Kyle Rittenhouse trial & updates [Verdict: NOT GUILTY]

[Dr.3D]

Yep. If he doesn't have the balls to do it now for fear of the street mobs, he certainly won't do it after a verdict. That'll quite literally start a riot.

Not only that, if the judge does dismiss with prejudice, the idiot mob will say he's prejudice because he just said so.

[RJB]

Not only that, if the judge does dismiss with prejudice, the idiot mob will say he's prejudice because he just said so.

Lol

[Brian4Liberty]

I get the difference.

But what criteria need to be met in order to get a with prejudice dismissal versus a without prejudice dismissal?

As in, why would lawyers feel like they need to settle for the latter, unless it's because it's less likely that the former would be granted?

Based on the trial and legal discussion of the trial, in a criminal case, dismissal with prejudice has to do with the prosecutor depriving the accused of some constitutional or legal right, or blatant prosecutor misconduct. The right to remain silent was the first big violation, as the prosecutor was inferring to the jury that Rittenhouse’s silence on some question implied guilt. The prosecution also tried to introduce something the judge had banned. With the video, it’s about not giving the defense the correct evidence. Possibly violating the right to a fair trial.

Obviously, nothing is set in stone. Judge has discretion.

[Brian4Liberty]

Not only that, if the judge does dismiss with prejudice, the idiot mob will say he's prejudice because he just said so.

They’d also probably say it on MSNBC, CNN and The View.

“The judge even said prejudice out loud!!!”

[dannno]

The right to remain silent was the first big violation, as the prosecutor was inferring to the jury that Rittenhouse’s silence on some question implied guilt.

Nope, the prosecutor was inferring to the jury that Rittenhouse not telling his side of the story until he got up on the stand was intended to give him the ability to tell his side of the story knowing all of the evidence and testimony that had already been presented. That's not supposed to be used against you in a court of law. Kyle never used his 5th not to answer a question that was asked during the trial.

The prosecution also tried to introduce something the judge had banned.

I believe they brought up the content of this video:

[Brian4Liberty]

Reasons why the judge hasn't declared a mistrial with prejudice:

- Judge wants the jury to decide, not him.
- Once the trial went bad for the prosecution, they have tried to provoke a mistrial. Judge doesn't want to give it to them.
- Judge has been intimidated by the media and potential mobs, making him even more disinclined to declare a mistrial.

[A Son of Liberty]

Reasons why the judge hasn't declared a mistrial with prejudice:

- Judge wants the jury to decide, not him.
- Once the trial went bad for the prosecution, they have tried to provoke a mistrial. Judge doesn't want to give it to them.
- Judge has been intimidated by the media and potential mobs, making him even more disinclined to declare a mistrial.

Schroeder blew his opportunity to declare a mistrial with prejudice the moment he allowed the prosecution to proceed even though they'd impugned the defendants 5th amendment right to remain silent. As soon as he said, "I don't believe you", he should have adjourned the session, allowed motions to be filed, and suspended proceedings to declare a mistrial. I understand that the judge wants to show that the jury system works, but it DOESN'T - the prosecution is corrupt, and the jury has been compromised, and these are facts of which the judge is in full knowledge. I'm sorry that he's feeling pressure, but pressure comes with the robe. Sometimes you just gotta nut up and do what's right. This kid is not getting a fair trial, and to anyone who's paying attention it's as clear as day.


Someone is going to have to stand up and be not afraid. Someone is going to have to stare down the gauntlet and say, " $#@!ing kill me, I'm gonna do what's right". If a 75 year old judge isn't gonna be the guy who does it, then who the $#@! is? I'd do it, given the chance. I'm 46, I'm single, I have no kids. I'd stand in for that judge and take the bullet for him. But at some point, someone is going to have to. Because if we just keep eating $#@!, they're just gonna keep feeding it to us.

[Brian4Liberty]

Nope, the prosecutor was inferring to the jury that Rittenhouse not telling his side of the story until he got up on the stand was intended to give him the ability to tell his side of the story knowing all of the evidence and testimony that had already been presented. That's not supposed to be used against you in a court of law. Kyle never used his 5th not to answer a question that was asked during the trial.
...

I was not paying much attention at that point other than Rittenhouse's "silence" was being brought up by the prosecutor. Regardless, it was objected to as a 5th amendment violation.

[dannno]

I was not paying much attention at that point other than Rittenhouse's "silence" was being brought up by the prosecutor. Regardless, it was objected to as a 5th amendment violation.

Ya, that part was correct, I was just clarifying that he didn't refuse to answer any questions.

[Brian4Liberty]

Schroeder blew his opportunity to declare a mistrial with prejudice the moment he allowed the prosecution to proceed even though they'd impugned the defendants 5th amendment right to remain silent. As soon as he said, "I don't believe you", he should have adjourned the session, allowed motions to be filed, and suspended proceedings to declare a mistrial. I understand that the judge wants to show that the jury system works, but it DOESN'T - the prosecution is corrupt, and the jury has been compromised, and these are facts of which the judge is in full knowledge. I'm sorry that he's feeling pressure, but pressure comes with the robe. Sometimes you just gotta nut up and do what's right. This kid is not getting a fair trial, and to anyone who's paying attention it's as clear as day.


