Quote of the day—Firearms Lawyer @firearmslawyer

This is the kill shot. The idea that it was not self-defense is absurd. Two guys giving chase, one fired a gun into the air as a “warning shot”—Ziminski & Rosenbaum were intent on murdering #Rittenhouse.

Firearms Lawyer @firearmslawyer
Tweeted on November 9, 2021
[He is referring to this tweet and video:

I find it very “interesting” this FBI video was not made available until the middle of the trial. If it had been then there would have been a good chance Rittenhouse would have had the charges dropped. I would like an investigation to see why the FBI withheld this for so long and, if legally justified, see a prosecution for this withholding of evidence and deprivation of rights under color of law.

This is a side note but I find it an interesting hypothesis… Some commentators have been saying that the prosecutor is doing such a poor job that they suspect it is intentional to make sure Rittenhouse receives justice (acquittal).—Joe]


13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Firearms Lawyer @firearmslawyer

  1. The prosecutor is a partisan hack who knows his *star* witness’ testimony, and the vast preponderance of the evidence, tanked his case, so he’s been acting outrageously to try to get the judge to declare a mistrial, so he can try Rittenhouse again.

    If the prosecutor wanted justice, no charges would have ever been filed against Rittenhouse. The only trial would be for the Antifa thug for attempted murder (of Rittenhouse), felon in possession(himself), and murder (the deaths of his accomplices during a crime I.e. the attempted murder of Rittenhouse).

    • Yup, this.
      He and his puppet-masters can’t get riots on an obviously justified acquittal of a sympathetic defendant and crooked accusers.
      They need either a mistrial or a directed verdict to properly gin up a mob to intimidate the next jury. I hope the DAs maneuvering backfires spectacularly.

  2. “including one that was cropped, zoomed in & slowed down by the crime lab”.
    It was also lightened according to testimony.
    This altered video shows a reality that no one at the event ever saw.
    No person, especially the defendant, was able to see this amount of detail at this speed when he made the decision to shoot.
    So why was it allowed?

    • What detail? The photo the State introduced is still grainy as hell.

      The defense had two witnesses — their use-of-force expert and the State’s imaging expert — both testify that when a grainy image is zoomed in like that (read: beyond the resolution capabilities of the camera that recorded it), the software doing the “enhancement” has to create new pixels in between the pixels that were already there, and assign color values to the new pixels. This can create “artifacts” that were not part of the original image, and render the new (“enhanced”) image not a faithful representation of the original.

      It didn’t help that the imaging expert, using best-available software, couldn’t tell how the software assigned colors to the new pixels. He also did not do a side-by-side comparison of the new and original images to ensure a faithful recreation.

      All in all, neither the original footage nor the “enhanced” image contributed much (if anything) to the State’s narrative of guilt. It’s just too grainy and ambiguous to tell what’s really being shown (try as I might, I couldn’t even tell which grainy blob was supposed to be Rittenhouse, let alone see his rifle clearly enough to tell which direction it was pointing — which is what the State was apparently trying to show — and I doubt the jury will be able to tell, either), and the fact the expert couldn’t explain the process by which the new pixels were added and colored did not exactly scream “credibility”.

  3. I believe that’s not the FBI video. It’s confusing, but I’m pretty sure that drone video is from a news agency.

    • Ya, the prosecutor went out of his way to make sure the police didn’t even go into bicep boy’s phone.
      The real question is why isn’t there FBI drone video? We to believe they weren’t watching?
      But to answer my own question, maybe they didn’t care or want to know what was truly going on.

      • As I understand it, there was in fact FBI video, but only a “low resolution”. The “high resolution” version was “accidentally deleted”.

        Yeah sure. Just remember the name on the FBI headquarters building.

