Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

What do you think will happen?

  • Guilty on all charges

    Votos: 282 8.8%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votos: 1,077 33.7%
  • Mistral

    Votos: 264 8.3%
  • Mixture of verdicts

    Votos: 479 15.0%
  • Minecraft

    Votos: 213 6.7%
  • Roblox

    Votos: 132 4.1%
  • Runescape

    Votos: 203 6.3%
  • Somehow Guilty Of Two Mutually Exclusive Actions

    Votos: 514 16.1%
  • KYLE WILL SUBMIT TO BBC

    Votos: 35 1.1%

  • Total de votantes
    3,199
  • Encuesta cerrada .
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Jurors aren't "allowed" to consider all manner of things but being stupid humans, they frequently do. Like in the Casey Anthony trial (I'm operating from memory here), after the acquittal one of them said in an interview, "They didn't show us a motive." Motive should never have been a matter for them to consider in a murder trial. It's not required in the standard of proof at all. It's something people learned from cop and lawyer shows on TV. You can tell jurors they're not "allowed" to consider things right and left, you can tell them to disregard things they heard that turned out not to be admissible, but they're going to do their own thing once they're in that room.
Or one from the previously mentioned mock trial britbong tv show. "Well I have been in an abusive relationship before and he looks like that same sort of person, so he's probably guilty". Thank fuck that was all make believe, but yes, jurors are usually stupid. The clever ones usually find a way to get out of it.
 
Jurors aren't "allowed" to consider all manner of things but being stupid humans, they frequently do. Like in the Casey Anthony trial (I'm operating from memory here), after the acquittal one of them said in an interview, "They didn't show us a motive." Motive should never have been a matter for them to consider in a murder trial. It's not required in the standard of proof at all. It's something people learned from cop and lawyer shows on TV. You can tell jurors they're not "allowed" to consider things right and left, you can tell them to disregard things they heard that turned out not to be admissible, but they're going to do their own thing once they're in that room.
It's true jurors being human do things they aren't supposed to do but bringing up the circus that was the Casey Anthony trial to impune the jurors deliberations in this trial is pretty exceptional. People in Kenosha know how close Antioch is, I seriously doubt Antifags chanting "crossing state lines" is going to have an impact on them.
 
Judge is playing hardball right out of the gate. On the -Rosenbaum- charge, the keystone charge.
Judge is probably about done at this point. I suspect he likely went home and looked up the whole image thing and realized that the prosecutors basically conned him into allowing that.
 
Have prosecutors not understood for ten days that this judge won't be swayed by empty words and will demand evidence?
Oh boy, twitter's gonna be mad about it. Prepare for this delicious salt.
 
This conversation's so muddled with legal jargon, but it's a bunch of back and forth of "I think..." and "Well I feel it should be..."

Like, was this discussed prior? This is my first time watching a trial, I really don't get what's going on with this "discussion."

And the Judge just said it himself, "Conversations with lawyers are always so interesting." Interesting indeed, but what does it mean!
 
For me personally I think he will be found guilty. Dude is clearly innocent but I have no faith in the system. The jury will find him guilty just to appease the mob and he will be held up as an example of what happens when you try to defend yourself from commie pedophiles who come to burn your city and rape your kids. The system is beyond fucked, the world is fucked, we're all fucked.
If it is so fucked, why do you continue to live?
 
This conversation's so muddled with legal jargon, but it's a bunch of back and forth of "I think..." and "Well I feel it should be..."

Like, was this discussed prior? This is my first time watching a trial, I really don't get what's going on with this "discussion."

And the Judge just said it himself, "Conversations with lawyers are always so interesting." Interesting indeed, but what does it mean!
They are arguing legal semantics, very fine legal semantics.
 
This conversation's so muddled with legal jargon, but it's a bunch of back and forth of "I think..." and "Well I feel it should be..."

Like, was this discussed prior? This is my first time watching a trial, I really don't get what's going on with this "discussion."

And the Judge just said it himself, "Conversations with lawyers are always so interesting." Interesting indeed, but what does it mean!
They're deciding what charges will go to the jury, and what charges they can vote on. Later on they'll go into detail on the letter of the law to the jury.
 
I do not understand why the prosecution seem to still be under the impression that the judge will just immediately agree with them. They havent even isolated any quote of Kyle's to support their arguments, they're just assuming the words "What the defendant said indicates [our assertion]" are enough. I get that these Kikes probably don't get a lot of pushback in most cases, but they've been here for DAYS getting BTFO for this same reason over and over.

SURELY they should get the message by now.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo