Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Yeah he's way behind the times, that's what conservatives think. The progressive thing is to believe videogames make you sexist. Totally different.
I'm starting to think we're entering North Koreans compliance level territory.
Like the whole idea of how North Korea works in part is forcing people to say the believe insane things or face consequences. Like if you want to avoid being an undesirable you have to say how Kim Jong Un totally holds 25 sporting world records and never has to use the toilet and invented the beef burger and holds 27 doctorates. People know it's false and they either shut up and go with it because they don't want to be labelled undesirable OR they actively don't care for the truth and go along with it.
It's pure tribalism and knee jerk reaction and just showing the power of emotive language over some people such that they refuse to let the rational part of their brain re-engage or something.
You gotta account for the fact the prosecutor has to try to play to the jury and their possible biases not to reality if reality isn't supporting their case.
It's not actually a bad prosecution tactic as such because his job is to get a prosecution and if the facts don't work just try and sway peoples feelings instead. It's why he's been acting like such a huge asshole because he can't build a case on "the facts". So he had to yell at one of his own witnesses who provided photographs to say the witness was doing it for fame because that makes said witness seem unreliable. It's why he brought up (against court rules and was yelled at for it) that Kyle chose to remain silent until he had lawyers present and wasn't giving apology tours in the press because you can try to bias people by going "If you are truly innocent wouldn't you want people to know".
Like it's really scummy "Not cricket" techniques being used but it's not bad. The only bad aspect of it is jury members who know better and see what's being done will see through the prosecutors techniques and approach to realise there's no substance to it and it potentially biases them against the prosecution. It's why advertising has to be labelled as advertising because you know it's trying to persuade and can and will actively put people against the product knowing what's happening is advertising.
Yes and no. People under a fascist regime receive the due process of fascist law. Which just happens to be far fewer rights and protections than they receive under the average liberal democracy.
They typically will have no scruple about insisting on every right and protection for fascists committing murders even while chafing against the existence of those rights and protections if anyone among their targets is accused of fighting back or violence in general.
If we're to use Nazis as an official metric of fascism, they had no qualms about doing all the drugs while blaming drug abuse on Jewish and leftist communities. If only they even had a single redeeming quality of consistency with applying the law to all included themselves. If only!
I think they do closing arguments today.
There will be an excessive force charge included. That one could get Kyle in trouble. Not sure.
I was once asked if it was self defense if a 100 lb woman with a rifle has no way out of a room other than a single doorway, and an angry 300 lb unarmed man is entering the room from that doorway saying he will kill her with his bare hands so she then shoots him dead. I begrudgingly answer that it is self defense.
The 1st attacker of Kyle was unarmed. He was also much larger than Kyle and lunging at him.
We'll see what happens next.
There will be an excessive force charge included. That one could get Kyle in trouble. Not sure.
I was once asked if it was self defense if a 100 lb woman with a rifle has no way out of a room other than a single doorway, and an angry 300 lb unarmed man is entering the room from that doorway saying he will kill her with his bare hands so she then shoots him dead. I begrudgingly answer that it is self defense.
The 1st attacker of Kyle was unarmed. He was also much larger than Kyle and lunging at him.
We'll see what happens next.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
I have yet to see a fascist system of law where there is a concept of "due process" worthy of the term.
That was the joke I was going for. The legal system under Nazi Germany made the show trials of the Stalin era look legitimate by comparison.
Well here's a thing.
Rekieta was doing a livestream of the trial with some other lawyer friends but some-one tried to shut it down but only today it seems
Rekieta was doing a livestream of the trial with some other lawyer friends but some-one tried to shut it down but only today it seems
Not the only stream to be taken down that was covering the trial. Apparently even one with no commentary was taken down too.
Closing argument
apnews.com
Apparently the Judge dismissed the possession of weapon because of a technicality in the law. Sigh.
Here's a thought. If he's considered not guilty and there's a protest due to it. Could people who support him all show up with assault rifle, swing them around to taunt the protester and, as soon as one of the protester (potentially unharmed), start moving toward them they could gun down every protesters and then just yell "Self defense!. We felt threaten!" and literally walk free?
