Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

Uh, no it doesn't. But if a TubeSite says so, it MUST be true!

And again, you can't just SAY "it hurteded my case!" You do have to DEMONSTRATE that the video did in fact have relevant details in the higher resolution copy that QUANTIFIABLY HARMED the defense.

It's pretty wild, that as worthless as you claim my statements are, you sure devote an awful lot of time and effort to frantically trying to discredit them. And me.

I've studied law. Formally, by trained professionals. I've defended my self in court, successfully. I do all of my own legal filings. I've won cases against government agencies. Bluster and posture to your little heart's content.

EVEN IF your claim holds water, it's still not WITHHOLDING evidence, as you so adamantly shot out of the gate. Even if you roll with it and play the "uh, duh, that's totally what I meant, and it's still bad!" doesn't change the fact that you're already eroded your own credibility. Not to mention misspelling key legal terms, it undermines your credibility regarding the specific matter - that being the interpretation of the rule of law.

AT WORST it MIGHT be evidence tampering or failure to properly disclose. I'm sure the leegul eksport knows this, but you MUST be EXACT when working with court filings. You cannot file a motion of withholding evidence, and then simply say "I mean tampering, wait, I mean disclosure!". You MUST select the right procedural claim for it to stick. You CAN make a filing for withholding anyways. And then the judge says "it wasn't withholding". And then you can make a NEW filing AFTER that for the next complaint. But that makes you look incompetent, and is a waste of time, and if you were worth your salt you'd file the CORRECT claim that would actually STICK. Anything less is stalling or whining.

I appreciate your little smear campaign. Your need to discredit me personally, speaks worlds. "HeS tHe GuY tHaT sAiD tHeSe ThInGs In ThEsE oThEr ThReAdS, DoNt LiStEnTo HiM! HeS a MeAnIe PoOpIe HeAd WhO kIcKs PuPpIeS!"

Calling me names doesn't magically make me become the things you're accusing me of.

If you're so right, you should be able to withstand the presence of dissenting voices or the scrutiny of others.

As for why two version exist of the video, these days it's common to send files electronically. There is often a size limit to the amount that can be emailed in a single file. It is not uncommon to downgrade the resolution or quality of documents, images, videos etc, in order to reduce the file sizes associated with them, and to facilitate transfer. This is so you're not trying to send massive amounts of data that might take unreasonably long time to transfer. You'll want it FAST.

The other option is physical copies, which has it's own set of complications. In either case, they asked for a copy of the video, they got a copy of the video. As soon as they got the video, if they felt it was too low of quality to be of use, they at that moment could have filed to have it struck from evidence, or asked if a higher resolution video existed, cos any lawyer worth their salt knows these things happen, and knows to ask these questions.

If the video were edited in length, had parts removed, or was altered in CONTENT in any way, then yes, tampering may apply. But if it was the EXACT video, but compressed to reduce file size, then that's completely allowable, and meets the legal bar for disclosure.

At this point, the defenSE can't simply say "but they're DIFFERENT!" - the defense must DEMONSTRATE in what way the video evidence harmed their ability to defend their client. "It made us look bad cos their copy looked better!" is NOT a valid defense. Either the video proves something, or it doesn't. You don't get to cry about how "theirs is better looking!"

And STILL NOT a matter of WITHHOLDING evidence.

Despite all the "of course lawyers LIE" rhetoric, the reality is, lawyers are generally held to extremely strict standards, and lying even a little bit generally gets you in a world of hurt. You'll note that the defense isn't claiming that it's not kyle at all, or that it wasn't kyle who did the shooting. The argument being presented is that it was necessary and justified, not that it never happened. Lawyers can interpret, but they cannot misrepresent mislead or lie. Some try, and pay dearly if they get caught.

As a lawyer, or any manner of legal defense, there is an obligation to be a zealous advocate for the interests of your client. But you can't LIE on their behalf, or knowingly allow them to lie, or instruct them to lie.

But yes. "Video was reduced in size / quality" WOWIE ZOWIE! Something typical, common, and normal happened! SuRe LoOkS sUsPiCiOuS! Cos that's what LawTube said. Well, it has the word "law" in it, so I'm sold

So, which tactic are you going to resort to now? Calling me names? Burying me in random links to websites that supposedly explain things FOR you as you look down your nose and say "figure it out"? Make more claims with no backing evidence other than "lawztoob told me so!"?

Granting some partial benefit of doubt, perhaps things work differently in australia. Even if that's the case, this is american law at work, in an american trial. If that's true, then you could fairly say that an australian trial would rule in the way you claim it would, but you still don't get to use that as a precedent for why it should apply in THIS case. You could arguably argue that it SHOULD be argued that way, but that's still completely different from the argument initially argued. And hopping around like that just comes of as moving goalposts.

Oh, and as for your complaint about me "diving into discussions" - you know that people can like, read the previous posts before commenting, right? (I'll save you the trouble of implying that I don't by pointing out the likelihood of you claiming that I don't - but you can feel free to try to sell it yourself if you like, too) Or, what, when a point pops up 18 pages in, am I supposed to go back in time and pre-emptively post earlier on the matter so I was "in on it" from an earlier time? I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations as to when you could join in to a discussion. That just sounds like policing the room to your benefit.

I will admit something utterly awful about myself though. As much fun as it is to watch small children with unshakable confidence, even when wrong, it's equally fun to watch adults with that same misplaced confidence. I know, I'm a monster.

But always with love and respect