Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,076
19,628
Cad said:
Just because the DA didn't charge someone with something doesn't mean it wasn't proper. That said, I have no idea what qualifies a person to be a felon in possession in Wisconsin, the convictions he has may suffice even though he didn't plea to felonies. The fact that the DA didn't charge him as a felon in possession doesn't blow my skirt up in the slightest.
Click to expand...

They don't. Wisconsin follows federal baseline with very little variation. A disorderly conduct, theft, and trespass aren't cutting it.

A lot of times when you get a Triple III return on someone the disposition will be blank. There's multiple reasons for that, but my guess is that's what happened here which is why there were no details in the police report and he entered the charge as recommended instead of listing a lot of information that he didn't have which is required in this situation.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
Lightning Lord Rule

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
11,107
59,369
Cad said:
The funny thing is, these are the prosecution's witnesses. These are the people they're calling trying to make their case. Not a one has really supported them so far. Not even the detective.
Click to expand...
I just read Branca's summary of today's action, and as is disturbingly becoming commonplace, the only one who it looks like should be on trial is the fucking prosecutor.

legalinsurrection.com

Rittenhouse Trial Day 2: Prosecution Witnesses Still Fail To Contradict Self-Defense

Much of the development of this trial is reminiscent of the trial of George Zimmerman.
legalinsurrection.com legalinsurrection.com

Shenanigans about Grosskreutz's phone, improperly applying Marcy's Law (protecting crime victim's) in an unprecedented fashion, having a green 12yr old detective run the highest profile case in Kenosha history, BLATANTLY arguing for hearsay evidence on nearly nonsensical grounds, improperly conspiring with the detective during the investigation, moving Black's trial date around in an effort at coercion, and I'm probably forgetting something.

Branca also mentions how this closely parallels the ZimZam case. That basically destroyed Zimmerman's life after that, despite getting acquitted. The process is the punishment... AR Kyle might be ok after this because of the backlash to his treatment and the (so far) lack of racial component to rile up the NAACP types, but still. Something needs to be done with prosecutors in this country.
 
  • 7Like
  • 6Solidarity
Reactions: 12 users
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,821
50,680
Lightning Lord Rule said:
I just read Branca's summary of today's action, and as is disturbingly becoming commonplace, the only one who it looks like should be on trial is the fucking prosecutor.

legalinsurrection.com

Rittenhouse Trial Day 2: Prosecution Witnesses Still Fail To Contradict Self-Defense

Much of the development of this trial is reminiscent of the trial of George Zimmerman.
legalinsurrection.com legalinsurrection.com

Shenanigans about Grosskreutz's phone, improperly applying Marcy's Law (protecting crime victim's) in an unprecedented fashion, having a green 12yr old detective run the highest profile case in Kenosha history, BLATANTLY arguing for hearsay evidence on nearly nonsensical grounds, improperly conspiring with the detective during the investigation, moving Black's trial date around in an effort at coercion, and I'm probably forgetting something.

Branca also mentions how this closely parallels the ZimZam case. That basically destroyed Zimmerman's life after that, despite getting acquitted. The process is the punishment... AR Kyle might be ok after this because of the backlash to his treatment and the (so far) lack of racial component to rile up the NAACP types, but still. Something needs to be done with prosecutors in this country.
Click to expand...
I've been on messages with a few prosecutor buddies today (one in Dallas County, super lib, one in Rockwall County... super not lib) and they're both acting flabbergasted by this at least.

Not that it changes anything with how they act.
 
  • 5Solidarity
  • 2Like
Reactions: 6 users
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,076
19,628
Lightning Lord Rule said:
I just read Branca's summary of today's action, and as is disturbingly becoming commonplace, the only one who it looks like should be on trial is the fucking prosecutor.

legalinsurrection.com

Rittenhouse Trial Day 2: Prosecution Witnesses Still Fail To Contradict Self-Defense

Much of the development of this trial is reminiscent of the trial of George Zimmerman.
legalinsurrection.com legalinsurrection.com

Shenanigans about Grosskreutz's phone, improperly applying Marcy's Law (protecting crime victim's) in an unprecedented fashion, having a green 12yr old detective run the highest profile case in Kenosha history, BLATANTLY arguing for hearsay evidence on nearly nonsensical grounds, improperly conspiring with the detective during the investigation, moving Black's trial date around in an effort at coercion, and I'm probably forgetting something.

Branca also mentions how this closely parallels the ZimZam case. That basically destroyed Zimmerman's life after that, despite getting acquitted. The process is the punishment... AR Kyle might be ok after this because of the backlash to his treatment and the (so far) lack of racial component to rile up the NAACP types, but still. Something needs to be done with prosecutors in this country.
Click to expand...

