Wisconsin vs. Kyle Rittenhouse for murder in Kenosha *NOT GUILTY*

Defense Says Kyle Rittenhouse Was Attacked 'in the Street Like an Animal'

During opening statements on Tuesday, a defense attorney for Kenosha, Wis. shooter Kyle Rittenhouse characterized the teen who killed two people and injured a third during civil unrest in the summer of 2020 as someone who pulled the trigger only after others attacked him "in the street like an...

lawandcrime.com

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Experts can be biased or slanted in their opinions too, correct?

Yes, but CNN and Court TV will tell you who someone is and they have people on both sides most of the time to plead their point to the audience. As long as you know where somebody is coming from and their credentials for putting their opinion forward I don't think it's a bad thing.

Court TV had a Civil Rights lawyer on to discuss why Attorney Gough was so hot to argue against Civil Rights icons being in the courtroom. I found it informative and knew where he was coming from as a Civil Rights attorney in a racially charged case.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

The media slanting is so bad that even locally I’ve been put in a bad light before. It was years ago when I was running for office (I did not get voted in) and I made a comment about something that I wanted to work on if I was elected and they made it sound like I was saying that the people there hadn’t been doing their job. That is not what I said at all! I just was talking about something different that I wanted to do. Had nothing to do with the job that had been done and it was really a drag because I live in a small area and I knew the people that were serving and I thought they were doing a great job. I wasn’t running against any of them, I was running against another person for an open seat. I had to call each and everyone of them and let them know that I had been misquoted.

Didn't a local TV station give you a chance to explain? If it happened today you could put an explanation up on Youtube.

That happens A LOT in major elections.

 

[Kimster]

Didn't a local TV station give you a chance to explain? If it happened today you could put an explanation up on Youtube.

That happens A LOT in major elections.

Oh heck no. That was then, almost 20 years ago! So the "slanting" has been a thing for a long time. It's just gotten worse because no one has called them out on it. I hope things turn around as more and more people complain about it.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

The Kenosha judge is talking about a lot of stuff that he feels has been said about him and their opinions. He's frustrated with nasty emails he's been receiving. Also, the drone video thing came up.

I came in late and evidently this started with two jury questions:

Do we view videos in private or in the courtroom? Do we need to know the exact piece of evidence's number to request it?

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Oh heck no. That was then, almost 20 years ago! So the "slanting" has been a thing for a long time. It's just gotten worse because no one has called them out on it. I hope things turn around as more and more people complain about it.

Twitter and Facebook errr... Meta are getting better at policing misinformation. A big problem is a lot of people believe that misinformation is true and get mad when Twitter or Facebook errrr... Meta censors it.

 

[kdg411]

Yes, but CNN and Court TV will tell you who someone is and they have people on both sides most of the time to plead their point to the audience. As long as you know where somebody is coming from and their credentials for putting their opinion forward I don't think it's a bad thing.

Court TV had a Civil Rights lawyer on to discuss why Attorney Gough was so hot to argue against Civil Rights icons being in the courtroom. I found it informative and knew where he was coming from as a Civil Rights attorney in a racially charged case.

If anyone looks around they can likely find another person who has the 'right' credentials to back up their thoughts &/or opinions.

To rely on a news organization in general to be unbiased could be deemed questionable regardless of the guests presented. IMO

If you (or anyone else) would like to check out the website below you can review the news sources referenced for their current standing. Any further discussion will warrant this subject to moved to the appropriate forum.

AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective

See issues and political news with news bias revealed. Non-partisan, crowd-sourced technology shows all sides so you can decide.

www.allsides.com

 

[Cousin Dupree]

If anyone looks around they can likely find another person who has the 'right' credentials to back up their thoughts &/or opinions.

To rely on a news organization in general to be unbiased could be deemed questionable regardless of the guests presented. IMO

If you (or anyone else) would like to check out the website below you can review the news sources referenced for their current standing. Any further discussion will warrant this subject to moved to the appropriate forum.

AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective

See issues and political news with news bias revealed. Non-partisan, crowd-sourced technology shows all sides so you can decide.

www.allsides.com

I actually have that bookmarked already.

 

[kdg411]

 

[GrandmaBear]

Can't disagree with him on that one. They (media) are going to ruin it for themselves and others wanting public/live trials at this rate. Jmo.

 

[RoundPeg]

Any updates on what the jury had for lunch? Not joking.

 

[Guess Who]

Experts can be biased or slanted in their opinions too, correct?

it all depends on which side is paying them usually.

 

[Guess Who]

The media slanting is so bad that even locally I’ve been put in a bad light before. It was years ago when I was running for office (I did not get voted in) and I made a comment about something that I wanted to work on if I was elected and they made it sound like I was saying that the people there hadn’t been doing their job. That is not what I said at all! I just was talking about something different that I wanted to do. Had nothing to do with the job that had been done and it was really a drag because I live in a small area and I knew the people that were serving and I thought they were doing a great job. I wasn’t running against any of them, I was running against another person for an open seat. I had to call each and everyone of them and let them know that I had been misquoted.

the common statement from my neighborhood when different ones were being interviewed and when it was aired was "that's what I said (as in that was me and my words), but that's NOT what I said". They had edited the interviews in a way that it pretty much totally changed the story.

 

[daisy7]

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial comes to the brink of mistrial during the second day of jury deliberations

Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers said they would have presented their case differently if they were given a better version of a drone video that was shown to jurors at trial.

www.jsonline.com

 

[Cousin Dupree]

the common statement from my neighborhood when different ones were being interviewed and when it was aired was "that's what I said (as in that was me and my words), but that's NOT what I said". They had edited the interviews in a way that it pretty much totally changed the story.

That's why I don't cut anything out of my Arbery videos. As long as court is on I include everything. I don't want people to just watch the testimony and wonder why they don't ask about something. I want them to see the conversations that happen when the jury is out of the court. There may be a decision that forbids them from asking certain questions.

The Kevin Gough stuff is Must See TV too.

 

[kdg411]

 

[Tresir]

MSNBC. Throw the book at them.

Kyle Rittenhouse jury concludes third day of deliberations without verdict | CNN

The jury in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial concluded its third day of deliberations Thursday without a verdict in a day that featured the judge's decision to ban MSNBC from the courtroom for allegedly following a jury bus.

edition.cnn.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

it all depends on which side is paying them usually.

Or what channel they are on and whether they are told to take the pro or con argument that day... Lol. Imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

What possible understandable reason could media give for trying to locate and see jurors and then air their faces probably and location??? Are they trying to CAUES a mistrial?? Assuming of course that this is true, the motive, one has to question everything these days...

 

[Guess Who]

What possible understandable reason could media give for trying to locate and see jurors and then air their faces probably and location??? Are they trying to CAUES a mistrial?? Assuming of course that this is true, the motive, one has to question everything these days...

They were doing similar on my local case. It was downright creepy! There were no jurors since it has never went to trial, but they were definitely stalking people.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial comes to the brink of mistrial during the second day of jury deliberations

Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers said they would have presented their case differently if they were given a better version of a drone video that was shown to jurors at trial.

www.jsonline.com

Why didn't they enhance it themselves? I think there was a similar complaint/statement in Morphew. It was something they couldn't open or some file format of something and well, I think the prosecution said they tried to help them or tell them how more than once and it is not their job to do so, get or hire your own people to do it...

I don't know the rules on such though, just saying handing over discovery is one thing but what the other side chooses to do with it or how much time to put into it is another... What are the rules on this? I have no idea. All I know is all consideration seems to be given to defendants and any little thing seems to be appealed... Or there is a motion to dismiss of course...