Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#1,801
#1,801
NorthDallas40 said:
Maybe if the ADA wasn’t such a belligerent dumbass ignoring the judge’s direction then the judge wouldn’t have very publicly ripped a new azz hole in him… twice.
Click to expand...
He's obviously playing to the cameras. Wouldn't surprising me if he's running for reelection next year or runs for a different office.
 
#1,803
#1,803
clarksvol00 said:
He's obviously playing to the cameras. Wouldn't surprising me if he's running for reelection next year or runs for a different office.
Click to expand...
Can you give us a historical presentation of his obvious playing or was this his American Judicial Idol shot and he had to take it?

Nobody is buying that stupid hot take except those trying to impugn the judge to help the feckless incompetent prosecution
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, Orangeburst and volinbham
#1,805
#1,805
NorthDallas40 said:
Can you give us a historical presentation of his obvious playing or was this his American Judicial Idol shot and he had to take it?

Nobody is buying that stupid hot take except those trying to impugn the judge to help the feckless incompetent prosecution
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to help any prosecution. Here you go making ish up again. I just think you don't start asking to applaud people in the crowd in the middle of a trial.
 
#1,809
#1,809
BowlBrother85 said:
You don't have to assume anything. Judge Schroeder's own words clearly show he knew what he was doing. The strength of the prosecution's case is immaterial to this. Judge Schroeder's call for applause could have and should have, been done before the jury entered the courtroom. It was unprofessional.
Click to expand...

If you mean "knew what he was doing" was open the morning on VD with a call to acknowledge veterans in attendance I agree. From there I'm sensing speculation. Are you going to reach for more of that prescience you've been accused of recently and assert that if anyone other than Dr Black had indicated being a veteran there wouldn't have been a call for applause?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and NorthDallas40
#1,810
#1,810
1vol8 said:
What’s wrong about it? That’s a serious question because I’ve been on the road so I’ve only been keeping up through YouTube.

This is my opinion on what I do know. The kid shouldn’t have been there and he wasn’t old enough to be carrying a gun. But that’s where his guilt stops. Every one of the people in the riot, including those killed, should not have been there either. Forget about age for a moment. He showed up armed with an AR-15 and a medipack with the intent to help possible wounded people and protect businesses. Why is it that some condemn him for having the courage to stand alone vs a mob? Stupid decision alone, I agree. But if we were talking about an entire group of likeminded individuals the overall opinions would change to (right) “BLM finally got what they’ve been asking for”. (Left) “ all those innocent people died for no reason”.
Click to expand...

Yes he was according to the way the Wisconsin State Statute is written. Exemptions are included in that law making it legal for a 17 year old with a long rifle or shotgun. Kyle was 17 and the rifle was standard length not a short barrel or length altered rifle.

Defense has his age and the rifle being standard length in trial testimony so the Judge ordered the prosecution to prove Kyle was in violation of that law or he likely won’t include it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher, 1vol8 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#1,812
#1,812
n_huffhines said:
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe it was an accident but it's still problematic from a prejudice perspective
Click to expand...

The Judge seemed really surprised that the retired SGM was the only Veteran in the courtroom. Pretty sure he didn’t expect the defense witness to be the only one.
 
#1,813
#1,813
Orangeburst said:
Whatever..I did, and never heard it before and did not know I was in another forum by the reply.

You are deflecting from my point
Click to expand...

I understand your point. You don't care what the judge does because you don't likenthe way this started. I however feel the judge shouldn't be asking people to applaud people in open court.
 
#1,815
#1,815
clarksvol00 said:
No different than your claim I'm defending the prosecution is the likely conclusion.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. It’s clear you’re trying to impugn the judge and I’d submit you’ve even alluded to such in your replies. The likely conclusion why is that you don’t like the way the judge is administering the trial which has been to absolutely eviscerate the prosecution. The likely conclusion is that you don’t agree with the treatment of the prosecution and thus feel the need to impugn the judge with silly claims. IE give aid to the prosecution. Get it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#1,816
#1,816
OHvol40 said:
I don’t personally hate that kid, I hate that his mom drove him across state lines into the middle of a riot and dropped him off with a loaded rifle. How dumb is that?
Click to expand...

Wow. So mom didn’t drive him. Kyle drove his own car and it was parked at his friend’s house. Since it was purchased in May 2020 in Wisconsin that rifle has been stored in Wisconsin in the gun safe belonging to the father of that friend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, NCFisher, SpaceCoastVol and 3 others
#1,817
#1,817
BowlBrother85 said:
You don't have to assume anything. Judge Schroeder's own words clearly show he knew what he was doing. The strength of the prosecution's case is immaterial to this. Judge Schroeder's call for applause could have and should have, been done before the jury entered the courtroom. It was unprofessional.
Click to expand...

Are you just reading what occurred or did you also actually watch the Judge as all that transpired?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#1,819
#1,819
NorthDallas40 said:
Sure it is. It’s clear you’re trying to impugn the judge and I’d submit you’ve even alluded to such in your replies. The likely conclusion why is that you don’t like the way the judge is administering the trial which has been to absolutely eviscerate the prosecution. The likely conclusion is that you don’t agree with the treatment of the prosecution and thus feel the need to impugn the judge with silly claims. IE give aid to the prosecution. Get it?
Click to expand...
I am trying to impugn the judge. I don't think its appropriate to have people applauding crowd members in court. That doesn't mean I think Rittenhouse is guilty. The prosecution has made their own bed and they can lay in it. But that doesn't mean the judge acted appropriately.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#1,820
#1,820
hndog609 said:
If you mean "knew what he was doing" was open the morning on VD with a call to acknowledge veterans in attendance I agree. From there I'm sensing speculation. Are you going to reach for more of that prescience you've been accused of recently and assert that if anyone other than Dr Black had indicated being a veteran there wouldn't have been a call for applause?
Click to expand...
Judge Schroeder's own words reveal that at the moment he requested the applause, he knew that Dr. Black, the next witness, would be the only veteran in the court room. Also, Judge Schroeder's direction included the jury. This was easily avoidable. Judge Schroeder simply should have called for the applause before the jury entered the court room.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think that Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense team would have minded having the judge direct the jury to applaud a prosecution witness, just prior to that witness's testimony.
 
#1,825
#1,825
clarksvol00 said:
I am trying to impunity the judge. I dint think its appropriate to have people applauding crowd members in court. That doesn't mean I think Rittenhouse is guilty. The prosecution has made their own bed and they can lay in it. But that doesn't mean the judge acted appropriately.
Click to expand...
Ok…
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top