Poll of the Day > Kyle Rittenhouse

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

He's going to get off too, I saw some article the other day where apparently the judge said there were no victims just rioters and looters.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/31/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-bruce-schroeder/index.html

Judge said that the term victim is a loaded term. But encouraged the defense to call the folks that died arsonists and looters.

Im no legal expert but that seems assbackwards af. The DA even told the judge something along the lines of, Ive had many cases with you in the past as judge, and you never had a problem with it before.

---

All faces are punchable. Some more than others.

BlackScythe0 posted...

He's going to get off too, I saw some article the other day where apparently the judge said there were no victims just rioters and looters.

That's some real shoddy prosecuting if your whole case hinges on one word.

---

Here's how cops treat a black dude for open-carrying. A little telling that this is how cops treat someone for having a legal firearm ON THEIR BACK when they're a different race.
https://youtu.be/tz7QXflrllw

I do not agree with the American attitude towards firearms, however, I think equality in enforcement is probably one of the first steps towards some form of equality.

---

Veedrock- posted...

All faces are punchable. Some more than others.

That's some real shoddy prosecuting if your whole case hinges on one word.

???

No the issue is the judge made his bias very clear. What could possibly have been going through your head to think the case would be based on what the deceased were called?

HornedLion posted...

Judge said that the term victim is a loaded term. But encouraged the defense to call the folks that died arsonists and looters.

Im no legal expert but that seems assbackwards af. The DA even told the judge something along the lines of, Ive had many cases with you in the past as judge, and you never had a problem with it before.

Sulugnaz posted...

Thats not what the judge said but ok.

---

That kid showed up wanting to find himself in a situation where hed have no choice but to kill people.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

He's going to get off too, I saw some article the other day where apparently the judge said there were no victims just rioters and looters.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/31/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-bruce-schroeder/index.html

Looks like a clear cut case of self defense

BlackScythe0 posted...

No the issue is the judge made his bias very clear. What could possibly have been going through your head to think the case would be based on what the deceased were called?

It's a good thing the judge doesn't make the verdict then. And your comment obviously.

---

Veedrock- posted...

It's a good thing the judge doesn't make the verdict then. And your comment obviously.

a judge can ignore whatever the jury rules.

---

Dude will likely get off. I have no faith in the judicial system, especially Wisconsin's.

---

InfernalFive posted...

Dude will likely get off. I have no faith in the judicial system, especially Wisconsin's.

Honestly, neither do I, especially since absolutely none of the senators that supported the insurrection on January 6th got any kind of punishment.

InfernalFive posted...

Dude will likely get off. I have no faith in the judicial system, especially Wisconsin's.

Well see. Its only news because hes a well connected white kid and hes been treated that way up to now. Now a jury is gonna look at things and decide.

When he pulled that trigger it may have been out of self defense. But there are a lot of details that I dont think should be ignored about the situation and all involved.

---

Kittie shittenhouse

Veedrock- posted...

It's a good thing the judge doesn't make the verdict then. And your comment obviously.

Judges literally decide what evidence can and cannot be introduced into the trial. He ordered that the deceased cannot be called victims but they can attempt to make a case calling them rioters, looters, and arsonists. If you don't see how determining the course of the case is important or how bias can play into that I don't know what to tell you.

helIy posted...

a judge can ignore whatever the jury rules.

Not with a criminal case.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Judges literally decide what evidence can and cannot be introduced into the trial. He ordered that the deceased cannot be called victims but they can attempt to make a case calling them rioters, looters, and arsonists. If you don't see how determining the course of the case is important or how bias can play into that I don't know what to tell you.

No what was actually said was the defense can say those things only if they have evidence and only if it's relevant to the case.
---

how are they able to show the court case video? i thought the media was barred from courts?

---

Dmess85 posted...

how are they able to show the court case video? i thought the media was barred from courts?

The court itself does it.
---

Revelation34 posted...

The court itself does it.

ah, i see


---

After seeing him testify, he absolutely seems like he is full of shit.

---

Mead posted...

After seeing him testify, he absolutely seems like he is full of shit.

he is sstill testifying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIzj48oL6T0

---

Dmess85 posted...

he is sstill testifying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIzj48oL6T0

doesn't look like it

maybe they took a break

---

they took break


---

they are done for the day

---

Revelation34 posted...

No what was actually said was the defense can say those things only if they have evidence and only if it's relevant to the case.

"Evidence"

The instruction is bizarre.

Seems to be going very well for Kyle.

