Kyle Rittenhouse Jury Selected – Trial Begins Tuesday

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1461066110674034692

And there you go .....

I'm not lovin' our judicial system today.

[Polly Ticks]

And there you go .....

I'm not lovin' our judicial system today.

I'm with you there.

But I do wonder if he's warning the State that he IS leaning toward the mistrial in the event of a guilty verdict with his statements about there being a "day of reckoning" on the video stuff.

[Right_in_Virginia]

And the kid's life hangs in the balance   

https://mobile.twitter.com/mescubamike/status/1461055406235607045

[catfish1957]

Judge says he has forewarned the prosecution about the problematic nature of the unicorn video, but they continued to press for it and he allowed it.  He says that there is a "day of reckoning" coming about the drone video issue and "it's going to be ugly".

Would be a hoot if Fluffer got jail time, and Kyle walks....     

[Killer Clouds]

We can’t debate with your feelings. If you come up with some evidence, then let us see it, otherwise, we all know your feelings on the subject, so there is no need for us to spam the thread explaining the facts to you any more.

What I stated are facts. The law is the law and you can't show any different.
State and federal laws apply.

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461066599071465478

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461066960171585542

[txradioguy]

I hate the defense! Why ask for no prejudice!

Perhaps they are that confident they will get a not guilty verdict.

[Kamaji]

What I stated are facts. The law is the law and you can't show any different.
State and federal laws apply.

You haven't stated anything other than your unsubstantiated personal opinion.  Now, let's start with the strangest proposition:  please provide a statute, regulation, or binding case law holding that says it is illegal for anyone other than a minor's parents to make a gift to that minor.

If your proposition is in fact true, then most birthday parties are dens of iniquity, sin, and - more to the point - criminal conduct.

[Kamaji]

And there you go .....

I'm not lovin' our judicial system today.

That's not such an unreasonable position for the judge to take.  An acquittal by the jury would be a stronger result than a dismissal by the judge, and would conserve judicial resources since there would be nothing for him to do in the event of an acquittal.

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461069131499909123

[txradioguy]

What I stated are facts. The law is the law and you can't show any different.

You and the facts on this case aren't even in the same zip code.  I've never seen someone try so hard to be proven wrong so often.

You've been shown the law and completely ignored what was posted for you to see and ran with how you want the laws to read...now how they really are.

State and federal laws apply.

And you've completely misrepresented what the laws state...multiple times I might add.

[Right_in_Virginia]

That's not such an unreasonable position for the judge to take.  An acquittal by the jury would be a stronger result than a dismissal by the judge, and would conserve judicial resources since there would be nothing for him to do in the event of an acquittal.

You make much sense, wise one.   

[Cyber Liberty]

What I stated are facts. The law is the law and you can't show any different.
State and federal laws apply.

It might be California law, but it sure as Hell isn't Wisconsin law.  Give it up.  You can't make that puzzle piece fit no matter how hard you hit it with a hammer. 

[Kamaji]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461069131499909123

Flufferboy2004 has a skype account:  Flufferboy2004skype:Flufferboy2004

Some other interesting junk out there as well.

[LilLamb]

What I stated are facts. The law is the law and you can't show any different.
State and federal laws apply.

Back up your argument with evidence we can see or it’s just feelings. We are citing actual passages in the law. You are just making comments on what you feel the facts are and not on written law. Come back to us and cite written law that we can examine or drop it.

[HoustonSam]

That's not such an unreasonable position for the judge to take.  An acquittal by the jury would be a stronger result than a dismissal by the judge, and would conserve judicial resources since there would be nothing for him to do in the event of an acquittal.

That strategy by the judge would work well if the jury acquits; if the jury convicts and the judge decides mistrial is appropriate, then the story becomes Rittenhouse was convicted by a jury of his peers but the white supremacist court system threw out their verdict.

You want to see even bigger riots?  This would do the trick.

[Kamaji]

That strategy by the judge would work well if the jury acquits; if the jury convicts and the judge decides mistrial is appropriate, then the story becomes Rittenhouse was convicted by a jury of his peers but the white supremacist court system threw out their verdict.

You want to see even bigger riots?  This would do the trick.

Maybe so, but the judge has to go one way or the other.  This is, I surmise, one of those points on which reasonable minds can disagree.

[Cyber Liberty]

Flufferboy2004 has a skype account:  Flufferboy2004skype:Flufferboy2004

Some other interesting junk out there as well.

Is that really his handle??  That's a bizarre admission, considering the meaning of "fluffer."  Don't ask me what on the public forum, it's icky.

[Cyber Liberty]

That strategy by the judge would work well if the jury acquits; if the jury convicts and the judge decides mistrial is appropriate, then the story becomes Rittenhouse was convicted by a jury of his peers but the white supremacist court system threw out their verdict.

You want to see even bigger riots?  This would do the trick.

I think a hung jury is a far more likely situation than a guilty finding.  But, your salient point is correct, it would set the riots in motion.  I'll bet the pallets of bricks are already in place.

[HoustonSam]

Maybe so, but the judge has to go one way or the other.  This is, I surmise, one of those points on which reasonable minds can disagree.

Yes.  I don't disagree with your analysis @Kamaji , in fact I can't think of any other reason for the judge to sit on the motion.  But if I were in his position I would be much more concerned about creating a situation where I had to overturn a high-profile jury verdict.  Maybe he's so confident the jury will acquit that he's not concerned about that possibility.

He wears the robes, not me.

[Kamaji]

Yes.  I don't disagree with your analysis @Kamaji , in fact I can't think of any other reason for the judge to sit on the motion.  But if I were in his position I would be much more concerned about creating a situation where I had to overturn a high-profile jury verdict.  Maybe he's so confident the jury will acquit that he's not concerned about that possibility.

He wears the robes, not me.

[txradioguy]

Jacek Posobiec 🇺🇸🇵🇱
@JackPosobiec
·
19s
BREAKING: Judge allowing jury to review drone footage in courtroom now

[Kamaji]

Jacek Posobiec 🇺🇸🇵🇱
@JackPosobiec
·
19s
BREAKING: Judge allowing jury to review drone footage in courtroom now

Which one, the hi-res or the low-res version?

[libertybele]

I think a hung jury is a far more likely situation than a guilty finding.  But, your salient point is correct, it would set the riots in motion.  I'll bet the pallets of bricks are already in place.

Granted, I'm tuning in at the last minute, but one thing I am pretty certain of;  you are correct, riots are going to happen and you can bet that the pallets of bricks are already in place.

[txradioguy]

Which one, the hi-res or the low-res version?

I'm gonna make a WAG and say the high res version since they had already seen the low res version.