# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  [Verdict: Not Guilty] Kyle Rittenhouse trial & updates [video]

## Occam's Banana

There are several threads about particular aspects of the Kyle Rittenhouse case (see below for links to some of them), but there aren't any that serve as a general catch-all, so I'm starting this thread as a "one stop" place for any news or updates on the matter, as well as for the trial itself.

Please feel free to post any relevant material about the case here, if you care to.


Here are links to the posts for the (recorded) live-stream videos for each day of the trial:

*DAY*
*DATE*
*PROCESS*
*VIDEO*
*NOTES*

1
01 November 2021
Jury Selection
POST #16


2
02 November 2021
Opening Arguments
POST #16


3
03  November 2021
Prosecution
POST #16


4
04  November 2021
Prosecution
POST #21


5
05  November 2021
Prosecution
POST #28


6
08 November 2021
Prosecution
POST #42
Gaige Grosskreutz testimony

7
09 November 2021
Prosecution
Defense
POST #47


8
10  November 2021
Defense
POST #62
Kyle Rittenhouse testimony

9
11  November 2021
Defense
POST #192


10
12 November 2021
Motions & Jury Instructions
POST #251


11
15 November 2021
Motions & Jury Instructions
Closing Arguments
POST #343


12
16 November 2021
Jury Deliberations day 1
POST #405


13
17 November 2021
Jury Deliberations day 2
POST #492


14
18 November 2021
Jury Deliberations day 3
POST #555


15
19 November 2021
Jury Deliberations day 4
Verdict
THIS POST
(see below)
*NOT GUILTY on ALL counts*




Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 15 live-stream - hosted by Rekieta Law, w/commentary by Rekieta Law, _et al._:[see above for links to all trial videos]
[verdict session starts @ 3:12:10 ; verdicts announced @ 3:21:00]

*Kyle Rittenhouse LIVE Jury Deliberations Day 4 - VERDICT OR MISTRIAL, PLEASE*
_At this point, this trial needs to end.  Hopefully it will be a NOT GUILTY verdict, but at this point something needs to happen; I'll take a mistrial.
The panel and I will be discussing the CONTINUING DRAMA IN THIS CASE.  Jurors taking home instructions in violation of law?  Prosecutors suborning perjury?_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6sWpPdt7aU






> Glenn Greenwald on the Rittenhouse verdict (starts @ 1:50):
> 
> *The Rittenhouse Verdict*
> https://rumble.com/vphnor-the-rittenhouse-veredict.html



Here are some of the other threads at RPFs about the case:

*Official Donation Campaign For Kyle Rittenhouse**Kyle Rittenhouse to be extradited to Wisconsin**Kyle Rittenhouse released on $2m bond. 11/20/20**Kyle Rittenhouse Pleads Not Guilty to All 7 Charges**Kyle Rittenhouse going back to jail for not taking the state seriously.*

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

This goes to my heart. This guy was 17 at the time and wanted to help people. He did shoot people, let's look at if it's justified self defence and nothing more. In my opinion it was.

I think the failure of the government to provide protection to these businesses is a major aspect to this trial. Does a law count if those who upkeep it fail to upkeep other parts and the one on trial is up keeping those laws to protect the interests of others ?

----------


## Occam's Banana

*Kyle Rittenhouse Upcoming Trial & Evidence UPDATE - Viva & Barnes HIGHLIGHT*
_Some updates in Kyle Rittenhouse - upcoming November trial, admissibility of evidence and more._
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXJSa33VCN0

----------


## dannno

This is great news.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

People should not be political pawns.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> 


//

----------


## phill4paul

New FBI aerial surveillance footage released on opening day of trial.




> The video, which you can watch below, shows Rittenhouse asking if anybody needs medical care. It is only when rioters provoke and threaten him that Rittenhouse acts in defense.

----------


## RJB

Rittenhouse has some crazy marksmanship skills.  I can think of very few targets smaller than an antifa members' brain or bicep, and Kyle hit both.

----------


## TheTexan

> Rittenhouse has some crazy marksmanship skills.  I can think of very few targets smaller than an antifa members' brain or bicep, and Kyle hit both.


And a pedophile no less.  Those $#@!ers have crazy unpredictable movements.  Very tough to hit accurately without practice.

----------


## RJB

> And a pedophile no less.  Those $#@!ers have crazy unpredictable movements.  Very tough to hit accurately without practice.


Squirrel might be good practice.  They are quick and their brains aren't much bigger.  For pinpoint accuracy, a target the size of a typical member's genitalia...  Well that's about the smallest target that I can think of.

----------


## tommyrp12



----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
> 
> Anyway, watch the Rittenhouse trial if you want to opine on the verdict.  It's a very interesting trial. And *not only will you learn next to nothing about it by relying on mainstream media summaries of it, you'll  end up with negative knowledge*.
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/MisesCaucusNH/st...42070627913733

----------


## dannno

Wow, judge is yelling at the prosecutor at the top of his lungs....

----------


## CaptUSA

> Wow, judge is yelling at the prosecutor at the top of his lungs....


This would have been a mistrial with prejudice if it weren't for the media hype.  A normal trial would be over.  But the judge is hesitant because he knows what will happen if he declares a mistrial.  And the prosecutor knows it too.  Which is why he feels free to make a mockery of the trial.

----------


## acptulsa

More prosecutorial misconduct.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> every single legal analyst said it was too risky for Kyle to testify, and it wasn't needed since the prosecution torpedoed their own case.  So why did they put him on the stand?


Rittenhouse may have insisted because he wanted to tell "his side of the story".

(Lawyers are not permitted to prevent their clients from testifying if they insist on doing so.)

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The prosecutor is claiming that his statements which Rittenhouse responds “yes” to allow him to go anywhere he wants with the questioning.

Prosecutor has continually used the term “impeach”. He is “impeaching” Rittenhouse based upon words he put into Rittenhouse's mouth. It is also a subtle way to relate this to Trump.

Judge is pissed because the Judge had already prohibited the prosecutor from the line of questioning the prosecutor is using. Prosecutor has also violated the law and established legal standards.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This would have been a mistrial with prejudice if it weren't for the media hype.  A normal trial would be over.  But the judge is hesitant because he knows what will happen if he declares a mistrial.  And the prosecutor knows it too.  Which is why he feels free to make a mockery of the trial.


That’s what it seems like. Not only media hype, but on live TV too.

The prosecutor is auditioning to be a smarmy a-hole on MSNBC.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The defense should have counseled Rittenhouse on cross examination. He needs an electric shock every time he says “yes” or “correct” to the prosecutor putting words in his mouth.

----------


## RJB

If I was on the jury, I would be getting irritated.  This questioning is going on forever and going nowhere.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Ugh. Prosecutor just painted Rittenhouse into a corner on gun knowledge. Making Rittenhouse look like an idiot who should never have had a gun.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Court adjourned until 12:45 Central time.

