Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

That is true in certain qualifying but rare circumstances, but it requires violation of both state sovereign laws and federal laws in the same action.
Feds wouldn't even glance at this, and it's folly to expect it.

Repeatedly spewing bullshit about "higher courts" supposedly retrying him is stupid, it's not going to happen.

I'd like to see the Feds look at an interstate weapons angle.

 

[dlerious]

I'd like to see the Feds look at an interstate weapons angle.

My understanding was the gun remained in Wisconsin. He didn't cross state lines with it.

 

[emperus]

My understanding was the gun remained in Wisconsin. He didn't cross state lines with it.

Has there been any evidence that it was left in WI besides that of him and his friend. He was also driving without a license so don't think he's the stickler for rules type.

 

[cytg111]

Another side effect, whatever face tattoo you can imagine, this will follow and effect Rittenhouse for the rest of his life and put that tat to shame. Marked.

 

[Jaskalas]

So as a middle aged white guy, if I’m armed I have a right shoot someone if I feel threatened?

There is something very wrong with our justice system when a juvenile (dare I judge him as delinquent) can take it upon himself to go to another state, acquire an assault rifle, prowl the streets as a self-appointed vigilante, shoot three people, and then be found innocent of any crime.

Heaven forbid that the "juvenile" be capable of surviving a lynch mob.
Tell me why you side with the assailants that night?

If you listen to the prosecutor, you would think the lynch mob a bunch of heroes stopping a crime before it even occurs. We have a strong parallel to that man's argument.
Are the men in Georgia who killed Aubery, are they actually heroes doing the right thing by chasing someone down in violence?
God damn, the Democrat position in this topic is beyond fucked up.

In both cases I side with the victim being attacked. I implore you all to find some integrity and do the same.

If the only thing that matters is "us vs them", Rittenhouse is guilty to you because he was not part of the mob looting, rioting, and setting fires... IF THAT is how you determined good guy from bad guy instead of watching the video and seeing who chased who.... Then as a nation we have already surrendered reason for madness. The rule of law cannot persist if you are corrupt and only care about your group.

 

[brandonbull]

I'd like to see the Feds look at an interstate weapons angle.

So you have determined that he is guilty and want to punish your ideological and political enemies. Maybe AG Garland can send the Feds in for domestic terrorism?

 

[Amol S.]

Dude...just shut the fuck up, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Google 'Double Jeopardy', dummy. It's over, there's no 2nd trial in a "higher court". You might be thinking of appeals court IF HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED.

Again...shut the fuck and stop trying to sound educated on how the court system works when you obviously haven't a fucking clue.

There are certain circumstances where it can be proven that there was a mistrial involved in part of both either the jury, and/or the judge, and/or the defendant. In this situation, it would cause suspicion on the verdict of being a by product of maleficence.

For example, if the prosecutor could prove that had the video been accepted by the court, and the way the video was presented did not violate any court rules, double jeopardy would not apply as the verdict can be converted to a mistrial.

In short, the prosecutor just has to prove that the verdict was caused by judicial misconduct.

 

[Pohemi]

There are certain circumstances where it can be proven that there was a mistrial involved in part of both either the jury, and/or the judge, and/or the defendant. In this situation, it would cause suspicion on the verdict of being a by product of maleficence.

For example, if the prosecutor could prove that had the video been accepted by the court, and the way the video was presented did not violate any court rules, double jeopardy would not apply as the verdict can be converted to a mistrial.

In short, the prosecutor just has to prove that the verdict was caused by judicial misconduct.

That's a bunch of babbling bullshit, but nice try.

 

[Amol S.]

That's a bunch of babbling bullshit, but nice try.

Did my research.
The first exception to a ban on retrying a defendant is if, in a trial, the defendant bribed the judge into acquitting him or her, since the defendant was not in jeopardy.[77]

 

[Pohemi]

Did my research.
The first exception to a ban on retrying a defendant is if, in a trial, the defendant bribed the judge into acquitting him or her, since the defendant was not in jeopardy.[77]

That you hope this is anywhere near a possibility is evidence that your brain is broken. I wanted him to be convicted, but it didn't play out like that, and it isn't because he bribed the judge.

 

[Greenman]

Justice lost.

A jury acquitted him, that's justice. That you for some reason think you know more about the event than the jury is absurd. You want trial by twitter.

 

[Amol S.]

That you hope this is anywhere near a possibility is evidence that your brain is broken. I wanted him to be convicted, but it didn't play out like that, and it isn't because he bribed the judge.

So you agree that there was somehow some coalition between the defendant and the judge, even if it was not bribery. So there is something that can be done, and please read this entirely then tell me if it is stupid or dumb for me to think of it.

What if the prosecutor was to put the judge himself up for trial, and somehow proved that the judge had alwaysed put personal opinion over the importance of presented facts and evidence in the cases that the judge presided over? This would then convert all cases that the judge made verdicts on to a mistrial. For example, remember when I said "the way the video was presented did not violate any court rules"? If the prosecutor can prove that it was in the judge's own opinion to not allow the video and violated laws in their verdicts at work, it could lead for the ability for KR to be retried.

 

[EduCat]

Heaven forbid that the "juvenile" be capable of surviving a lynch mob.
Tell me why you side with the assailants that night?

If you listen to the prosecutor, you would think the lynch mob a bunch of heroes stopping a crime before it even occurs. We have a strong parallel to that man's argument.
Are the men in Georgia who killed Aubery, are they actually heroes doing the right thing by chasing someone down in violence?
God damn, the Democrat position in this topic is beyond fucked up.

