Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Dreiko]

"After the jury departed, Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards told the judge he feared such a move would lead to jurors looking things up in the dictionary or doing their own research at home."

So apparently both sides lawyer aren't exactly the brightest bulb. Can't possibly have the jury think over their decision and get informed on the law involved in the case they're asked to decide.

Pretty sure the jury is supposed to ask the judge for contextualization and clarification, not just find it out for themselves. It's considered part of external bias. You're supposed to be pure of that sort of thing when you become a juror and since they have no way of verifying the veracity of the place they got their information on the law from without subpenaing their browser searches or something and they could be reading Q posts or something they go with just not letting em look up things without court guidance.

It's really simple, you can only be armed under 18 if you're hunting, training in the military, or at a target range. So by being out with a gun he has to be saying he's doing one of those three.

I think the law says if the gun is of a specific size or smaller and the kid is over 16 they just get to have it, period. Otherwise the prosecution wouldn't consent to the gun possession charges being dismissed as they did. They'd object to it instead.

 

[Leg End]

Verdict is in: Not Guilty on all counts. Godspeed Kyle.

EDIT: Now with video.

 

[SilentPony]

It's really simple, you can only be armed under 18 if you're hunting, training in the military, or at a target range. So by being out with a gun he has to be saying he's doing one of those three.

 

[Dreiko]

It's really simple, you can only be armed under 18 if you're hunting, training in the military, or at a target range. So by being out with a gun he has to be saying he's doing one of those three.

I already hear the sirens. (no, literally, just heard a fire truck or ambulance or something passing, and I'm in a pretty quiet town in CT where you hear those maybe once a couple of weeks if at that)



Godspeed to all.


Especially cvs franchisees.

 

[tstorm823]

Why are you ignoring all of the explanations of the laws and how they work that we've gone over in this thread?

Is anyone talking about the charges that are actually appropriate? There are some great arguments that intentional homicide is way overcharged, and the misdemeanor gun possession charge is relatively unimportant (whether it should apply or not, I don't particularly care). His presence at a riot (in violation of emergency orders) increased the likelihood of violence that night. Everyone who was drawn out to the violence that night in Kenosha ought to be considered reckless endangerment to that community, and when someone dies from your reckless endangerment, that's reckless homicide.

Funny enough, the only charge the prosecution aimed at Rittenhouse that seems appropriate is "failure to comply with an emergency order", which was both a meaningless fine and then thrown out for some reason. The reckless homicide charges they picked were 1st degree charges, which requires "a show of utter disregard for human life", and the intentional homicide charges were silly on their face. They should have charged with second degree reckless endangerment for attending a riot and second degree reckless homicide for people dying from his reckless actions, but the prosecution is either insanely incompetent or deliberately throwing the case.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Verdict is in: Not Guilty on all counts. Godspeed Kyle.

EDIT: Now with video.

A victory for everyone looking to normalize murdering their political enemies.

 

[SilentPony]

A victory for everyone looking to normalize murdering their political enemies.

At least we know how Jan 6th 2025 is going to go down. Can't wait for more militias to start patrolling the streets.

 

[CM156]

Verdict is in: Not Guilty on all counts. Godspeed Kyle.

EDIT: Now with video.

Well, that settles that.
Feds could still bring charges, if they wanted.
But I am skeptical that they will.

 

[Dreiko]

EDIT: Now with video.

He doesn't collapse lmao, he just cries and hugs the lawyer in the longer clip which isn't cut short like that one. Is this written by an actual journalist or just some cloutwhore? XD

 

[SilentPony]

Well, that settles that.
Feds could still bring charges, if they wanted.
But I am skeptical that they will.

Wouldn't that violate the double-jeopardy laws? Or does the fact he crossed state lines give the Feds jurisdiction?
As much as I'm convinced he's guilty and should be punished, the Jury ruled and supporting the legal system means accepting that. He shouldn't be brought up again.

 

[CM156]

Wouldn't that violate the double-jeopardy laws? Or does the fact he crossed state lines give the Feds jurisdiction?
As much as I'm convinced he's guilty and should be punished, the Jury ruled and supporting the legal system means accepting that. He shouldn't be brought up again.

Federal jurisdiction is different than state jurisdiction. The feds can charge him with violating the civil rights of the people he shot.

 

[gorfias]

Jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty in Kenosha shootings

Kyle Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges after testifying he acted in self-defense in the deadly Kenosha, Wisconsin, shootings that became a flashpoint in the nation’s debate over guns, vigilantism and racial injustice.

apnews.com

 

[Eacaraxe]

A victory for everyone looking to normalize murdering their political enemies.

I mean, as opposed to every other day in the summer of 2020?

Federal jurisdiction is different than state jurisdiction. The feds can charge him with violating the civil rights of the people he shot.

Under the Biden admin? Doubt it.

This is in the hands of civil courts now. Rittenhouse is going to have far worse chances there, without an asshat judge putting his thumb on the scales, against competent counsel, and dealing with preponderance of the evidence opposed to reasonable doubt.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

He doesn't collapse lmao, he just cries and hugs the lawyer in the longer clip which isn't cut short like that one. Is this written by an actual journalist or just some cloutwhore? XD

What's the difference?

 

[Dreiko]

What's the difference?

When you think of collapse you think of someone fainting or passing out and falling down. Basically it's clickbaity fake dramatic BS in something that should be serious. These people, whoever they are, are treating it like a spectacle or a sport or something by sensationalizing it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Pretty sure the jury is supposed to ask the judge for contextualization and clarification, not just find it out for themselves. It's considered part of external bias. You're supposed to be pure of that sort of thing when you become a juror and since they have no way of verifying the veracity of the place they got their information on the law from without subpenaing their browser searches or something and they could be reading Q posts or something they go with just not letting em look up things without court guidance.


I think the law says if the gun is of a specific size or smaller and the kid is over 16 they just get to have it, period. Otherwise the prosecution wouldn't consent to the gun possession charges being dismissed as they did. They'd object to it instead.

Don't try and pretend the prosecution was competent here, but as pointed out before, when the judge made that decision they have to appeal it in a separate court. Which is why when the question was brought to the judge at the start of the trial he didn't say anything. He waited until the end of the trial when it was too late to appeal his decision, and laughed in their face about it.

Because the judge is an asshole.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

When you think of collapse you think of someone fainting or passing out and falling down. Basically it's clickbaity fake dramatic BS in something that should be serious. These people, whoever they are, are treating it like a spectacle or a sport or something by sensationalizing it.

No no. I meant, what's the difference between a journalist and a cloutwhore?

 

[meiam]

So the law s really this easy to skirt around

 

[Dreiko]

No no. I meant, what's the difference between a journalist and a cloutwhore?

Well, cloutwhores sometimes are nice? I dunno, we have another chicken and egg quandary here.

 

[CM156]

This is in the hands of civil courts now. Rittenhouse is going to have far worse chances there, without an asshat judge putting his thumb on the scales, against competent counsel, and dealing with preponderance of the evidence opposed to reasonable doubt.

I remember people saying the thing about Mr. George Zimmerman.