-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
First my post was too ridiculous now I need to settle down when I make my point known.
YOU need to shut the fuck up.
It's not just your post, you are ridiculous. Bye
What we are seeing is a corrupt marxist government doing their best to pervert justice. Earlier in the trial prosecutor told the judge the state views Mr. Skateboard attacker as a hero. They also tried to argue that arson and rioting were basically school boys being school boys and does not contribute to fearing for your life when person doing those actions approaches you in a full sprint while cursing.
The prosecutors are intentionally lying. But let's assume they aren't and want to find justice for the situation. They should have backed down way earlier as witnesses & evidence contradict every claim of murder on Kyle's part.
They knew the video evidence shows true self defense before bringing charges, but they are lying about every situation to send Kyle to prison for decades because they want to set new legal precedent that makes self defense impossible. There is a reason Kenosha burned that week, because the local government let it happen.
The problem with this case is that lying doesn't work too well when there is 100% clear evidence showing the opposite of all the lies being told. It's exposing how corrupt they are. When the color blue is presented in evidence, the prosecutors will boldly claim it's yellow and spend all day arguing why it can't be blue. That's why it seems so silly to us watching. It's hard to believe they are lying on purpose to railroad Kyle, but it's actually happening.
The charges even happening were evidence of the railroad. There was too much evidence from too many angles seen by too many people for them to think this persecution would succeed.
If the prosecutors truly believe their story we all should thank God they are truly this crappy at their job.
ETA:
Example of how corrupt the DA who ordered this be done is:
kenoshacountyeye.com
PDF of screenshots of all the text messages between them
If the prosecutors truly believe their story we all should thank God they are truly this crappy at their job.
ETA:
Example of how corrupt the DA who ordered this be done is:
Newly Released Records Show Text Message Exchange Between Kenosha DA and BLM Activist Spanning Almost 6 Weeks - Kenosha County Eye
Kenosha County's premier source for investigative journalism and alternative Kenosha news. Because you deserve to know!
kenoshacountyeye.com
PDF of screenshots of all the text messages between them
There is so much government corruption being exposed in this trial, there should be an investigation started immediately.
I'm not the first one to say it, but I'll repeat the statement.
There are two trials happening at the same time. One for Kyle and one for the corrupt prosecutors.
This is the type of trial that will make the career for this prosecutor if he gets a conviction. These types of trials can lead the State's Attorney job or higher. I doubt he is purposely trying to throw the trial.
But you'd never know it by his actions so far.
What's more troubling still, this is what they are doing when they KNOW the whole country is watching. God only knows what all they have done and will do when no one is looking at them.
All of this illustrates how vitally important local elections are. What are the odds that the DA is one of the ones sorros put in office? The local politicians are typically the ones who rise to higher office too. Local elections matter a lot.
You don’t want them to be able to nullify? Sorry the bill of rights doesn’t agree with you, 5A.
I find your faith in government and “law makers” troubling.
there should be more use of nullification!
The Bee firing for effect:
babylonbee.com
State Regrets Hiring Lionel Hutz To Prosecute Kyle Rittenhouse
KENOSHA, WI—As the prosecution rests its case in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, state officials expressed regret over hiring lawyer Lionel Hutz to lead the prosecution.
babylonbee.com
Where did I say that? Where did I make this statement about faith in government???? I have no idea what you're talking about. Expecting jurors to apply the law somehow translates to faith in government???? Bill of rights??? What are you talking about?
Nope. Read all the crap being pumped out by the lying media plus all the stuff about how every civil servant in that town is related to one another from the mayor down to the postman. This is a genuine effort to convict Rittenhouse.
that isn't entirely correct, but i suppose there is an element of semantics at play here as far as application of the law, or simply ignoring it.
Man who stabbed white high school student to death, watched him die, hid murder weapon gets acquitted
Shyhiem "Trey" Adams was acquitted by a Hartford Superior Court jury on charges of 1st Degree Manslaughter, Evidence Tampering in shocking verdict in which he claimed self-defense after engaging in fight with victim
www.lawenforcementtoday.com
Jury's acquittal of Kate Steinle's killer sparks outrage
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who fired the weapon that killed Kate...
www.sfgate.com
Hey they stole a Presidency with the whole world watching....whats the life of a 18 year old kid matter?
Yes, of course there's a lot more to such a topic and it's not really possible to hash that out on a message board. A lot depends on the particulars, but that's why we have the jury of our peers as the group who interprets the facts of the case and renders a verdict. Of course, there isn't any system or set of laws, ect that are going to work perfectly all the time. The whole thing becomes so much harder when a society or a large element of that society decides to rewrite what is moral and what is ok. The destructive forces aimed at destroying families and destroying all of the moray 's and norms in our society are aiming at that for a reason. Those things are what holds society together, and once they are gone, there is no society left.... just a bunch of people easily controlled.that isn't entirely correct, but i suppose there is an element of semantics at play here as far as application of the law, or simply ignoring it.
true. while i am a fan of jury nullification (or incompetence) if it works in favor of a decision i prefer... \o/
as my examples demonstrate, these days i think it happens the other way around more often.
these days, some will flat out refuse to convict somebody they identify with, no matter what.
