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

[Sprite drinker]

But couldn't the case be brought up again by other people prosecuting Kyle?

No. It can't be brought to trial ever again

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

Nah, nothing is 100%. What's also egregious is not disclosing the name and identity of Jump Kick Man, as it was known, and the defense should have known, who he is since he's a known 40 yr old Kenosha career criminal on probation, and delaying Zeminski's trial to make him unavailable to the defense. When Grosskunt's charges were dismissed, the ADA said he was a "special case". They played fast and loose with the evidence ans witnesses, something they probably do all the time. This is what Brady is meant to prevent, hence the possibility of a mistrial with prejudice, and no second bite at the apple, no more kicking the cat down the street (which is haram anyway). Taken as a whole its the kind of thing appellate courts hate and a career killer for any ADA.

The Kenosha DA is hosed, the video is the icing on the shit cake they'll have to eat.

What does he mean Kiwi Farms contacted him, does he know how many autists post here?

With Judge Schroeder being the former prosecutor, do you think he's fully aware of the game Binger and Kraus are playing? It seemed to me he realized what they're up to when Ziminski and his delays came up

 

[Oxous]

Nick said he can rule on this after the jury potentially comes back with a guilty verdict.

I've been of the mind for a pretty long while that if Schroeder was ever going to do a mistrial or a directed verdict or whatever it would only be after the jury deliberated and presented a verdict. Given the circumstances of the trial I'd say his only real flaw is that he has too much faith/confidence in the jury. He's never sequestered them and has repeatedly held himself back from justifiably dismissing the case because he's basically a jurors rights activist.

 

[Starscreams Cape]

There’s a lot of talk about the women in the jury, but I think if any of them are mothers, he’ll be okay. I know my maternal instinct kicked in when I watched the sped photographer and when Kyle started crying.

I mean, I have a daughter round his age, he’s totally son in law material

I agree. I'd be wary of any white guy on the jury 35 and under because there's a 70% chance they're a Millenial faggot who needs to suck the pipe.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Slightly off topic, but I feel maybe in this sprawling thread it doesn't even matter.

But, has anyone else on recent years become totally blackpilled on expert witnesses, and forensic science in general? I've been researching this topic alot and well, essentially all of it is hooey.

Blood spatter analysis is pseudoscience, fire analysis is pseudoscience, ballistics analysis is unreliable and essentially pseudoscience, fingerprints are not reliable, and the certainty with which they are presented is pseudoscience. hair analysis is unreliable pseudoscience. Bite mark analysis is made up pseudoscience.

None of these forensic methods have been backed up by scientific method and peer reviewed analysis. They always fall apart when done so in lab settings. They are genuine hokum.

They don't rely on scientific method, they rely on a so called experts who have no backing but their experience (and when you look up the minimum requirements for what qualifies someone as an "expert witness", it's bone chilling), and these witnesses are bought and paid for by the state. Often defense attorneys and public defenders do not have the experience nor the resources to properly challenge these expert witnesses on either their qualifications nor the science itself behind their assertions.

The problem only becomes more terrifying once you realize how many people have been falsely convicted on bogus expert testimony, and then later exonerated. It's more jarring when you think of how many are still probably rotting in cells who havent had the resources to challenge their bogus convictions on expert testimony.

This is a MASSIVE problem, and the system is essentially broken right now. More people need to be made aware of this.

Its already well known that the justice system is rigged towards the rich though there is also the issue of regular witnesses themselves with their lightbulb memories and relying on human memory, which is a giant flaw even before the age of forensics.

After this trial if Kyle is acquitted he needs to gtfo and isolate himself off the grid. There is no way he will be safe in public life from both the left wing rioters or the shadowy elites that want him gone

He just needs to move to a red state basically at this point. He isn't safe in any blue state even if he lives in a red rural area of a blue state, they all fucked and the kids over there are all fucked.

It's more like this is the sort of shit prosecutors have been doing all along, it's apparently nigh impossible to hold them accountable. Just look at what they're getting away with despite the immense attention to the case from public.
It's bordering on inquisition at this point. This is why state shouldn't be trusted. This is why you can't trust people with power.

The majority of the voters of Wisconsin and other states as well keep voting in Democrat smug pissants like Tony Evers and allow their politicians to rule over them like a king over the peasants. Minnesota goes through very horrible riots, the end result is the faggots up in the Iron Range making the state go blue for Biden. Add in conservatives who really are just cowardly liberals in disguise. California got raped by Newsom and the end result is the majority of the subhumans put Newsom back into office. A giant slave mentality has been cultivated among many folks and its bigger than ever.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

But couldn't the case be brought up again by other people prosecuting Kyle?

Like who? The feds? On what basis? Molesting/raping children is not a civil right you can violate. Neither is bashing women, grannies and burglarizing.

