Rittenhouse verdict poll

[imported_tajmahal]

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.

maybe "probable cause" to search might have something to do with it.

 

[IronWing]

If we want to limit the influence of politics then we shouldn't make it an elected position.

My thought on this is that elected prosecutors are okay, not ideal, but okay. However, once elected prosecutor, the person should be banned from seeking any other elected office. Death convictions seem to be a popular stepping stone to the Governor's Mansion. I know, the Constitution doesn't support my idea, but one can dream.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

My thought on this is that elected prosecutors are okay, not ideal, but okay. However, once elected prosecutor, the person should be banned from seeking any other elected office. Death convictions seem to be a popular stepping stone to the Governor's Mansion. I know, the Constitution doesn't support my idea, but one can dream.

Dreaming of no Constitution........ par for the leftist course.

 

[mikeymikec]

I haven't kept up with the Rittenhouse case (not from the US), but it seems to me like the kid was committing a crime by even having a firearm in the first place, let alone deciding that he's going to take on a job for which he has no experience or training, and he willingly put himself in an extremely stupid and entirely avoidable situation that resulted in the death of two people. What's so complicated? Throw the book at him, IMO. He's clearly a peanut-brained idiot with a Rambo fixation who needs to be taught a lesson and as an example to any other dickheads out there with similar fantasies.

 

[ivwshane]

Dreaming of no Constitution........ par for the leftist course.

The irony of a traitor like you complaining about lefties not liking the constitution is just too much!

 

[VW MAN]

Dreaming of no Constitution........ par for the leftist course.

So says the Bitch-boy who supports people who will wipe his ass with the constitution then make him eat it!

 

[Dave_5k]

Poll snapshot:
As the jury begins deliberations, poll results: only ~30% (20/67) of P&N voters expect a conviction on one of remaining charges.

~15% expected a conviction the now dropped weapons charge, and remaining ~55% expect no conviction at all.

(poll is still allowing changes / new votes until tomorrow am)

 

[emperus]

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.

Yeah, I'd agree but the circumstances of this case are very troubling and I don't think the law was designed for these circumstances. The prosecution made a good argument - A bank robber who just shot someone and was running away could basically shoot anyone who tried to stop him by force and would that be self defense? A not guilty verdict enables vigilantes and a "whomever kills whom mentality" to prevail.

 

[Pohemi]

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.

Along the same lines of reasoning for the IRS auditing poor and middle class people, but not millionaires/billionaires.

Poorer people are the easy marks, since they can't afford the teams of lawyers to fight and/or indefinitely delay the cases.

 

[Greenman]

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'd agree but the circumstances of this case are very troubling and I don't think the law was designed for these circumstances. The prosecution made a good argument - A bank robber who just shot someone and was running away could basically shoot anyone who tried to stop him by force and would that be self defense? A not guilty verdict enables vigilantes and a "whomever kills whom mentality" to prevail.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't followed it close enough to have an informed opinion. It seems as though his guilt or innocence is being decided in public on a political basis. I hope the jury isn't swayed one way or the other by that.

My opinion is that he didn't intend to kill, though that's based on so little information as to be nearly worthless. Perhaps wishful thinking would be a more accurate description.

 

[emperus]

I found the "attacked him with a gun" argument by the Defense very bullshit. At one point he made the argument that the guy loaded up on one foot and sprung forward to attack him with the gun (A way of explaining away the video of the guy moving backwards). I didn't know you needed to spring in order to shoot a gun.. lol I guess I don't know how guns work.

 

[soundforbjt]

Jury has already asked a question and are now on lunch break. Slam dunk for the defense may not happen.

 

[emperus]

Yeah, I'd agree but the circumstances of this case are very troubling and I don't think the law was designed for these circumstances. The prosecution made a good argument - A bank robber who just shot someone and was running away could basically shoot anyone who tried to stop him by force and would that be self defense? A not guilty verdict enables vigilantes and a "whomever kills whom mentality" to prevail.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't followed it close enough to have an informed opinion. It seems as though his guilt or innocence is being decided in public on a political basis. I hope the jury isn't swayed one way or the other by that.