----------


## dannno

> Thats what it seems like. Not only media hype, but on live TV too.
> *
> The prosecutor is auditioning to be a smarmy a-hole on MSNBC*.


Winner

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> If I was on the jury, I would be getting irritated.  This questioning is going on forever and going nowhere.


Prosecutor is saying “full metal jacket” as many times as he can to make it sound evil. Sounds bites for the left media. He has Rittenhouse saying he doesn’t know the difference between a FMJ and hollow point, and got him to say “yes” that the gun was stored with a full magazine and a round in the chamber, not in the gun safe, and Rittenhouse took possession of a loaded and racked gun, and carried it all night without ever checking it.

And he also got him to say he had no idea of the range of the AR-15, or if he could shoot it 75 yards.

----------


## acptulsa

> Ugh. Prosecutor just painted Rittenhouse into a corner on gun knowledge. Making Rittenhouse look like an idiot who should never have had a gun.


I disagree.  The prosecutor is desperate to paint him as someone who went looking for trouble, itching to kill someone.  He's failing.  All he's doing is pushing the envelope and pissing off the judge.




> Prosecutor is saying “full metal jacket” as many times as he can to make it sound evil. Sounds bites for the left media. He has Rittenhouse saying he doesn’t know the difference between a FMJ and hollow point...


And I'm sure the mainstream media will obligingly cut out the parts where Rittenhouse said about all he knows is hollow point is more damaging than what he had, and the part where the prosecutor improperly testified to the same.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ugh. Rittenhouse is letting the prosecutor put words in his mouth. He got Rittenhouse to say that he  intentionally used deadly force.
> 
> This is the sound bite that the leftist media will put on infinite repeat.


CNN replaying that sound bite right now.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Court adjourned until 12:45 Central time.


Robert Barnes has joined the Rekeita Law live-stream, if anyone want to hear their commentary while court is out.




> Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 8 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 Trial LIVE Wednesday Day 8 - Defense Case Continues*
> _Day 8 of the trial (including jury selection) continues with the Defense working through its case in chief.  Who will they call to the stand today?  Will we see more explosive testimony?  How many facepalms will the prosecution team provide?_
> https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/kyl...ve-wednesday:e

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ugh. Prosecutor just painted Rittenhouse into a corner on gun knowledge. Making Rittenhouse look like an idiot who should never have had a gun.





> I disagree.  The prosecutor is desperate to paint him as someone who went looking for trouble, itching to kill someone.  He's failing.  All he's doing is pushing the envelope and pissing off the judge.
> ...


CNN just now: “Rittenhouse had no business having a gun”.

----------


## TheTexan

Kyle was driving a car... without a driver license!!!!!

GUILTY!!!!

----------


## acptulsa

> CNN just now: “Rittenhouse had no business having a gun”.


CNN has no business having a camera or microphone, too.  No doubt they'll continue to sacrifice their credibility to crucify this kid, no matter what happens.




> Kyle was driving a car... without a driver license!!!!!
> 
> GUILTY!!!!


I'm surprised CNN isn't all over that.  "He drove without permission from Illinois!  He wants people to die!"

----------


## RJB

> Ugh. Prosecutor just painted Rittenhouse into a corner on gun knowledge. Making Rittenhouse look like an idiot who should never have had a gun.


Maybe for a CNN soundbite, but mostly I think it makes Kyle look less like a psycho obsessed with balistic statistics on what destroys body tissue the best.  He's a regular gun owner.  None of that proves anything illegal, but we will see. 

Overall, putting him on the stand was a crazy idea.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Robert Barnes has joined the Rekeita Law live-stream, if anyone want to hear their commentary while court is out.


Good stuff. They seem to be in agreement that the prosecutor knows he is going to lose, so he is trying to get a mistrial so he can say it was all the fault of the biased judge.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Good stuff. They seem to be in agreement that the prosecutor knows he is going to lose, so he is trying to get a mistrial so he can say it was all the fault of the biased judge.


And also that Binger (the prosecutor) should be sanctioned and even disbarred for his 5th Amendment shenanigans. (Barnes was spittin' fire on that.)

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Maybe for a CNN soundbite, but mostly I think it makes Kyle look less like a psycho obsessed with balistic statistics on what destroys body tissue the best.  He's a regular gun owner.  None of that proves anything illegal, but we will see. 
> 
> Overall, putting him on the stand was a crazy idea.


Yeah, it was a bad idea. Especially with a naive young person eager to answer “yes” to anything.

The bullet type was the least damaging part of the gun discussion. More damaging was “yes” to essentially someone handed him a loaded weapon with a round chambered and he simply pulled the trigger later that night, and not knowing that the gun had a range of more than 20 yards. Made him sound like a complete beginner that never should have been carrying.

----------


## acptulsa

> Overall, putting him on the stand was a crazy idea.


It _can_ work to a defendant's advantage.  It usually doesn't, but these prosecutors seem intent on shooting themselves in the feet.




> Made him sound like a complete beginner that never should have been carrying.


Also makes him look like someone who was more interested in scaring rioters away than mowing them down.

Let the gun nuts say he's ignorant.  The issue is, was this premeditated murder?  Being ignorant, lacking compulsive behavior, being fine with less deadly ammo, all sends the right message so far as premeditation, or general bloodthirstiness.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It _can_ work to a defendant's advantage.  It usually doesn't, but these prosecutors seem intent on shooting themselves in the feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Also makes him look like someone who was more interested in scaring rioters away than mowing them down.
> 
> Let the gun nuts say he's ignorant.  The issue is, was this premeditated murder?  Being ignorant, lacking compulsive behavior, being fine with less deadly ammo, all sends the right message so far as premeditation, or general bloodthirstiness.


Agree. The actual charges aren't about how experienced he was with guns. And the prosecution has not made a case at all. 

But they are playing to the court of public opinion, in a televised trial, with a leftist media to spin it. The goal is not a successful legal prosecution of Rittenhouse. The goal is to create sound bites for the left, and agitate the radical left, probably to riot after the verdict. And the prosecutor wants his MSNBC or CNN gig. 

Just wait, the propaganda will come. White guy gets away with murder with help from white judge, both of them exercising their white privilege. And then when Trump says something about the case, heads will explode.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Court is back in session.

----------


## acptulsa

> The goal is not a successful legal prosecution of Rittenhouse. The goal is to create sound bites for the left, and agitate the radical left, probably to riot after the verdict.


Well, yes, it's more than possible they're advertising publicizing this case because they know it's doomed to fail, and they want more riots.  I don't know anything this kid or his lawyers could possibly do to thwart or ameliorate that.

You know the MSM by now.  If reality doesn't give them what they need, they'll make stuff up.  Like, for instance, since when does a white guy shooting another white guy cause riots?  And yet...

----------


## Occam's Banana

Defense moves for mistrial with prejudice.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Judge is yelling again.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Judge straight up tells the prosecutor he thinks the prosecutor is acting in bad faith.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Defense moves for mistrial with prejudice.


Correction: the defense did not move for mistrial - they informed the court that they would be bringing such a motion.

Rittenhouse's testimony is resuming now.

----------


## spudea

This is insane, prosecutor knows he did a piss poor job, so he intentionally provokes the mistrial so he can receive favorable media spin, and continue to paint Kyle as a murderer because it wasn't decided by the jury.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Democrats:  Borders are just imaginary lines.

Also Democrats:  Rittenhouse crossed state lines.

----------


## acptulsa

Have I got a spotty connection, or was the feed shut down?

----------


## tod evans

> Have I got a spotty connection, or was the feed shut down?


Mine's working fine.

----------


## RJB

My feed shut down as they were showing a video.  I found another feed and Kyle is off the stand beside his attorney with the sound off.

----------


## RJB

PBS and ABC isn't live anymore.  This ones up, but I don't like the commentators interupting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH7Sch5mXfw

----------


## acptulsa

This prosecutor.

If you didn't expect a flat tire, why did you have a spare in your trunk?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Agree. The actual charges aren't about how experienced he was with guns. And the prosecution has not made a case at all. 
> 
> But they are playing to the court of public opinion, in a televised trial, with a leftist media to spin it. The goal is not a successful legal prosecution of Rittenhouse. The goal is to create sound bites for the left, and agitate the radical left, probably to riot after the verdict. And the prosecutor wants his MSNBC or CNN gig. 
> 
> Just wait, the propaganda will come. White guy gets away with murder with help from white judge, both of them exercising their white privilege. And then when Trump says something about the case, heads will explode.


And just a bit from Twitter...




> Many people suspect that Judge Bruce E. Schroeder is team white supremacy. Would this explain why he seems so bias and hes been coddling Kyle Rittenhouse throughout the entire trial?





> This Rittenhouse trial is a farce. The whole thing is a performance for the public to soften the ground for more white supremacist violence in the streets as they continue the press toward undoing the civil rights movement & overthrowing constitutional democracy.





> Rittenhouse straight up lying about being a firefighter! BAM! Claimed to be a firefighter at 17?,Black Kyle would not have made it to trial. U do knw his white arse is going 2 walk? Privilege & no justice! Ive seen this 4 yrs.





> Kyle Rittenhouse is a super hero only to White supremacists, Trump supporters and Nazis.





> Kyle Rittenhouse is proof you can be a D- white guy and get away with murder





> Kyle Rittenhouse should get an award for the Masterclass of acting that he's doing. That was the fakest cry I've ever seen





> If you're defending Kyle Rittenhouse you might be a white supremacist





> CNN Legal Analyst Accuses Rittenhouse of Rehearsed Testimony: Is He Telling the Truth or Giving the Performance of a Lifetime?





> Judge Bryce Schroeder wants Kyle Rittenhouse to get off. This white supremacy and white privilege at work. The prosecution is being given a hard time for absolutely no reason at all.





> Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacists, period. He went to shoot people.





> It seems Judge is against prosecutor and he is forgetting how people were killed by one person who thought he is above the law. Rittenhouse is guilty of killing people. If it was a black man, he would be hung by now.





> Kyle Rittenhouse dubbed 'worst fake crier since Brett Kavanaugh' after breaking down on the stand at homicide trial #SmartNews





> ...and the oscar goes to Kyle Rittenhouse for the best tears performance.





> This judge is so shady. How often is a black man forgiven for bad judgement? Kyle Rittenhouse gets that privilege.





> This judge is working with the defense .....defending Kyle Rittenhouse.  What a sham trial!





> Rittenhouse was supplied a gun (illegally) & crossed state borders because he was so upset that black people were being uppity. He went looking for trouble and usually when you do that, you find trouble.





> Watching segments of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, if pay attention closely, you see white supremacy, written into these nations laws, play out to protect, white supremacy.





> Listen ... If Kyle Rittenhouse were Black, Native or Hispanic, he be DEAD already.





> If Rittenhouse wasnt white he would be easily exonerated.





> Dear other white people:
>  Stop trying to defend Kyle Rittenhouse. He drove across state lines with a gun he legally cant own and went looking for protesters to shoot. He committed a crime. Stop trying to defend his actions. #Rittenhouse #KyleRittenhouseTrial





> I keep thinking about how the right was more critical of Tamir Rice's mom for letting him play with a toy in a park than they are of Kyle Rittenhouse's mom for helping him get an illegal firearm across state lines & kill 2 people.
> 
> White supremacy is a helluva drug.





> The 'Mississippi Burning' judge is a MAGA. 
> 
> Rittenhouse is going to walk.





> If Trump was still president hed be nominating the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial as a candidate for SCOTUS





> Who thinks Donald Trump motivated the Kyle Rittenhouse murders?





> The judge in the Rittenhouse case is acting like the third attorney for the defendant.  I can only imagine the havoc that is going to result when this judge frees this murderous Anglo. This judge is why Trump stacking the courts is so dangerous -  KKK on the bench!

----------


## acptulsa

> And just a bit from Twitter...


These people were going to say those things regardless.  That has been Teh Narrative for months.

----------


## Dr.3D

> This prosecutor.
> 
> If you didn't expect a flat tire, why did you have a spare in your trunk?


Exactly what I thought when I heard that.

So anybody who carries a pistol is expecting to have to use it?  
There is no carrying, just in case they may need it in an emergency?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And just a bit from Twitter...
> 
> If Rittenhouse wasn’t white he would be easily exonerated.


That one is pro-Rittenhouse.

----------


## RJB

$2.09 a gallon for gas!

(A sign in an evidence video showed a gas station with that price.)

----------


## RJB

How dare the kid put out a fire!  A sure sign of white supremacy!

----------


## RJB

Why did he take the AR-15 to a fire?  

What's the kid going to do, lay it on the street and leave it behind?

----------


## acptulsa

> How dare the kid put out a fire!  A sure sign of white supremacy!


Who cares how many people were at 63rd St?  Were they drinking enough beer to piss on the fires?  He had an _extinguisher._

----------


## TheTexan

> How dare the kid put out a fire!  A sure sign of white supremacy!


And without permission, no less.  Why didn't he just call 911 like a normal person?

----------


## acptulsa

What was I supposed to do with the AR-15 when I headed to 63rd?  Trade it for the extinguisher?  Give it to a random stranger?

----------


## acptulsa

What the hell kind of flag is that lapel pin the prosecutor with the pompous pompadour is wearing?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What the hell kind of flag is that lapel pin the prosecutor with the pompous pompadour is wearing?


Maybe a Marine flag pin.

----------


## Anti Globalist

> What the hell kind of flag is that lapel pin the prosecutor with the pompous pompadour is wearing?


According to Twitter, the various pins that he wears all came from the Star Wars universe.

----------


## acptulsa

Since when is a boot _not_ a deadly weapon?

----------


## acptulsa

"He has a handgun and you have an AR-15, correct?"

So?  Is this a matter of rank?  What?  Are you saying a pawn can't capture a rook or a queen?

Frame by frame, now.  We can see blah blah.  Why didn't you?  Maybe I did.  All this took one and a half seconds in real time.

Because nobody shoots from the hip, right?

This guy is reaching hard.

----------


## 69360

> "He has a handgun and you have an AR-15, correct?"
> 
> So?  Is this a matter of rank?  What?  Are you saying a pawn can't capture a rook or a queen?


The guy with the pistol has an advantage in close quarters

----------


## acptulsa

> The guy with the pistol has an advantage in close quarters


Absolutely.

He seems to be counting on the jury being stupid, but he's really shooting himself in the foot.

----------


## RJB

> The guy with the pistol has an advantage in close quarters


But the AR-15 is bigger.  It's also scary looking.  It's an assault rifle.  CNN says to be afraid of it.

----------


## tod evans

> But the AR-15 is bigger.  It's also scary looking.  It's an assault rifle.  CNN says to be afraid of it.


Don't forget the black flip-up thingie....

----------


## acptulsa

> Don't forget the black flip-up thingie....


I was just trying to remember which congressdolt that was.

----------


## tod evans

> I was just trying to remember which congressdolt that was.


A female dem is all I remember.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> But the AR-15 is bigger.  It's also scary looking.  It's an assault rifle.  CNN says to be afraid of it.





> Don't forget the black flip-up thingie....


And the bullets were Full Metal Jacket, just like in the movie.

(The leftists already have meme tweets connecting Rittenhouse to the movie.)

----------


## Occam's Banana

Robert Barnes prediction: defense will submit motions for directed verdict and mistrial with prejudice (for prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence).

----------


## acptulsa

> A female dem is all I remember.


McCarthy

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Dear other white people:
> Stop trying to defend Kyle Rittenhouse. He drove across state lines with a gun he legally can’t own and went looking for protesters to shoot. He committed a crime. Stop trying to defend his actions.


Dear Self Loathing white Marxist:

No, I will not. In fact, I will defend him even more.

He took out the trash, is what he did.

ETA - $#@!ter is Cancer.

ETA 2 - $#@! Joe Biden.

----------


## RJB

> And the bullets were Full Metal Jacket, just like in the movie.
> 
> (The leftists already have meme tweets connecting Rittenhouse to the movie.)
> ]


I meant to mention the prosecutor's weird obsession with FMJ bullets, but I was over whelmed with his assault of rapid fire stupid

----------


## Invisible Man

> The guy with the pistol has an advantage in close quarters


Perhaps. But what color was the pistol. Yes, it's true that some pistols are scary black ones (i.e. weapons of war). But I've seen others that have nice neighborly looking shiny metallic hues. This guy's pistol might have been one of those safer ones like that.

----------


## acptulsa

> Dear other white people:
> Stop trying to defend Kyle Rittenhouse. He drove across state lines with a gun he legally can’t own


No, no he did not.  There's no evidence the gun ever left the state of Wisconsin after it was sold.




> and went looking for protesters to shoot.


Then why didn't he shoot anyone until he got tired of running away from them?




> He committed a crime.


Only if you think a boot is not a deadly weapon.




> Stop trying to defend his actions.


All I'm doing is refuting your lies.

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/realbobboberton/...89947451707393

----------


## jkr

> Don't forget the black flip-up thingie....


it goes UP!

----------


## Suzanimal

> Dear Self Loathing white Marxist:
> 
> No, I will not. In fact, I will defend him even more.
> 
> He took out the trash, is what he did.
> 
> ETA - $#@!ter is Cancer.
> 
> ETA 2 - $#@! Joe Biden.


Well said.

----------


## RJB

Black rifles emit a field that renders all smaller weapons inoperable.

----------


## Occam's Banana



----------


## TheTexan

> Black rifles emit a field that renders all smaller weapons inoperable.


Yes, I don't understand why Kyle would be afraid for his life when his attacker had only a measly 9mm.  Everyone knows that an AR beats 9mm every time

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, I don't understand why Kyle would be afraid for his life when his attacker had only a measly 9mm.  Everyone knows that an AR beats 9mm every time


Even though a 9mm makes a hole in you 1.8 times larger in diameter, and capable of letting your blood out two and a half times faster.

----------


## RJB

> Yes, I don't understand why Kyle would be afraid for his life when his attacker had only a measly 9mm.  Everyone knows that an AR beats 9mm every time


I bought a workout video called abs of steel.  After 2 weeks, I am confident that I can stop a 9mm by tightening my abs.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Silver linings and red pills:

https://twitter.com/ThaddeusRussell/...56778787053574

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Here is the full testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz.  Starting at 22:00 it's just one lie after another exposed.

----------


## RJB

That flapping sound in the background was 10 million flying away.




>

----------


## nobody's_hero

> It's not a "gotcha", nor do I think it is an attempt at one.
> 
> Russell is trying to prompt Republicans/conservatives to apply their skepticism of overzealous prosecutions to more than just a limited subset of cases (such as firearms/self-defense cases). And he is entirely correct to do so. Republican prosecutors are no less prone to indulging politicized and/or career-advancing, "notch in the belt"/"feather in the cap" prosecutions than Democrat prosecutors are.
> 
> ETA: *All* prosecutors should *always* be regarded with skepticism in *all* cases.
> 
> That is what the "presumption of innocence" is supposed to mean, after all.


I understand the ETA bit. 

It is just a weird comment considering that prosecutors will make their decisions based on the political clout they think they can gain from it. 2020 saw a number of DAs letting violent rioters off the hook, because it was politically beneficial. That's the same reason they're going after Rittenhouse. There are a number of reasons you could support or condemn prosecutors, and Thaddeus seems to imply that team (R) always supports them and team (D) is always skeptical.  

The prosecutors in this case (thankfully) are pretty sloppy and likely believe that the media has won this case for them, but thankfully the judge doesn't seem to give a damn what the media thinks. 

(Considering the judge has a "God bless the USA" ringtone, I'm gonna guess he's _probably_ not a liberal.)

----------


## nobody's_hero

Liberals melt down over Judge's ringtone (that might not even be what they think it is):

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...one-usa-cross/

Listening to it again, it doesn't sound like any part of Greenwood's "God bless the USA".

But that hasn't stopped liberals from calling for the removal of Judge Schroeder for his now 'obvious bias'

----------


## TheTexan

> Liberals melt down over Judge's ringtone (that might not even be what they think it is):
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...one-usa-cross/
> 
> Listening to it again, it doesn't sound like any part of Greenwood's "God bless the USA".
> 
> But that hasn't stopped liberals from calling for the removal of Judge Schroeder for his now 'obvious bias'


Lol if u love the USA u have obvious bias

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## sparebulb

Just saw the "only survivor" of the Rittenhouse shooting on GMA just now.

It is amazing how they are only on to have the "victim"'s lawyer drop soundbites that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter".

The victim said that he was a big supporter of the 2A and just happened to be carrying a gun and that he was not pointing his at Rittenhouse.