Someone is going to have to stand up and be not afraid. Someone is going to have to stare down the gauntlet and say, " $#@!ing kill me, I'm gonna do what's right". If a 75 year old judge isn't gonna be the guy who does it, then who the $#@! is? I'd do it, given the chance. I'm 46, I'm single, I have no kids. I'd stand in for that judge and take the bullet for him. But at some point, someone is going to have to. Because if we just keep eating $#@!, they're just gonna keep feeding it to us.

It's a political trial, with political considerations. But it shouldn't be. So the judge could have taken the bait and taken the heat. It would have been the right thing to do.

Then the prosecution, media and pundits would be crying "fixed", "unfair", "no justice, no peace", "racist", "white patriarchy", "white supremacist judge" for the next 50 years. But they will probably do that no matter what happens except for a murder conviction anyway.

[Occam's Banana]

RITTENHOUSE RECAP! Motion for Mistrial; Jury Deliberations; CHICANERY! Viva & Barnes LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi8azc56v0M

[TheTexan]

But they will probably do that no matter what happens except for a murder conviction anyway.

Indeed

[RJB]

. But they will probably do that no matter what happens except for a murder conviction anyway.

Then they'll be quiet for a day until the next Bubba/Jesse Smolett case arises.

[tod evans]

Judge Wants Rittenhouse Prosecutor UNDER OATH After New Evidence Suggest He EDITED Evidence And LIED

[Occam's Banana]

Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 14 live-stream - hosted by Rekieta Law, w/commentary by Rekieta Law, et al.:

[see the first post in this thread for links to all trial videos]

Kyle Rittenhouse LIVE Jury Deliberations Day 3 - Waiting for the End to Come
More discussions about Kyle Rittenhouse while we wait for the jury to return a verdict. We may discuss potential Brady violations by the Prosecution and the motion for mistrial filed on the 15th by the defense. Explosive stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ids0kzPhl08

[Suzu]

I've seen the higher-res version of the video that is the topic of controversy. I can't make head or tail of it. I don't know who's who or what to be looking for/at.

If I had found it on youtube I could slow it down. AFAIK you can't change the speed on Twitter. But it's not only about the speed; there are so many different people in the video that I can't pick out the characters to be watching.

Am I the only one having this difficulty?

[Invisible Man]

What in the world is the jury deliberating about?!

All I can think is that there are some stubborn jurors on both sides whose minds are made up and positively will not go along with the other side.

[TheTexan]

Am I the only one having this difficulty?

Nope. It's extremely hard to see, for the simple reason that it didn't actually happen.

Only the prosecution has been able to "see" it. Hasn't stopped them from testifying about it constantly however.

[TheTexan]

What in the world is the jury deliberating about?!

All I can think is that there are some stubborn jurors on both sides whose minds are made up and positively will not go along with the other side.

The jury is 5 men and 7 women. The men I assume are all "Not Guilty" at this point. The women are arguing with each other about lord knows what.

Baking recipes, I presume.

[spudea]

What in the world is the jury deliberating about?!

All I can think is that there are some stubborn jurors on both sides whose minds are made up and positively will not go along with the other side.

Yep the prosecution got their holdouts, rumor is one is the jury forwoman, which is why they reviewed video yesterday, so the holdouts can play the video and go "SEE its just like the prosecution said, this blurry pixel is Kyle pointing the gun! MURDERER!"

[CaptUSA]

What in the world is the jury deliberating about?!

All I can think is that there are some stubborn jurors on both sides whose minds are made up and positively will not go along with the other side.

I mean, that would be me if I were on the jury. There is absolutely zero chance of me "going along" with someone who wants to deny reality. If being attacked by rioters in the middle of a war zone isn't considered self-defense, then nothing is.

The rest is just smoke. I suppose there could be people on the jury that are getting confused by the smoke, but that's no reason to go along with them. I'd hang any jury that tried.

[Invisible Man]

I mean, that would be me if I were on the jury. There is absolutely zero chance of me "going along" with someone who wants to deny reality. If being attacked by rioters in the middle of a war zone isn't considered self-defense, then nothing is.

The rest is just smoke. I suppose there could be people on the jury that are getting confused by the smoke, but that's no reason to go along with them. I'd hang any jury that tried.

It's easy to understand the holdouts on the not guilty side. It's the holdouts on the guilty side that boggle my mind.

Some people who took some convincing to go along with not guilty? Ok, I can see that. But people who simply will not accept that? It's hard to fathom.

[TheTexan]

It's easy to understand the holdouts on the not guilty side. It's the holdouts on the guilty side that boggle my mind.