My opinion is that he didn't intend to kill, though that's based on so little information as to be nearly worthless. Perhaps wishful thinking would be a more accurate description.
[/QUOTE]

He killed 2 people and shot another. No one else was killed or shot that night. His intent didn't matter, his actions did. But talking about intent, he did say he wished he had his gun so he should shoot rioters 2 days before this happened (the judge didn't let it in trial). I don't think it's political to believe that a 17 year old had no business being there with a gun he wasn't supposed to have. And to believe he should be accountable because of that.

 

[VW MAN]

I haven't followed it close enough to have an informed opinion. It seems as though his guilt or innocence is being decided in public on a political basis. I hope the jury isn't swayed one way or the other by that.

My opinion is that he didn't intend to kill, though that's based on so little information as to be nearly worthless. Perhaps wishful thinking would be a more accurate description.

maybe you missed this in the other thread, but the question surely applies here. I would love an answer, but already know how that will go...

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/this-is-what-trumpanzees-believe.2598996/post-40633071

 

[soundforbjt]

So...will Cucker & Insannity have a breakdown tonight if K R hasn’t been acquitted by the time they air.?

 

[blackangst1]

Yeah, I'd agree but the circumstances of this case are very troubling and I don't think the law was designed for these circumstances. The prosecution made a good argument - A bank robber who just shot someone and was running away could basically shoot anyone who tried to stop him by force and would that be self defense? A not guilty verdict enables vigilantes and a "whomever kills whom mentality" to prevail.

I haven't followed it close enough to have an informed opinion. It seems as though his guilt or innocence is being decided in public on a political basis. I hope the jury isn't swayed one way or the other by that.

My opinion is that he didn't intend to kill, though that's based on so little information as to be nearly worthless. Perhaps wishful thinking would be a more accurate description.
[/QUOTE]

He killed 2 people and shot another. No one else was killed or shot that night. His intent didn't matter, his actions did. But talking about intent, he did say he wished he had his gun so he should shoot rioters 2 days before this happened (the judge didn't let it in trial). I don't think it's political to believe that a 17 year old had no business being there with a gun he wasn't supposed to have. And to believe he should be accountable because of that.

He was legally able to possess the rifle. Which is why it was tossed out.

Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful? – JONATHAN TURLEY

 

[ch33zw1z]

Wonder why someone else had to buy it for him then, lol. Guess Dominick Black will walk too.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wonder why someone else had to buy it for him then, lol. Guess Dominick Black will walk too.

Because KR lived in Illinois.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Because KR lived in Illinois.

Seems like a weird thing to discuss illegal purchase of a firearm, so have someone else buy it for you, but it's not illegal to possess.

So the charges against Mr Black should be dropped

 

[soundforbjt]

Seems like a weird thing to discuss illegal purchase of a firearm, so have someone else buy it for you, but it's not illegal to possess.

So the charges against Mr Black should be dropped

Not illegal in Wisconsin, but very illegal in Illinois.Black should be found guilty of a ‘straw purchase’.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Not illegal in Wisconsin, but very illegal in Illinois.

Ok, so maybe I'm short on details and or confused here. Mr Black purchased the gun in WI?

 

[soundforbjt]

Ok, so maybe I'm short on details and or confused here. Mr Black purchased the gun in WI?

Yes, for a resident of IL.

 

[soundforbjt]

In Illinois Kyle would need a ‘FOID’ card to purchase and own a firearm, Kyle couldn’t meet the requirements to obtain a FOID card.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes, for a resident of IL.

Right, but moot really. Black is charged with giving the gun to a minor, but it's not illegal for the minor to own that very same weapon.

So since it's not illegal for KR to possess that weapon in WI, which is where the incident happened, he's over 16 at the time, then Black should be free to walk.

 

[cliftonite]

When is the verdict due?