Originally posted by jaden_2.0Yep, well aware of that. But as long as the videos showing KR acted in self defense don't mysteriously "disappear" I think verdict would still be the same.
You may find the families of the 2 men killed go down the OJ route and launch civil suits for wrongful death or something equivalent because the burden of proof is lower.
Well now...Rittenhouse's lawyer is calling out those prominent Republicans jumping on his client's bandwagon, calling it 'disgusting.'
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouses-attorney-says-disgusting-164528217.html
Originally posted by roughrider
Well now...Rittenhouse's lawyer is calling out those prominent Republicans jumping on his client's bandwagon, calling it 'disgusting.'https://ca.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouses-attorney-says-disgusting-164528217.html
Originally posted by cdtm
Come on, they're being way too melodramatic about one case. Tell the people stuck under Taliban rule in Afghanistan how sick the US is, I bet they'd trade places in a heartbeat.
Youre bragging about being Better than the Taliban ? Lmao
Well im betting a lot of people in the US would trade places with other more humane countries in the world in a heartbeat right now.
Like anywhere you cant go fully armed to a protest, shoot a bunch of people and claim self defence.
Originally posted by roughriderVery good post. I agree 100% except the Judge disallowed key evidence and the drone footage which the Judge created doubt over showed provocation.
The verdict makes me more sad than angry. Reading some legal experts this week braced me for this; I'm in agreement with the ones who say this may be the right verdict legally, but not morally. And the additional B.S. about him having a long barreled weapon rather than short barreled excused the weapons charge... 🤪America's great sickness - racism mixed with gun culture worship.
I worry so much about the legal precedent set by this, going forward. But history shows fame fades and the ultra right moves on after they've used you up. There recently was a convention in Idaho for gunowners that got cancelled, after they found out George Zimmerman was to be a key speaker.
They said it very clearly: We don't agree with what George Zimmerman stands for.
So much for hero worship for these guys.
The judge did not disallow "key evidence". He disallowed so-called "evidence" that it typically not allowed in cases. Nor did he create doubt over the drone footage. The prosecution raised concerns over the fact that they did not receive the HQ version of the footage but only a low-quality version due to an error when the defense sent it over.
So much misinformation has been spread about this case. And is still spreading for that matter.
Originally posted by ares834Disagree, premeditation is grounds for admission, his use of "other acts" for that video two weeks before the shootings is different to the other two he disallowed, which do fit that criteria. And casting doubts over what's seen when zoomed as artifacts was wrong.
The judge did not disallow "key evidence". He disallowed so-called "evidence" that it typically not allowed in cases. Nor did he create doubt over the drone footage. The prosecution raised concerns over the fact that they did not receive the HQ version of the footage but only a low-quality version due to an error when the defense sent it over.So much misinformation has been spread about this case. And is still spreading for that matter.
There was no evidence of premeditation. That video does not suggest premeditation by any definition. He jokingly said he wanted to shoot looters. FYI, he did not shoot people who were looting.
And the judge did not cast doubts, the prosecution did. The judge being older and ignorant of modern tech asked for an expert to see whose interpretation (prosecution or defense) was correct.
Originally posted by ares834the far right Judge himself was in two minds on the wanting to shoot people, a normal judge would probably have allowed it. The judge believed that the zoom affected what was there, it doesn't in terms of where a person points a gun.
There was no evidence of premeditation. That video does not suggest premeditation by any definition. He jokingly said he wanted to shoot looters. FYI, he did not shoot people who were looting.And the judge did not cast doubts, the prosecution did. The judge being older and ignorant of modern tech asked for an expert to see whose interpretation (prosecution or defense) was correct.
See, you're making claims you have little to no knowledge on. I've said it before, but I'm going to defer to the judge's stance on what is allowed as he is certainly far more knowledgeable about it than you, I, or nearly any other internet pundit.
And like I said, the judge was ignorant on the zoom feature because he's an old boomer who knows shit about tech.
Originally posted by ares834I disagree on almost all counts, the Judge is in a position to manipulate the law with his knowledge though, yes. Zoom does not affect where a gun is pointed and the judge initially was only erring towards removing the Rittenhouse video where he stated he wished he had his AR 15. Some judges have stated they would have allowed it. It was his choice like his ring tone, like his round of applause, like his joking where Rittenhouse could sit. All his choice.
See, you're making claims you have little to no knowledge on. I've said it before, but I'm going to defer to the judge's stance on what is allowed as he is certainly far more knowledgeable about it than you, I, or nearly any other internet pundit.And like I said, the judge was ignorant on the zoom feature because he's an old boomer who knows shit about tech.
Originally posted by cdtmNo, the Democrats are right of most European non popularise politicians and peoples views often become more extreme. The Trumper Judge is a Trumper Judge.
Not at all, but isn't alt-right a bit much?
Originally posted by BlakemoreNot heard that before did he really say that Blake? If so... **** me!
"I'll carry a gun and shoot anyone trying to take it off me, for protection" - Rittenhouse
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
No, the Democrats are right of most European non popularise politicians and peoples views often become more extreme. The Trumper Judge is a Trumper Judge. Not heard that before did he really say that Blake? If so... **** me!
Did he vote for Trump though? Don't you need to support Trump to be a Trumper?