Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Holy fuck the Prosecutor may be about to get some real shit if the defence find out about this
Prosecutor who says he knows nothing about video editing and so wouldn't be able to edit the video, turns out to have handbrake video editing / re-encoding software on his laptop........ Jesus like the prosecutor here really seems to be his own worst enemy.
Prosecutor who says he knows nothing about video editing and so wouldn't be able to edit the video, turns out to have handbrake video editing / re-encoding software on his laptop........ Jesus like the prosecutor here really seems to be his own worst enemy.
I think the OG footage is in widescreen and the video sent to the Defense was 4x3. I think handbrake can do that.
It's POSSIBLE he needed to get the raw footage into an easy to present form for the trial, someone said 'hey download this' or he googled converting software, and that's why it's fresh on his desktop, and their general incompetence and unfamiliarity with the software led to it being output in 4:3.
Or he rips and and encodes dvds with his laptop. I put that possibility out there because based on this dickhead’s performance thus far I refuse to believe he has even the basic level of rat cunning needed for deliberately tampering with evidence.
I give. You literally refuse to read what the law says, and instead decide that it *really* means what a handful of staff for a handful of legislators summarized it as, as though that supercedes what the law actually says. So until you can tell me specifically which of the other laws mentioned in 948.60(3)(c) he was violating and how, I'm just going to ignore you.
I don't think you give Prosecutors the benefit of a doubt at the Defendant's trial. Now, if the Defendant turns around and sues the Prosecutor for malicious prosecution, then he is the Defendant.
ITMT: We can hope...
And then after the credits roll we see Zimmerman with an eyepatch hanging from the ladder of a helicopter with one arm. He gallantly nods and offers the other arm. "We have an organization that can use a man of your particular talents, Mr. Ritten".
Gotta hate those sequel teasers...
I really hope that if he gets a not guilty verdict that he'll decide to get his head down as much as possible for the rest of his life and avoid anything like this again, for everyone's sake, but I still find this too funny to not to like it.
Lol he'll be on Tucker Carlson with in a month to promote his new book "My war in Kenosha" and a regular on OANs protest coverage as a antifa radical protest expert. That's how this works. Win or lose this attention thirsty sociopath just got everything he could have ever dreamed of. It always comes down to fame and money.
No it doesn't really. So it's a good thing that didn't happen in this case.
Just quoting myself from earlier, feeling like I made a pretty good call on this one from first impressions.
Someone went out there to enforce the law instead of the police, shot people dead in the process, and is likely to be declared innocent of any crime. That sounds like vigilante justice.
If anyone's confused, they need only consider the groups who appear to be enthusiastically supporting Rittenhouse, such as militias who are very much in favour of the public (well, themselves) taking responsibility for law and order. Vigilante militias have been trying to police the border with Mexico for years, now they're taking on law and order in US states - this, Oregon a few years back, monitoring polling stations (not at all intimidation, wink wink). Some went as far as giving themselves the right to decide who won an election: storming the legislature is pretty much the non plus ultra of taking the law into your own hands.
This is vigilanteism in action. And everyone they shoot without repercussions is a win for them.
It's simple, the interpretation the defense offered up is bunk, and the judge went along with it because he's biased. Everyone else seemed to have understood the law as it meant for years because laws are in fact interpreted. But this law was challenged in court at the start of the trial and the judge sat on it until the end, right before jury deliberation. And further he flat out said that they couldn't appeal his decision because he didn't make it until it was too late, it's obvious bullshit and there's no reason to believe in it.
I'm sure we can find distinctions between volunteer community policing and vigilantism, though there may be some overlap.
Vigilantism itself can be a warning sign of a major problem itself. Example, the US Government is failing to do its job: protect our border. It is being posited that this failure at this time is willful.
Back in the 1970s, crime was peaking, argued to be due at least in part to "new ideas" about crime and social control. Vigilantism followed. Interesting book on it:
Last edited:
So now MSNBC had one of their reporters follow the bus with the jurors on it and has been barred from the courtroom henceforth. WTF is wrong with people?