Yeah sometimes nullification can happen but that isn't really what I was talking about as far as so many not being able to apply the law. That's when the jury doesn't think the law in question should be applied as charged, but yes there's a lot of semantics involved, which is why I made the statement about a rapist getting killed by the girls father in a rage when he just found out. I was making a point of that very issue. While the law (depending on several factors) may say that father is guilty (of course this assumes the rape was confessed or proven and that the enraged father in fact did kill the rapist (alleged rapist would be correct if the rape was in question), then I would be likely to be in favor of returning a not guilty verdict, thus nullifyng the law. This was the whole point. Apparently a few didn't catch that.
Edit: and yes, it looks like the nullification cutting the wrong way happens more often now days. Any society that has the moral issues that ours does isn't going to magically overcome that just because they are on a jury. Then there's the argument about if a jury should find guilty if the state doesn't prove its case??? More semantics....
Last edited:
Definitely not just youngins. I see more and more older people who are either clueless or have lost it. Society as a whole is less intelligent and i think its all in the programming. Its scary.
I ran into a bunch of white boomers who were going on and on about how all Trump supporters are evil nazis etc in a very plain, matter of fact way. The Democrat half of America has gone off the deep end.
all you had to do was watch main stream news for the last 6 years to have that programmed into you.
Last edited:
After that testimony, Gaige Grosskraut is pretty much down to one last, slim hope for any kind of monetary gain from all this: that Hamburger Helper might want to hire him to promote their product.
A very nice write up on the trial's activities.
www.foxnews.com
Tucker Carlson: Kyle Rittenhouse's trial is the most bizarre court proceeding ever caught on camera
Tucker Carlson highlights the key moments in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial from Kenosha, Wisconsin.
www.foxnews.com
I doubt if someone jumped out of a truck yelling and holding guns (WHILE YOU WERE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY) you would respond immediately with howdy my good man LOL.
If they get off every time someone mouths off at you or steps on your property you can pull a gun on them and hold them til police come??
Kyle is being targeted by the left and when you look at all the facts he isn't guilty of murder as self defense makes complete sense in his case, But when we defend the McMichaels it lessens the 2A side because we are now ignoring facts we don't like.
If they jumped out with guns yelling to stop and he pulled a piece and shot them both dead would you be saying he should walk with no charges??? because that IMHO would be WAY more reasonable than them hunting and killing him.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty???
Serious question. Are you of a low enough IQ that you'd grab a barrel that wasn't pointing at you, and yank it towards yourself?
I would have shot them all well before it got to that point i can promise you that.
I like how the people on your side of the shooting are ignoring the fact that:
1 - He wasn't on private property when they approached him
2 - They had multiple vehicles chasing him
3 - He was chased for a while before the interaction happened he looked exhausted and out of options.
He tried to flee and they prevented that. at what point are they just flat out responsible for the entire thing?
I have to admit, I knew this wasn't a good case for the prosecution, but I didn't realize it would present this horribly. They have stepped in it almost every day. It's to the point that I have, at times, felt pity for the prosecutors in the case.
Can you guys take the Abrey stuff to another thread?
Stop shitting all over this thread.
Stop shitting all over this thread.
Then who is?? Unless you have proof he committed a real crime beyond looking around a under construction house (THAT DIDN'T BELONG TO ANY OF THEM) what did he do to get ran down and confronted??
The low IQ burglar who yanked a gun that wasn't pointing at him, towards himself.
It wasn't a good case in the beginning your right. I can't believe how wild it is turning out. Almost seems like they decided to prosecute the case just to shut the anti gun people up. And now they are making it look super ridiculous to drive it home.
Start your own thread, this about Kyle's trial.
He could have just stopped, if he had no ill intentions. By continuing to run it made him look suspect. The men chasing didn’t just shoot him, the weapons were a deterrence, they did not fire until he actually attacked them. Them chasing after him was a direct result of him running out of that house. They didn’t want a potential criminal to get away. I dont see why aubery couldn’t stop and talk to the people questioning his presence in their neighborhood. Yes them chasing him crossed a line, but personally I have no problem with neighbors actively looking after one another. Yes , I could see how one could argue he felt threatened, but the men who had the numbers and weapons advantage never attacked him, chased but never attacked until he crossed that line.
I argue that if Aubrey had not attacked the armed men, they would not have shot him. This is not a Steven Seagal movie, one man unarmed, trying to attack and disarm 2 armed men, with a 3rd in pursuit is insanity and why he is dead. Regardless of the rule of law.
Also, I said something earlier that was incorrect, I thought aubery was wearing jeans out for a jog and he was not, my mistake. Caught up on some of the trials video evidence yesterday.
Why in God's green earth would his lawyer put him on the stand? This is bad, really bad.
Similar threads
