Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#851
#851
Weezer said:
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".
Click to expand...
I basically already said that. You were still wrong all over the place.

The defense team can't label a prosecution witness as the perpetrator of a crime (arsonist or looter) unless that has either been established through due process or through evidence presented during the current proceeding. You tried to claim that the defense team could call a prosecution witness whatever they wanted, and it would be up to the prosecution to prove it wasn't true .... which is horse $hit.
 
#852
#852
BowlBrother85 said:
I basically already said that. You were still wrong all over the place.

The defense team can't label a prosecution witness as the perpetrator of a crime (arsonist or looter) unless that has either been established through due process or through evidence presented during the current proceeding. You tried to claim that the defense team could call a prosecution whatever they wanted, and it would be up to the prosecution to prove it wasn't true .... which is horse $hit.
Click to expand...
I said it didn't really matter because both sides still have to prove their case.

You accused the judge of being biased without even knowing his ruling simply because it didn't jibe with your political viewpoint. Politics don't matter in criminal cases. Either he committed a crime or he didn't and both sides get to present their case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and volinbham
#854
#854
BowlBrother85 said:
You smeared the last page with this runny, diarrhea turd .... and it really does take the Gomer Award.
Click to expand...
The defense will attempt to prove they were, the prosecution will try to prove, or rebut, or however you want to say it, they weren't.

You clearly called the judge biased without knowing what he said and you seriously want to critique other people's posts? You're a bigger idiot than I thought.

Maybe I expressed my opinion poorly. I'll own that. It comes down to both sides get to present their case. Think I was clear on that. It doesn't really matter how the defense refers to the men because they have to prove their client was in fear of his life. Not in fear of them burning or stealing something. Think I was clear on that, too.

You can try to ignore that as you clearly deflect from your own stupidity rather than owning it, but I'm going to bed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#855
#855
Weezer said:
I said it didn't really matter because both sides still have to prove their case.

You accused the judge of being biased without even knowing his ruling simply because it didn't jibe with your political viewpoint. Politics don't matter in criminal cases. Either he committed a crime or he didn't and both sides get to present their case.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they will in this case as you won’t find potential jurors that have been living under a rock or bringing no personal biases with them. The left has already shown they will riot during a trial and politicians yapping didn’t help curb that. They’re already saying they’ll riot over this verdict if it’s not what they want so this may come down to the jury having a spine and not being afraid of leftist repercussions if they actually apply the law in their verdict. But it’s not like this case is actually about the law anyhow. It’s all about creating a fear of prosecution in legally defending yourself from the mobs.

As I said earlier, it only takes one to hang the jury for either side but the question is going to be is anybody brave enough to stand their ground and do it to create that mistrial.
 
#856
#856
Weezer said:
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.
Click to expand...

What’s the logic of the judge in this matter though keeping his thumb on the scale?
 
#857
#857
BowlBrother85 said:
Think about what the hell you're saying.

You honestly can't believe that a law enforcement officer who shot someone during a mass incursion onto federal property wasn't prosecuted?

Someone used the old "play stupid games and win stupid prizes" line earlier in this thread. That applies as much to Ashli Babbitt, as it ever has to anyone else.
Click to expand...
Pretty simple and well said.
 
#858
#858
BowlBrother85 said:
To quote Al Pacino's sarcastic line from Serpico, "I bet you raise the River Styx from Hell when white police officers shoot and kill unarmed black citizens, and avoid prosecution, don't you?"

It's funny, how we do see outrage from the party of law and order when this scenario involves a black officer shooting an unarmed, white citizen.
Click to expand...
and......... back to stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and Rickyvol77
#859
#859
ClearwaterVol said:
What’s the logic of the judge in this matter though keeping his thumb on the scale?
Click to expand...
Only the judge doesn't have his thumb on the scale. Read the ruling. The defense can refer to them as "rioters" and "looters" IF they can prove they were engaged in such actions. Seems pretty fair to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#860
#860
This judges ruling isn't controversial at all. The defense is claiming self defense. Therefore you can't prejudice the jury by calling them victims. The defense is arguing they are the aggressors and will have to prove that. And the defense can't label them rioters and such unless they can prove they did just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher and Rickyvol77
#861
#861
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...

this is the judge ruling - he said evidence must be presented to apply those labels

"Schroeder, who will oversee Rittenhouse's trial, ruled that prosecutors will not be able to refer to the people shot by Rittenhouse as "victims," though the defense may refer to them as "rioters" and "looters" if they can provide supporting evidence."
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and StarRaider
#863
#863
volinbham said:
this is the judge ruling - he said evidence must be presented to apply those labels

"Schroeder, who will oversee Rittenhouse's trial, ruled that prosecutors will not be able to refer to the people shot by Rittenhouse as "victims," though the defense may refer to them as "rioters" and "looters" if they can provide supporting evidence."
Click to expand...
Right .... and that is how it should be, but read the post that I was replying to.
 
#864
#864
volfanhill said:
This judges ruling isn't controversial at all. The defense is claiming self defense. Therefore you can't prejudice the jury by calling them victims. The defense is arguing they are the aggressors and will have to prove that. And the defense can't label them rioters and such unless they can prove they did just that.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this, and I have said so in other posts... but once again, read the manure that @Weezer was spreading around in here last night. It was enough to fertilize 5 acres. He should change his moniker to "Turf Builder".
 
#865
#865
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...
@volinbham,

Just curious about something ... You obviously realize that this was not accurate. So why were you only replying to my posts, instead of this $hit?
 
#866
#866
BowlBrother85 said:
@volinbham,

Just curious about something ... You obviously realize that this was not accurate. So why were you only replying to my posts, instead of this $hit?
Click to expand...

because I posted an article (that the quote came from) and you made a comment after that indicating you didn't understand what the judge actually said - just clarifying that
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#867
#867
volinbham said:
because I posted an article (that the quote came from) and you made a comment after that indicating you didn't understand what the judge actually said - just clarifying that
Click to expand...
BB is still trying to deflect from his own dumbassery. He accused the judge of being biased when the actual ruling was completely unbiased. He tripped over his politics again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#868
#868
Weezer said:
Only the judge doesn't have his thumb on the scale. Read the ruling. The defense can refer to them as "rioters" and "looters" IF they can prove they were engaged in such actions. Seems pretty fair to me.
Click to expand...

Prove without allowing them to face their accusers. Just call the by their names or refer to them however you want.
 
#875
#875
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...
Innocent until proven guilty? Does that standard also apply to Kyle?

A friend wants to know
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, Carl Pickens, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top