Prosecutors Move For Mistrial As Jury Has Been Tainted By Clear Video Evidence Of Kyle Rittenhouse

[UsualName]

Wow. WTF! You a mess.

I am endearing him by banging out some shorthand?

Gawd. That's too gay for me. You lefties are a trip. You read outrage into everything. I could agree with you and give you the A-OK sign. Then the next day I would be accused of using white supremacist secret hand signals.

Get your T checked (short for testosterone- deal with it).

Oh please. The whole thing is sad any well adjusted adult can that. He’s a stupid ass kid who killed two people for no good reason. He should have never been there and should have never had a gun. Too much wannabes in the gun culture led to this sad state. But you don’t want to actually look at that I’m sure when the play by play is so much more exciting.

Like I said you all think this kid getting off will be great but like I said he has to live the life of scandal and murder. Not exactly getting off is he. But not your problem, right?

 

[ipatent]

He'll probably be convicted on lesser charges, like assault with a deadly weapon. That's about right for the Arbery case, too.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

There’s nothing sensational and endearing about what he did. It’s all tragic and was fuel by right wing ideology.

It is tragic and was fueled but the total collapse of society-police-fire that your ilk desperately wanted- but whine now because they ran into some rough sledding and someone actually defended himself. Not they way the script is supposed to work.

We get it though. Rit was a moral failure. And you think that Saint George refers to George Floyd and Saint Michael refers to Michael Brown- the role models presented for dems to emulate. And by jove, quite a few a doing an excellent job at that.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

He'll probably be convicted on lesser charges, like assault with a deadly weapon. That's about right for the Arbery case, too.

He has plenty of valid defenses for even the lower level charges and plenty, plenty of appealable issues. He should fight all of them as long as necessary. Just because the public, some forum members, and the prosecutor feel that we need to find a conviction of some sort for him doesnt mean that the defendant needs to agree.

I see no evidence of him committing assault at any level - where assault is referring to criminal assault. Obviously he shot three people while assault, battery, and attempted homicide were being attempted ON HIM.

 

[elderado]

Morality is a mental disorder now. Wonderful.

This kid is/was absolutely corrupted and corrupting children is immoral. Any person with clear eyes can see that. You all are getting pretty high on the culture wars with this kid as the symbol this week and think his escaping legal penalties justifies the right wing culture. But this kid will not escape what has actually happened long after you al on the right have moved on. There’s nothing sensational and endearing about what he did. It’s all tragic and was fuel by right wing ideology.

More proof. More words, though. Nice word salad. Did you use avocado ranch on that?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

. Not exactly getting off is he. But not your problem, right?

Correct, I am not running a counseling program for lefties who caused and cheered on the destruction of a local community and then when the savagery got totally out of hand some of their lefty perpetrators got killed. That is a predictable outcome of rioting and lawlessness. The model your ilk want for the whole country and have made a lot of progress to it.

Nevertheless everyone is accountable for their actions, and the defendant has had to do plenty of that. All of your moralizing soliloquies and bloviating are noted. But if they do not translate into proof or denial in regard to the elements of the charges then it is neither here nor there. We got it though. You, Biden, Kamala etc suddenly have a boner for seeing a juvenile do a long jail sentence even if it is on a minor crime- BECAUSE THIS IS A POLITICAL TRIAL FOR YOU. JUST LIKE THE SALIVATION OVER A CONVICTION FOR THE HORSE-BACKED SLAVE WHIPPER.

 

[UsualName]

It is tragic and was fueled but the total collapse of society-police-fire that your ilk desperately wanted- but whine now because they ran into some rough sledding and someone actually defended himself. Not they way the script is supposed to work.

We get it though. Rit was a moral failure. And you think that Saint George refers to George Floyd and Saint Michael refers to Michael Brown- the role models presented for dems to emulate. And by jove, quite a few a doing an excellent job at that.

And what about the lives of those who killed Floyd and Brown? They’re not exactly living the dream either.

The whole situation is gross but pardon me for pointing out what used to be obvious and outrageous. Now these matters are political fodder.

And the judge is a disgrace to make all even more scandalous.

Total collapse of society my ass. America is safer today than at nearly any point in American history. I read a while ago a right wing idiot pored in this forum that they believed Minneapolis is a shit hole today and longed for the Minneapolis of the 1980s and I thought to myself how could anyone not know what a stupid statement that is. Like I said it’s all lies. But that is exactly the lies that are corrupting people. The lies that corrupted Rittenhouse.

 

[El OchoCinco]

He has plenty of valid defenses for even the lower level charges and plenty, plenty of appealable issues. He should fight all of them as long as necessary. Just because the public, some forum members, and the prosecutor feel that we need to find a conviction of some sort for him doesnt mean that the defendant needs to agree.

I see no evidence of him committing assault at any level - where assault is referring to criminal assault. Obviously he shot three people while assault, battery, and attempted homicide were being attempted ON HIM.

If you punch me I cannot shoot you and claim it was a valid kill... the law does not work that way as there are a lot of mitigating factors.

Was there an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death. If someone swings a skateboard at you run away but simply shooting him does not automatically make it self defense.

You are using political bias of thge situation to make your claim but not one legal argument.

You keep overlooking his crime of shooting 2 of the people. Basically what you are saying is if you attempt any move towards me at all I am free to shoot you no matter what.

I dont have any political stake in this trial nor do I care but people are quite happy that a kid is carrying a gun and reacting to an attack by shooting. That is the reason people under 18 are not allowed to carry a gun because they are not ready to handle the responsibility.

 

[elderado]

Liberalism is a mental disorder. More proof.

And the judge is a disgrace to make all even more scandalous.

Wow.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...enhouse-case-reveal-threats-brand-racist.html

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

If you punch me I cannot shoot you and claim it was a valid kill... the law does not work that way as there are a lot of mitigating factors.

Was there an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death. If someone swings a skateboard at you run away but simply shooting him does not automatically make it self defense.

I think I have made the point several times over in multiple posts that the kid asserts that he feared for his life during any counter measures that he took. That is his assertion and he has evidence that he presented in support and it is in the juries hands.

But reflect on the fact that I am seeing him asserting self-defense at every step and accept that as a basis of his claims. By doing that you will see that you do not need to educate or inform me of some of the basic points you made. At this point it is about what he did argue and what evidence there is to support it and whether the jury accepts it or not. The generic points about "if I punch you, that does not give me the right to.....etc.etc. are unnecessary. I never argued against that, or did he. We know he is making a more serious claim and we know what it is so we can skip the generic points.

You say that I am making a political argument but make no legal argument. Really? A claim of self-defense and supporting evidence is about as powerful a legal argument as can be asserted. Not sure where the political part of that is. If you think there is no legal merit to that, then why are prosecutor, the media, and your lefty ilk sweating bullets right now and looking for lower level charges as plan B?