Identifying someone at the time? No, I doubt it. Are they claiming that?
Identifying someone afterwards based on correlating footage from the ground? Sure.
They would have seen the flare of the fire Jew#1 set. Then they would have seen flashes from Rittenhaus's rifle. Plenty of reason to follow it and see what was unfolding.
Are they claiming that?
From what I understand from a moderately okay court stream, yes. It was only tangentially mentioned as existing into evidence. So unless the defense (Rittenhouse) motions to suppress that piece of evidence then that's all I know is the vague description of it.
In the drone footage of the fixed wing FBI craft we can see Kyle identified by the IR cams.
That is not an exact quote. It's just the 3 piece of information I recall from it. I can't find the video.
They would have seen the flare of the fire Jew#1 set. Then they would have seen flashes from Rittenhaus's rifle. Plenty of reason to follow it and see what was unfolding.
Sure. From afar, they could have seen the flashes and gone to that location. However that's moot. Is it not? Rittenhouse turned himself in. He walked to the police. He wasn't hiding or committing a crime spree or anything of note of merit that would have followed the aircraft focusing on him specifically.
Assuming you're not correct and the whole thing isn't fabricated, I would assume they were just generally monitoring the riot and decided to look into a particularly flashy event. It's not even a question of identifying anyone or following a suspect, it's just a human reaction to follow particularly bright and violent happenings compared to dull ones.
(post is archived)