He said that it only looks like he's pointing his pistol because his arm was being "vaporized" at that moment.

There's that word again.

----------


## acptulsa

> He said that it only looks like he's pointing his pistol because his arm was being "vaporized" at that moment.
> 
> There's that word again.


I guess he got Dr. McCoy and Lieutenant Commander Scott to gather all the molecules and reassemble them.

----------


## Anti Globalist

It's not just Kyle Rittenhouse that's on trial.  The concept of self defense is also on trial.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's not just Kyle Rittenhouse that's on trial.  The concept of self defense is also on trial.


Exactly right.

The State wants the power to decide if your life is worth saving or not.  The State wants you more worried about petty criminals than the wholesale thieves in D.C.

----------


## donnay

> Liberals melt down over Judge's ringtone (that might not even be what they think it is):
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...one-usa-cross/
> 
> Listening to it again, it doesn't sound like any part of Greenwood's "God bless the USA".
> 
> But that hasn't stopped liberals from calling for the removal of Judge Schroeder for his now 'obvious bias'


It definitely was Lee Greenwood's: "God Bless the USA."  I think it is great!  If that is all the Marxist have, it just proves the point, that anything about God and the USA should be taken down, according to them.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 9 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 Trial LIVE Thursday Day 9 - Dr. John Black, Defense Expert*
_Day 9 of the trial (including jury selection) continues with the Defense working through its case in chief.  The defense will call their expert witness Dr. John Black, who will primarily testify to the timing of various videos around the shootings of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz.
We may see the defense request to pierce the judge's limitations on his testimony to utilize Dr. Black's expertise in the use of force, since the state kept raising these issues on cross._
https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/kyl...thursday-day:b

----------


## RJB

> Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 9 live-stream - w/commentary by Rekieta Law, _et al._
> 
> *Kyle Rittenhouse Trial LIVE Thursday Day 9 - Dr. John Black, Defense Expert*
> _Day 9 of the trial (including jury selection) continues with the Defense working through its case in chief.  The defense will call their expert witness Dr. John Black, who will primarily testify to the timing of various videos around the shootings of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz.
> 
> We may see the defense request to pierce the judge's limitations on his testimony to utilize Dr. Black's expertise in the use of force, since the state kept raising these issues on cross._


I've never heard the term "boomering" in reference to screwing up something technology related like they did about the audio difficulties.  I generally don't like writing off boomers as the "OK bommer" meme implies, but that cracked me up.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I've never heard the term "boomering" in reference to screwing up something technology related like they did about the audio difficulties.  I generally don't like writing off boomers as the "OK bommer" meme implies, but that cracked me up.


It's easier to take when it's self-applied and self-deprecating.

----------


## dannno



----------


## dannno

> Just saw the "only survivor" of the Rittenhouse shooting on GMA just now.
> 
> It is amazing how they are only on to have the "victim"'s lawyer drop soundbites that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter".
> 
> The victim said that he was a big supporter of the 2A and just happened to be carrying a gun and that he was not pointing his at Rittenhouse.
> 
> *He said that it only looks like he's pointing his pistol because his arm was being "vaporized" at that moment.*
> 
> There's that word again.


That's not what he said when he was under oath...

----------


## acptulsa

> That's not what he said when he was under oath...


There's got to be a meme in that.

Gaige Grosskreutz's tune:



Gaige Grosskreutz's tune under oath:

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> That's not what he said when he was under oath...


He can go right back to being a lying POS now that he isn't under oath.  

It is unbelievable that GMA had this guy on.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Lol if u love the USA u have obvious bias


An American judge, in an American courthouse, following American law, has a "bias" because he has a "Proud to be an American" ring tone on his phone... 

We're living in an Idiocracy.

----------


## Invisible Man

> It is unbelievable that GMA had this guy on.


Why do you consider that unbelievable?

----------


## acptulsa

> Why do you consider that unbelievable?


Seriously.  ABC is owned by Disney.  Grosskreutz is a cartoon.

It's natural.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Why do you consider that unbelievable?


I was using "unbelievable" hyperbolically.

----------


## Occam's Banana

They're already gearing things up:

*Chicago PD cancels officers' days off 'in preparation for civil unrest over Kyle Rittenhouse trial' as America braces for an acquittal*

----------


## acptulsa

But are pallets of bricks appearing in poor neighborhoods yet?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> There's got to be a meme in that.
> 
> Gaige Grosskreutz's tune:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaige Grosskreutz's tune under oath:


I like your visuals.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
> 
> This is yet another one of those bizarre instances -- like 1/6 -- where much of the liberal-left is cheering for the prosecutors and championing pro-law-and-order theories, while the right is enthralled by civil liberties and defendants' rights.


https://twitter.com/martyrmade/statu...95624711237635

----------


## Occam's Banana

*Democrats Are Profoundly Committed to Criminal Justice Reform -- For Everyone But Their Enemies*

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...13192432459783

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> 


FA/FO

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Weapons charges hold no weight,,, but they may push the Curfew charge.


The defense moved to have the curfew charge dismissed at the end of the prosecution's case in chief, because the prosecution never even bothered to address it or present any evidence for it during their case. The judge agreed, and the charge was dismissed.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So will the left convince black people to riot because a white guy shot 3 other white guys by calling it white supremacy? I really want to believe they are smart enough to see through that and stay home.


Sh!t in one hand and believe in the other and let us know how that goes for you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Free shoes and big screen TVs in memory of . . . whatshisface.


David Dorn was the bleeding-out-on-a-sidewalk, defending-civil-society blackface of white supremacy.

----------


## The Northbreather

> 


The Kenosha Kid

----------


## pcosmar

> The defense moved to have the curfew charge dismissed at the end of the prosecution's case in chief, because the prosecution never even bothered to address it or present any evidence for it during their case. The judge agreed, and the charge was dismissed.


OK,,I thought that charge was damn petty and the only thing he was possibly guilty of.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
> 
> This is yet another one of those bizarre instances -- like 1/6 -- where much of the liberal-left is cheering for the prosecutors and championing pro-law-and-order theories, while the right is enthralled by civil liberties and defendants' rights.


https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status...63357768192018

----------


## nobody's_hero

> So if the jury were to find Kyle guilty we are all going to Wisconsin to steal sneakers and tv's right?


Republicans don't do that. They protest at the U.S. capitol. And are uniformly hated by everyone for doing so.

----------


## Origanalist

> Republicans don't do that. They protest at the U.S. capitol. And are uniformly hated by everyone for doing so.


I don't hate them for doing so.

----------


## TheTexan

Kyle should get a mistrial for defense incompetence.

There is no way that fuzzy picture bull$#@! should have been allowed to be admitted.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Republicans don't do that. They protest at the U.S. capitol. And are uniformly hated by everyone for doing so.


I'm pretty sure, most of what happened that day, was actors/provocateurs and tours were being allowed in the back door of the building.

The window breaking and wall climbing was a false flag.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Kyle should get a mistrial for defense incompetence.
> 
> There is no way that fuzzy picture bull$#@! should have been allowed to be admitted.


