Is it wrong to think the Judge of the Rittenhouse wants Kyle to be found not guilty?

[PA_jen]

I am truly scared.

[elleng]

1. Not wrong to THINK that, as it's apparent;

it's wrong for the judge to behave in such a way.

[PA_jen]

3. I am deeply scared for our justice syztem.

[elleng]

5. Some states do better than others.

Apparently this 'judge' was elected.

[Takket]

7. and i'm sure it is because he is "tough on crime"

which is just a dog whistle meaning they come down hard on blacks and look out for whites.

[LiberalFighter]

10. And likely reelected because he is a white jerk.

Kenosha county is 79% white.

[Chille]

32. Do you have any data

to back up your thoughts? Any chance you have a link to you definition of "tough on crime"

[AleksS]

2. I'm sure LOTS of impartial judges use the MAGA anthem as their phone ringtone...

[sarcasm]

[Dawson Leery]

4. Obviously.

America needs higher standards for law as there clearly are none as of this time
and that judge needs to be kicked off the bench and disbarred.

[Johonny]

6. I think it's apparent over in over again that America's judicial system sucks

this is just one more example of how painful it is to see in action.

[hlthe2b]

8. He has all but signaled his intentions via a neon sign, so not in my book.

[walkingman]

9. Our "injustice" system is on full display.

[twin_ghost]

11. The judge is just the referee

I read over on a conservative web site today that they think he is working to find Kyle guilty. The decision is up to the jury.

[NoRethugFriends]

12. Uh huh

[Skittles]

13. riiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Ohio Joe]

19. In theory, true...

In this actual case... Not one bit.

[twin_ghost]

20. I'm amazed at the posts about this judge here on DU. He is doing a fine job.

He is making sure that there is a fair trial being conducted for everyone involved.

[Ohio Joe]

21. We are watching different trials - nt

[twin_ghost]

22. No, I have watched many trials and know the procedures used in a court of law.

When I was a teenager I used to skip school and watch all kind of trials at the court house. I also have taken business law college classes to learn about contract law.
Judges straighten out attorneys all the time. The goal is to have a fair trial for the plaintiff/prosecutor & the defendant.

[Ohio Joe]

23. Well then...

Why did he allow the defense to use zoomed pictures and not the prosecution?

[twin_ghost]

25. The goal is a fair trial and not a perfect trial.

But I'm not worried in the least bit about the outcome of this trial. If it goes to a jury then the jury will decide the legal issues. There is a lynch pin that this case hangs on. If Kyle is found guilty of being under the age of 18 with a weapon then he can not claim self defense. That is why his attorneys have been fighting so hard to get that charged dismissed. It is no different then a robber going into a store and killing the clerk who has a gun and then claiming self defense. The law doesn't allow it.

[Ohio Joe]

26. So you admit it is an unfair trial...

But are surprised at peoples reaction here... I see

[BannonsLiver]

35. Well

If I wanted “Kyle” to get off I probably wouldn’t worry too much about the outcome at this point either.

[FBaggins]

27. He didn't

Both were allowed to use zoomed images. And both were able to review/question the way that the zoom was created.

[Ohio Joe]

30. Really?

I've not been watching but I've trusted Ars a long time:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-judge-disallows-ipad-pinch-to-zoom-read-the-bizarre-transcript/

Are they lying?

[FBaggins]

33. Yes. Really

Both sides had both video and still images that were zoomed in. In some cases, it was done live at the prosecution's request.

In the prior (and following) scenarios, the video and images were presented by expert witnesses who could testify to what (if any) changes were made to the raw footage. And, in both cases, they provided the other side with audit logs that could be reviewed for those changes/enhancements. So the other side could question whether what was shown was still reliable as evidence. The link you're looking at is an entirely different scenario. The prosecution wanted to show video on an iPad and use the native zoom feature to look closer at part of the video.

Based on their cross of Rittenhouse with that video, it appears that they wanted to claim that it showed him raising his riffle and pointing it at protestors at some point prior to the shootings. Presumably, this would be offered as evidence that he was acting aggressively without any self-defense motivation since was not then being chased or threatened. I'm not sure how useful that would have been for the prosecution... but they wanted to make the argument.

Then came the problem. They could easily have brought the video up with their expert witness and had him zoom in on a better device and testify that no pixels were altered or added... but they didn't do that. They were just going to zoom in on an iPad. The defense objected. The judge doesn't understand the technology...and it's pretty clear from the arguments that neither the defense nor the prosecution does either. But the defense said that their expert had expressed a concern about displaying video that way. As the link you read shows (near the end), the judge said that they could use it if they could provide expert testimony that the zoomed image was unenhanced by the iPad. You can judge for yourself why the prosecution elected not to take the time to do that... but it isn't on the judge. He certainly didn't (as you implied) allow one side to do something that was forbidden to the other side.