If things keeps up, it's going to be another big L for the crazies.

---

The_tall_midget posted...

Seems to be going very well for Kyle.

If things keeps up, it's going to be another big L for the crazies.

It will just be an excuse for them to go burn down another neighborhood and start the whole thing over again. It always amazes me how people can start an angry violent mob, then act like victims when something bad happens to them.
In the wise words of the great Marlon Wayans "Don't Start None, Won't Be None".


---

him getting off would be a win for the crazies, btw

but you're one of them crazies, so i mean

of course you think everyone else is crazy

---

Yeah, because burning down innocent peoples livelihoods and beating up random strangers is the mark of mental stability.

---

Ozmose posted...

Yeah, because burning down innocent peoples livelihoods and beating up random strangers is the mark of mental stability.

who claimed it was?

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

"Evidence"

The instruction is bizarre.

You didn't read the rest of that post.

helIy posted...

him getting off would be a win for the crazies, btw

but you're one of them crazies, so i mean

of course you think everyone else is crazy

Looking at what happened the last few days it looks like he might either get off or a mistrial will be declared.
---

his testimony made me think that the guy really isnt playing with a full deck. I mean he sounded like an 8 year old kid the way he was talking and describing things.

---

Looks like there's a chance that the possession charge will be dropped once the judge decided whether or not the original lawmakers intended to allow 16 and 17 year olds to carry guns (but not other weapons, such as nunchucks). There's also a decent chance that the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice based on things the prosecution has said.

Ozmose posted...

Yeah, because burning down innocent peoples livelihoods and beating up random strangers is the mark of mental stability.

i'm sure you think a bunch of terrorists attempting to overthrow the government isn't crazy tho, right

right

---

MrAntisocial posted...

Looks like there's a chance that the possession charge will be dropped once the judge decided whether or not the original lawmakers intended to allow 16 and 17 year olds to carry guns (but not other weapons, such as nunchucks). There's also a decent chance that the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice based on things the prosecution has said.

Wait... I thought the law was that nobody under 18 can legally carry a firearm in WI. Is that not actually the case?

Also, isn't there a video of Rittenhouse before the incident where he was talking about wanting to shoot a black man who was minding his own business? Did that turn out to not be him? I can't actually find the video anywhere.

---

that's the thing.

it is illegal in wisconsin, but it's also illegal in illinois, which is where he's from and where he got the gun.

in fact, illinois is one of the most restrictive state in terms of gun laws. you need a specific firearm owner identification card, which is why he had someone else buy him a gun.

but...it's only a misdemeanor, which is fairly meaningless as things go. now, were it a handgun and not a rifle, then it's a felony, because a handgun is more easily concealable even if it was never actually concealed.

---

I almost fainted when he cried on the witness stand. What a wuss!

---

kind9 posted...

Wait... I thought the law was that nobody under 18 can legally carry a firearm in WI. Is that not actually the case?

Also, isn't there a video of Rittenhouse before the incident where he was talking about wanting to shoot a black man who was minding his own business? Did that turn out to not be him? I can't actually find the video anywhere.

The wording of the law suggests that anyone under 18 cannot possess a dangerous weapon, but the judge said it's unclear if the original lawmakers really intended that when they passed the law.

BUMPED2002 posted...

I almost fainted when he cried on the witness stand. What a wuss!

Wat.
---

BUMPED2002 posted...

What a wuss!

That's toxic masculinity buddy.

---

This whole thing comes across as a farce. We're all being distracted over some real stuff going down.

helIy posted...

that's the thing.

illegal in illinois, which is where he's from and where he got the gun.

This is false, the gun never left Wisconsin, and this has been known for a while.

MrAntisocial posted...

The wording of the law suggests that anyone under 18 cannot possess a dangerous weapon,

This is false. The law says 16 and 17 yo can carry riffles while under supervision for hunting purposes, which doesn't seem to apply to this case. So the gun charge may stick.

hungrymike posted...

This is false. The law says 16 and 17 yo can carry riffles while under supervision for hunting purposes, which doesn't seem to apply to this case. So the gun charge may stick.

The prosecution did bring this up. Whether or not he was hunting on the streets. Either way, the judge wanted until this coming Monday to determine the original intention of the lawmakers based on either hunting education or licensing.

hungrymike posted...

This is false. The law says 16 and 17 yo can carry riffles while under supervision for hunting purposes, which doesn't seem to apply to this case. So the gun charge may stick.

its almost like you didnt need to make this post

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLl6Hn9730I

it's back on again


---