Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

moonarchia · Nov 6, 2021

Punko said:
Are you telling us people are judging you based on your 16.000 retarded posts?

Shocking.

Potato gun potate.

Ambiturner · Nov 6, 2021

You also have the faggot

Lendarios going full retard on the homeless aspect while ignoring the part where him being bipolar and off his meds is also on the record

Hoss · Nov 6, 2021

Butthurt said:
Lol, so having a law degree and a bar license means you’ve never served on a jury before that? You arent even a potato, you’re a yam.

Really? I thought that actually did disqualify you. Is it just a valid excuse then?

Tmac · Nov 6, 2021

You guys gotta stop engaging w

Lendarios as if he has a fully functioning brain.

Shmoopy · Nov 6, 2021

Really good roundup of some questionable stuff about the trial:

Ambiturner · Nov 6, 2021

Hoss said:
Really? I thought that actually did disqualify you. Is it just a valid excuse then?

Think his point is that they're not born with a law degree.

Butthurt · Nov 6, 2021

Hoss said:
Really? I thought that actually did disqualify you. Is it just a valid excuse then?

Its no bar to serving on a jury. The conventional lawyer wisdom is to strike an attorney in the venire panel because if the attorney makes it to the 12, inevitably the jury will find out that person is an attorney. They all end up deferring to the lawyer, and now its just a jury of one, instead of 12.

its one of the rare points of agreement that the defense and the prosecution will have, to just strike the lawyer from the panel.

I served on one once, before i went to school. Good perspective to have when it comes to understanding the job.

Arbitrary · Nov 6, 2021

Butthurt said:
Its no bar to serving on a jury. The conventional lawyer wisdom is to strike an attorney in the venire panel because if the attorney makes it to the 12, inevitably the jury will find out that person is an attorney. They all end up deferring to the lawyer, and now its just a jury of one, instead of 12.

its one of the rare points of agreement that the defense and the prosecution will have, to just strike the lawyer from the panel.

I served on one once, before i went to school. Good perspective to have when it comes to understanding the job.

Having done the criminal justice thing in college questions along those lines were always popular and the answer was always the same whether it be a public defender or one of the county's DAs (both taught adjunct for extra cash) - both sides are going to try and toss you off the jury.

Confirmed conventional lawyer wisdom. It's even repeated out here in the Midwest from very different sides.

Jive Turkey · Nov 6, 2021

Lendarios said:
Bro. The defense wanted to introduce the evidence that the guy who rushed kyle was an unstable mentality unhealthy individual.
The state wanted to say that he was a good guy.
The judge told the prosecution if you say that, then the defense can bring all this other stuff.
Then the prosecution CHOOSED to not go down that path.
Are you even watching this shot?
The defense was not given any options regarding that.

So what stopped the defence from bringing that info forward? I think you've got this backward. It was the prosecution who was cock blocked, not the defence

Jovec · Nov 6, 2021

Jive Turkey said:
So what stopped the defence from bringing that info forward? I think you've got this backward. It was the prosecution who was cock blocked, not the defence

Because Kyle had no knowledge of it during the event, so it could not have influenced his decisions.

The prosecution wanted to bring in testimony of Huber's childhood "hero act" to support the notion that Huber was charging what he thought was an "active shooter" in Kyle, so the judge said sure but then the defense can bring in evidence of Huber's past criminal/violent/threatening acts too. Same with Rosenbaum's medical info (psyche drugs, just released from mental hospital that day) and restraining order - Kyle had no knowledge so the defense cannot use that until/unless the prosecution brings it up, which they did via Rosenbaum's girlfriend.

Chris · Nov 6, 2021

I think the core of this case is going to be the first victim, for the second and third you are SUPPOSED to rush spree killers.

Ambiturner · Nov 6, 2021

Chris said:
I think the core of this case is going to be the first victim, for the second and third you are SUPPOSED to rush spree killers.

You're confusing a lot of things in a situation where none of them apply

Cad · Nov 6, 2021

Chris said:
I think the core of this case is going to be the first victim, for the second and third you are SUPPOSED to rush spree killers.

If you're going to rush someone you think is a criminal, you better be right.

If you rush someone who isn't a criminal, they have valid self defense against you, which is exactly what happened here. Because the people "rushing" were wrong.

Leadsalad · Nov 6, 2021

"Spree" killers...

A spree is 1 round into 1 person and then running away from a mob?

Jive Turkey · Nov 6, 2021

Jovec said:
Because Kyle had no knowledge of it during the event, so it could not have influenced his decisions.

The prosecution wanted to bring in testimony of Huber's childhood "hero act" to support the notion that Huber was charging what he thought was an "active shooter" in Kyle, so the judge said sure but then the defense can bring in evidence of Huber's past criminal/violent/threatening acts too. Same with Rosenbaum's medical info (psyche drugs, just released from mental hospital that day) and restraining order - Kyle had no knowledge so the defense cannot use that until/unless the prosecution brings it up, which they did via Rosenbaum's girlfriend.

It was more a rhetorical question to Lendarios to help him reassess his argument and also his life decisions in general

Jive Turkey · Nov 6, 2021

Chris said:
I think the core of this case is going to be the first victim, for the second and third you are SUPPOSED to rush spree killers.

Are you supposed to form a lynch mob to attack someone who had just defended himself?

Chris · Nov 6, 2021

Jive Turkey said:
Are you supposed to form a lynch mob to attack someone who had just defended himself?

Did they know that though? Some guy just shot someone, it's the US and you are a liberal, you are going to think it's a spree killer.

Kyle was 100% correct defending himself, but it's possible that the 2nd and 3rd shooting victims were correct (without hindsight) in taking down what they may have thought was a spree killer.

So basically they need to show that the 1st victim was a thug out looking for trouble, the other two are less relevent.

Jive Turkey · Nov 6, 2021

Chris said:
Did they know that though?

Exactly why you shouldn't form a lynch mob in general. Ignorance isn't an excuse for assaulting someone

OneofOne · Nov 6, 2021

I know this is a foreign concept because you live on that island whose government intentionally terrifies you of all things gun, but just because someone shot someone else, it doesn't automatically mean the shooter is the bad guy. And most sane people know this. Most sane people would take a moment assess the situation BEFORE taking action.

Or do you routinely rush cops shooting at people?

Ambiturner · Nov 6, 2021

Chris said:
Did they know that though? Some guy just shot someone, it's the US and you are a liberal, you are going to think it's a spree killer.

Kyle was 100% correct defending himself, but it's possible that the 2nd and 3rd shooting victims were correct (without hindsight) in taking down what they may have thought was a spree killer.

So basically they need to show that the 1st victim was a thug out looking for trouble, the other two are less relevent.

Stop, you're wrong about all of this

Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

The Scientific Shitlord

Ssraeszha Raider

Make America's Team Great Again

Adventurer

Avatar of War Slayer

Ssraeszha Raider

Tranny Chaser

Karen

?

Potato del Grande

Ssraeszha Raider

scientia potentia est

Cis-XYite-Nationalist

Karen

Karen

Potato del Grande

Karen

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Ssraeszha Raider