He should have gotten a mistrial with prejudice when the prosecutor attempted to impugn his rights as protected by the 5th amendment.  Further, the prosecutor should be disbarred for his actions, and if people really cared about justice, he'd be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

We'd have a more righteous legal system in this country were that the case.

----------


## TheTexan

> He should have gotten a mistrial with prejudice when the prosecutor attempted to impugn his rights as protected by the 5th amendment.


It's incompetence all around.

I don't think the defense has even filed/renewed a motion to dismiss?




> Further, the prosecutor should be disbarred for his actions, and if people really cared about justice, he'd be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
> 
> We'd have a more righteous legal system in this country were that the case.


Indeed.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It's incompetence all around.
> 
> I don't think the defense has even filed/renewed a motion to dismiss?


They have filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice.  I think the judge is 100% wrong to have denied it.  As Tim Pool pointed out, we're not dealing with honest actors, here.  This DA team is actively trying to subvert Rittenhouse's constitutionally protected rights, but the judge seems to want to give them the benefit of the doubt.  He should be bringing the hammer, but he won't because he won't attribute bad faith to malice.  And that's why the left wins.

----------


## TheTexan

> They have filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice.  I think the judge is 100% wrong to have denied it.  As Tim Pool pointed out, we're not dealing with honest actors, here.  This DA team is actively trying to subvert Rittenhouse's constitutionally protected rights, but the judge seems to want to give them the benefit of the doubt.  He should be bringing the hammer, but he won't because he won't attribute bad faith to malice.  And that's why the left wins.


The DA team has broken every rule in the book 6 times each.  If I did have any remaining faith in the justice system (I lost that long ago) I certainly wouldn't have any left after this.

If Kyle does get locked up from this $#@!, I consider it well within everyone's ethical rights to raid the prison to get him out.

----------


## dannno

Looks like Kyle will not be found guilty of any gun charges, he was following all WI gun statutes. The judge almost dropped the charge, but at least agreed to explain to the jury that Kyle is exempt from the under 18 law, because there are exemptions for 16 and 17 year olds.

----------


## TheTexan

> Looks like Kyle will not be found guilty of any gun charges, he was following all WI gun statutes. The judge almost dropped the charge, but at least agreed to explain to the jury that Kyle is exempt from the under 18 law, because there are exemptions for 16 and 17 year olds.


The gun charge is a matter of law not fact.  Judge should have dismissed it loooooooooong ago.

People say this judge is biased, nope.  He's a coward.  Afraid to do anything for "how it might look"

----------


## spudea

the defense made some significant blunders today, like allowing the jury to consider lesser charges.  This will get him convicted on a lesser charge instead of the full acquittal he deserves.

----------


## Occam's Banana



----------


## Mach

The Defense Facepalm.

----------


## Anti Globalist



----------


## Anti Globalist

> https://twitter.com/tomselliott/stat...29846453395456

----------


## nobody's_hero

I would imagine if I were on this jury I would have to ask to be recused due to the sheer stupidity of the arguments coming from the prosecution. 

I don't know much about the law but has there ever been an instance where a jury decided that the case before them was so utterly imbecilic that it ought to be a crime to make anyone suffer through it? 

Not exactly, nullification, but more like WTF-ification?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> We simply can't share a society with these people.


+ rep, bud.  These people advocate the complete dissolution of everything moral and just.  There is no "middle ground" upon which we can meet with them.  They're not just in disagreement with us, they are completely and utterly at odds with us.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Had to check that the tweet wasnt the Bee


Not the Bee.

Just another self-described communist who will find herself being lined up against the wall if the real communists ever end up in power.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> We simply can't share a society with these people.





> + rep, bud.  These people advocate the complete dissolution of everything moral and just.  There is no "middle ground" upon which we can meet with them.  They're not just in disagreement with us, they are completely and utterly at odds with us.


Given his own "logic", that clown pretty much rules himself out as any kind or threat to anyone.

I have no doubt, however, that he would further mangle his own already-mangled "logic" in order to carve out exceptions for gun-owning state actors (as long as he disapproved of whomever they end up killing).

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
> 
> This is yet another  one of those bizarre instances -- like 1/6 -- where much of the  liberal-left is cheering for the prosecutors and championing  pro-law-and-order theories, while the right is enthralled by civil  liberties and defendants' rights.


https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status...31824934309889

----------


## acptulsa

> Its  confusing  because when i hear about Facism  i assume its referring to democrats being  so much like Stalin.


Hitler was the fascist.  That's why when Heinkel developed a superior fighter plane the _Luftwaffe_ couldn't have it.  Bayern, aka Messerschmitt, paid better bribes.

Stalin was a communist.  That's why Russia never developed a superior fighter plane at all.

At least they had a good tank.  They bought the design from an American.  Stalin couldn't have _him_ shot for having brains.

This crop of progs think they're commies, but they're not.  They don't own the means of production.  They don't own $#@!, not even their own bodies and souls.  Pfizer owns those.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> "The facts of the case..."
> 
> What $#@!ing planet am I living on right now?


Facts, logic and reason are white supremacy.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> We simply can't share a society with these people.


No, we can not...at some point in time the last straw will be reached and we will slaughter each other.

Separate Now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*The Men Killed by Rittenhouse Akin to Civil Rights Workers*

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021...ights-workers/

PAM KEY 14 Nov 2021

Representative Karen Bass (D-CA) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the two white men killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during a protest were like white Civil Rights activists killed in the 1960s.

When asked about the trial on the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, Bass said, “I think that particular trial is off to a bad start just like the trial of Rittenhouse is off to a bad start as well. A year ago, we were talking about racial reckoning, and it seemed to be an enlightened period, and now we’ve had major setbacks. I think that people understand that you can use race politically. It charges people up. It’s highly emotional issue, and I think it’s just really sad. That trial, the Arbery trial, is a trial of a lynching. That is exactly what happened in that case and look at Rittenhouse. Both of those trials were based in race. I’m concerned about the outcome for both of them.”

Anchor Jake Tapper said, “Kyle Rittenhouse is a white man accused of shooting three other white men and killing two of them. Explain how you think there’s a racial dimension to this case?”

Bass said, “Remember now, where were the White men killed? At a protest, protesting in solidarity for Black folks so, to me, it was reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement when you had young white people that participated in the sit-ins and protests, and they were subject to beatings, they were subject to shootings, many of them were killed as well, and it’s as though the judge is taking that very lightly. Remember, the judge in the Rittenhouse case said you couldn’t even refer to the people that were killed as victims. You could refer to them as rioters. Here you have a 17-year-old boy who was driven by his mother across state lines with an automatic weapon. Frankly, she should have been detained for child endangerment. To go to a protest, he said he’s going to help the police. It was ridiculous. He walks across with his automatic weapon, and the police look at him, and the majority of the people protesting were African-American, but the White men that were killed were protesting in solidarity with the Black people so it reminded me of the Civil Rights Movement.”

