Rittenhouse trial

Trigger? Lol

Nah, just a great sign of what you are dealing with as a person usually these days

But glad you could get in a good buzzword after all that pseudo “critical thinking” from you lol


“Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious”
 
goldfly said:
Said the way he was forcing lawyers on how to describe people in the case and then the walk out song for trump being the ringtone

Made it clear, in their eyes, how the judge wanted this case to go
Click to expand...

Apparently this judge's longstanding rule in his courtroom is that you can't refer to people as victims. It's an odd rule to be sure but it's one that he applies in all of his cases, so I've read.

Too much is being made of the ringtone. He could be a Trump nut and that's still no guarantee that he's going to tilt the field in the defense's favor. Attorneys and judges are strange breeds in that regard.

I've talked about the trial with several other attorneys in my firm. To a man they've all been shocked by what the prosecution has done. Talking about the defendant's silence was a huge deal. People don't really understand how big a deal that was. This is well settled law. The boundary is clear. Crossing that line was pretty shocking.

Then bringing up previously excluded evidence in front of the jury without asking the court to allow it first (and doing so without the jury in the room) was just insulting to the judge as well as a big problem for the prosecution's case.

The dominant prediction I've heard is that the judge will let the case go to the jury and then will read the jury's verdict. If it's an acquittal on everything except the gun charge, the judge will let it stand. If he reads it and Rittenhouse is convicted on any of the serious offenses, then he'll declare a mistrial. Judges like to give juries a chance to decide in a way that will allow the judge to not have to get involved. But considering what the prosecution did in this case, a mistrial is absolutely justified and if one isn't declared there's an extremely high chance a conviction is thrown out on appeal.
 
Oddly enough

I bumped into a judge I know tonight

Asked him if he had thoughts

Said he hasn’t paid attention to the trial

So, no thoughts from him.
 
striker42 said:
Apparently this judge's longstanding rule in his courtroom is that you can't refer to people as victims. It's an odd rule to be sure but it's one that he applies in all of his cases, so I've read.

Too much is being made of the ringtone. He could be a Trump nut and that's still no guarantee that he's going to tilt the field in the defense's favor. Attorneys and judges are strange breeds in that regard.

I've talked about the trial with several other attorneys in my firm. To a man they've all been shocked by what the prosecution has done. Talking about the defendant's silence was a huge deal. People don't really understand how big a deal that was. This is well settled law. The boundary is clear. Crossing that line was pretty shocking.

Then bringing up previously excluded evidence in front of the jury without asking the court to allow it first (and doing so without the jury in the room) was just insulting to the judge as well as a big problem for the prosecution's case.

The dominant prediction I've heard is that the judge will let the case go to the jury and then will read the jury's verdict. If it's an acquittal on everything except the gun charge, the judge will let it stand. If he reads it and Rittenhouse is convicted on any of the serious offenses, then he'll declare a mistrial. Judges like to give juries a chance to decide in a way that will allow the judge to not have to get involved. But considering what the prosecution did in this case, a mistrial is absolutely justified and if one isn't declared there's an extremely high chance a conviction is thrown out on appeal.
Click to expand...



I doubt the word victim is banned in all cases. Only when relevant to the case. If someone is murdered and the defendant claims they didnt kill that person then there is no issue calling the dead person a victim. The defendant in this case doesnt deny shooting the people that got shot. So calling them victims would presume guilt.


Also, I think its a very bad idea to wait until a verdict and declare a mistrial only if found guilty. Thats going to set off a lot of ****. Better off declaring it before the verdict and lay the guilt for that on the hands of the prosecutor. I question whether they would even bring the case again if a mistrial is declared.
 
I legit don’t even know who that is

So, odd that I love him lol

But of course your loser ass is still using the term soyboy.

Lol
 
cajunrevenge said:
I doubt the word victim is banned in all cases. Only when relevant to the case. If someone is murdered and the defendant claims they didnt kill that person then there is no issue calling the dead person a victim. The defendant in this case doesnt deny shooting the people that got shot. So calling them victims would presume guilt.


Also, I think its a very bad idea to wait until a verdict and declare a mistrial only if found guilty. Thats going to set off a lot of ****. Better off declaring it before the verdict and lay the guilt for that on the hands of the prosecutor. I question whether they would even bring the case again if a mistrial is declared.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/31/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-bruce-schroeder/index.html

This is where I read it. CNN says it's a long-standing rule in his courtroom. It's an odd rule but one that he has the power to make. The fact that it's not just this case is something a lot of people don't realize.

Judges like to give juries the opportunity to reach a decision that keeps the judge from having to step in. If the jury acquits the judge can just let it happen.

But I agree this case might be different. If he steps in after a verdict has been reached there's going to be outrage.

Next week might not be a great time to take a trip to Kenosha.
 
[tw]1460329580942745603[/tw]

The left lives in an alternative universe.

Finally enough people are taking the red pill so that they can be stopped.
 
thewupk said:
Interesting. Wasn't aware of the "hunting" exemption that allowed 16 and 17 year olds to open carry as long as it wasn't a SBR.
Click to expand...

The attorneys for Rittenhouse were pretty clever on this one. That is a terribly written law and I expect the legislature to fix it. Ultimately, I could see arguments both ways. It's pretty clear what was intended but where crimes are concerned, ambiguity is not a good thing.
 
Kenosha unrest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the aftermath of the August 2020 police shooting of Jacob Blake, protests, riots, and civil unrest occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and around the United States as part of the larger 2020–2021 United States racial unrest and Black Lives Matter movements.[7] In addition to street protests, marches, and demonstrations, the shooting also led to the 2020 American athlete boycotts.

The demonstrations were marked by daily peaceful protesting followed by confrontations with law enforcement and rioting and arson at night. A state of emergency was declared on August 23, and the National Guard was activated the following day. Further confrontations arose when armed militia members, whom Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth described as "like a group of vigilantes", arrived with the expressed intent of protecting businesses in the city.[8][9][10][11]

On August 25, two protesters were fatally shot and a third was injured by Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois. Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and other charges; his attorneys have said his actions were in self-defense.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest

////////////////////


I found this after being curious how many deaths in the Kenosha " unrest"

Appears only the ones where a vigilante was involved. Pretty sure those were the only shootings and deaths
Willing to stand corrected
 
"daily peaceful protesting followed by confrontations with law enforcement "


you dont know how to read ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top