Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Sled21]

This judge has been trying everything in his power to not declare a mistrial and let it go to the jury, even with all the prosecutorial misconduct. I actually think the prosecutor knows he has done a crap job and is trying to get a mistrial without prejudice so he can start over. And today we find out they hid evidence in discovery. The defense raised an objection, and it would not surprise me one bit to see it thrown out with prejudice before the jury reaches a verdict. If they convict, it is automatic grounds for appeal. Disclosure laws are very clear.

[HarleyDog]

(11-17-2021, 06:02 PM)Sled21 Wrote: This judge has been trying everything in his power to not declare a mistrial and let it go to the jury, even with all the prosecutorial misconduct. I actually think the prosecutor knows he has done a crap job and is trying to get a mistrial without prejudice so he can start over.  And today we find out they hid evidence in discovery. The defense raised an objection, and it would not surprise me one bit to see it thrown out with prejudice before the jury reaches a verdict. If they convict, it is automatic grounds for appeal. Disclosure laws are very clear.

If it is thrown out with prejudice, then I thought he could not be retried?

[Sled21]

(11-17-2021, 06:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: If it is thrown out with prejudice, then I thought he could not be retried?

Right, the Prosecutor is hoping for a mistrial without prejudice so he can have a do over. The defense has asked for a mistrial with prejudice. 

[jj22]

(11-17-2021, 05:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get that this is an emotional issue for you, but this comment is way out of line.

Why? and bringing up the "N" word isn't? Did you have anything to say about that? or just the person who had the audacity to respond to it? Again you choosing to attack me instead of the one bringing the word into a discussion that didn't involve the word speaks more about you then me Socio. Clearly you had no problem with that, and that's fine.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2021, 06:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: If it is thrown out with prejudice, then I thought he could not be retried?

Correct, he cannot.  It's amazing how many people think a not guilty verdict or dismissal with prejudice can be appealed.

(11-17-2021, 06:19 PM)jj22 Wrote: Why? and bringing up the "N" word isn't? Did you have anything to say about that? or just the person who had the audacity to respond to it?

Negro?  In the context he brought it up, no.  If he was using it to demean someone then absolutely.  If you're talking about the major "N word" then yes, I'd have a major problem with that.

[jj22]

Who is trying to get a mistrial again?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rittenhouse-defense-demands-mistrial-drone-video-evidence

[jj22]

(11-17-2021, 06:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Negro?  In the context he brought it up, no.  If he was using it to demean someone then absolutely.  

And Biden wasn't. So that's that. And Sled wasn't bringing it up respectfully. He brought it up as in it was being used like or equal to the other one. Or else he wouldn't have brought it up. Because his whole point was to say it was a demeaning word which he clearly believed as such. But you knew that.

But hey, everyone quickly jump in to have an excuse to use a version of the "n" word.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2021, 06:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: And Biden wasn't. So that's that. And Sled wasn't bringing it up respectfully. He brought it up as in it was being used like or equal to the other one. Or else he wouldn't have brought it up. Because his whole point was to say it was a demeaning word which he clearly believed as such. But you knew that.

But hey, everyone quickly jump in to have an excuse to use a version of the "n" word.

First off, negro is not a "version" of the N word.  Secondly, his point in bringing it up was that older people will use terms that younger people find offensive, but they intend no offense when using them.  If I was being smarmy I'd add "but you knew that", but the point is that this judge saying "black" is no different, and based on your stated criteria is much better, than Biden referring to black people as negroes.  Quite honestly, you opened up the door for this comparison.

That being said, can we please return to the actual topic at hand?

[jj22]

No that wasn't his point. And no I didn't open up the use of the N word. No one should be told they opened up the door to use a version of the N word openly. That just means (as I said) they've wanted to use the word all along and was just waiting for an excuse to do so. I was talking about the awkward way Trump and this Judge struggles with referencing black people "my black, the black, that black". I wasn't saying they should say the polite 1970's version of the N word. But keep trying to sell me that he was saying Biden used it respectively along with his point about schools. I'm the one saying that. You know the one you are disagreeing with and had a problem with the response of. I didn't read that sentence as his defense of Biden. Maybe you did and I apologize for thinking I knew you hadn't (and had known better). I was wrong.

