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.
If you would like a good source of laughs about the Rittenhouse trial, I would recommend one "Dr. Jack Brown"
View attachment 2710546
This man appears to be positively mentally ill. In addition to giving off the vibe of a shady mental health / alternative medicine guru he is also a brain-sick deranged lefty.
View attachment 2710549
His whole Twitter feed for days has consisted of absolutely bizarre interpretations of the body language of Rittenhouse, his lawyers, and Judge Schroeder.
Does he have a thread?
 
I want to be optimistic, but our society has beaten me down too much. God hates us, Jesus is the son of a whore, and Chauvin got convicted of Super Murder.
Chauvin had his knee on a guy's neck for a while, that's going to look pretty convincing to people as the reason Floyd died. With more context there's reason to say Chauvin didn't murder the guy, but that image is going to stick out in people's minds.

Kyle on the other hand has images of him on his back as a guy comes at him with a gun in hand and we've got the guys recorded having acting threateningly towards Kyle much of the time. The prosecution's argument hinges on the idea that Kyle must have known being present would cause people to assault him. That's a fairly weird argument to make and I'm not sure that'd work on the jury.
 
YT normies on Photochad VS Fatter, Angrier Jonah Hill

Screenshot 2021-11-13 at 01-52-16 WI v Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Day 6 - Direct Exam of Nathan De...png
 
To be fair, I don't think the tech actually spent 20 hours editing the frame, I think he took maybe 1.5 and is now sweating because he didn't expect his padded time sheet to be part of the public record.
We saw Dr. Black do a better job of enlarging frames on the fly in response to a question - 20 hours my ass.
 
Point is, if you do this, you will 100% get caught. Plan to be painted as the next UTexas Clock Tower Shooter except also a Giga-Nazi, then spend the rest of your life in supermax. Lone gunmen murking a few useless faux-commies will do the exact opposite of fixing this problem.

Hint: the people sending in the commie chattel WANT this exact thing to happen.
They want the riots to get worse. They don't want their henchmen and handlers murked. They have this funny idea that the two things can only happen at the same time and constructed things to always play out in their favor in that scenario.

Gonna be interesting if they keep pushing this and their peeps start ending up with their pictures on milk cartons. Hopefully they simmer down and abandon this strategy, but who knows.
My point is these law enforcement agencies can't even stop a skitzo from shooting up a Wal-mart tomorrow, but they're going to stop a motivated individual from obliterating a group of riots? The only thing keeping people safe is the veil of a civilized society.
It's not about stopping it. That's a fool's errand. It's about prosecuting them in a large noisy trial or getting laws passed that sees their enemies lose their civil liberties. This is the outcome they are working towards.
 
I've been following the summaries and this thread most of the time (when possible since this is just a livechat), sadly I could only check the livestream a few times, and I still don't understand how a blurry picture is accepted as evidence. I get that the defense objected but it still sounds absurd that the judge thought it was ok when you can't tell shit from it unless you fill in the blanks with your imagination.

Personally I think this is clearly self-defense but since this is a political trial disguised as a murder trial it doesn't really matter if it was self-defense or the boy is just a monster who hates jews and manlets.
 
I think it was important to humanize Kyle to the jury. The majorly female jury btw.

And what image do you talk about? The shitty one or the absolutely shitty one? Or the shitty one with poorly established relevancy? For fuck's sake, the prosecution is playing poker with only two cards in their hands and one is from Uno.

The quality of a defense is not measured in the OBJECKSHUN YURR HONORs by the minute. For instance, objecting too much during Kyle's cross (while he took every hit on the chin like a trooper without flinching and marching on) would only made it look like they use it to help Kyle like he was a puppet on strings. They used it here and there, gave Kyle a little breather to compose himself, but Kyle still managed to win that battle on his own. He's very young, he did very well and the prosecution got nothing out of him that was more significant than "Hurr, he told some rando on the street he's an EMT when he's not durr".
The concern is that the prosecution is now going to craft a closing that is 2.5 hours of PROVOCATION PROVOCATION PROVOCATION, mimicking the narrative that has been playing on CNN and MSNBC for months. Kyle testifying gave them a foot in the door to get that into the jury instruction through rebuttal, because Kyle claimed that he didn't point his firearm at anyone earlier in the evening. It's a perfect example of how even an innocuous detail can work against a defendant if they testify. Every question just creates more opportunity for a scummy prosecutor to grab something out of context or poorly worded and run with it.

I think Kyle still has a strong case, but when the prosecution rested they had practically nothing. Now they have a narrative to work with, and it could be enough to convince a jury if they were already predisposed against Kyle thanks to the media and the political environment.
 