----------


## CCTelander

> "The facts of the case..."
> 
> What $#@!ing planet am I living on right now?



Planet Woke.

Just make your way to Bizzaro World and take a HARD left.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Planet Woke.
> 
> Just make your way to Bizzaro World and take a HARD left.


It's in a non binary orbit with Clown World...can't miss it.

----------


## Invisible Man

> You might be a fascist if ...


This is some kind of rope-a-dope fake liberal account that's just trolling right? It has to be.

----------


## helenpaul

> Hitler was the fascist.  That's why when Heinkel developed a superior fighter plane the _Luftwaffe_ couldn't have it.  Bayern, aka Messerschmitt, paid better bribes.
> 
> Stalin was a communist.  That's why Russia never developed a superior fighter plane at all.
> 
> At least they had a good tank.  They bought the design from an American.  Stalin couldn't have _him_ shot for having brains.
> 
> This crop of progs think they're commies, but they're not.  They don't own the means of production.  They don't own $#@!, not even their own bodies and souls.  Pfizer owns those.


I have to disagree about Hitler  being a facist. Mussolini was and  he was totally  different from Hitler. Hitler was a socialist.

----------


## TheTexan



----------


## helenpaul

> Hitler was the fascist.  That's why when Heinkel developed a superior fighter plane the _Luftwaffe_ couldn't have it.  Bayern, aka Messerschmitt, paid better bribes.
> 
> Stalin was a communist.  That's why Russia never developed a superior fighter plane at all.
> 
> At least they had a good tank.  They bought the design from an American.  Stalin couldn't have _him_ shot for having brains.
> 
> This crop of progs think they're commies, but they're not.  They don't own the means of production.  They don't own $#@!, not even their own bodies and souls.  Pfizer owns those.


Check out this  video. He  is an excellent  historian. He  is also a good economist who likes Sowell and the  Austrian school of economics. Hitler wasnt a Fascist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko&t=531s

----------


## acptulsa

> I have to disagree about Hitler  being a facist. Mussolini was and  he was totally  different from Hitler. Hitler was a socialist.


No, Hitler was hand in glove with German industry.  Fascism can be socialist to different degrees, and either the government or the financiers could be making the decisions.

Remember, in the Soviet Union, among others, the state owned everything and everyone.  My understanding is the corporate influence separates that from fascism.

----------


## helenpaul

> No, Hitler was hand in glove with German industry.  Fascism can be socialist to different degrees, and either the government or the financiers could be making the decisions.
> 
> Remember, in the Soviet Union, among others, the state owned everything and everyone.  My understanding is the corporate influence separates that from fascism.


Again, i must disagree. Hitler was a socialist.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 11 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]
(Odysee video not available, using YouTube as fallback)

*Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Monday LIVE - CLOSING ARGUMENTS*
_It's time for closing arguments in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  We will hear the final list of charges, jury instructions and then closing arguments will begin.  Both the state and the defense have 2.5 hours to make their final case before the jury and then the jury will go into deliberation.  Kyle's fate hinges on this moment._
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8

----------


## CaptUSA

> Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 11 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]
> *Odysee live-stream HERE*: https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/LIVE:6dd
> 
> *Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Monday LIVE - CLOSING ARGUMENTS*
> _It's time for closing arguments in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  We will hear the final list of charges, jury instructions and then closing arguments will begin.  Both the state and the defense have 2.5 hours to make their final case before the jury and then the jury will go into deliberation.  Kyle's fate hinges on this moment._
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8


And....  Youtube is deleting all the commentary streams.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 11 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]
> *Odysee live-stream HERE*: https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/LIVE:6dd
> 
> *Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Monday LIVE - CLOSING ARGUMENTS*
> _It's time for closing arguments in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  We will hear the final list of charges, jury instructions and then closing arguments will begin.  Both the state and the defense have 2.5 hours to make their final case before the jury and then the jury will go into deliberation.  Kyle's fate hinges on this moment._
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8


Looks like Youtube pulled the plug on this stream.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I need Dave Smith's _Part of the Problem_ and Michael Malice's _Your Welcome_ to migrate to Rumble and maybe one or two others, then I'm out.  Timcast is already there.  

YouTube is an enemy.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Looks like Youtube pulled the plug on this stream.


Not just that one... 

Law & Crime Network stream, watched it through the whole trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIu-N-FDTo

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

nvm plz delete

----------


## dannno

> Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 11 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]
> *Odysee live-stream HERE*: https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/LIVE:6dd
> 
> *Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Monday LIVE - CLOSING ARGUMENTS*
> _It's time for closing arguments in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  We will hear the final list of charges, jury instructions and then closing arguments will begin.  Both the state and the defense have 2.5 hours to make their final case before the jury and then the jury will go into deliberation.  Kyle's fate hinges on this moment._
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8


Youtube took down the stream... $#@!ers

Edit: It's back up now!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And....  Youtube is deleting all the commentary streams.


They seem to be having issues with the court feeds being copyright-stricken.




> Looks like Youtube pulled the plug on this stream.


The Odysee stream is still up:



> *Odysee live-stream HERE*: https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/LIVE:6dd

----------


## spudea

The Rekieta law stream on youtube stream was "suspended for policy violation".

----------


## dannno

Judge dismisses gun charge:

https://rumble.com/vp920r-rittenhous...dismissed.html

----------


## Occam's Banana

Littlebinger starting his closing arguments: https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/LIVE:6dd

----------


## dannno

> The Rekieta law stream on youtube stream was "suspended for policy violation".


Apparently they weren't talking enough over the trial.. it's back up now.... they lost 40k viewers

Edit: it's down again....

Edit: and back up....

----------


## Occam's Banana

Dammit! Seems like the Odysee stream just went down.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Dammit! Seems like the Odysee stream just went down.


Looks like they're being overwhelmed. The viewer count went from 500+ to over 3500 ...

----------


## Occam's Banana

Here's the Crowder stream @ Rumble:

*LIVESTREAM: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Closing Arguments!*
_Closing arguments of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial start today. The media have already shown they won’t report the FACTS of the trial, so we’re doing it for them. #KyleRittenhouse #RittenhouseTrial #Kenosha_
https://rumble.com/vp8w16-livestream...arguments.html

----------


## Suzu

There are multiple live streams going on youtube right now.

----------


## Occam's Banana

The Rekieta Law stream @ YouTube is back up (for now):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Prosecutor is saying that Rittenhouse should have only shot once at Rosenbaum, and stopped to analyze the results of the first shot before shooting again.

Wonder if he uses that “legal argument” for every Police shooting?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Prosecutor is saying that Rittenhouse should have only shot once at Rosenbaum, and stopped to analyze the results of the first shot before shooting again.
> 
> Wonder if he uses that “legal argument” for every Police shooting?


You don't know that Police Lives Matter more than yours?  WTF, dude?  

