Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#826
#826
BowlBrother85 said:
@Jxn Vol,

The double standard from the right on the Ashli Babbitt shooting is sad...

When unarmed, black protestors from Black Lives Matter are shot by white officers during a riot, the right-wing gives them the old standby line, "Play stupid games and win stupid prizes."

When it came to Ashli Babbitt, the Trump supporter, she was hailed as a martyr, while the black cop got besieged with death threats.

Race is a factor in this distinction, but it has more to do with tribalism.
Click to expand...
What unarmed black protestors were shot during BLM protests?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher, SpaceCoastVol and StarRaider
#828
#828
BowlBrother85 said:
@Jxn Vol,

The double standard from the right on the Ashli Babbitt shooting is sad...

When unarmed, black protestors from Black Lives Matter are shot by white officers during a riot, the right-wing gives them the old standby line, "Play stupid games and win stupid prizes."

When it came to Ashli Babbitt, the Trump supporter, she was hailed as a martyr, while the black cop got besieged with death threats.

Race is a factor in this distinction, but it has more to do with tribalism.
Click to expand...
Can’t help but make it about race can you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, Rickyvol77, UT_Dutchman and 3 others
#830
#830
BowlBrother85 said:
A better translation :

Judge Bruce Schroeder has chosen sides, and he isn't applying his rulings equally.

I don't have a problem with Judge Bruce Schroeder not allowing the people who Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be referred to as "victims", because that is a "loaded" term which implies that guilt has already been established. Kyle Rittenhouse's culpability in their deaths/injuries has not yet been determined in a court of law. Kyle Rittenhouse is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

However, those same people have also never been determined to be "arsonists" or "looters" in a court of law either. They are just as entitled to a presumption of innocence from those charges as Kyle Rittenhouse is of the charges he is facing.

Judge Bruce Schroeder appears to be sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse, and he is subtly tipping the scales in Rittenhouse's favor.
Click to expand...

Giving Kyle Rittenhouse Basic Due Process Is Not a Scandal
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, Rickyvol77 and Franklin Pierce
#831
#831
BowlBrother85 said:
A better translation :

Judge Bruce Schroeder has chosen sides, and he isn't applying his rulings equally.

I don't have a problem with Judge Bruce Schroeder not allowing the people who Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be referred to as "victims", because that is a "loaded" term which implies that guilt has already been established. Kyle Rittenhouse's culpability in their deaths/injuries has not yet been determined in a court of law. Kyle Rittenhouse is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

However, those same people have also never been determined to be "arsonists" or "looters" in a court of law either. They are just as entitled to a presumption of innocence from those charges as Kyle Rittenhouse is of the charges he is facing.

Judge Bruce Schroeder appears to be sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse, and he is subtly tipping the scales in Rittenhouse's favor.
Click to expand...
Prosecution will have a chance to offer up witness testimony that they weren't arsonists or looters is my guess. They aren't on trial so how each side presents them is up to them. Nothing scandalous about that.
 
#833
#833
ClearwaterVol said:
Why not just use their names? No bias there.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer, you know each side will paint the deceased/attackers/victims/whatever in such a way as to benefit their case. I really don't see the big deal in how each side labels them as both sides will be able to present their case.
 
#835
#835
Weezer said:
Prosecution will have a chance to offer up witness testimony that they weren't arsonists or looters is my guess. They aren't on trial so how each side presents them is up to them. Nothing scandalous about that.
Click to expand...
That doesn't give one side the right to lie.
 
#837
#837
DynaLo said:
Yes it does matter, so let’s be truthful and refer to him as “the guy with the loaded Glock handgun pointed at Kyle” just like the video shows.
Click to expand...
That's fine. Call him whatever you can prove he did. Just don't call him an arsonist, unless you can prove he started a fire, and don't call him a looter, unless you can prove he stole something. It doesn't matter whether he is on trial or not! He is a witness and his credibility should not be impugned with unproven accusations. Your boy @Weezer is really out to lunch on this one.
 
#840
#840
Weezer said:
If it's a lie, the prosecution will be given the chance to prove such.
Click to expand...
You are hopelessly confused. If the defense team is going to try to impugn a prosecution witness with a criminal label, then the burden of proof is on the defense to show the court that such a crime was committed by that witness! Mercy.
 
#841
#841
All that really matters is why he shot them. Was it a crime or self defense? Even if someone is engaged in a criminal act, that doesn't automatically give you the right to shoot them. So how the defense refers to them is meaningless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and Rickyvol77
#842
#842
BowlBrother85 said:
You are hopelessly confused. If the defense team is going to try to impugn a prosecution witness with a criminal label, then the burden of proof is on the defense to show the court that such a crime was committed by that witness! Mercy.
Click to expand...
It's sad that you want to call other people "stupid" when you're speaking out of your ass and blowing this out of proportion. And why? Because politics. The prosecution has to prove he committed a crime. The defense will attempt to prove he didn't. It's pretty damn simple.
 
#843
#843
Weezer said:
All that really matters is why he shot them. Was it a crime or self defense? Even if someone is engaged in a criminal act, that doesn't automatically give you the right to shoot them. So how the defense refers to them is meaningless.
Click to expand...
LOL. This is just wrong.
 
#845
#845
I’ll be somewhat amazed if this doesn’t end in a mistrial. A unanimous jury verdict is required in this criminal trial so it’s only going to take 1 person with a solid knowledge of firearms to hang up that jury or 1 person that is absolutely clueless as to what constitutes self defense with a firearm.
 
#846
#846
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#847
#847
Weezer said:
Not really, and apparently the judge agrees with me.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The link that @volinbham provided in post #831 expands on what has been reported.

Judge Schroeder "cautioned the defense team against using pejorative terms during opening statements, but he said they could use them in their closing arguments if the evidence suggested the men had engaged in criminal acts."

That is not unreasonable, and not much different than what a judge will typically allow. Social media has largely left out that part.
 
#848
#848
Weezer said:
So I looked up the article to see the actual ruling. The judge ruled the terms "rioters" and "looters" could be used to refer to the men if the defense could prove they were engaged in those activities that night.

Before Kyle Rittenhouse’s Murder Trial, a Debate Over Terms Like ‘Victim’ - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

So once again BB is speaking out of his ass.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see.... you are going to try and go the revisionist route. I said it was okay for the defense to call the witness whatever could be proven. It was your dumb a$$ who claimed that burden of proof rested with the prosecution.

Weezer said:
If it's a lie, the prosecution will be given the chance to prove such.
Click to expand...
 
#849
#849
BowlBrother85 said:
Not exactly. The link that @volinbham provided in post #831 expands on what has been reported.

Judge Schroeder "cautioned the defense team against using pejorative terms during opening statements, but he said they could use them in their closing arguments if the evidence suggested the men had engaged in criminal acts."

That is not unreasonable, and not much different than what a judge will typically allow. Social media has largely left out that part.
Click to expand...
Read the post above yours. In your attempt to be outraged because politics, it turns out you were outraged over nothing. The judge made a fair and unbiased decision despite your accusations of him trying to "tip the scales".
 
#850
#850
BowlBrother85 said:
Oh, I see.... you are going to try and go the revisionist route. I said it was okay to call the witness whatever could be proven. It was your dumb a$$ who claimed that burden of proof rested with the prosecution.
Click to expand...
Burden of proof as to the guilt of the defendant absolutely rests with the prosecution. You were the one attacking the judge's ruling without even knowing what it was. I'm still of the opinion it doesn't matter as to how they're referred because citizen's are not granted a license to kill. Both sides have to prove their case. Something I've said more than once. So stop trying to mitigate your dumbassery by trying to pass it to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top