Martha MacCallum. She likes turtle necks cause they hide her old lady neck.
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
Yeah? What about those names. Whatever you are trying to say, say it in the clear.epstein, weinstein, rosenbaum...
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender Arizona '02 Criminal Complaint
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender: Arizona court documents confirm Rosenbaum charged with child molestation causing his sex offender status.www.wisconsinrightnow.com
IANAL, but I've read/watched a half dozen lawyers discussing this case and contrary to Choid (big surprise), Kyle's legal arguments are very strong, in favor of self-defense.
First, @Namekagon, has several posts addressing the charge, "minor with illegal gun," and those posts match what I've been able to discern from the lawyer discussions I've seen:
The specific statute they are charging Kyle has a clear exception that he meets, just as @Namekagon mentions. One of the lawyers I read discussing this case, actually practices in WI, stated that the exception is clearly stated to allow youth to carry long rifles (regardless of "actively hunting") and absolves Kyle, and also went so far as to use their caselaw subscription to search WI case history for any time this type of charge has ever been presented in court and could find no case, ever, where a youth had been charged with this, so it has never been presented/argued in court yet, to this date. Also, even if guilty of such a charge, it also does not preclude a self-defense argument for the other charges.
In the case of the first shooting, Kyle tries to retreat from a pursuer (one that if allowed, the defense could show prior video footage of him enraged and unhinged toward someone with a similar shirt as Kyle, demonstrating his mental state at the time as quite threatening), possibly cornered in a lot with a bunch of pipe-wielding rioters, hearing a pistol shot from behind, rapidly confronted by the unhinged Rosenbaum, where a witness already affirmed the assailant tried to grab Kyle's gun (if he gets his hands on it, now Rosenbaum is also armed, BTW...the police asked the witness this specific question about whether he got his hands on it, or just grabbed for it, but the witness is unsure). So, at this point we have a parking lot of angry, pipe-wielding rioters (they were smashing cars with said pipes), and angry assailant grabbing for Kyle's gun, someone presumably shooting at him (videos show the shot, where Kyle then stops his retreat to assess his situation); this reasonably meets the threshold of threat required to employ deadly force for defense.
After the altercation where Kyle was forced to put down the threat, Kyle again retreats, running toward distant law enforcement. Various calls for the mob to, "get him", after some time, Kyle trips, and is immediately attacked with an attempted jump-kick to the head, again a justifiable threat due to mob and extent of attack, fires/misses, again an attempt to defend himself, and the assailant flees. Next is attacked again with a blow to the side of Kyle's head with the edge of a blunt weapon (in the form of a skateboard edge), and also another grab at his rifle, and again a justifiable threat of mob/deadly weapon, but in this case, the assailant clearly got hold of it, and another shot, and the assailant falls away. Then the last altercation, where someone pulls their own sidearm and points it at Kyle's head. Kyle points his rifle back, and in a display of higher discipline I would have managed (I admit I would have fired immediately, probably right as Grosskreutz raised his hands), Kyle recognizes the "surrender" and lowers...only to have been baited, as Grosskreutz immediately tries to take advantage of the reprieve to get the drop on him...but to no avail, as Kyle excises his assailant's bicep with an extremely lucky shot (I'm guessing he just tried to anticipate and further move to the side, and overcompensated the lead).
If I were on the jury, and the defense is able to present all the evidence as I've seen so far in the extensive video, and the explanation of WI law I presumably read from real practicing lawyers, I would vote, "not guilty." However, given the calls for riots/burning in, "50 cities/50 states" already coming out, we might also get an intimidated/fearful jury, caving to the mob, similar to some of the jury admissions after the Chauvin trial.
First, @Namekagon, has several posts addressing the charge, "minor with illegal gun," and those posts match what I've been able to discern from the lawyer discussions I've seen:
The specific statute they are charging Kyle has a clear exception that he meets, just as @Namekagon mentions. One of the lawyers I read discussing this case, actually practices in WI, stated that the exception is clearly stated to allow youth to carry long rifles (regardless of "actively hunting") and absolves Kyle, and also went so far as to use their caselaw subscription to search WI case history for any time this type of charge has ever been presented in court and could find no case, ever, where a youth had been charged with this, so it has never been presented/argued in court yet, to this date. Also, even if guilty of such a charge, it also does not preclude a self-defense argument for the other charges.
