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 better give a verdict today. I want to know whether I should start smoking 3 packs a day in hopes I get terminal lung cancer and get an excuse or if I can hold out hope for humanity. The smoked gouda wheel in my fridge which I am holding out for the decision can only last so long.
 
Kyle will get got for super-murder. The longer the jury pretends to deliberate over an obvious case, the clearer it is. It's because if Kyle is convicted there will be seething on forums but if he gets acquitted they'll get their kneecaps broken by feral nogs and their homes burned by peaceful pedophiles.
 
You then fail to understand court procedure. The judge is the one who gets to call that expert. The defense (and prosecution) can obtain and provide said expert, but they can't actually have said expert sits down and testify under oath... until the very same judge they need to convince of the necessity asks for it.

And all that leaves out the fact it wasn't even hinted at as an option until late yesterday, and setting that up takes time.
Then I concede, as you clearly know more on this than I do. I admit that frustration at the judges inaction may be tainting my perceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger
That'd be more likely to backfire hard., Binger and Kraus know this judge -very- well, they know exactly how to badger without crossing the line. None of the defense has any experience with the judge.
Their strat is just talking and talking until the judge gives in.
I would also disagree that they know how to badger without crossing the line, Binger already crossed the line the judge just cucks out.
The defence can do better without crossing any line because everything is on their side they just have to keep hammering in.
 
The simple truth is, the defense can't do -shit- right now except try to find a way to convince the judge to either seek that expert testimony or accept a mistrial. They can't aid Rittenhouse's case in anyway at this point so it narrows down to those two 'options'.

They did about as good as they could for the former with their female collogue providing a ton of doubt for the judge... but he then pushed it back till after the jury. They tried filing a motion for mistrial with prejudice and... the judge pushed it back until after the jury. So they tried to compromise, mistrial without prejudice so a new jury could look at it if the prosecution refiled... and the judge pushed it back until after the jury.

The defense did everything they -could-.


Their strat is just talking and talking until the judge gives in, I would also disagree that they know how to badger without crossing the line, Binger already crossed the line, the judge just cucks out.

The defence can do better without crossing any line because everything is on their side they just have to keep hammering in.
Every time the prosecution crossed the line was part of a patently obvious attempt to get a mistrial before they were forced to use their trump card. Any time outside of that they have always firmly toes the line of the judge's patience, only ever pushing again when he was wavering. Rather skillfully at that.

And around them doing that si where I'd center a good portion of my criticism of the defense.

But proactively -doing- it would be a recipe for disaster.

Then I concede, as you clearly know more on this than I do. I admit that frustration at the judges inaction may be tainting my perceptions.
The judge is the worst part of this. He clearly realizes he fucked up with admitting that evidence. The problem for him is that if he admits that there is only one solution, immediate mistrial. And that's gonna be -explosive-. So he's just trying to buy for time and hoping the jury brings back a full aquittal.
 
Last edited:
Kyle will get got for super-murder. The longer the jury pretends to deliberate over an obvious case, the clearer it is. It's because if Kyle is convicted there will be seething on forums but if he gets acquitted they'll get their kneecaps broken by feral nogs and their homes burned by peaceful pedophiles.
A minor whitepill for the doomers out there. If Kyle is sent to prison he will probably be treated like a god because all he has to do is say "I killed a child rapist, a domestic abuser, and a guy who slapped his grandma, pull my papers". If they pull his papers they will see that he did exactly that and almost nobody in jail will want to cause him any harm and may in fact want to protect him. People have this retarded view of prison as a free for all, but in general everyone wants to keep their head down and just do their time. The only exceptions are for A: totally moronic people who start shit for no reason B: Chomos and C: People who kill Chomos. People who kill Chomos are generally viewed as not acceptable targets.
 
Great I missed the handbrake discussion. I used that a couple times a decade ago (maybe it was more popular then).

Handbrake is like the simplest GUI frontend to ffmpeg, and I don't think it's much more intuitive than just using ffmpeg alone especially for a 15 second video. You still need to know how video codecs and containers work to get what you want. Only good for simple conversions.
 
People who kill Chomos are generally viewed as not acceptable targets.
This is indeed a plausible whitepill, but it all depends on where he gets sent. If he gets sent to a majority nog prison, that won't count for much as gangs are tribal and he'll be of the minority.
 
