Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

What do you think will happen?

  • Guilty on all charges

    Votes: 282 8.8%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 1,077 33.7%
  • Mistral

    Votes: 264 8.3%
  • Mixture of verdicts

    Votes: 479 15.0%
  • Minecraft

    Votes: 213 6.7%
  • Roblox

    Votes: 132 4.1%
  • Runescape

    Votes: 203 6.3%
  • Somehow Guilty Of Two Mutually Exclusive Actions

    Votes: 514 16.1%
  • KYLE WILL SUBMIT TO BBC

    Votes: 35 1.1%

  • Total voters
    3,199
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
That's unlikely to happen. Near as I can tell the prosecution has tied that to Rittenhouse being there to shoot someone. The actual text of the law in question is difficult to parse, but TL;DR the open carry of longarms (shotguns and rifles with a barrel over 16") is acceptable if one is 16 or up (IIRC).
That might be true, but it might not matter.

It seems that their is an above average amount of people do not rely on sheer emotion to come to conclusions but a cold hard calculus on the farms. I am very similar to this and for me I usually operate on strict logical processes for my decisions as a way to not allow any degree of bias or emotion to influence my conclusion. I can read a criminal code statue and in about five minutes tell you what it means.

That is not the case with the vast majority of people on either side. For the left, we are already familiar with the LOLcows on this site. Addressing, right wing persons I see this when safe firearm storage laws are suggested. While I OPPOSE such a law, I was surprised at the ignorance when it is discussed by the gun community. The immediate retort is that Heller prohibits keeping a gun in an unusable state. and such the safe storage law proposed.

On that point they are correct. But the law they oppose allows for the guns to be kept unsecured if its in the persons immediate control or on their person. Hence, the law does not directly violate Heller and any legal challenge cannot be upheld on the stare decisis of Heller.

If you have not guessed already, even when its a topic I support (firearm rights), I do not let my emotions control my opinion. Its a cold hard calculus of the proposed legislation, idea, or ordinance. But, I realized about 25 years ago most people did not think like I did. Perhaps it is my lack of hubris, but I always thought that all those in college had a logical paradigm to guide their decisions. Given that I wanted to get my general education courses done early, I took a few community college classes in my junior and senior year. Once in the somewhat hallowed halls of higher education, I began a tireless logical autopsy of how top college students reached their conclusions.

It turns out to be just emotion and bias. Very few have internal bias checks as well as challenging their positions on a constant basis. I believe I was in my English 101 class during the summer session before my senior year in high school that I discussed with my professor about a selection of studies from high impact factor journals and a rough outline of an annotated bibliography as a base my final paper on. The professors stated that he had only seen such rigorous research in post secondary education. He went on to say that I was one of about five he had in about his seven years of teaching that had that degree of rigor.

I am right because of some superior intelligence, I am right because I always challenge myself in believing I am wrong.

P.S. Why YES, I am a libertarian.
 
The field as I see it looks like this:
Judge= Neutral (which happens to work on the side of the Defense)
Defense= Poor with the Jury, good with the Judge, is contending with Media/Public-Opinion Bias, but has the Evidence overwhelmingly on their side.
Prosecution= Strong with the Jury, bad with the Judge, has the Media/Public-Opinion on their side, but is horrifically disadvantaged by the Evidence.
This jury is mostly women, right? I'm surprised Kyle's lawyers didn't hire a woman or even sponsor one of their lady paralegals, attractive, but not too attractive, wholesome and pleasant looking (bonus for being Hispanic or black but Asian works too) to do some questioning, mainly the chomo's girlfriend. I mean there's something to be said for being able to say, "As I woman, I find men that assault others, especially women and children, horrifying, don't you?" or "As a mother, I would have been terrified and worried for any of my children to be out and about that night unarmed, don't you agree?" I'm not saying those are statements/questions that should be asked, but if the opportunity presents itself, having a woman can work wonders with an all-female jury.

A black defense attorney questioning black prosecution witnesses takes a lot of the wind out of the prosecution's and media's portrayal of Kyle as a goosestepping Hitler Jugend.

Kenosha is a small town compared to NYC, LA and SF so maybe it's too much but I would have been aggressive about pursuing it.
 
This jury is mostly women, right? I'm surprised Kyle's lawyers didn't hire a woman or even sponsor one of their lady paralegals, attractive, but not too attractive, wholesome and pleasant looking (bonus for being Hispanic or black but Asian works too) to do some questioning, mainly the chomo's girlfriend.
Another argument for somehow bringing in Chauvin's defense team. The /pol/ thirstposting over his assistant was insane.
1617037821373.jpg
 
He told them in his opening statement that Kyle chased down and shot Rosenbaum in the back. It's day 4 of the prosecution's own case and that's already been proven false by eyewitness testimony and aerial surveillance footage. I can't speak for anyone on that jury, but if I were on it I would already be pissed off. People don't like being lied to. Especially by lawyers.
And maybe the defense attorney will wake up from his nap before the closing statements and point that out to the jury.
 
Absolutely do not do this under any circumstance. The absolute last thing the defense needs is to give anyone even a stupid reason to connect Kyle and Chauvin, that whole case is poison.
I was mostly shitposting. While Nelson would probably be a much better defense attorney on cross he's forever tainted as 'that Chauvin lawyer' now and it's not like Kyle really needs it.
 
If the scaremongering about "right-wing extremism" has any merit, there's more reason for them to be scared of retaliation for a guilty verdict.