In the case of the first shooting, Kyle tries to retreat from a pursuer (one that if allowed, the defense could show prior video footage of him enraged and unhinged toward someone with a similar shirt as Kyle, demonstrating his mental state at the time as quite threatening), possibly cornered in a lot with a bunch of pipe-wielding rioters, hearing a pistol shot from behind, rapidly confronted by the unhinged Rosenbaum, where a witness already affirmed the assailant tried to grab Kyle's gun (if he gets his hands on it, now Rosenbaum is also armed, BTW...the police asked the witness this specific question about whether he got his hands on it, or just grabbed for it, but the witness is unsure). So, at this point we have a parking lot of angry, pipe-wielding rioters (they were smashing cars with said pipes), and angry assailant grabbing for Kyle's gun, someone presumably shooting at him (videos show the shot, where Kyle then stops his retreat to assess his situation); this reasonably meets the threshold of threat required to employ deadly force for defense.
After the altercation where Kyle was forced to put down the threat, Kyle again retreats, running toward distant law enforcement. Various calls for the mob to, "get him", after some time, Kyle trips, and is immediately attacked with an attempted jump-kick to the head, again a justifiable threat due to mob and extent of attack, fires/misses, again an attempt to defend himself, and the assailant flees. Next is attacked again with a blow to the side of Kyle's head with the edge of a blunt weapon (in the form of a skateboard edge), and also another grab at his rifle, and again a justifiable threat of mob/deadly weapon, but in this case, the assailant clearly got hold of it, and another shot, and the assailant falls away. Then the last altercation, where someone pulls their own sidearm and points it at Kyle's head. Kyle points his rifle back, and in a display of higher discipline I would have managed (I admit I would have fired immediately, probably right as Grosskreutz raised his hands), Kyle recognizes the "surrender" and lowers...only to have been baited, as Grosskreutz immediately tries to take advantage of the reprieve to get the drop on him...but to no avail, as Kyle excises his assailant's bicep with an extremely lucky shot (I'm guessing he just tried to anticipate and further move to the side, and overcompensated the lead).
If I were on the jury, and the defense is able to present all the evidence as I've seen so far in the extensive video, and the explanation of WI law I presumably read from real practicing lawyers, I would vote, "not guilty." However, given the calls for riots/burning in, "50 cities/50 states" already coming out, we might also get an intimidated/fearful jury, caving to the mob, similar to some of the jury admissions after the Chauvin trial.
nothing at all, except that they are other noted scumbags.
i suppose we could ask these folks from the xiden adminstration?
Secretary of Homeland Security
Attorney General
Director of National Intelligence
Director of Central Intelligence Agency
White House Chief of Staff
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of State
Deputy Secretary of State
The exception is in (3)(c), as @Namekagon paraphrased, "this doesn't apply to minors carrying rifles or shotguns unless they are violating SBR laws, or hunting age requirements or hunter safety class requirements. The lawyer discussion I saw said the same thing, that if Kyle is not in violation of SBR laws, and is eligible to hunt in WI (meets age/safety class), then he does not violate because 3c clearly states the only requirement for underage carrying a rifle is no SBR, and have the safety class cred. They speculated that since Kyle clearly shoots in WI (from Kyle's rifle background, other circumstantial seen in prior posts/events), and lives on the border, he probably already has those requirements/safety class credentials. If this speculation is wrong, Kyle could be guilty of this charge, but it still does not have any bearing on the self-defense argument for the other charges and will have no detriment to the claim of self-defense.
Kyle was not carrying an SBR. And (3)(c) is saying it applies to some one carrying an SBR. It applies, In violation of 941.28
I don’t see how 3c exonerates him? It has zero relevance
Watching people argue legal framework on the internet is like watching old ladies bicker over who won a game of bingo.
This is the most clear cut case of self defense I've ever seen, it's all on video, full stop AND the people he shot ... two of the three were felons right and the third was skateboard guy?
If he's found guilty there's truly no point in going to court for anything anymore.