Some people who took some convincing to go along with not guilty? Ok, I can see that. But people who simply will not accept that? It's hard to fathom.

It's not hard for me to fathom.

A significant chunk of the left are straight-up 100% honest-to-god Marxists. To these people, Kyle was guilty the moment he came into possession of an AR. (a.k.a, "Assault rifle")

[Ender]

I mean, that would be me if I were on the jury. There is absolutely zero chance of me "going along" with someone who wants to deny reality. If being attacked by rioters in the middle of a war zone isn't considered self-defense, then nothing is.

The rest is just smoke. I suppose there could be people on the jury that are getting confused by the smoke, but that's no reason to go along with them. I'd hang any jury that tried.

Same here, Bro!

[Anti Federalist]

What in the world is the jury deliberating about?!

All I can think is that there are some stubborn jurors on both sides whose minds are made up and positively will not go along with the other side.

I think the mob got to one, or all, of them.

The jury has not been sequestered, so I'm assuming they have cel phones and so on.

Being told by family members that they are getting phone calls at home, telling them they will all be burned down in their homes, is a powerful motivation to vote "correctly".

[TheTexan]

Being told by family members that they are getting phone calls at home, telling them they will all be burned down in their homes, is a powerful motivation to vote "correctly".

When the mafia makes that threat, you at least have a decent chance at defending it because you know where it's coming from.

When the mob makes that threat? You aren't safe anywhere. And it isn't just your life at stake, it's your livelihood. Vote the wrong way, and you lose your career.

In this modern age, once the mob comes into play into a trial like this, a "fair trial" becomes impossible by any standard - and thus should not even be tried.

[Anti Federalist]

When the mafia makes that threat, you at least have a decent chance at defending it because you know where it's coming from.

When the mob makes that threat? You aren't safe anywhere. And it isn't just your life at stake, it's your livelihood. Vote the wrong way, and you lose your career.

In this modern age, once the mob comes into play into a trial like this, a "fair trial" becomes impossible by any standard - and thus should not even be tried.

The Brownshirts, Bolsheviks and Jacobins all understood this.

[CaptUSA]

Unreal...




This kid's chances of a fair trial keep going down.

[Anti Federalist]

When the mafia makes that threat, you at least have a decent chance at defending it because you know where it's coming from.

When the mob makes that threat? You aren't safe anywhere. And it isn't just your life at stake, it's your livelihood. Vote the wrong way, and you lose your career.

In this modern age, once the mob comes into play into a trial like this, a "fair trial" becomes impossible by any standard - and thus should not even be tried.

Holy $#@!, right on cue:

Rittenhouse Judge Kicks MSNBC Out of Trial After Alleged Jury Stalking Incident

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...-out-of-trial/

JOEL B. POLLAK 18 Nov 2021

Judge Bruce Schroeder of the Kenosha County Court in Wisconsin announced Thursday morning that he had ejected MSNBC from further coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial after a man claiming to be a producer allegedly followed a bus containing jurors.

Schroeder convened the court as the jury continued its deliberations for a third day in the trial, in which Rittenhouse faces two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and two counts of reckless endangerment after he shot three rioters, killing two, during last summer’s Black Lives Matter riots in the small Midwestern city in what he claims was self-defense.

According to the judge, a man named James G. (or J) Morrison, who claimed to be a producer for MSNBC, who said he was working for an MSNBC executive named Irene Byon in New York, was stopped Wednesday evening by local police as he was following the bus transporting jurors to and from the courthouse in his car.

The bus, the judge explained, has covered windows so that jurors will not see protests for or against either side in the trial as they arrive at the courthouse, and will not be intimidated or influences.

The judge acknowledged that there had been a statement by police, and that journalists had begun to ask about it.

https://twitter.com/KenoshaPolice/st...ut-of-trial%2F

The judge explained that Morrison had driven his car through a red light as he followed the jury bus, and was stopped by local police. Morrison allegedly told police he had been following the jury bus on instructions from Byon, and had been “taken in” for further questioning.

While the matter was still being investigated, he said, MSNBC had been kicked out of the courthouse for the remainder of the proceedings. Judge Schroeder, who said the ultimate truth of the incident was not yet known, nevertheless called the incident an “extremely serious matter.”

Irene Byon is listed at LinkedIn as being a booking producer for MSNBC. James Morrison is listed by Muck Rack as having worked at NBC News, and a “Jim Morrison” is listed at LinkedIn as an “anchor at NBC.”

On Wednesday, the judge had expressed his frustration with the media in general, saying they were spreading “misinformation” about the trial, about his rulings from the bench, and about the attorneys on either side of the case. He added that his experience had caused him to reconsider allowing future trials to be televised in his courtroom.

[Anti Federalist]

Unreal...



This kid's chances of a fair trial keep going down.

Ya beat me by a 4 minutes.

If there is no mistrial ruling, this kid will burn.

And we will do nothing about it.