I think the big problem here is that most of us, and I have to imagine a sizeable percentage of the population, no longer trust in the system. We watched for over a year as our cities burnt down, some places since Trump got elected, with the government doing fuck all but cry about systemic oppression.

tl;dr
Based on past events I don't think they'll be tried in any sort of meaningful way.
Anarcho-tyranny.
 
Consider this. Kyle may be on trial but he has to some short extent been able to live out the fantasy most men die of old age dreaming of. Sure, you talk a big game about what you would do and how you’d shoot people or whatever but Kyle has done it, he’s living it. Not only was he able to gun down those men but he miraculously survived the aftermath without being beaten to death by an angry mob. Yeah, he may have cried a little but when it comes down to brass tacks Kyle was able to what most of you only bother to pay lip service to. How many of you put in his situation could have pulled it off? How many of you would have even gone to defend Kenosha? Kyle is a man of action. A man of passion who isn’t afraid to back up his words. Can you say the same? This is all to say that even if he is convinced and put in prison the fact is that he lived his life as a man and had the courage and willpower to act on his beliefs where others would make excuses or avoid the call of adventure. What he did was so very human in a way I think has been lost on many of us. Things won’t change unless we make them change.
 
So all I can go for is speculation based on what a typical, average IQ, normal midwesterner would do. I do not think things are so far gone enough that the average person of that kind would vote guilty - Chauvin was a special case where Minneapolis selected for those who would be most likely to vote guilty.

Another important distinction is one involved a dead nigger and threats on their lives by angry niggers, something that anybody would be scared of. But these are kikes. I doubt any Wisconsinite is nearly as intimidated by that prospect, esp since they have an established awareness of the community standing their ground.
 
There is no doubt that a jury comprised of individuals who aren't totally exceptional *and* are willing to evaluate fairly in spite of possible mob intimidation, would not be moved by the idea that Kyle should be considered guilty because he 'provoked.'

I haven't bothered following this case other than watching a couple live streams to see the prosecution hilariously fuck up. All I know about the jury is that some wigger type got kicked off for making an anti-cop joke "Why did the cops shoot Jacob Blake seven times? Because they ran out of bullets", and that it's 40% men and 60% women and mostly (or all?) white. We don't know who is a libtard on the jury and who isn't.

If there is at least one person on the jury who isn't a libtard and therefore plainly sees Kyle deserves a 'Not Guilty' verdict, then I guess it comes down to "will they cuck out to doxxing and other potential threats?"

The Chauvin Trial and this one have made it a DREAM for me to get on a jury for a case like this so I can show the world how it's done: Proudly vote Not Guilty, while feeling no intimidation from the libtard menace because I will have millions of patriots, the second amendment, and God on my side.
If you watched the Chauvin case and its aftermath you'll notice that it was heavily women and when interviewed post conviction every single one stated they were swayed by emotional pleas rather than technical data and the law. Assume the 60% women are going to vote for conviction and the 40% of men are your randomized chance.
 
And with that done I'm going to dip out of this thread because it's going to be one long, unbearable weekend of doom and baitposting.
Chauvin had his knee on a guy's neck for a while, that's going to look pretty convincing to people as the reason Floyd died. With more context there's reason to say Chauvin didn't murder the guy, but that image is going to stick out in people's minds.

Kyle on the other hand has images of him on his back as a guy comes at him with a gun in hand and we've got the guys recorded having acting threateningly towards Kyle much of the time. The prosecution's argument hinges on the idea that Kyle must have known being present would cause people to assault him. That's a fairly weird argument to make and I'm not sure that'd work on the jury.
The biggest problem with any defense of Chauvin was that next to the minutes of him kneeling on Floyd any defense that he wasn't responsible for his death looked like an awful lot of 'who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?' The prosecution trying to claim that the single, highly pixelated frame of ENHANCE is totally Kyle provoking Pedobaum should correctly come off as the same thing to any juror whose brain isn't completely rotted by leftism.
 
And with that done I'm going to dip out of this thread because it's going to be one long, unbearable weekend of doom and baitposting.

The biggest problem with any defense of Chauvin was that next to the minutes of him kneeling on Floyd any defense that he wasn't responsible for his death looked like an awful lot of 'who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?' The prosecution trying to claim that the single, highly pixelated frame of ENHANCE is totally Kyle provoking Pedobaum should correctly come off as the same thing to any juror whose brain isn't completely rotted by leftism.
I feel ya there mate. I'm going to head over to the other thread and see if Yaniv has crawled out from under his rock lately.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back