This is the most clear cut case of self defense I've ever seen, it's all on video, full stop AND the people he shot ... two of the three were felons right and the third was skateboard guy?
If he's found guilty there's truly no point in going to court for anything anymore.
It not an argument its a discussion.Watching people argue legal framework on the internet is like watching old ladies bicker over who won a game of bingo.
This is the most clear cut case of self defense I've ever seen, it's all on video, full stop AND the people he shot ... two of the three were felons right and the third was skateboard guy?
If he's found guilty there's truly no point in going to court for anything anymore.
Personally, I back Kyle 100% on his actions that night. Even if technically his rifle was, illegal. Its a misdemeanor... who cares.
A judge cannot overturn a not guilty verdict.
Can a Judge overturn a not guilty verdict by a jury and change it to a guilty verdict?
No. Trial by jury is a constitutional right. If the defendant does not waive the right or agree to be tried only by a judge, he or she has an absolute right to have their guilt or innocence decided by a jury. Following a jury trial, the Government can only appeal an adverse decision if specifically allowed to by statute, or if constitutional limits, such as the prohibition against double jeopardy, do not preclude an appeal. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, and the defendant (convicted person) files a compelling motion for new trial, the Judge can vacate the jury\'s verdict and order a new trial. The Court of Appeals can do the same for the defendant. However, if the Government disagrees with the jury\'s decision, its remedy is limited to appealing any successful defense motion to set aside the jury\'s verdict. While the prosecution also appeal pretrial rulings, such as those pertaining to suppression of evidence or to a ruling dismissing the Indictment prior to trial, absent specific statutory authority, it cannot attack a jury\'s verdict. Once the jury returns a not guilty verdict, it doesn\'t matter what the reasons are. The prosecution is stuck with the verdict. This is considered fair because the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant, and because constitutional rights in general exist to protect the citizen accused.Watching people argue legal framework on the internet is like watching old ladies bicker over who won a game of bingo.
This is the most clear cut case of self defense I've ever seen, it's all on video, full stop AND the people he shot ... two of the three were felons right and the third was skateboard guy?
If he's found guilty there's truly no point in going to court for anything anymore.
Watching amateurs do it is pretty amusing to me, because I'm an actual lawyer. Although they're doing it quite well actually!
Ultimately all that matters is what the jury is convinced of beyond a reasonable doubt. If it wasn't a factual question, it would have been dismissed with a stroke of the Judge's pen a long time ago, unless Rittenhouse's lawyer is totally incompetent.
If he's found guilty by a fairly and properly empaneled jury, he is guilty.
If you think this is "the most clear cut case of self defense" that you've ever seen, I would suggest you simply haven't seen enough. Rittenhouse is far from innocent, although he may not be criminally liable for this stunt.
Na, they cut them off, then they suck the blood out of it. Not kidding, google it.
What is oral suction circumcision and where does it come from?
How the interpretation of the ancient Hebrew words 'metzitzah b'peh' has changed can be a matter of life and death for baby boys.
www.haaretz.com
What is oral suction circumcision and where does it come from?
How the interpretation of the ancient Hebrew words 'metzitzah b'peh' has changed can be a matter of life and death for baby boys.
Only the crazy Ultra Orthodox types do that.
Your average normal Rabbi does a nice clean job with a clamp and a razor blade.
(At least that's how it was done the last time I took a baby boy to a Rabbi.)
That depends on what faction you are with.
Many other factions don't care much for the Ultra-Orthodox types and view them in less than charitable terms.
Just as the Ultra-Orthodox really don't like other factions.
And various geographic origin ethnic types don't always talk good about the others etc.
Wow, an ACTUAL lawyer!!
Thought I already had you on ignore, I'll fix that right now.
They should have added a poll or three to this thread.
One for the lawyers, one for the LEO and one for the rest of us. That would be interesting.
One for the lawyers, one for the LEO and one for the rest of us. That would be interesting.
there are real jews, some of them patriots on the forums, and there are liberals of jewish decent that probably aren't god fearing or religious except when claiming to be affords them some protection from criticism. unfortunately, the good ones are outnumbered 3-7.
It's more like Zionists don't have much nice to say about freeloading Ultra Orthodox types that don't want to work or help defend, but want free money to sit around reading.
