guilt. Just had to talk it through with a few - minor being tried as an adult added a wrinkle.

When you are in the jury room and another person's life is in your hands - things get real serious, real quick
What do you boys want for breakfast BBQ ?.....OK Chili.
Reply Quote
wbt5845
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NASAg03 • 11:54a, 11/16/21
NASAg03 said:
GTdad said:
MAROON said:
after watching a lot of this trial I don't see how a reasonable person could vote guilty. Now I fully expect there are a few on the jury who are not reasonable and who went in with a preconceived notion to convict. For that reason I think this ends up as a hung jury.
If there's disagreement in the jury room, I wouldn't be shocked if the jury comes back with a "guilty" on a lesser charge like reckless endangerment. Juries aren't supposed to cut deals like that, but they sometimes do if deliberations carry on too long, particularly with a holiday coming up.
The judge made it pretty clear that self defense is kind of all or nothing. I no longer see how you can say not guilty for one charge that involves self defense, and guilty for others. That might be what they are arguing over.

Juries don't have to explain themselves when they pass judgment.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.