  4. It’s easy to see Binger is going for the emotional win. Justice has nothing to do with it.
    The emotional win allows the riots to continue. Give the whole commie base a new sense of outrage to work with. Like saying Kyle is a racist, even though he only shot people of his same color. (if you classify communist as people). Just the emotion is all that matters. Not reality.
    Binger’s whole case is to pluck on the heartstrings of the brainwashed masses. And in that I guess he’s succeeding?
    Time will tell. It could also be just another outrage to distract us from the 14 other outrages being perpetuated on us.
    Anyone notice their back trying to start a war with Russia in Ukraine again? At the same time the worlds fertilizer production is being crushed? Forecasting food at 50%?
    The more outrage Binger brings the better for Soro’s clan.

  5. And on a side note. The Cajun reminds us that on this day in 1970. Is the the great exploding whale incident.
    Were the government tried to blow up a dead rotting whale off the beach in Oregon.
    It’s the perfect analogy of what I believe to be present day America.
    Complete way the whole train of fore-thought being. No, No, that’s just wrong! Don’t, don’t. Oh my god! No! It’s funny.

  6. “… see a prosecution for this withholding of evidence and deprivation of rights under color of law.”

    I do not disagree, nor am I in disagreement with the frequent mention of 18 USC 242 et al in this venue. Any such prosecutions, however much they are needed, will have to be performed by We The People at a later date; for the moment, it’s time to dismount and find a different pony to ride. We’ll catch up to this when it’s time, there are other more pressing tasks to which we should be devoting our attention and energies.

  7. I’ve been watching Andrew Branca’s analysis of the trial and from what I’ve seen of the trial from watching parts of the streaming video and what Andrew has said, and what Kraus said in court on Friday, the following is pretty clear to me.

    1) The prosecution presented the, to use Andrew’s term, “Unicorn” evidence after the trial began. This is the second drone footage shot by persons unknown from more than a block away.
    2) The prosecution has presented no evidence that disproves any of the requirements to the legal defense of self-defense.
    3) That the prosecution has presented outstanding evidence that it was very reasonable for Kyle to fear for his life at the moments he fired and that he was very judicious in his shots and shot placement.

    So now we come to that weird thing in Wisconsin law, that the act of provocation costs you the legal defense of self-defense.

    The gist, if you provoke somebody to the point where they act violently towards you, you do not get to claim self-defense if you respond to that attack.

    In the case of a simple provocation, you can regain the right to self-defense by retreating and announcing that you are disengaging.

    Example: You say “your mother wears army boots!” and the person you taunted takes a swing at you. If you swing back, it is not self defense. If instead you start back peddling and saying “I don’t want to fight you” and the person you taunted continues to attack, you can the respond by fighting back.

    If the attack is such that you would be legally justified in using lethal force, you can respond with lethal force. I.e. the person you taunted is attacking with a knife, you can shoot them IF you have regained the right to self-defense.

    This is the aspect of “innocence”

    If there is an intent on the taunter’s part to get the person to respond (attack) so that the taunter can use lethal force in response, then this is “intentional provocation” and as such the taunter can never regain self-defense.

    The example used is the profession gun fighter taunting the farmer to draw on them and then beating the farmer to the draw and killing the farmer. The gun fighter intended to have the farmer draw on him. The defense of self-defense isn’t justifiably in this case.

    The prosecution, on Friday, told the judge that they are going to argue that Kyle provoked (simple) the attack on himself by pointing his rifle at Rosenbaum’s friend and that Rosenbaum was acting in defense of his friend.

    If Kyle had stood there and just shot Rosenbaum as he charged from cover, that might hold up, IF he had indeed, pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum’s friend.

    By Kyle took off running, yelling “Friendly, Friendly, Friendly”. The prosecution is going to argue that Kyle didn’t run far enough, fast enough and thus never regained the right to self-defense and that “Friendly, Friendly, Friendly” wasn’t enough to properly announce that Kyle was leaving the fight.

    If this act is proven to be unjustified, then the prosecution is arguing that all of the other shootings were not justified.

    Reality is that there is likely to be one or more members of the jury that want to convict Kyle on something, after all, he did kill two men and injure a third. This is likely to lead to a hung jury and a mistrial.

    I’m waiting to see what happens in court tomorrow.

Comments are closed.