[Ohio Joe]

37. Yeah, he did...

The defense claimed, without evidence, and the judge agreed that the ipod added things that were not there and did not allow it. It is simple bullshit that the ipod adds things. They were forbidden from zooming when the defense was not. They did not have an expert on hand to prove it because it's like saying you need an expert on hand to prove the sky is blue or the grass green... It's non-sense and show one more instance of the judge being biased.

[FBaggins]

40. The "nonsense" is your spin

Last edited Fri Nov 12, 2021, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The prosecution was told that they could use the video if they could provide testimony that it was unchanged by the process that they wanted to use. They didn't do so. Why not?

Your spin is that they shouldn't have to. And yet they did (as did the defense) for their other use of video. Why did they do that if the sky is blue and the grass is green?

Either way - your statement was false. The judge did not allow the defense to do something that he forbade the prosecution from doing. Both sides were allowed to show zoomed images.


On edit - They later did the same thing with an enlargement of the frame involved... and had an expert who could be cross-examined. The witness essentially admitted the defense's concerns were valid. The image was admitted and shown to the jury. Which leaves precisely nothing to your concern.

[Ohio Joe]

41. Incorrect

The 'expert' the defense used was brought up and discussed video editing software, not zoom technology. This guy was brought up in anticipation of the prosecution using the ipod and the judge blatantly lied in confusing the two and when the prosecution called him on it, he said he did not care.

Also... When the defense made the claim, the judge sided with them and wanted the prosecution to prove a negative instaed of asking the defense to back up their claim.

Look... Ipods and zooming technology are not new... If they were you might have a point but they are not, they have been used at trial before plenty.

Plain and simple, the judge shown bias.

[Sympthsical]

38. Should've read your reply first

That's how I saw the entire issue as well.

[Sympthsical]

36. Watched the whole exchange with my own eyes

The judge allowed it.

[BannonsLiver]

34. Bahahahaha

[LuckyCharms]

39. Judges steer trials. n/t

[sop]

14. A federal lawsuit was filed against Kenosha County, the City of Kenosha, Kenosha PD and the

Kenosha County Sheriff's Department by Gaige Grosskreutz, the man shot by Rittenhouse, alleging police "deputized" armed vigilantes and enabled the shootings when they enforced a curfew against protesters but not against armed white people.

(NBC News) "Defendants invited, deputized, authorized, conspired with, and ratified the actions of Rittenhouse, a child illegally in possession of an assault rifle, who roamed the street in violation of an emergency curfew order, threatening protesters with his weapon of war, and shooting innocent civilians, killing two, seriously injuring a third, and narrowly missing a fourth," the lawsuit says.

"A Kenosha Police Sergeant sent a message to all officers through the Department's internal messaging system noting the presence of armed individuals patrolling the streets in violation of the curfew order," the lawsuit claims. "Rather than take any steps to detain, dissuade, or disarm these individuals, a KPD Sergeant made clear that they were not to be detained, dissuaded, or disarmed, calling the armed individuals in blatant violation of the curfew order 'very friendly.'"

Call me crazy, but perhaps Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder, an elected official known for his law-and-order views, may be trying to affect the outcome of the federal lawsuit against his employer and Kenosha County constituents by derailing the Rittenhouse trial.

[MichMan]

15. Grosskreutz was also armed and in violation of the curfew as well.

Not justifying anyone's actions, but it appears to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[ForgedCrank]

18. Although I can see that the judge in this case has appeared to

have already decided personally that Rittenhouse is "not guilty", I have yet to see him take any action that was not appropriate in order to maintain the integrity of the trial. In the end, the judge has no say in the verdict so his opinion doesn't matter.
In fact, by all rights, he could have already declared a mistrial and dismissed the case due to the prosecutors shitty conduct in the court, but he didn't, at least not yet anyway.
I'm sure I will get outright flamed here for offering up such unpopular assertions, but that's what it is. I've seen no misconduct from the judge in his rulings or actions.
The REAL problem here is that the prosecution is completely incompetent and prepared a very poor outline, and we should be pointing to that very real problem instead of crucifying the judge (who is pretty damned goofy in my opinion). It totally sucks, but that's the truth of the matter.

[sop]

31. You're right about the prosecutor.

Derek Chauvin would have been acquitted had this guy been the prosecutor in the George Floyd killing.

[uponit7771]

16. +1

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. Want to do some about the Judge in the Rittenhouse trial, file a complaint.

Link to tweet

[Raine]

24. I'm sure he has an opinion, I'm sure ALL judges do. nt

[LiberatedUSA]

29. If you are a human being...

…you have an opinion. The question is whether you show your work as backwards or forwards to get to justify it.

[Buckeyeblue]

28. Maybe. But I think the judge mostly likes the attention.

He seems overly eccentric. And he wants everyone to know it. I think there will be a hung jury. But I'm often wrong on these things. Most people do not have the greatest judgment, so it's hard to tell what a jury, a group of people with bad judgment, will do.