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.
Pretty sure Duke Lacrosse was one of the few cases where the prosecution properly ate shit for their behaviour (one guy completely disbarred iirc).
Prosecutors will swear on a stack of bibles that they would not possibly be able to do their jobs without absolute unfettered ability to commit what would otherwise be criminal blackmail, to lie to judges, juries, and defense counsel alike, to misrepresent the law, disobey court orders, taint jury pools, and even incite civil disturbances i.e. riots. In other words, without "absolute immunity."

I would beg to differ--but it's been awhile since they've asked my opinion.
 
Standard of evidence and rules are different for a civil case.

OJ is the most famous example of this playing out. Where he was found not guilty and then lost the civil trial
but at the same time, OJ's wife wasnt a pedo, a domestic abuser, bashed someone in the head with skateboard in the midst and participating in a riot, and illegally conceal carry a gun and lie about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Justa Grata Honoria
I sure do, and I could tell you all the good news about it, with pictures and diagrams. I could even teach you how to march if you want, it's a fun team building activity! Do you speak German, or will I be translating for you?
These people going into conniption fits over the definition of "nazi" oy! I mean if transwoman can mean woman, nazi can mean any government sponsored thug I dislike. Languages evolve. [Respectfully}: get over it.
 
Last edited:
The difference is that OJ was guilty as fuck. There was plenty of evidence to prove it, but juuuuust not enough to actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where as Kyle is much, much more secure in terms of evidence.
Ok. But you get bingers butt buddy as the judge and just convincing a simple majority of jurors that kyle should pay something is alot easier to pull off.

I can guarantee you plenty of the jurors are in the "he shouldnt have been there" camp even if they think its self defense and kyle has 2 million bucks coming to him if he isnt found guilty. Easy enough to convince people that he should give money to those poor families and pay for grosses hospital bills.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Brain Problems
but at the same time, OJ's wife wasnt a pedo, a domestic abuser, bashed someone in the head with skateboard in the midst and participating in a riot, and illegally conceal carry a gun and lie about it.
Not to mention, Kyle will be the one getting a lot of money this time around, he can sue anybody who said he was carrying a weapon illegally that night.
 
In that case, the words your're looking for are "Socialist" or "Totalitarian". Specific subtypes of the above, such as Communism, Fascism and National Socialism/Naziism all denote a specific motivation for being the above.
"Socialism" is an economic theory, which has a very broad meaning, but generally involves some level of public control over industries and worker rights
"Totalitarianism" isn't a pejorative and neither is it synonymous with tyranny. It was a word invented by Mussolini to describe his own ideology. It means that all citizens are involved in the state (without coercion), and are represented within his ideology as corporate (social) groups.
"Communism" is another economic-political set of beliefs where the workers own the means of production
"Fascism" is a system of government organization, but is not a worldview. It wants to reorganize the government according to corporate (social) groups rather than majority-rule voting, which Mussolini believed marginalized some important, but demographically smaller groups.
"National Socialism" is a worldview, which holds that the advancement of the race and its community (volk) is the principle which governments should uphold

None of that has anything to do with cops killing niggers or whatever people wrongly use these words to mean. That is called tyranny or corruption, and is just as illegal under any authoritarian regime as it is under any non-authoritarian regime.
 
Capture.PNG

Rittenhouse's successor has been chosen and deployed on the streets of Kenosha, as is tradition.
 
Ok. But you get bingers butt buddy as the judge and just convincing a simple majority of jurors that kyle should pay something is alot easier to pull off.

I can guarantee you plenty of the jurors are in the "he shouldnt have been there" camp even if they think its self defense and kyle has 2 million bucks coming to him if he isnt found guilty. Easy enough to convince people that he should give money to those poor families and pay for grosses hospital bills.
Binger's butt buddy is a criminal court judge, not civil court. They cover separate things. And civil court juries still need to be unanimous, and good luck getting that without the extreme pressure that a criminal trial brings.
 
To me, "nazi" has nothing (necessarily) to do with racism. It is about state-supported thuggery. People who gleefully kill (even thugs who deserved death like Floyd) on cam, so sure that the power of the state makes them untouchable--are nazis. But YMMV.
Well, the problem with your definition of "nazi" is that words have meaning, and that's not what nazi means. Nazi = national socialist (i.e. socially right wing, economically left). What you're describing is the word "authoritarian." Nazis ARE authoritarians, but the problem with how "nazis" have become synonymous with "authoritarians" is that it implies the left cannot be autocratic, when in reality they're even more likely to be. This widespread misconception I think is the cause of a lot of our problems today so I'm not just being pedantic.
 
Ok. But you get bingers butt buddy as the judge and just convincing a simple majority of jurors that kyle should pay something is alot easier to pull off.

I can guarantee you plenty of the jurors are in the "he shouldnt have been there" camp even if they think its self defense and kyle has 2 million bucks coming to him if he isnt found guilty. Easy enough to convince people that he should give money to those poor families and pay for grosses hospital bills.
I'd definitely donate to grosses hospital GoFundMe if we get to decide the procedure
 
Pretty sure Duke Lacrosse was one of the few cases where the prosecution properly ate shit for their behaviour (one guy completely disbarred iirc).
That was Mike Nifong who not only engaged in a number of prosecutorial missteps (attempting to taint the jury pool, trying his case in the press) but what did him in was blatantly lying to not only the judge but the state bar's investigators.

Part of what made Duke Lacrosse so exceptional (not KF exceptional) is that this one of the few instances where a prosecutor got the book and the appendices thrown at him for misconduct.
 
Last edited:
Well, the problem with your definition of "nazi" is that words have meaning,
No. Words USED to have meaning. That phase ended with the ascent of Jack Dorsey. These days, trying to persuade your idealogical opponents that words have meaning is going to be about as productive as trying to reason with Pedobaum before deciding your only real option is to blow his brains out.

Eye of the tiger, baby. Eye of the tiger.
 
The Cameron Todd Willingham case really damaged a lot of people's faith in fire science. Even though it happened decades ago and science continues to advance, the fact that that guy was executed on what was later believed by many to be flimsy or fabricated evidence really did a number on fire cases, especially in the eyes of people who are already predisposed to disbelieve forensic evidence.
The Breyler Report was pure unsound nonsense. Ginned up by a couple of Academics on a Crusade against the Texas Death Penalty. Who had never walked the fire scene. The heart of it’s conclusions was “it’s not Arson! It’s just a regular Fire!” Ie Spontaneous Structural Combustion with no apparent source or ignition point. It ranks up there with SauerKraus’s “Sometimes you just gotta take a beating” in terms of legal stupidity. The Breyler Report was predicated on “The Fire Marshall talks like a hick, so he must be a moron” and imaginary “Great advances in Fire Science!” It sought to wave away rather compelling indications of Arson. Namely 3+ well separated points of origin. Clear signs that those points of origin were a liquid accelerant (you really can tell. Very easily). It’s another example of Academia seeking to weaponize “Science” for political purpose.

Don’t get me wrong, there have been some shocking examples of shadiness and corruption in Expert Witness Fire Testimony. Probably the worst being the 1984 Haunted Castle Fire at Six Flags Great Adventure. Where the President of the fucking NFPA was paid off by Six Flags to give blatantly false testimony. That caused a huge scandal among Fire Investigators and Experts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back