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.
Jurors aren't "allowed" to consider all manner of things but being stupid humans, they frequently do. Like in the Casey Anthony trial (I'm operating from memory here), after the acquittal one of them said in an interview, "They didn't show us a motive." Motive should never have been a matter for them to consider in a murder trial. It's not required in the standard of proof at all. It's something people learned from cop and lawyer shows on TV. You can tell jurors they're not "allowed" to consider things right and left, you can tell them to disregard things they heard that turned out not to be admissible, but they're going to do their own thing once they're in that room.
Or one from the previously mentioned mock trial britbong tv show. "Well I have been in an abusive relationship before and he looks like that same sort of person, so he's probably guilty". Thank fuck that was all make believe, but yes, jurors are usually stupid. The clever ones usually find a way to get out of it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: obsdj
Jurors aren't "allowed" to consider all manner of things but being stupid humans, they frequently do. Like in the Casey Anthony trial (I'm operating from memory here), after the acquittal one of them said in an interview, "They didn't show us a motive." Motive should never have been a matter for them to consider in a murder trial. It's not required in the standard of proof at all. It's something people learned from cop and lawyer shows on TV. You can tell jurors they're not "allowed" to consider things right and left, you can tell them to disregard things they heard that turned out not to be admissible, but they're going to do their own thing once they're in that room.
It's true jurors being human do things they aren't supposed to do but bringing up the circus that was the Casey Anthony trial to impune the jurors deliberations in this trial is pretty exceptional. People in Kenosha know how close Antioch is, I seriously doubt Antifags chanting "crossing state lines" is going to have an impact on them.
 
This conversation's so muddled with legal jargon, but it's a bunch of back and forth of "I think..." and "Well I feel it should be..."

Like, was this discussed prior? This is my first time watching a trial, I really don't get what's going on with this "discussion."

And the Judge just said it himself, "Conversations with lawyers are always so interesting." Interesting indeed, but what does it mean!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinnuffindu
For me personally I think he will be found guilty. Dude is clearly innocent but I have no faith in the system. The jury will find him guilty just to appease the mob and he will be held up as an example of what happens when you try to defend yourself from commie pedophiles who come to burn your city and rape your kids. The system is beyond fucked, the world is fucked, we're all fucked.
If it is so fucked, why do you continue to live?
 
This conversation's so muddled with legal jargon, but it's a bunch of back and forth of "I think..." and "Well I feel it should be..."

Like, was this discussed prior? This is my first time watching a trial, I really don't get what's going on with this "discussion."

And the Judge just said it himself, "Conversations with lawyers are always so interesting." Interesting indeed, but what does it mean!
They are arguing legal semantics, very fine legal semantics.
 
This conversation's so muddled with legal jargon, but it's a bunch of back and forth of "I think..." and "Well I feel it should be..."

Like, was this discussed prior? This is my first time watching a trial, I really don't get what's going on with this "discussion."

And the Judge just said it himself, "Conversations with lawyers are always so interesting." Interesting indeed, but what does it mean!
They're deciding what charges will go to the jury, and what charges they can vote on. Later on they'll go into detail on the letter of the law to the jury.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Don't @ Me
Are they really arguing that if you're indifferent to shooting someone that is threatening your life that it's a crime?
 
I do not understand why the prosecution seem to still be under the impression that the judge will just immediately agree with them. They havent even isolated any quote of Kyle's to support their arguments, they're just assuming the words "What the defendant said indicates [our assertion]" are enough. I get that these Kikes probably don't get a lot of pushback in most cases, but they've been here for DAYS getting BTFO for this same reason over and over.

SURELY they should get the message by now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back