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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

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.
Don't have any idea if this is even permissible, but what are the chances that Gaige Grosskreutz sees the case against Rittenhouse going south and, under advisement from his lawyer, withdraws from testifying next week in order to avoid emulating the shady car brothers in bringing negative attention to himself, similar to Floyd's drug dealer refusing to testify during the Chauvin trial?
 
Now, how he acts on the stand is going to be a different manner, from what I've seen of him, dude has a massive problem with any sort of authority, so I could see him making a massive jackass of himself on the stand. Plus since he's suing the city, he may get noticeably shifty on the stand so he doesn't give any ammo to be used against him in the civil case.
Ohh i would love to see him arguing with the judge..
 
i think the directed verdict from the judge would be an option there. a railroading jury would also undermine the faith in the judicidal system
I'd say if there's any case and any judge where that would happen, it's this case and this judge. But my opinion is worth exactly what I know about it, which is shit.
 
One arm is the only one who may be able to drum up sympathy in my view. For starters, while he does have a criminal record, it's mostly petty shit, and not anything to the degree of pedobum or Mr domestic violence. The fact he lived and can show off his gimp arm will also help with the sympathy points. For the most part they haven't even mentioned him all that much compared to the dead guys.

Now, how he acts on the stand is going to be a different manner, from what I've seen of him, dude has a massive problem with any sort of authority, so I could see him making a massive jackass of himself on the stand. Plus since he's suing the city, he may get noticeably shifty on the stand so he doesn't give any ammo to be used against him in the civil case.

If the rest of the trial is any indication, it's probably gonna be a shitshow.
I've seen conflicting things about if he has a conviction for a home invasion burglary. If so it's probably coming in, I'm not sure how this guy is going to testify about how he's such a hero without being up his character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murdered meat bag
I've seen conflicting things about if he has a conviction for a home invasion burglary. If so it's probably coming in, I'm not sure how this guy is going to testify about how he's such a hero without being up his character.
He was charged in a felony burglary case, but it was dismissed, which could mean a wide variety of things, so I won't really speculate there. His most major charge was operating a weapon while intoxicated, which is a misdemeanor in Wisconsin. He'd also caught a prowling charge a few months before. Dude basically just seems like a petty criminal for the most part, nothing nearly in the range of the other two.
 
i think the directed verdict from the judge would be an option there. a railroading jury would also undermine the faith in the judicidal system.
It's a possibility, but a remote one. The judge cares a lot about having the optics of fairness, and a directed verdict would seem arbitrary to those not paying attention (even though it doesn't matter what such halfwits think).

I agree, a direct verdict should happen. The fact that Kyle is being prosecuted in the first place is a travesty. His innocence is obvious, and the Pros is making an ass of itself.

If the jury were to deliberate today, I'd give Kyle a 60-40 chance of acquittal. I'm not full-on whitepilled, just cautiously optimistic.
He was charged in a felony burglary case, but it was dismissed, which could mean a wide variety of things, so I won't really speculate there.
So does that mean they can't mention it in cross? At the very least, Baldy should ask Gaige about his fake surrender.
 
All the libs using the excuse of "a 17 year old shouldn't be defending places or themselves blah blah blah" make me fucking sick.
They sure didn't give a shit about the 17 year olds going to actual war. But when one has the guts to stand up to domestic terrorists, who happen to side with them politically, then suddenly 17 year olds should be locked away playing Nintendo.
Like it or not, 17 is military age.
I guess in the eyes of the liberal media, 17 year olds should only be risking their lives for ZOG and not their own country.
 
All the libs using the excuse of "a 17 year old shouldn't be defending places or themselves blah blah blah" make me fucking sick.
They sure didn't give a shit about the 17 year olds going to actual war. But when one has the guts to stand up to domestic terrorists, who happen to side with them politically, then suddenly 17 year olds should be locked away playing Nintendo.
Like it or not, 17 is military age.
I guess in the eyes of the liberal media, 17 year olds should only be risking their lives for ZOG and not their own country.
They wouldn't sing the same song if their idol Alec Baldwin did the same thing at Kyle Rittenhouse.
 
All the libs using the excuse of "a 17 year old shouldn't be defending places or themselves blah blah blah" make me fucking sick.
They sure didn't give a shit about the 17 year olds going to actual war. But when one has the guts to stand up to domestic terrorists, who happen to side with them politically, then suddenly 17 year olds should be locked away playing Nintendo.
Like it or not, 17 is military age.
I guess in the eyes of the liberal media, 17 year olds should only be risking their lives for ZOG and not their own country.
I'm really hoping the self defence laws there don't factor that shit in. Just because the thing you defended yourself with might have been illegal doesn't mean your entire self defence rights go into the bin.
 
I'm really hoping the self defence laws there don't factor that shit in. Just because the thing you defended yourself with might have been illegal doesn't mean your entire self defence rights go into the bin.
Defense should make a comparison something like this: a 17-year-old is housesitting for someone else. There's a whiskey bottle on top of the pantry. An intruder breaks in and attacks him.

The teenager grabs the whiskey bottle, smashes it, and stabs the attacker with it, killing him.

Technically, the teen was a minor in possession of alcohol, but used said object to avoid being killed or severely injured. Given the circumstances, the MIP is not a big deal.

I once heard that there is some legal term for this, but it escapes me.
 
Defense should make a comparison something like this: a 17-year-old is housesitting for someone else. There's a whiskey bottle on top of the pantry. An intruder breaks in and attacks him.

The teenager grabs the whiskey bottle, smashes it, and stabs the attacker with it, killing him.

Technically, the teen was a minor in possession of alcohol, but used said object to avoid being killed or severely injured. Given the circumstances, the MIP is not a big deal.

I once heard that there is some legal term for this, but it escapes me.
It's the worrying part since it's the only real hole in the defence. The idea that it'd be suddenly okay if he was literally 1 year older just seems ridiculous but you never know when it's the only thing the prosecution has to go on.
 
All the libs using the excuse of "a 17 year old shouldn't be defending places or themselves blah blah blah" make me fucking sick.
They sure didn't give a shit about the 17 year olds going to actual war. But when one has the guts to stand up to domestic terrorists, who happen to side with them politically, then suddenly 17 year olds should be locked away playing Nintendo.
Like it or not, 17 is military age.
I guess in the eyes of the liberal media, 17 year olds should only be risking their lives for ZOG and not their own country.
Kinda sounds like blaming the victim, eh?
1636224156936.jpeg


It's the worrying part since it's the only real hole in the defence. The idea that it'd be suddenly okay if he was literally 1 year older just seems ridiculous but you never know when it's the only thing the prosecution has to go on.
1636224205636.png
 
You all (only some actually) doubted my optimism. You thought this world was that far gone. Well guess what? Justice still exists in this shitheap of a world, even if it's only the tiniest glimmer.
Normies, at least where I am, are starting to realize how unhinged and insane some of these ANTIFA and BLM people sound objectively.

Even if this is a kangaroo court and he's found guilty, I don't think this will go away like Chauvin will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back