Prosecutor: Rittenhouse provoked the bloodshed in Kenosha
Prosecutors say Kyle Rittenhouse provoked bloodshed on the streets of Kenosha by bringing a semi-automatic rifle to a protest and menacing others.
apnews.com
Apparently the Judge dismissed the possession of weapon because of a technicality in the law. Sigh.
Here's a thought. If he's considered not guilty and there's a protest due to it. Could people who support him all show up with assault rifle, swing them around to taunt the protester and, as soon as one of the protester (potentially unharmed), start moving toward them they could gun down every protesters and then just yell "Self defense!. We felt threaten!" and literally walk free?
Should he be doing that? And if that’s evidence - I’m assuming Rittenhouse’ weapon - why isn’t it in a bag or tagged?
Closing arguments are going... well I don't know if I can say they're going well but they're certainly going.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
In my personal opinion, no. He should not be doing that. He's violating three of the four rules of gun safety in this picture alone.
Seems like something the prosecution should have caught before today. Or the defense. Or anyone, really.
Very easy to avoid this, don't fall in the trap, don't walk towards armed people looking to shoot you. Be kind and polite and they won't shoot you!Closing argument
Prosecutor: Rittenhouse provoked the bloodshed in Kenosha
Prosecutors say Kyle Rittenhouse provoked bloodshed on the streets of Kenosha by bringing a semi-automatic rifle to a protest and menacing others.
Apparently the Judge dismissed the possession of weapon because of a technicality in the law. Sigh.
Here's a thought. If he's considered not guilty and there's a protest due to it. Could people who support him all show up with assault rifle, swing them around to taunt the protester and, as soon as one of the protester (potentially unharmed), start moving toward them they could gun down every protesters and then just yell "Self defense!. We felt threaten!" and literally walk free?
Closing argument
Prosecutor: Rittenhouse provoked the bloodshed in Kenosha
Prosecutors say Kyle Rittenhouse provoked bloodshed on the streets of Kenosha by bringing a semi-automatic rifle to a protest and menacing others.
Apparently the Judge dismissed the possession of weapon because of a technicality in the law. Sigh.
Here's a thought. If he's considered not guilty and there's a protest due to it. Could people who support him all show up with assault rifle, swing them around to taunt the protester and, as soon as one of the protester (potentially unharmed), start moving toward them they could gun down every protesters and then just yell "Self defense!. We felt threaten!" and literally walk free?
The worst part is it's not a technicality.
The Wisconsin legislature clarified in 2018 precisely what the law was meant to do in this situation.
Pretends I didn't point out the exact technicality that could be used here previously that apparently the judge used to dismiss the charge lol.
Oddly there was an incident where a right win protest saw armed left win counter protestors turn up. Nothing happened. The right wing lot happily marched their little route with the armed left wingers basically flanking them. No incidents happened from it.Closing argument
Prosecutor: Rittenhouse provoked the bloodshed in Kenosha
Prosecutors say Kyle Rittenhouse provoked bloodshed on the streets of Kenosha by bringing a semi-automatic rifle to a protest and menacing others.
Apparently the Judge dismissed the possession of weapon because of a technicality in the law. Sigh.
Here's a thought. If he's considered not guilty and there's a protest due to it. Could people who support him all show up with assault rifle, swing them around to taunt the protester and, as soon as one of the protester (potentially unharmed), start moving toward them they could gun down every protesters and then just yell "Self defense!. We felt threaten!" and literally walk free?
A "technicality" like the law in question only applying to certain kinds of firearms, which the prosecution had to admit Rittenhouse's firearm was not one of. That's like saying that a drug possession charge was dismissed on a technicality because the alleged cocaine was actually caffeine powder. Both are still white powder stimulants with names beginning with "C", it should be close enough!Closing argument
Prosecutor: Rittenhouse provoked the bloodshed in Kenosha
Prosecutors say Kyle Rittenhouse provoked bloodshed on the streets of Kenosha by bringing a semi-automatic rifle to a protest and menacing others.
Apparently the Judge dismissed the possession of weapon because of a technicality in the law. Sigh.
That depends, did the "protester" threaten him, attack him, the "supporter" flee, someone else fire a shot, then the "supporter" turns, sees the "protester" within arm's reach going for his gun and *then* shoots him? Bonus points if said "protester" had been talking about wanting to "jack them" and "steal they guns" prior. Or at least assault him with a blunt object?