⚖️Law & Order Crimes and trials

Love this judge. This was after he tore the prosecutor a new one over sketchy questions.

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1458528158450335749?t=4k7bhM5ctJ4tk-9X7nPTbQ&s=19
 
I've seen judges that angry, but usually the attorney learns his lesson the first time. And in this case, the judge has been absolutely right, the prosecutor is deliberately ignoring basic rules - although in this case, I think the prosecutor would love to be able to blame the judge if a mistrial is declared.
 
This prosecutor is such a tool.

He seems to be building up Kyle.

"Why were you out there?"

"To try to help people.

And I didn't want to see my community burned down."
 
Not sure, I've never seen that before. Could be they're tied directly into the microphones in the courtroom. They shouldn't be hearing sidebars - usually, but this judge seems to send the jury out every time there's an issue to discuss. I haven't seen any sidebar conferences (but I haven't really been watching that closely).
 
Maybe. The defense attorney didn’t redirect Kyle. Probably a good idea, no need to create new issues and from what I’ve read, the jury was bored to death by Binger’s cross. Maybe that was the strategy, the defense didn’t object a whole lot, Binger did a good job making himself look like an ass.

The case should wrap up tomorrow with the defense use of force expert and a couple of minor witnesses. Although the defense attorneys seem like the type to have a gotcha at the end.

I haven’t tuned in to the Arbery trial at all. Kind of weird that they’re both happening at the same time.
 
Have discussed that Pelosi’s likely heir to lead the house doesn’t respect the law?

https://twitter.com/danodonnellshow/status/1458581239640862722?s=21
 
So I didn't really post about it yesterday, I was busy with the kids, but the big fight of the day was that the prosecutor wanted to introduce "enhanced" frames from the late-disclosed drone video. The defense had a problem with this because they claimed the software used to enhance the frames probably added pixels to the original images and was therefore not an accurate representation of what was captured on camera. Nevertheless, the judge let the photos into evidence but also required the prosecution to put on the technician who enhanced the photos who... did not compare the enhanced frames to the original and was not very knowledgeable about how the software worked.

All for the prosecution to argue that the following photos show that Rittenhouse's gun was pointed up toward Ziminski and not down as Rittenhouse testified:



The judge himself looked at the photo on a large screen for quite a while and walked away, shaking his head. I think he's thinking what I'm thinking - what can you possibly see in these?

Today, the lawyers and the judge are going to make arguments about jury instructions. Jury dismissed until Monday, when they will hear closing arguments. The judge has allowed up to 2.5 hours for each side, which is a LOT but it may be taken up by lots of video replays so maybe not too unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
Saw an article yesterday that Prosecutors are suggesting a lesser sentence and the article read as if it was some great mercy on the prosecutors, not that they had no case and it was clearly self defense. F'n media
 
Juggs said:
Saw an article yesterday that Prosecutors are suggesting a lesser sentence and the article read as if it was some great mercy on the prosecutors, not that they had no case and it was clearly self defense. F'n media
Click to expand...

Not sure what article that is, but it was probably referring to the end of the day yesterday when the judge asked if the prosecution was going to be adding any charges based on the evidence produced at trial. The prosecution responded that it would be seeking to add lesser-included offenses to the most serious (murder) charges. That means they will be giving the jury the chance to consider something like manslaughter. That's not unusual and in fact in this case it's a smart move. Give the jury a chance to convict on something even if they think he didn't go out and intend to shoot pedophiles.
 
DocZaius said:
Juggs said:
Saw an article yesterday that Prosecutors are suggesting a lesser sentence and the article read as if it was some great mercy on the prosecutors, not that they had no case and it was clearly self defense. F'n media
Click to expand...

Not sure what article that is, but it was probably referring to the end of the day yesterday when the judge asked if the prosecution was going to be adding any charges based on the evidence produced at trial. The prosecution responded that it would be seeking to add lesser-included offenses to the most serious (murder) charges. That means they will be giving the jury the chance to consider something like manslaughter. That's not unusual and in fact in this case it's a smart move. Give the jury a chance to convict on something even if they think he didn't go out and intend to shoot pedophiles.
Click to expand...
I can't remember what the source was, just another liberal rag
 
Granted I haven't really looked into anything but things posted here and a quick glance at headlines, but is there anything that a rational person could point to that would suggest he was doing anything but defending himself? I get the remarks that he shouldn't have been there or taking a gun.
 
52:20 said:
Granted I haven't really looked into anything but things posted here and a quick glance at headlines, but is there anything that a rational person could point to that would suggest he was doing anything but defending himself? I get the remarks that he shouldn't have been there or taking a gun.
Click to expand...

I don’t think I understood until recently that his dad lives there. It was portrayed as him going a long way just to shoot someone.

Vs why the criminals were there setting shit on fire, it was fine for them to be there
 
52:20 said:
Granted I haven't really looked into anything but things posted here and a quick glance at headlines, but is there anything that a rational person could point to that would suggest he was doing anything but defending himself? I get the remarks that he shouldn't have been there or taking a gun.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's a really bizarre situation. Almost everything was caught on video, and was put out there within a few days. It's clear self-defense.

But people who don't like the situation (for whatever reason), insist that "he crossed state lines with an illegal gun to go shoot protestors." There's no evidence of any of that.

He was retarded to go into a riot zone, armed or not, but I think he was honestly trying to help. When he got attacked by a psychopath, he did the only thing he could - he ran away until he got boxed in, and then he shot his assailant at the last possible moment.
 
DocZaius said:
52:20 said:
Granted I haven't really looked into anything but things posted here and a quick glance at headlines, but is there anything that a rational person could point to that would suggest he was doing anything but defending himself? I get the remarks that he shouldn't have been there or taking a gun.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's a really bizarre situation. Almost everything was caught on video, and was put out there within a few days. It's clear self-defense.

But people who don't like the situation (for whatever reason), insist that "he crossed state lines with an illegal gun to go shoot protestors." There's no evidence of any of that.

He was retarded to go into a riot zone, armed or not, but I think he was honestly trying to help. When he got attacked by a psychopath, he did the only thing he could - he ran away until he got boxed in, and then he shot his assailant at the last possible moment.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was true or even came up in the trial, but when this first went down there were reports that Rittenhouse was trying to apply first aid to the 1st dead guy and then got chased by the second dead guy.
 
Irish Mike said:
DocZaius said:
52:20 said:
Granted I haven't really looked into anything but things posted here and a quick glance at headlines, but is there anything that a rational person could point to that would suggest he was doing anything but defending himself? I get the remarks that he shouldn't have been there or taking a gun.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's a really bizarre situation. Almost everything was caught on video, and was put out there within a few days. It's clear self-defense.

But people who don't like the situation (for whatever reason), insist that "he crossed state lines with an illegal gun to go shoot protestors." There's no evidence of any of that.

He was retarded to go into a riot zone, armed or not, but I think he was honestly trying to help. When he got attacked by a psychopath, he did the only thing he could - he ran away until he got boxed in, and then he shot his assailant at the last possible moment.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was true or even came up in the trial, but when this first went down there were reports that Rittenhouse was trying to apply first aid to the 1st dead guy and then got chased by the second dead guy.
Click to expand...

There was some misinformation in the first couple of days, I remember that rumor, too. But as the videos started to come out, it was evident that Rittenhouse realized what he did, made a phone call to his friend who gave him the gun, and then skedaddled for the police line. He never tried to give Rosenbaum first aid (although McGinnis and others on scene did).

I also remember seeing a video where people started sticking their cell phones into the face of Rosenbaum as he lay there dying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top