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.
They are arguing legal semantics, very fine legal semantics.
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.
I've gotten that part, I just wasn't aware that this wishy washy way of speaking was normal for deciding these charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spicey McHaggis
So is today going to be shorter than usual? IDK what motion and jury instruction is.
Yes, so the judge gives the jury clear instruction on what they are meant to consider, what the standard of proof is, if there is stuff they heard that they should disregard (like Binger's 5th amendment slimefuckery) and so on. It is an attempt to set a clear standard for juries to look over the evidence and compare it to whether it meets that standard, as opposed to them going "well I feel".
 
I do not understand why the prosecution seem to still be under the impression that the judge will just immediately agree with them.
especially after the judge said "i do not believe you were acting in good faith" then Binger proceeded to fuck around the next day.
piss off the judge so many times, dont be surprised this is the outcome.
edit: do any law experts know how often a judge says something akin to that to a prosecutor?
 
If my understanding is correct, the prosecution is trying to throw in an additional lesser charge because they don't think their murder charges are going to stick right?
Beyond all the legal jargon and bullshit, yes. In a sane world the 1st degree is toast, but they might get him on some lesser charge, so that's what they want in.
 
I can't wait for the next civil suit in Kenosha over a cop shooting someone. If Kyle is convicted, this trial and the prosecutors own arguments in this case are going to haunt them for the next 100 years.
 
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.
The real interesting thing will be if he's found innocent and nogs burn down the city.
Isnt this the Don Imus controversy nigga?

Dude has been saying nothing but exceptional shit for the last 20 years apparently
He basically invented minority grievance hustling. He'd do this trick where he would protest you for being racist, but you could solve it by paying his anti-racist consultants thousands of dollars to fix your racism. This is pretty much the genesis of what "diversity consultants" are today.
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!
I wish there was a stream with people familiar with this stuff providing smart commentary. Rekita has a stream but it's like 10 people at once all trying to make epic dunks and talking over the actual courtroom stream instead of being helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back