Jaybird1980
Grandmaster
One little change.his biggest crime wasstupidity. Naivety
One little change.his biggest crime wasstupidity. Naivety
Blake-joking dude figured out he didn't want to be on that jury. I'm thinking the brightest one left.
In all seriousness it would be a tough choice: do the right thing and be on the jury, vice avoid a situation that could bring danger if the jury comes back not guilty.
I never get jury duty (kicks rocks) Twice selected, the defendant plead guilty here in Hendricks County, went judge-only on a Court Martial 20 years ago (the morning of, I was in Service Dress and everything!!) I've never seen the inside of a court!
At 17 I don’t care what life you’d led you will be naive and inexperienced with life and people.One little change.
I would too but I don’t live there and probably don’t give a **** of these ****ers want to come knock on my door later.I would take jury duty for this case in a heartbeat.
When you're 17, you don't know how much you don't know.At 17 I don’t care what life you’d led you will be naive and inexperienced with life and people.
I might think that way if they hadn't been doing all they could do to spread misinformation before the trial trying to paint him as guilty.I'm NOT saying I actually believe what I'm about to suggest, but...
Has anyone been talking/considering the possibility that the prosecution isn't incompetent, and they actually want the young man to be proclaimed "not guilty"?
Think about it that way for a second. There was No Way this could avoid turning into charges, particularly given the climate at the time. If they didn't file charges, the powers that be would have been eaten by their own mob. They would have become even bigger targets than the kid.
So... File charges, maybe make some intentional mistakes in the investigation, call State Witnesses that don't help the State (just the opposite), on and on until TA DA Not Guilty!!
This way, lib's scream about - well everything - but the Mayor, DA, and Police are relatively left alone. It's only the unlucky attorney for the prosecution that gets humiliated, but he's likely been promised something far better in his future. He's taking one for the team.
Wouldn't it be funny to see corruption and scandal actually working towards a more just outcome! (..even if for selfish motives)
Again, not saying that this is the case. I'm not sure the left's mental state would even allow this idea to formulate. Interesting idea to play with though.
Almost just the right amount?
According to this https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.amp.html
Eight shots fired
So many things wrong here that even some adults may not get. It appears, and I think but do not know, as I was not there, but it looked like his long gun almost got him kilt when was slammed down on top of it. A inch by inch forensic of just what happened would be a good read.When you're 17, you don't know how much you don't know.
...the one behind bars!!!Whole lot of people involved in this prosecution, should be on the bread line.
Heard on Branca's podcast that they had Rosenbaum's fiance on the stand and the prosecution asked her if he'd taken his meds that day. This was a HUGE misstep because all of his child raping past, raging unchecked mental health problems, and psychiatric hospitalization earlier that very day was initially excluded from evidence as not being relevant. Because the prosecution has now asked a witness about it, the defense can now call that same witness and crack open that entire line of questioning. They could get the prosecution's own witness to admit he was fresh out of the psych ward and crazier than a ****house rat that day.Eye-witness testimony supports Rittenhouse's statement of 'self-defense' and clearly defines Rosenberg as the angry and violent aggressor who made verbal threats against those aid workers that night!
Rittenhouse Prosecutors Had A Very Bad Week
bearingarms.com
Yup...sounds like the prosecution opened the door for cross-examinationHeard on Branca's podcast that they had Rosenbaum's fiance on the stand and the prosecution asked her if he'd taken his meds that day. This was a HUGE misstep because all of his child raping past, raging unchecked mental health problems, and psychiatric hospitalization earlier that very day was initially excluded from evidence as not being relevant. Because the prosecution has now asked a witness about it, the defense can now call that same witness and crack open that entire line of questioning. They could get the prosecution's own witness to admit he was fresh out of the psych ward and crazier than a ****house rat that day.
Sounds like they haven't fully exploited it yet, maybe they ran out of time for the day.
And, by the way, the fiance should thank Rittenhouse for saving her life. Dude would have raped and killed her one of these days, for sure.
I don't think they would allow jurors to bring popcorn and drinks into the courtroom, but it would be entertaining to be sure.I would take jury duty for this case in a heartbeat.
Yeah. I live in Indiana and I work across the state line in Louisville. I carry a gun there just like I do in Indiana. And not that anyone needs to have business in another state to justify being in another state, he did have business in Wisconsin. He was asked to be there because of his medic and firearms skills.Although, near the end, she (Anna) starts talking about "illegal gun", and how he had "no business" being in Wisconsin.
Well, he had a job there. Which seems to be "business".
Next, it's AMERICA. You don't need "business" to go to another State.
That law is so poorly written that the lawyers couldn't even agree on what it said.Yeah. I live in Indiana and I work across the state line in Louisville. I carry a gun there just like I do in Indiana. And not that anyone needs to have business in another state to justify being in another state, he did have business in Wisconsin. He was asked to be there because of his medic and firearms skills.
There may be a question of legal technicality about whether he was legal to have the gun there. But they had to dig into hunting laws to find that charge. He wasn’t hunting. That charge should be thrown out. I wouldn’t expect an anti-gun zealot to appreciate the difference between what they think is the law and what it actually is.