The Chauvin case went the same way, with the defense slam dunking on the prosecution day after day. All it takes is 1 pos antifa shithead and 11 others who just want to go home
 
  • 3Rustled
  • 2Truth!
  • 2Solidarity
Reactions: 8 users
Lightning Lord Rule

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
11,107
59,369
LachiusTZ said:
I know one way to fix it
Click to expand...
Throw 'em out a window? I saw this documentary called LA Confidential that says there'll just be another dozen ready to step in to their office, they just have better rides than the starlets.
 
  • 2Worf
  • 1Truth!
Reactions: 2 users
Nirgon

Nirgon

Log Wizard
14,244
23,017
1636065565097.png



1636065854467.png
 
  • 11Worf
  • 2Double Worf
  • 1WTF
Reactions: 13 users
Lightning Lord Rule

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
11,107
59,369
Cad Cad
If the prosecution gets to the end of their case and hasn't proven any elements of the crimes that they're charging (as it so far appears to be the case), couldn't the defense move for an outright dismissal? I think it's probably unlikely the judge would grant a dismissal, since judges look to be almost as much of a problem as prosecutors, but still.

Also, how did the prosecution even get past the initial evidentiary hearing, they literally have NEGATIVE evidence of any crimes committed. In non-clown world, shouldn't a judge look at the footage and tell the DA to GTFO of his office?
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,821
50,680
Lightning Lord Rule said:
Cad Cad
If the prosecution gets to the end of their case and hasn't proven any elements of the crimes that they're charging (as it so far appears to be the case), couldn't the defense move for an outright dismissal? I think it's probably unlikely the judge would grant a dismissal, since judges look to be almost as much of a problem as prosecutors, but still.

Also, how did the prosecution even get past the initial evidentiary hearing, they literally have NEGATIVE evidence of any crimes committed. In non-clown world, shouldn't a judge look at the footage and tell the DA to GTFO of his office?
Click to expand...
1> yes you can move for a directed verdict... however judge is very unlikely to grant as it takes the case out of the hands of the jury and opens him up to reversal if the appeals court disagrees. So they generally don't actually grant those unless it's on "law" issues not "fact" issues.

2> those initial hearings the prosecution just presents the evidence they want and do not present exculpatory evidence for the most part, so the evidence presented would be: did Kyle intentionally fire on multiple people? yes? Ok held over for murder. It's not a substantive review.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 8 users
Lightning Lord Rule

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
11,107
59,369
Cad said:
1> yes you can move for a directed verdict... however judge is very unlikely to grant as it takes the case out of the hands of the jury and opens him up to reversal if the appeals court disagrees. So they generally don't actually grant those unless it's on "law" issues not "fact" issues.

2> those initial hearings the prosecution just presents the evidence they want and do not present exculpatory evidence for the most part, so the evidence presented would be: did Kyle intentionally fire on multiple people? yes? Ok held over for murder. It's not a substantive review.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't 2 be a good place to make some adjustments to the system? Or is this case so rare and/or egregious that you'd be closing a rarely used and therefor relatively minor issue?

EDIT: I'm approaching this from a perspective of preventing more trials, since trials are completely different than how they were intended to be IMO. IE they're more of a punishment in and of themselves, rather than a process to determine what actually happened and then punish any wrongdoing that is found.
 
xaivius

xaivius

Freelance Kwisatz-Haderach
<Gold Donor>
244
963
Lightning Lord Rule said:
Throw 'em out a window? I saw this documentary called LA Confidential that says there'll just be another dozen ready to step in to their office, they just have better rides than the starlets.
Click to expand...
You have my attention sir. Is there a newsletter for this Barrister Defenestration Society?
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,821
50,680
Lightning Lord Rule said:
Wouldn't 2 be a good place to make some adjustments to the system? Or is this case so rare and/or egregious that you'd be closing a rarely used and therefor relatively minor issue?

EDIT: I'm approaching this from a perspective of preventing more trials, since trials are completely different than how they were intended to be IMO. IE they're more of a punishment in and of themselves, rather than a process to determine what actually happened and then punish any wrongdoing that is found.
Click to expand...
Problem is, if you make the initial hold over process more substantive, you run into the issue of just how substantive... and is it possible you're putting on a defense without context? Are we doing half a trial that could be misleading?

I get exactly what you're saying... right now, the process favors the prosecutors because it is "assumed" they are operating in good faith. When they're not, the judges need to be slapping them down. However, it is rare that judges actually do a god damn thing, so the default is all sorts of bullshit can come to trial.
 
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lightning Lord Rule

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
11,107
59,369
Cad said:
Problem is, if you make the initial hold over process more substantive, you run into the issue of just how substantive... and is it possible you're putting on a defense without context? Are we doing half a trial that could be misleading?

I get exactly what you're saying... right now, the process favors the prosecutors because it is "assumed" they are operating in good faith. When they're not, the judges need to be slapping them down. However, it is rare that judges actually do a god damn thing, so the default is all sorts of bullshit can come to trial.
Click to expand...
Ya, it's a tough one. The system isn't really the problem, it's that the people running it have gone to shit.

I wonder if it could be improved via a judiciary selection improvement? Like, the pipeline to the bench is through former prosecutors (no idea if that is actually the case)? Maybe if there's some kind of criteria that could be laid out for Judges to wake the fuck up during proceedings to prosecutorial misconduct? Maybe lowering the threshold for what constitutes misconduct?

Although I have a feeling you're about to tell me all about just such rules and how they don't really work.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,821
50,680
Lightning Lord Rule said:
Ya, it's a tough one. The system isn't really the problem, it's that the people running it have gone to shit.

I wonder if it could be improved via a judiciary selection improvement? Like, the pipeline to the bench is through former prosecutors (no idea if that is actually the case)? Maybe if there's some kind of criteria that could be laid out for Judges to wake the fuck up during proceedings to prosecutorial misconduct? Maybe lowering the threshold for what constitutes misconduct?

Although I have a feeling you're about to tell me all about just such rules and how they don't really work.
Click to expand...
They do exist and they don't work because the judges don't enforce them.

Look up "The thin blue line" and the case of Randall Dale Adams. Doug Mulder, the prosecutor in that case, blatantly lied to the Court, provably.

Read about his prosecutorial misconduct here: Ex Parte Adams

I met Doug Mulder in like 2009, and he was a well respected defense attorney. Hadn't been disbarred, punished, fired, anything. Adams spent like 12-13 years in prison because of Mulder's lies.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WAS DONE.

The problem is the fucking judges.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 2 users
Lightning Lord Rule

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
11,107
59,369
Cad said:
They do exist and they don't work because the judges don't enforce them.

Look up "The thin blue line" and the case of Randall Dale Adams. Doug Mulder, the prosecutor in that case, blatantly lied to the Court, provably.

Read about his prosecutorial misconduct here: Ex Parte Adams

I met Doug Mulder in like 2009, and he was a well respected defense attorney. Hadn't been disbarred, punished, fired, anything. Adams spent like 12-13 years in prison because of Mulder's lies.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WAS DONE.

The problem is the fucking judges.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall hearing about that one by osmosis somewhere.

Maybe you need a squad, kinda like Internal Affairs, that only goes after judges and prosecutors. But then you need a squad that watches them, then another that watches them... it's watcher squads all the way down.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,821
50,680
Lightning Lord Rule said:
I seem to recall hearing about that one by osmosis somewhere.

Maybe you need a squad, kinda like Internal Affairs, that only goes after judges and prosecutors. But then you need a squad that watches them, then another that watches them... it's watcher squads all the way down.
Click to expand...
The judges are supposed to be that squad. Maybe at some point in history they actually did something. But they are do-nothing faggots now.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 users
Nirgon

Nirgon

Log Wizard
14,244
23,017
Ambiturner said:
This an actual quote?
Click to expand...

I mean he brought up ancient Rome. I've been listening while workin.

Oh yeah it was during jury selection


Cicchini said Schroeder traditionally gives brief speeches about the history of trials to impress upon jurors the importance of their task. On Monday, he referenced the fall of Rome when explaining the system’s evolution.

“When Rome fell, the world changed dramatically,” the judge said, before launching into more history about how cases were decided more than 2,000 years ago. He spoke of priests blessing trials in which defendants had to place their hands on burning coals or in boiling water — if they “didn’t come out too badly,” that was a sign from God of their innocence.

Schroeder also cautioned that media coverage of the case may have misled potential jurors.

“This case has become very political,” he said. “It was involved in the politics of the last election year. ... You could go out now and read things from all across the political spectrum about this case, most of which is written by people who know nothing. I don’t mean that that they are know-nothings. I mean that they don’t know what you’re going to know: those of you who are selected for this jury, who are going to hear for yourselves the real evidence in this case.”
Click to expand...


and then there was this:


“So, this person who’s describing this,” Schroeder said of the person in the video, is not subject to the rules of the court; therefore the statements cannot be used as evidence.

Schroeder was taking the long way around to admonishing the jury that it should not rely on the brief statements it heard in the video.

Then came the Biblical monologue:

This is actually referred to in the Bible. Saint Paul, when he was put on trial . . . in . . . I think it’s Caesarea — well, it was over in Palestine — uh, in Israel — he was . . . accused of some activity. And he was a Roman citizen, which is not common, but he happened to have been a Roman citizen. So, he had rights that we share now as Americans. Uh, and — he — when they tried to put him on trial with evidence from — which was being repeated by somebody who wasn’t there and under oath — he said, “where are the witnesses against me? I am a Roman, and I have a right to confront my accusers. They should be here.” And so that led to, actually, his voyage to Rome to have his case heard before the Emperor. Um, so it’s an ancient rule; it’s strictly, strictly enforced in the criminal courts for very obvious reasons.
Um, and, um, s0 — that’s what we’re talking about here. And, um — so — if the person who is making this descriptive material is here and can be put under oath and can be cross examined, uh, then it’s admissible, but otherwise it is not admissible through the officer here.
Click to expand...






1636081799433.png
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.