If your spin was Sleds reasoning he (as you can see) has no problem responding to me. He hasn't. And that tells me enough. But we can move on.

[Sled21]

(11-17-2021, 06:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: No that wasn't his point. And no I didn't open up the use of the N word. No one should be told they opened up the door to use a version of the N word openly. That just means (as I said) they've wanted to use the word all along and was just waiting for an excuse to do so. I was talking about the awkward way Trump and this Judge struggles with referencing black people "my black, the black, that black". I wasn't saying they should say the polite 1970's version of the N word. But keep trying to sell me that he was saying Biden used it respectively along with his point about schools. I'm the one saying that. You know the one you are disagreeing with and had a problem with the response of. I didn't read that sentence as his defense of Biden. Maybe you did and I apologize for thinking I knew you hadn't (and had known better). I was wrong.

If your spin was Sleds reasoning he (as you can see) has no problem responding to me. He hasn't. And that tells me enough. But we can move on.

Actually I don't spend 24 hrs.  a day on this forum. But here's your response. I wasn't saying Biden said it respectfully, I was pointing out how you stated you had a problem with Trump and the way he talks about African Americans while ignoring, or flat out sticking your head in the ground, when it comes to the way Biden speaks about the subject. Typical double standard.  And no, I don't peruse the forum just waiting on an oppotunity to pounce and use a word. I actually haven't heard that term used in years..... until Biden.

[jj22]

(10-27-2021, 11:33 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: You have never saw any post from me concerning Ashli. Nor do you have any idea about my feelings on the capitol riot.

So there is no need for veiled insults.

Did I mention or quote you? I don't even remember responding to you in this thread anywhere. I'll have to look back but you aren't a poster I am familiar with enough to type  a veiled insult at. 

[CJD]

(11-17-2021, 06:02 PM)Sled21 Wrote: This judge has been trying everything in his power to not declare a mistrial and let it go to the jury, even with all the prosecutorial misconduct. I actually think the prosecutor knows he has done a crap job and is trying to get a mistrial without prejudice so he can start over.  And today we find out they hid evidence in discovery. The defense raised an objection, and it would not surprise me one bit to see it thrown out with prejudice before the jury reaches a verdict. If they convict, it is automatic grounds for appeal. Disclosure laws are very clear.

There's no doubt the prosecutor is terrible. If they do get a mistrial without prejudice, I hope a new prosecutor is chosen.

[jj22]

(11-18-2021, 09:14 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Actually I don't spend 24 hrs.  a day on this forum. But here's your response. I wasn't saying Biden said it respectfully, 

And there you go Socio. Let this be a lesson. People who do not believe that version of the "N" word is respectful do NOT type/write/use it RESPECFULLY. They use it in the context they believe it to be in (disrespect or as you said demeaning). And that is my issue with them throwing it around so openly (and you giving them a pass/defense). You can't trust people throwing that word around so openly when they don't believe it to be a respectful word to begin with.

[Dill]

(11-17-2021, 05:04 PM)jj22 Wrote: Jury has questions during deliberation.

Judge uses moment to repeat Trump talking points attacking media.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1461027613875580931

The jury has also requested individual copies of the instructions and certain videos as well.

Looks like they are very engaged, looking closely at the law and the evidence.

So it's not an open and shut case for them.

I don't see a murder conviction coming here, but I'm thinking they may be looking closely at the reckless endangerment charges.

I'd be happy if they convicted him on that, at least. It might help dissuade future "heroes" from running to danger in other people's communities.

If he get's off scott free, future prosecutors will think "why even bother" when these vigilante cases come before them. 

Communities with unrest will become 19th century Dodge City--before they stopped open carry. 

[jj22]

(11-18-2021, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: The jury has also requested individual copies of the instructions and certain videos as well.

Looks like they are very engaged, looking closely at the law and the evidence.

So it's not an open and shut case for them.