(Sorry, glowies, I'm not planning anything nor do I know of any such plans of retaliation).
I'm not planning anything, either, but it would be warranted and I hope someone else is.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: BucolicVisage
It's honestly very concerning that there are real people who think this way.
I mean the sad part is people like them weren't there they didn't see the video but still believe the narrative that Kenosha Kyle rittenhouse murdered innocent protesters when the reality on the ground was the exact opposite.
Looking at all of these people it's rather sad how they fall for the bullshit. But if you were to take a guess these people hate their parents despite their parents working their fingers to the bone.

Watch one day the I hate humanity and I hate Nazi brigades will become the very enemy they hate mark my words.
 
I came away tonight with far more respect for the Prosecution than I had ever expected to have. The reality is someone has to defend the Pedophile in our society, to defend the undefendable, because that is what it means to have Enlightenment Values, and you have to give it to Binger; he absolutely without a doubt gave it his all today.
View attachment 2689834

The field as I see it looks like this:
Judge= Neutral (which happens to work on the side of the Defense)
Defense= Poor with the Jury, good with the Judge, is contending with Media/Public-Opinion Bias, but has the Evidence overwhelmingly on their side.
Prosecution= Strong with the Jury, bad with the Judge, has the Media/Public-Opinion on their side, but is horrifically disadvantaged by the Evidence.

This, I think, has created an engaging Trial of extremes.

These extremes began, speaking strictly within the confines of the courtroom, during the Pre-Trial. Initially the Prosecution came out with seemingly baffling strategies that only pissed off the Judge, but in retrospect it was clear that it was the only real chance the Prosecution had to shift their main disadvantage to their side, and in reality I actually think it was the right strategy to attempt. However, because it failed they are now trapped with Evidence and Witnesses that can only be worked with from a Narrative angle.

And watching Binger try with all his might to attempt the impossible was truly a sight to behold. While the Defense is awful when interacting with the Jury and Witnesses, you can't deny that Binger has absolute composure and grace, and it is unbelievably fascinating to watch him work, like a hunter stalking his prey, trying for hours upon hours to create one single small opening. There was once or twice tonight where he almost managed to make a chip, but quickly lost it.

Tonight felt like a unfortunate turning point for the Prosecution, and a real opening for the Defense. The Defense has already laid the Evidence out, and the Evidence has continued to work in their favor, but in order to win this they absolutely need to nail the Narrative angle. They need to get the Jury to feel something when they are faced with the Evidence. They need that story, and unfortunately, they are going to have struggle against their Jury/Witness interaction deficiency.

Binger with steady poise tonight tried exactly that, which for him may be the impossible, yet despite this he showed footage after footage of Rosenbaum dying, with attempt after attempt to get those emotions to fly, and it was a valiant effort on his part.

But the reality is the Evidence is what it is. We didn't feel anything as we watched Rosenbaum die, the Jury most likely didn't, the Witness didn't, and most importantly Rittenhouse didn't.

Why is that?

Because Rosenbaum wanted to die. Not only did Rosenbaum want to die, but all of us wanted him to die. There wasn't a single atom or molecule in this universe that didn't want Rosenbaum dead, himself wanting it the most out of us all.

The reality is Kyle Rittenhouse went out that night with the intention to work as a Medic. He spent all night making his presence known to the citizens of that city that he was there to heal. And the reality is Rosenbaum ran at Kyle because he needed healing. He needed to die. Those bullets were made for Rosenbaum, those bullets were his cure.

Kyle Rittenhouse fulfilled his duty as Medic that night.

And that's what we see when we watch that footage, a man being saved from himself by a baby faced angel straight from the heavens wielding a AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle.
View attachment 2689921

And that's what this clumsy boomer Defense needs to spin Narratively. They have the Evidence, and they have the Judge, but they must transcend their deficiencies with the Jury and make them feel the truth in the same way the Prosecution has been attempting to.

The field is stacked in their favor now, they just need to tell the story right.
Even the jungle wanted him dead, and that's who he took his orders from anyways.
 
Good morning

I have early bird updates from behind the green door. If Kyle is acquitted, there will be a sequence of 5 birds and each bird will delay the latter 5 trumpets for a period of 25 years each.

If he is found guilty, everything proceeds as standard, America will be drawn and quartered in under 20 years.

A lot of people's beliefs are being held in the balance with this trial. Derek Chauvin didn't matter because the people who matter don't like cops. Even in Wall Street and Washington, DC there are many who fantasize about the end of society and retain streaks of well hidden idealism.

Trust nothing. Have faith in everything.
 
This jury is mostly women, right? I'm surprised Kyle's lawyers didn't hire a woman or even sponsor one of their lady paralegals, attractive, but not too attractive, wholesome and pleasant looking (bonus for being Hispanic or black but Asian works too) to do some questioning, mainly the chomo's girlfriend. I mean there's something to be said for being able to say, "As I woman, I find men that assault others, especially women and children, horrifying, don't you?" or "As a mother, I would have been terrified and worried for any of my children to be out and about that night unarmed, don't you agree?" I'm not saying those are statements/questions that should be asked, but if the opportunity presents itself, having a woman can work wonders with an all-female jury.

A black defense attorney questioning black prosecution witnesses takes a lot of the wind out of the prosecution's and media's portrayal of Kyle as a goosestepping Hitler Jugend.

Kenosha is a small town compared to NYC, LA and SF so maybe it's too much but I would have been aggressive about pursuing it.
There is a woman there working with the defense, but I’m not sure if she’s a paralegal or a lawyer. Typically you’d want to use a woman attorney to question women, especially Hannah Gittings (Huber’s gf) and Rosenbaum’s fiancé. Women will feel less guarded by another woman, especially if they haven’t seen her talk to others.
 
...I am surprised tha there is little talk about how Kyle had an illegal possession of the weapon.
I do not doub the self-defence; I a more concerned about him possessing the weapon in the first place.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Uranus Pink
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back