In both cases I side with the victim being attacked. I implore you all to find some integrity and do the same.

If the only thing that matters is "us vs them", Rittenhouse is guilty to you because he was not part of the mob looting, rioting, and setting fires... IF THAT is how you determined good guy from bad guy instead of watching the video and seeing who chased who.... Then as a nation we have already surrendered reason for madness. The rule of law cannot persist if you are corrupt and only care about your group.

Terrible situation but honestly it makes me think about what his intentions were going to WI in the first place. Did rioters that traveled to WI intend to destroy property? Did he intend to defend property? Did he intend to do that with deadly force, if necessary? Did he intend to get into a confrontation? (kid has pointed real guns at people before) Did he bring his rifle for safety? If he thought it was that dangerous why didn't he just stay home? Did he bring it for intimidation? Sure it's been discussed here ad nasueum im just going through the thread.

People are hailing this kid as a hero lol, Im not sure how but I just asked myself those questions and it seems pretty clear to me. Kinda crazy he got off without anything IMO but I seem to be in the minority everywhere except here.

 

[soundforbjt]

A jury acquitted him, that's justice. That you for some reason think you know more about the event than the jury is absurd. You want trial by twitter.

What? The jury didn’t get to see all the evidence, the judge saw to that.
If you watched the trial, you saw the same evidence the jury did,actually better on the videos.

 

[Viper1j]

His attorney just said on live tv that Kyle and Mama June are leaving the state.

We need a "Kyle's Law", so everyone is notified if he moves into your neighborhood.

 

[soundforbjt]

His attorney just said on live tv that Kyle and Mama June are leaving the state.

We need a "Kyle's Law", so everyone is notified if he moves into your neighborhood.

So they’re taking Gaetz up on his offer...

 

[Viper1j]

So they’re taking Gaetz up on his offer...

Gaetz likes em' young. Rottenhouse better keep his ass cheeks tight.

If Kyle moves to FL to work for Gaetz, he and Casey Anthony will be an "item".

 

[dlerious]

Has there been any evidence that it was left in WI besides that of him and his friend. He was also driving without a license so don't think he's the stickler for rules type.

Absent any evidence to the contrary, their statements are the evidence.

 

[DaaQ]

But let's be honest with ourselves here, it's never gonna happen. In this particular case.

 

[Pohemi]

So you agree that there was somehow some coalition between the defendant and the judge, even if it was not bribery. So there is something that can be done, and please read this entirely then tell me if it is stupid or dumb for me to think of it.

No, I don't agree, and that isn't what I said AT ALL. You're putting false words in my mouth, trying to put me in agreement with your idiocy. Not going to happen.

What if the prosecutor was to put the judge himself up for trial, and somehow proved that the judge had alwaysed put personal opinion over the importance of presented facts and evidence in the cases that the judge presided over? This would then convert all cases that the judge made verdicts on to a mistrial. For example, remember when I said "the way the video was presented did not violate any court rules"? If the prosecutor can prove that it was in the judge's own opinion to not allow the video and violated laws in their verdicts at work, it could lead for the ability for KR to be retried.

Yes, your hypothetical is outside the boundaries of reality. In other words, dumb. You aren't strengthening your point by making up new and outrageous hypotheticals.
Do I think the judge was pre-biased? Of course I do. Do I think he'll be investigated for it? That's a laughable notion. You need to stop fantasizing and come to terms that this is how it played out.

The only thing that can or will happen in a court of law now will be civil, not criminal. Quit with the stupidity, please.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Terrible situation but honestly it makes me think about what his intentions were going to WI in the first place. Did rioters that traveled to WI intend to destroy property? Did he intend to defend property? Did he intend to do that with deadly force, if necessary? Did he intend to get into a confrontation? (kid has pointed real guns at people before) Did he bring his rifle for safety? If he thought it was that dangerous why didn't he just stay home? Did he bring it for intimidation? Sure it's been discussed here ad nasueum im just going through the thread.

People are hailing this kid as a hero lol, Im not sure how but I just asked myself those questions and it seems pretty clear to me. Kinda crazy he got off without anything IMO but I seem to be in the minority everywhere except here.

This, 100% this.

 

[gothuevos]

Terrible situation but honestly it makes me think about what his intentions were going to WI in the first place. Did rioters that traveled to WI intend to destroy property? Did he intend to defend property? Did he intend to do that with deadly force, if necessary? Did he intend to get into a confrontation? (kid has pointed real guns at people before) Did he bring his rifle for safety? If he thought it was that dangerous why didn't he just stay home? Did he bring it for intimidation? Sure it's been discussed here ad nasueum im just going through the thread.

People are hailing this kid as a hero lol, Im not sure how but I just asked myself those questions and it seems pretty clear to me. Kinda crazy he got off without anything IMO but I seem to be in the minority everywhere except here.

No good guys in this story. Nothing good was going to come of that night, it had already descended into chaos.

 

[Luna1968]

Crazy country we live in. Imagine how the rest of the world sees us right now.

where justice is served by law and reason not by tears, feelings and tamtrums. pretty simple.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

where justice is served by gunpowder and lead.
pretty simple.

Fixed your post for you.

 

[akugami]

Pretty much with @gothuevos . Everyone's shitty here. But Kyle Rittenhouse got out scott free with murder. He knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation with an assault rifle, and we're supposed to be surprised the mob didn't take well to it? And the prosecution did a piss poor job, but was also handcuffed by the judge.