The Ultra Orthodox have nothing good to say about the Zionists who they view as fascist warmongers (except when they need money or protecting).
The Ashkenazi view the Sephardi as inferior genetically, both view the Beta Israel as inferior
It goes on, much like in America, you'll find most Americans have other Americans they don't like...
And there are kenites ( sp ? ) ....those that claim to be Jewish and of Abraham ,but Jesus called them out on it. These fuckers are partly ,I'd say mostly , the ones responsible for the " Jew hate " that is seen .
Just to be clear, the ones responsible for "Jew hate" are the people who hate Jews. Just like the ones responsible for "black hate" aren't blacks, but anti-black racists. Hate is internal, don't blame the people upon whom it is projected, no more than you would blame a woman for being raped. Now back to your program...
i think it is natural for people to look for common denominators when looking for causation.
until the good people like you confront the issue head on instead of deflecting and labeling it as bigotry, nothing is going to change imo.
and i am not the white christian culture being destroyed right now, i am just watching in horror as it happens to others, because i enjoy living in it.
“Lawyers” ...... like “Engineers”, seem to have a disturbing variance in IQ’s, technical knowledge, common sense, curiosity and aptitude within their respective fields.......
It's like that Woody Allen film where the Greek guy brings his sheep to the marriage counselor because it doesn't love him anymore.
Marx was Jewish and very anti Semitic. Communism is anti Semitic at its core, which is why my mind is blown when the people pushing Marxism are Jews.
One amazing thing in this video is the piece of shit lawyer MSNBC uses for commentary. He says/claims that Kyle Rittenhouse had absolutely no right to self defense unless the victims were firing at him with weapons equal to his weapon. His claim is that clubbing the kid in the skull with a skateboard, setting him on fire, stabbing him, physically assaulting him or attempting to rape him as the pedophile may have been doing are all perfectly fine. Using his logic, the goon who drew the gun was attempting to execute Rittenhouse when Kyle shot him in the arm was not legally shootable because he had not fired first.
Democrats are literally the stupidest fucking people on earth.
Democrats are literally the stupidest fucking people on earth.
If they can truly get twelve random people from a random jury pool then I don’t think they will get a conviction.
My concern for Kyle is if the state gets there own hand picked prepackaged jury. If a US presidential election can be rigged then they can certainly rigg a couple dozen jurors to make sure the outcome is what they want.
My concern for Kyle is if the state gets there own hand picked prepackaged jury. If a US presidential election can be rigged then they can certainly rigg a couple dozen jurors to make sure the outcome is what they want.
...and with 12 such as yourself he's convicted before the trail starts.
Forrest Gump could convince the average leftist of almost anything. Read though some of the posts here and see for yourself.
The only thing I have convicted is all the idiots in the country getting us to this point.
Sounds more like a confession.
We’ll to keep it simple, it’s really just how the jury is going to see it, which depends a great deal on how jury selection was done. I don’t see the hurry unanimously convicting him but we’ll see
Trial is too publicized to get an impartial jury to judge the events.
Personally, I think comparing the jury to opinionated ass hats here in the pit, who already have their minds made up and most are too stubborn to hear any argue to the latter. So all these expert witness might not matter too much unless they uncover something more sinister.
Relating it to something like OJ. What if the Police Chief was recorded doing something mark furman like... then the jury ignores the mountains of evidence, because of something not even related to the actual events. One skeleton could nullify his testimony. Like the cops handing them water and giving them an atiboy not long before shit hit the fan. He was a vigilante that traveled across state line armed to the teeth with evil military style assault high capacity magizinecliped Ar-14’s...to kill peaceful protesters expressing their first amendment rights against police brutality against and poor innocent black man. There are literally people in this world idolizing George Floyd. 81 million people voted for Biden... there’s a lot of stupid fucking people floating around out there.
If you have never looked into check out the Micheal Drejka shooting of Marcuis McGlockton. Imo that was a legit stand your ground, which is law in Florida. Sheriff originally did not arrest or press charges. It wasn’t until after media out cry he was charged and ultimately convicted and currently severing time. The whole shooting was captured on surveillance video. But it was turn into evil white man with a gun .