They did about as good as they could for the former with their female collogue providing a ton of doubt for the judge... but he then pushed it back till after the jury. They tried filing a motion for mistrial with prejudice and... the judge pushed it back until after the jury. So they tried to compromise, mistrial without prejudice so a new jury could look at it if the prosecution refiled... and the judge pushed it back until after the jury.
and let's be serious here, "pushed it back until after the jury" means it is denied. cause there is no fucking way that he will throw out the case as a mistrial AFTER the jury hands down a guilty verdict, cause that would make him public enemy #1 to half the population and they will ensure that he goes down in history as a textbook example of an abusive and biased judge.
 
The simple truth is, the defense can't do -shit- right now except try to find a way to convince the judge to either seek that expert testimony or accept a mistrial. They can't aid Rittenhouse's case in anyway at this point so it narrows down to those two 'options'.

They did about as good as they could for the former with their female collogue providing a ton of doubt for the judge... but he then pushed it back till after the jury. They tried filing a motion for mistrial with prejudice and... the judge pushed it back until after the jury. So they tried to compromise, mistrial without prejudice so a new jury could look at it if the prosecution refiled... and the judge pushed it back until after the jury.

The defense did everything they -could-.



Every time the prosecution crossed the line was part of a patently obvious attempt to get a mistrial before they were forced to use their trump card. Any time outside of that they have always firmly toes the line of the judge's patience, only ever pushing again when he was wavering. Rather skillfully at that.

And around them doing that si where I'd center a good portion of my criticism of the defense.

But proactively -doing- it would be a recipe for disaster.


The judge is the worst part of this. He clearly realizes he fucked up with admitting that evidence. The problem for him is that if he admits that there is only one solution, immediate mistrial. And that's gonna be -explosive-. So he's just trying to buy for time and hoping the jury brings back a full aquittal.
What do you think is wrong with the jury? Do you think it is in fact guilty holdouts or innocent against a guilty majority?
Based on the evidence I'd say innocent with some stubborn sjw or more likely intimidated locals.

and let's be serious here, "pushed it back until after the jury" means it is denied. cause there is no fucking way that he will throw out the case as a mistrial AFTER the jury hands down a guilty verdict, cause that would make him public enemy #1 to half the population and they will ensure that he goes down in history as a textbook example of an abusive and biased judge.
Do you consider guilty even remotely likely?
 
What do you think is wrong with the jury? Do you think it is in fact guilty holdouts or innocent against a guilty majority?
Based on the evidence I'd say innocent with some stubborn sjw or more likely intimidated locals.
Seriously doubt it's majority guilty, we've all seen the same evidence and heard the same arguments, and it's Kenosha
Do you consider guilty even remotely likely?
IMO the most unlikely scenario, worst case is hung jury.
 
This is indeed a plausible whitepill, but it all depends on where he gets sent. If he gets sent to a majority nog prison, that won't count for much as gangs are tribal and he'll be of the minority.
That's partially true, but it depends upon where he's sent if it's a nog majority prison. Some nog majority prisons don't give a shit, some are retardedly racist. Funnily enough Kyle could join either a hispanic or white gang (you should never join a prison gang ever, it's literally just painting a target on your back). The only situation I see Kyle getting a rough prison life is if he is somehow sent to one of the prisons that are run by pedos (this is sadly a thing, also never play D&D if you are sent to prison you will be presumed to be a chomo).
 
What do you think is wrong with the jury? Do you think it is in fact guilty holdouts or innocent against a guilty majority?
Based on the evidence I'd say innocent with some stubborn sjw or more likely intimidated locals.
Going off what little we have to go on, I am in the camp that the most likely thing is a Not Guilty majority with some very stubborn Guilty holdouts. The evidence requested would seem to indicate a series of events that follow more along with that.

This is not a firm conclusion though, there is more than a little speculation and short but present leaps of logic, plus I clearly have a bias which may be coloring some of my analysis.
 
Seriously doubt it's majority guilty, we've all seen the same evidence and heard the same arguments, and it's Kenosha
I don't know honestly. How well are jurors sequestered? How gentrified is Kenosha? It is a rural small town from what I have heard, but close to major cities...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back