I don't see a murder conviction coming here, but I'm thinking they may be looking closely at the reckless endangerment charges.

I'd be happy if they convicted him on that, at least. It might help dissuade future "heroes" from running to danger in other people's communities.

If he get's off scott free, future prosecutors will think "why even bother" when these vigilante cases come before them. 

Communities with unrest will become 19th century Dodge City--before they stopped open carry. 

Yea, the longer the deliberation takes the more likely it isn't cut and dry. They do seem to be doing due diligence with their decision which is all you can really as for a jury. 

[masonbengals fan]

(11-18-2021, 11:05 AM)jj22 Wrote: Did I mention or quote you? I don't even remember responding to you in this thread anywhere. I'll have to look back but you aren't a poster I am familiar with enough to type  a veiled insult at. 

The exchange was on page 1 so you won’t have to look long. I’m not sure how else I should take what you posted about you guys believing ashli was a victim. Who was you guys then?

[jj22]

(11-18-2021, 12:39 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: The exchange was on page 1 so you won’t have to look long.  I’m not sure how else I should take what you posted about you guys believing ashli was a victim. Who was you guys then?

Probably those who think Ashli was a victim. But even if it was a shot it wasn't anything personal against you as a poster. I don't remember having any background on any issues you stand or have stood for, or issue with you specifically as a poster enough to take a veiled shot at you personally. So my apologies if you took it as such. 

[Dill]

(11-17-2021, 05:34 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Do you prefer Joe Biden's "Negro"? or his description of integrated schools as "Racial Jungles?"

Yah! I heard he even talked about "Negro leagues" while praising Satchel Paige, referring to segregated baseball. One of his most "disturbing and troubling moments," according to Hannity.  

I don't believe Biden ever described integrated schools as "racial jungles" though. Are you referring to his 1977 claim that without ORDERLY integration, which he supported, schools could become racial jungles? He was supporting school integration back when Trump was successfully sued for housing discrimination. 

That's why I prefer Biden's record on civil rights. Apparently most black voters do as well. 

Do "both sides" really do it, or is this a manufactured double standard. What do you think? 

(11-17-2021, 05:14 PM)Sled21 Wrote: jj22 Wrote:Not sure what this says about our law enforcement that they need teens to come with their guns to help during protests. I mean are these teens trained in riot defense and protests?

But this goes back to race, no black kid would be allowed to come across state lines with their military grade weapon to help police (and kill) with protests. Even if they were attacked while instigating and acting like they were some authorities figure. No protesters were going to listen to him.

Gee, just last year we had over 1000 black men and kids come to Louisville armed with AR's and AK's to protest. Of course, they wound up shooting 3 of their own, but still....

"Black men and kids" were shooting "their own"? 

You are referring to an accidental discharge, right? Things like that happen when people gather with guns to protest.

I think black kids are allowed to cross state lines with guns, and form their own armed militias and come to mass protests of police shootings of black individuals. But I don't celebrate this expansion of militia ideology, nor tolerance of their presence at peaceful protests. 

I'm not sure a black kid with a long gun could have run around the Kenosha riot without some police interest, and I don't mean handing him a bottle of water. 

Even if this hypothetical kid wanted to "run to danger" on the side of the police, its not so clear they would recognize him as a "good (black) guy with a gun," is it?   

[masonbengals fan]

(11-18-2021, 01:20 PM)jj22 Wrote: Probably those who think Ashli was a victim. But even if it was a shot it wasn't anything personal against you as a poster. I don't remember having any background on any issues you stand or have stood for, or issue with you specifically as a poster enough to take a veiled shot at you personally. So my apologies if you took it as such. 

All good my friend.

[jj22]

Honestly guys. None of us should want 17 year old's being vigilantes with AR 17. I don't know why that is even supported by some or seen as OK. The fact that it is highlights a real problem with American society. Or maybe politics. But I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind taking politics out would think this is ok. Like will people really have no problem with their 17 year old kid leaving the house to go be a vigilante in the middle of something like this?

I'd rather go to jail then to come home and face my parents after leaving out and getting into the mess Kyle got himself into.