Rittenhouse trial

I’m guessing from the testimony given that he wasn’t shot until a gun was pointed at him

This little **** kid that went looking for trouble will be found not guilty


But hey, I mean, you’re like the smartest cause I mean, if I make fun of fake crying and a ****ty judge, you would know where I stand on things

Always ready to jump to conclusions. So predictable


Defend the pedo
Click to expand...

Wtf are you talking about lol

Your obsession about bringing that up at every turn is like the q followers who end up being pedo themselves or anti gay church people who are actually gay. It’s weird lol
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
What makes this judge '****ty'?
Click to expand...

Lol

Outside of phrases he would allow and not allow and his childish outbursts showing his bias to the case


[tw] 1458517562107564036[/tw]

He seems like the best and brightest that would be loved by your cult lol
 
thethe said:
The best part is that this is apparently a bad thing?

Thats how Goldy feels about America.
Click to expand...

Lol

That song is garbage and is loved by the worst of the worst Americans

No shocker you think that’s a patriotism test lol
 
goldfly said:
Lol

Outside of phrases he would allow and not allow and his childish outbursts showing his bias to the case


[tw] 1458517562107564036[/tw]

He seems like the best and brightest that would be loved by your cult lol
Click to expand...

That behavior isn't all that strange. Phrases that can and can't be used are a part of most trials. The snapping at the prosecutor was also warranted.

If you want to aim venom at someone, aim it at the prosecutor. If I didn't know prosecutors and their desire to win better, I'd swear he was trying to get a mistrial with prejudice.
 
goldfly said:
I’m guessing from the testimony given that he wasn’t shot until a gun was pointed at him

This little **** kid that went looking for trouble will be found not guilty


But hey, I mean, you’re like the smartest cause I mean, if I make fun of fake crying and a ****ty judge, you would know where I stand on things

Always ready to jump to conclusions. So predictable




Wtf are you talking about lol

Your obsession about bringing that up at every turn is like the q followers who end up being pedo themselves or anti gay church people who are actually gay. It’s weird lol
Click to expand...

The guy he shot is a pefophile... who you seem to frequently find yourself aligned with
 
Looking it up, the prosecution can use a defendant's post-arrest but pre-mirandizing silence to impeach him if he decides to testify. However, a prosecutor cannot bring up a defendant's silence after being read his miranda rights. According to the NYT, the prosecutor was trying to reference Rittenhouse's silence in the months leading up to the trial. That is absolutely not allowed and the prosecutor knows it. Makes me wonder what game he's playing.
 
sturg33 said:
The guy he shot is a pefophile... who you seem to frequently find yourself aligned with
Click to expand...

I don’t know what that word is

But I’m sure you believe this. So, run with it. I really don’t care lol
 
I really am trying to see where I’m defending a pedo by the way

“The testimony seems he will be found not guiltily”

Look at you defending a pedo again!!!

Lol
 
You are much more mad about the guy who shot the pedo in self defense than you are about the pedo threatening violence against the kid.

Its pathetic but you are consistently aligned with the pedos these days
 
striker42 said:
Looking it up, the prosecution can use a defendant's post-arrest but pre-mirandizing silence to impeach him if he decides to testify. However, a prosecutor cannot bring up a defendant's silence after being read his miranda rights. According to the NYT, the prosecutor was trying to reference Rittenhouse's silence in the months leading up to the trial. That is absolutely not allowed and the prosecutor knows it. Makes me wonder what game he's playing.
Click to expand...


I’m starting to think the prosecutor knows he’s going to lose so he’s doing that on purpose so a mistrial is better than a loss on his record.
 
Last edited:
The textbook case of using a defendant's post-miranda silence against them is if a defendant takes the stand and starts giving a story they haven't told before. It's not that it conflicts with a prior statement, it's just being said now for the first time. Asking a defendant why they never told that story in all the time they had before the trial would be the textbook example of misusing the right to remain silent to impeach a defendant that's testifying. The defendant had a right not to tell any story and you can't use their exercising of that right against them.

From what I've seen and read, it looks like the prosecutor was trying to say that Rittenhouse, having heard the prosecution's case, was now trying to tailor his story to fit the facts. Basically they were trying to say that if this is really the story, why didn't he say it before now which is not kosher. This isn't some obscure rule either. A seasoned prosecutor would absolutely know this was a not okay.
 
It's been chaotic questioning. I think he spent twenty minutes establishing that Rittenhouse had a gun for protection because the crowd might require him to protect himself. I mean, yeah buddy, I should be able to go anywhere safely and defend myself if it becomes unsafe.

Now he's asking why he didn't answer the mob truthfully when they were chasing him after the shooting. So no one else would attack me, jackass.
 
You shot at this guy who kicked you because you wanted to kill him, didn't you?
No, I shot him because he was kicking my head and stomping my face.
So he didn't have a weapon, and you deliberately pulled the trigger.

Speechless.
 
You had your medic bag and you never stopped to give aid to these people you shot (while the mob was chasing you)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top