Well now the prosecution was caught withholding evidence.
They provided a low resolution video which was cut by two thirds and now during deliberations the prosecution has the full video clear as day.
That, added with the prosecutions misconduct during the trial will guarantee a successful appeal.
The judge should just throw it out and have a new trial.
@no1marauder saidMarauder , what will your minions do if it is hung? Backup plan, maybe.? Suzianne drove there for nothing👀?
The jury hasn't indicated they are deadlocked.
No, you don't replace a juror just because he disagrees with the majority.
@averagejoe1 saidWonder if these "protesters" are getting paid overtime?
Marauder , what will your minions do if it is hung? Backup plan, maybe.? Suzianne drove there for nothing👀?
@contenchess saidThe judge has bent over backwards for the defense.
Well now the prosecution was caught withholding evidence.
They provided a low resolution video which was cut by two thirds and now during deliberations the prosecution has the full video clear as day.
That, added with the prosecutions misconduct during the trial will guarantee a successful appeal.
The judge should just throw it out and have a new trial.
I find the possibility of a successful appeal of a conviction here low.
@no1marauder saidIrrelevant.
The judge has bent over backwards for the defense.
I find the possibility of a successful appeal of a conviction here low.
How the prosecution acted and withholding that drone video is enough for a new trial and during the Biden campaign Biden said Rittenhouse was a white supremacist
The appeals court will look at that among other things.
Hopefully this ends tomorrow.
@no1marauder saidthe judge has followed the law, did nothing special for anyone. you are allowing your bias to speak for you
The judge has bent over backwards for the defense.
I find the possibility of a successful appeal of a conviction here low.
@no1marauder saidNo.
Could you provide that list of cities that were "burned to the ground" that I asked Sh76 for?
Thanks in advance.
The peaceful BLM protester did $1 billion in damage and killed 40 people.
Bing it.
I'm so confused by this case. Why are gun rights advocates backing Rittenhouse?
This essentially sets a precedent in which the castle doctrine applies to public spaces. Someone could post up outside my house because he sensed danger, and then open fire on me in self defense.
I genuinely believe that Rittenhouse feared for his life and was remorseful of his actions, but he should never have been there in the first place. We have police. We shouldn't deputize vigilantes with their subjective information to decide where their deadly force might be required. Right? That's not a controversial position, or at least it wasn't.
@wildgrass
Lets use your logic...
You say Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there...
OK...now we say the people he shot "shouldn't have been there"...
The only victim from Kenosha was the convicted child molester. Joseph Rosenbaum.
Glad he's dead.
So I guess the other two "shouldn't have been there"
Right? 🙄
@contenchess saidYes, but that's true in a ton of scenarios. We still don't deputize citizens to go after the illegal offenders.
@wildgrass
Lets use your logic...
You say Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there...
OK...now we say the people he shot "shouldn't have been there"...
The only victim from Kenosha was the convicted child molester. Joseph Rosenbaum.
Glad he's dead.
So I guess the other two "shouldn't have been there"
Right? 🙄
I'm a gun owner, but there has always been a requirement in our legal system that reasonable alternatives were attempted before lethal force. The castle doctrine applied to all public spaces would be a disaster.
@earl-of-trumps saidThey pled guilty, there was no trial.
You should have seen No1 when the McCloskey's were on trial in here. A veritable F. Lee Bailey, he was.
@wildgrass saidIt appears to be self defense based on the videos I have seen.
I'm so confused by this case. Why are gun rights advocates backing Rittenhouse?
This essentially sets a precedent in which the castle doctrine applies to public spaces. Someone could post up outside my house because he sensed danger, and then open fire on me in self defense.
I genuinely believe that Rittenhouse feared for his life and was remorseful of his actions, bu ...[text shortened]... r deadly force might be required. Right? That's not a controversial position, or at least it wasn't.
Apparently there is no law against carrying a rifle in a city. Rittenhouse was not the only person carrying a rifle in the videos I have seen. I don't think that is a wise thing to do, but apparently there is no law against it.
The trial isn't about what was wise, it is about if he broke any laws.
He didn't break any laws that I am aware of. Furthermore, the people he shot were violent idiots. One of them just got out of a mental hospital and was doing really crazy things. He lit fire to a dumpster and pushed it toward a gas station. The funny farm never should have released him.
I have concluded that the only reason Rittenhouse was charged with a crime is because he appeared to be a Batman wannabe and carried an assault rifle into an unsafe part of the city. It looked bad. That is the only reason.
It also appears there is a penalty for being a Batman wannabe. You get charged with a crime even though it is clearly self defense. You get stuck with huge lawyer fees unless you get enough donations to pay for them.
He will get acquitted in my opinion, but he isn't really getting away with anything. He had to suffer through all the stress of the trial. He may or may not have to pay his lawyer, but he has to worry about that too.
I think Rittenhouse's Batman days are over. I wouldn't worry about him doing it again. Deterrence probably successful.