 

[LaxerBRO]

Recall the national guard and fire up the cloning vats. The solution to the threat of riots was in our faces the whole time!

 

[DumbDude42]

Slightly off topic, but I feel maybe in this sprawling thread it doesn't even matter.

But, has anyone else on recent years become totally blackpilled on expert witnesses, and forensic science in general? I've been researching this topic alot and well, essentially all of it is hooey.

Blood spatter analysis is pseudoscience, fire analysis is pseudoscience, ballistics analysis is unreliable and essentially pseudoscience, fingerprints are not reliable, and the certainty with which they are presented is pseudoscience. hair analysis is unreliable pseudoscience. Bite mark analysis is made up pseudoscience.

None of these forensic methods have been backed up by scientific method and peer reviewed analysis. They always fall apart when done so in lab settings. They are genuine hokum.

They don't rely on scientific method, they rely on a so called experts who have no backing but their experience (and when you look up the minimum requirements for what qualifies someone as an "expert witness", it's bone chilling), and these witnesses are bought and paid for by the state. Often defense attorneys and public defenders do not have the experience nor the resources to properly challenge these expert witnesses on either their qualifications nor the science itself behind their assertions.

The problem only becomes more terrifying once you realize how many people have been falsely convicted on bogus expert testimony, and then later exonerated. It's more jarring when you think of how many are still probably rotting in cells who havent had the resources to challenge their bogus convictions on expert testimony.

This is a MASSIVE problem, and the system is essentially broken right now. More people need to be made aware of this.

there are situations where the court really want to know if someone is lying or not, because they're dealing with a he said she said situation and have no hard evidence, but lie detector machines are notoriously unreliable - so what do they do instead? they call in some guy with a psychology degree as their 'expert witness' and have him certify whether or not the witness/defendant/accuser is telling the truth. it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Sprite drinker]

I've watched enough trials to know women are the ones who are most empathetic to young defendants, especially males. Kyle's speech impediment really helps him sound extra young and pathetic, which is good in this case.

 

[Lards and Lasses]

Are we actually a Legitimate Journalistic Endeavor now? We seem to be a better and more accurate News source than the New York Times these days.

Autism is unstoppable.

 

[Spicey McHaggis]

Slightly off topic, but I feel maybe in this sprawling thread it doesn't even matter.

But, has anyone else on recent years become totally blackpilled on expert witnesses, and forensic science in general? I've been researching this topic alot and well, essentially all of it is hooey.

Blood spatter analysis is pseudoscience, fire analysis is pseudoscience, ballistics analysis is unreliable and essentially pseudoscience, fingerprints are not reliable, and the certainty with which they are presented is pseudoscience. hair analysis is unreliable pseudoscience. Bite mark analysis is made up pseudoscience.

None of these forensic methods have been backed up by scientific method and peer reviewed analysis. They always fall apart when done so in lab settings. They are genuine hokum.

They don't rely on scientific method, they rely on a so called experts who have no backing but their experience (and when you look up the minimum requirements for what qualifies someone as an "expert witness", it's bone chilling), and these witnesses are bought and paid for by the state. Often defense attorneys and public defenders do not have the experience nor the resources to properly challenge these expert witnesses on either their qualifications nor the science itself behind their assertions.

The problem only becomes more terrifying once you realize how many people have been falsely convicted on bogus expert testimony, and then later exonerated. It's more jarring when you think of how many are still probably rotting in cells who havent had the resources to challenge their bogus convictions on expert testimony.

This is a MASSIVE problem, and the system is essentially broken right now. More people need to be made aware of this.

I blame shows like CSI and the like for showing it all as some infallible shit done by super experts who were all the top of their class at ivy league schools. In reality it's just done by dudes at some small lab, who definitely were not at the top of their class in a mid tier university.

The other problem is that it's really easy to pull the wool over someone's eyes by sounding smart about a subject, whether the person talking is or isn't actually knowledgeable. Reminds me a of a Scott Adam's quote "it doesn't matter if someone is 1% smarter than you or 90% smarter than you, you can't really tell the difference". Considering most people don't know shit about these subjects, anyone who knows just a little can sway them.

 

[Constellationzero]

The main reason I can't get behind the whole the prosecution was trying to get a mistrial is the type of mistakes they made. They aren't just little "case gets dismissed" mistakes, they're "your career is dead and you can't practice law ever again" mistakes. These fuckers may have been aiming for a mistrial without prejudice to get a new judge as the trial went on, but these mistakes are the kind you knowingly make when you have tunnel vision. They absolutely are true believers.

And let this be a lesson as to why TROO BEWIEVERS end up facing wall first.

 

[MrJokerRager]

"With prejudice" means the case is dismissed by the judge and can't be brought again by the state.

