Newark Minutemen?_______ are left-wing and anarchist activists who focus on directly confronting white supremacists.
Fair & Balanced...... Before Lachlan Murdoch....So the Defense can argue that there is no video of white nationalist stuff during closing statements on Rittenhouse's phone, yet the prosecutor can't introduce the proud boys pictures. Seems unbalanced.
Damn, figuring out which supremist gang is which is like reading tire specs._______ are left-wing and anarchist activists who focus on directly confronting white supremacists.
I think the judge threw a bone to the prosecution just so when he declares a mistrial he can try to not claim bias....Side note, the judge apparently sided with prosecution in including instructions on provocation to the jury (which would negate self defense), and allowed some but not all lesser (e.g. 2nd degree vs 1st degree) charges the prosecution wanted to add on at last minute, which may increase probability of some form of conviction, but likely lowers chance of conviction on the most serious charges.
The judge took the illegal weapons charge off the table...
Now, what was his motive?
- To make sure that he walks?
- To improve the chances of a felony conviction?
This trial illustrates and is the perfect example of how and why guns make people freakin crazy. This is why America is so gun happy and gun insane. This carnage should only be seen in war, war like Vietnam and Afghanistan war, or... and when awakened in the middle of the night hearing house intrusion. But hey, let's thank the NRA and the congresses butt kissing of the NRA for elevating THE GUN to be the decider in every argument, especially in the little arguments. Frankly, and again, this all comes down America's unholy alliance to assault weapons. You don't hunt deer with an assault weapon, you don't hunt rabbit's with an assault weapon, what you do with an assault weapon is to kill people. Again, thanks NRA.
I say it again, the average American does not possess the intelligence to own a hand gun let alone to own or operate an assault weapon. Don't believe me? Just watch any one episode of the tv series FEAR THY NEIGHBOR. Actual true episodes, one after another, of neighbors bringing a gun into simple innocent neighbor vs neighbor disagreement. And guess what.... someone always dies from a gunshot.
Dog pissed on the roses? Kill thy neighbor. Kids playing too loud? Kill thy neighbor. You didn't get invited to the neighborhood holiday BBQ event? KILL THY NEIGHBOR. I tell you, America is f-ing nutz and f-ing gun insane. Rittenhouse, case in one.
The illegal weapon "charge" was never a jury charge. It was a matter of fact legal contention only. The facts of the charge were NEVER in contention by the defense. The defense stated that Kyle was 17, had possession of the weapon, and the weapon was a normal full size over the counter sold rifle. That leaves the charge strictly for a judge to decide upon as a matter of law because it was never in contention by the defense nor the prosecution. The prosecution wanted the charge sent to the jury because they KNEW if judged upon as a matter of law question, that it would be dropped as it was. There is no motive by the judge. It shows a motive by the prosecution trying to sneak this in as a jury charge though which is unethical as hell.
This is gibberish, the same as all of your legal analysis.
This is a good article. Seems it was a contradiction between two statutes (sloppy law making) and the judge read them in the light most favorable to the defense. The prosecution could have asked to pause the trial to have the appeals court rule on the issue but ultimately didn't.
EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
On the surface, it looked like prosecutors would convict Kyle Rittenhouse on at least one charge in his murder trial — being a minor in possession of a firearmabcnews.go.com
Wrong. It is literally a matter of a question of law at this point when NONE of the circumstances of the items of the law are in contention. That isn't gibberish at all. I invite you to watch Rekieta Law on youtube on the coverage of this trial. It is literally said by every lawyer watching the case as well as THE JUDGE. It is a question of law as stated by the judge once the defense said they weren't contending any of the facts for the law. That it is literally a judgement of law if it applies or not.
My legal analysis is what the judge said. But whatever, you are showing how stupid you are to the nth degree. Again.
Jesus. The Majority (I'm being generous, by not saying Everything) of what you say is gibberish. I'm not sure what you heard, but I'm 100% sure you didn't understand it enough to reinterpret it. Hence the gibberish.
Ha-ha. I've been thinking the same thing after Kyle's "big breakdown". Maybe he'll get a Hollywood contract if he's acquitted.What is most severe charge you believe Rittenhouse will be convicted of?
Bad Acting.
Jesus. The Majority (I'm being generous, by not saying Everything) of what you say is gibberish. I'm not sure what you heard, but I'm 100% sure you didn't understand it enough to reinterpret it. Hence the gibberish.
yes sounds like a logical plan, have a gun and if someone trys to rip it from your hands assume they are going to kill you with it and they are crazy.This just in; if you kill people with a gun they can’t testify that they felt their life was being threatened when they attempted to take your gun away and therefore the prosecution can’t claim self defense. In other words good kill.
The lesson here is; get a gun, kill a righty, claim self defense.
Well that’s according to the legal expertise of our resident lawyer.
The reason the Judge took the illegal weapon charge off the table is because it isn't a SBR (short barreled rifle) with a barrel less than 16 inches long and/or a total length of under 26 inches. Since the rifle in question is a legal firearm, the law didn't apply.The judge took the illegal weapons charge off the table...
Now, what was his motive?
- To make sure that he walks?
- To improve the chances of a felony conviction?
This statement out of your link I find astonishing.This is gibberish, the same as all of your legal analysis.
This is a good article. Seems it was a contradiction between two statutes (sloppy law making) and the judge read them in the light most favorable to the defense. The prosecution could have asked to pause the trial to have the appeals court rule on the issue but ultimately didn't.
EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
On the surface, it looked like prosecutors would convict Kyle Rittenhouse on at least one charge in his murder trial — being a minor in possession of a firearmabcnews.go.com
DAs are often elected officials, what else did you think was happening?This statement out of your link I find astonishing.
“It's very significant,” former federal prosecutor Phil Turner, who is not involved in the case, said of Schroeder's decision. “It sounds like he'd be guilty of that and he'd get a conviction. You can at least assuage the public you've got something as opposed to coming away with absolutely nothing, which is a distinct possibility in this case.”
Trial by public opinion.
My guess is that very few from wall street are peddling drugs on the street corner, something that would trigger a search. The first rule of crime is "Don't be seen".DAs are often elected officials, what else did you think was happening?
I mean the reason why poor people get locked up for drugs all the time but nobody seems to have found time to search the offices in high end law firms and Wall Street isn’t because they wouldn’t make arrests.
I wonder how many stop and frisk encournters for lawyers happened on Wall Street over the last 20 years - would you like to hazard a guess? My guess would be somewhere around zero despite the fact that everyone who has ever associated with those groups knows drug possession and use is rampant.My guess is that very few from wall street are peddling drugs on the street corner, something that would trigger a search. The first rule of crime is "Don't be seen".
Back in my misspent youth stop and frisk was common. The local police hassled us constantly (rightly so if I'm being honest). I swear on my mothers grave, I was once detained for being an accomplice to a littering. The officer actually said those words as I was bent over the hood of his car being searched.I wonder how many stop and frisk encournters for lawyers happened on Wall Street over the last 20 years - would you like to hazard a guess? My guess would be somewhere around zero despite the fact that everyone who has ever associated with those groups knows drug possession and use is rampant.
We all know the reason, it's not some mystery - politics!
Presumably that misspent youth means you weren't a banker or lawyer at the time.Back in my misspent youth stop and frisk was common. The local police hassled us constantly (rightly so if I'm being honest). I swear on my mothers grave, I was once detained for being an accomplice to a littering. The officer actually said those words as I was bent over the hood of his car being searched.