Black Lives Matter

[Kel Varnsen]

That one might be a homicide.

Perhaps, but he was certainly not just out for a jog.

[1972Shocker]

Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse Case Roasts CNN 'Legal Analysts' for Having No Idea What They Are Talking About

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/11/04/judge-in-kyle-rittenhouse-case-roasts-cnn-legal-analysts-for-having-no-idea-what-they-are-talking-about-n469662

[wufan]

Perhaps, but he was certainly not just out for a jog.

It’s a tough call. Based on the available evidence, I don’t have a solid opinion on the matter. I assume state laws and media propaganda will both weigh in on the jury decision.

[1972Shocker]

Train Wreck: Watch the Prosecution Fillet Their Own Case at Rittenhouse Trial

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/11/05/train-wreck-watch-the-prosecution-fillet-their-own-case-at-rittenhouse-trial-n470353

Binger (The Prosecuting Attorney) kept pressing McGinniss on how could he know anything about what Rosenbaum was thinking in the encounter with Rittenhouse. “So your interpretation of what he [Rosenbaum] was trying to do, what he was intending to do, or anything along those line, is complete guesswork?”

McGinnis looked at the prosecutor as though he was out of his mind and replied, “Well, he [Rosenbaum] said ‘**** you’ and then he reached for the weapon.”

Binger put on another eyewitness to the events that night, Ryan Balch. Balch testified that Rosenbaum threatened both him and Kyle Rittenhouse.

Balch recounted what happened with Rosenbaum, “He said, ‘If I catch you guys alone tonight I’m gonna f–king kill you.’” Balch said that Rosenbaum had been acting in a violent manner and had been trying to set dumpsters on fire.

That demonstrated the threat from Rosenbaum, another assist to the defense.

Keep in mind that these were witness for the Prosecution. Not defense witnesses. Although you could of fooled me.

[WuDrWu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if anyone thinks I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

Did not the presiding Judge say the people shot could NOT be referred to as victims but could be referred to as looters or rioters?

If that's true, it would seem to this non-attorney that the judge has set the table for his expectations, which is that Rittenhouse is to be found not guilty, and if he isn't, it's likely he will use judicial authority to set aside a guilty verdict. Thoughts?

[SubGod22]

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if anyone thinks I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

Did not the presiding Judge say the people shot could NOT be referred to as victims but could be referred to as looters or rioters?

If that's true, it would seem to this non-attorney that the judge has set the table for his expectations, which is that Rittenhouse is to be found not guilty, and if he isn't, it's likely he will use judicial authority to set aside a guilty verdict. Thoughts?

My understanding is that they won't let you refer to them as victims in most trials, as it sets a level of guilt on the accused with the jury.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if the judge has seen the evidence and knows that this is a political witch hunt and not actually about justice. Anyone who has seen the videos can see that Rittenhouse did just about everything he could have to avoid shooting anyone that night.

[ShockerPrez]

It would be delicious if the ruled a verdict notwithstanding the jury, or whatever the correct term is. Having to refresh my old BLaw class with Conlee. Jury says guilty, judge says nope.

[wufan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if anyone thinks I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

Did not the presiding Judge say the people shot could NOT be referred to as victims but could be referred to as looters or rioters?

If that's true, it would seem to this non-attorney that the judge has set the table for his expectations, which is that Rittenhouse is to be found not guilty, and if he isn't, it's likely he will use judicial authority to set aside a guilty verdict. Thoughts?

This is normal in self-defense cases to not be able to use the term “victim” for reasons stated below.

The term “looter and rioter and arsonist” were demonstrated to be factual in the pre-trial evidence.

[1972Shocker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if anyone thinks I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

Did not the presiding Judge say the people shot could NOT be referred to as victims but could be referred to as looters or rioters?

If that's true, it would seem to this non-attorney that the judge has set the table for his expectations, which is that Rittenhouse is to be found not guilty, and if he isn't, it's likely he will use judicial authority to set aside a guilty verdict. Thoughts?

Possible, but not sure he will need to do that. The prosecutor in this case almost seems like he wants Rittenhouse to be cleared.

[WuDrWu]

Possible, but not sure he will need to do that. The prosecutor in this case almost seems like he wants Rittenhouse to be cleared.

Agreed, this is a weird trial so far.

[1972Shocker]

WATCH: Man Who Claims Relation to George Floyd Suggests Effort to Dox Rittenhouse Jury

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021...e-jury-n471647

Will the FBI investigate this guy? Don't count on it.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

WATCH: Man Who Claims Relation to George Floyd Suggests Effort to Dox Rittenhouse Jury

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021...e-jury-n471647

Will the FBI investigate this guy? Don't count on it.

Not a chance. In their mind it’s justified. But parents don’t you dare question the school board for what they’re teaching your children. That’s a felony and you will be dealt with.

[1972Shocker]

The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Could Be Over After Today’s Bombshell Testimony

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/11...timony-n471964

And the defense has not even started their case yet other than cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses.

[Kung Wu]

Let me guess, they stacked a mountain of charges against him, with the hopes of tricking the jury into finding SOMETHING for him to be guilty of? That technique should be illegal as heck. I hope they didn't try that here.

[MoValley John]

Let me guess, they stacked a mountain of charges against him, with the hopes of tricking the jury into finding SOMETHING for him to be guilty of? That technique should be illegal as heck. I hope they didn't try that here.

That is SOP for almost all DA's in every case. It's a way to leverage plea charges and a wsy to inflate convictions. A DUI isn't just a DUI, it's illegal lane change, speeding, tinted windows, noise ordinance, following too closely, speeding, reckless endangerment and mask ordinance violation. And that is if they nab you before you turn on the ignition.