And the leftist tards would take that as a white supremacist conspiracy and miscarriage of justice.

Everything is white supremacy, its like when Muzzies praise Allah before every religious act of theirs.

I would advise sane people in power to just take the hit for America and put these scum under the boot as lets face it, their liberal "keeping up with the Jonses" wife was not going to give them pussy that night anyways and their daughters are coalburners, lost causes as well.

 

[Grug]

expert witnesses, and forensic science in general, essentially all of it is hooey.

fingerprints are not reliable, and the certainty with which they are presented is pseudoscience.

None of these forensic methods have been backed up by scientific method and peer reviewed analysis. They always fall apart when done so in lab settings.

They don't rely on scientific method, they rely on a so called experts who have no backing but their experience (and when you look up the minimum requirements for what qualifies someone as an "expert witness", it's bone chilling), and these witnesses are bought and paid for by the state.

Forgive me, I trimmed your post a little;

Why exactly do you say fingerprints are not reliable?
I was under the impression that fingerprints were ironclad evidence, setting partial prints aside, for the obvious uncertainties.

As for expert witnesses, well if you watched the trial, the difference between Mr Armstrong and Dr Black was beyond night and day.

 

[Kabuki Actor]

I've watched enough trials to know women are the ones who are most empathetic to young defendants, especially males. Kyle's speech impediment really helps him sound extra young and pathetic, which is good in this case.

And he's a killer. Slam dunk on the women's vote!

 

[With My Dick]

I've watched enough trials to know women are the ones who are most empathetic to young defendants, especially males. Kyle's speech impediment really helps him sound extra young and pathetic, which is good in this case.

Me: immediately fires up an image manipulation program to make the "Kyle Rittenhouse: Tendies Defender" movie poster
Me while the image manipulation program loads up: Wait, no - fuck. It's too late to embark on this journey
Me, closing the program the moment I'm allowed to: I know! I'll put the idea in some other sperg's head instead!

 

[Spicey McHaggis]

I agree but also disagree.

They did get tunnel vision, but I don't think they're true believers in the sense that they think Rittenhouse is guilty of multiple super murders. They're true believers that Kyle would be a good head to hang on their wall, and their ambition made them fuck up.

Oh I absolutely think these fucks believe self defense is murder. They may not think it's super murder, but I'd be willing to bet they want to make things difficult for anyone who engages in lawful self defense.

 

[Josterman]

Maybe the actual trial, if there is one. On the 18th Chris just has another hearing to determine the date of his potential trial, but his lawyer will probably just ask for another continuance.

Shame

Just leave you stupid faggot. Nobody's begging you to stay. Nobody cares. Shoo.

i am this is my last post
Post deadline syonara everyone for now

 

[W00K #17]

Its already well known that the justice system is rigged towards the rich though there is also the issue of regular witnesses themselves with their lightbulb memories and relying on human memory, which is a giant flaw even before the age of forensics.


He just needs to move to a red state basically at this point. He isn't safe in any blue state even if he lives in a red rural area of a blue state, they all fucked and the kids over there are all fucked.


The majority of the voters of Wisconsin and other states as well keep voting in Democrat smug pissants like Tony Evers and allow their politicians to rule over them like a king over the peasants. Minnesota goes through very horrible riots, the end result is the faggots up in the Iron Range making the state go blue for Biden. Add in conservatives who really are just cowardly liberals in disguise. California got raped by Newsom and the end result is the majority of the subhumans put Newsom back into office. A giant slave mentality has been cultivated among many folks and its bigger than ever.

You can blame it on class divisions, but I think the case of David Camm is notable. He was a former trooper, the people doing the investigation were literally his friends. Yet he was convicted on the pseudoscience of blood spatter analysis backed by expert testimony. This innocent former cop did 13 years based on bogus science and crackpot expert testimony before being exonerated. And he was a former Law Enforcement Officer. If it could happen to him, it could happen to you, or anyone you love. Nobody cares until it affects them personally.

David Camm - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[MrJokerRager]

I blame shows like CSI and the like for showing it all as some infallible shit done by super experts who were all the top of their class at ivy league schools. In reality it's just done by dudes at some small lab, who definitely were not at the top of their class in a mid tier university.

The other problem is that it's really easy to pull the wool over someone's eyes by sounding smart about a subject, whether the person talking is or isn't actually knowledgeable. Reminds me a of a Scott Adam's quote "it doesn't matter if someone is 1% smarter than you or 90% smarter than you, you can't really tell the difference". Considering most people don't know shit about these subjects, anyone who knows just a little can sway them.

The famous British accent that Hollywood uses in their films to make retards sound "smart" lol.

America is being subverted by the eternal Anglo.

Anglo elites hate the concept of self defense which is why they are obsessed with the 2nd amendment and the 1776 Revolutionary war.