On a serious note, if that is the argument that the prosecution is making, he's effectively admitting defeat.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The Rekieta Law stream @ YouTube is back up (for now):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8


The consensus of the panel seems to be that the Defense attorneys are not very good. They should have never put Rittenhouse on the stand, they should be objecting more to the dishonest prosecutor.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ...
> On a serious note, if that is the argument that the prosecution is making, he's effectively admitting defeat.


Just one of the arguments. Prosecutor was twisting, spinning and lying all over the place. “Ignore everything you saw so far, let me tell you what happened.”

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Prosecutor is saying full metal jacket as many times as he can to make it sound evil. Sounds bites for the left media. He has Rittenhouse saying he doesnt know the difference between a FMJ and hollow point, and got him to say yes that the gun was stored with a full magazine and a round in the chamber, not in the gun safe, and Rittenhouse took possession of a loaded and racked gun, and carried it all night without ever checking it.
> 
> And he also got him to say he had no idea of the range of the AR-15, or if he could shoot it 75 yards.


Prosecutor is repeating all of this in his closing. Paraphrase: Rittenhouse was ignorant about his gun and he used evil full metal jacket bullets.

----------


## tod evans

Tar and feathers is too good for the Pompadour. 

I'm about an hour and a half behind real-time and my blood is already boiling.

----------


## dannno

> Tar and feathers is too good for the Pompadour. 
> 
> I'm about an hour and a half behind real-time and my blood is already boiling.


Don't go back and watch the cross exam of Kyle, if you want your computer monitor to remain undamaged.

----------


## TheTexan

> Tar and feathers is too good for the Pompadour. 
> 
> I'm about an hour and a half behind real-time and my blood is already boiling.


Yup

----------


## tod evans

> Don't go back and watch the cross exam of Kyle, if you want your computer monitor to remain undamaged.


My monitor survived that but I'm at the end of my patience with that pompadour little piece of $#@!, I just quit watching until the defense speaks.

----------


## Suzu



----------


## Philhelm

>

----------


## spudea

> One of the lawyers on the Rekieta law stream theorized that he was trying to trap the defense attorney into objecting and calling him out when he pointed the gun, with the intention of turning it into a controversy where he could make the point to the jury that pointing a gun at somebody makes them fear for their life... and that the defense attorney smartly did not fall for the trap.


I agree it was a trap. And many people online are falling for the "omg he pointed a gun, punish him!" When that's exactly what Binger wants to do to Kyle, saying simply pointing a gun forfeits all self defense claim.  Binger is a lying sleazeball, but he is pretty smart, we give him $#@! but it's mostly due to the disastrous losing case he is being forced litigate.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Riot?  Whose businesses, whose dumpsters should the right burn?  Whose neighborhoods should the right burn?





> Who would be the target? "We" believe in personal property rights and wouldn't consider randomly burning businesses to the ground.





> What is the purpose of rioting?
> 
> Just to let off some steam?
> 
> If you're going to resort to violence, at least have a goal and a clear sense of how the violence you're committing advances towards that goal.


Rioting serves no purpose to the honest, constructive and conservatives. They dont want destruction.

To the left it serves two purposes. For the rioters, it serves as venting and free stuff. For the left establishment, it provides proof that they need more votes and more power to stop it from happening again. Obviously they are lying. They want more rioting and destruction so that they can get more power. The race baiters and SJC warriors also believe they get more power via the riots. Then there are those who just want destruction because they have been brainwashed by power seeking charlatans. They are useful idiots.

Protests, on the other hand, are a viable political exercise, as long as those protesting are smart enough to identify and shun agent provocateurs.

----------


## Occam's Banana



----------


## tod evans

A 'proper' response to any verdict besides acquittal is 2 to 1 AR's at every "peaceful protest" regardless of the DA's opinions or LEO's barked instructions.

Come to think of it that's the proper response to all forms of tyranny and antisocial behavior. 

Kops and kourts only serve to punish AFTER something happens............Sometimes.

A well regulated militia could/should and would serve to keep the kops-n-kourts from having to get involved.

The system that permitted riots is permitting this trial, this system doesn't represent me!

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> 


Or worse, Canadians.

----------


## RJB

> Rioting serves no purpose to the honest, constructive and conservatives. They don’t want destruction.
> 
> To the left it serves two purposes. For the rioters, it serves as venting and free stuff. For the left establishment, it provides “proof” that they need more votes and more power to stop it from happening again. Obviously they are lying. They want more rioting and destruction so that they can get more power. The race baiters and SJC warriors also believe they get more power via the riots. Then there are those who just want destruction because they have been brainwashed by power seeking charlatans. They are useful idiots.
> 
> Protests, on the other hand, are a viable political exercise, as long as those protesting are smart enough to identify and shun agent provocateurs.


Also, the Marxist protestors hate the private business and property owners (as well as private gun owners) more than they hate the cops and politicians.

----------


## phill4paul

> A 'proper' response to any verdict besides acquittal is 2 to 1 AR's at every "peaceful protest" regardless of the DA's opinions or LEO's barked instructions.
> 
> Come to think of it that's the proper response to all forms of tyranny and antisocial behavior. 
> 
> Kops and kourts only serve to punish AFTER something happens............Sometimes.
> 
> A well regulated militia could/should and would serve to keep the kops-n-kourts from having to get involved.
> 
> The system that permitted riots is permitting this trial, this system doesn't represent me!


  Bingo! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. With gravy on the side. 

  That is exactly the "protest" that is called for. Lines of armed individuals guarding personal property. In overwhelming numbers. Using everything considered "non-lethal" when $#@! gets out of hand and backing it with the threat of lethal force if it continues.  
  Already BLM/Antifa are outside the Kenosha courthouse threatening riots if Rittenhouse isn't convicted. If the police aren't going to quell this $#@! then it falls upon citizens like Kyle to take matters into their own hands.

----------


## 69360

> Bingo! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. With gravy on the side. 
> 
>   That is exactly the "protest" that is called for. Lines of armed individuals guarding personal property. In overwhelming numbers. Using everything considered "non-lethal" when $#@! gets out of hand and backing it with the threat of lethal force if it continues.  
>   Already BLM/Antifa are outside the Kenosha courthouse threatening riots if Rittenhouse isn't convicted. If the police aren't going to quell this $#@! then it falls upon citizens like Kyle to take matters into their own hands.


Let them burn down their own neighborhoods and cities. $#@! it, who cares.

----------


## phill4paul

> Let them burn down their own neighborhoods and cities. $#@! it, who cares.


   You should. BLM/Antifa are not organic to a local community. There are agitators that travel to locations to incite. Not a single business owner in Kenosha wanted their property destroyed. And a community should come together to protect their own.

----------


## Ender

> 


Actually, it was 14 year olds who were part of the local militias.

----------


## Origanalist

> A 'proper' response to any verdict besides acquittal is 2 to 1 AR's at every "peaceful protest" regardless of the DA's opinions or LEO's barked instructions.
> 
> Come to think of it that's the proper response to all forms of tyranny and antisocial behavior. 
> 
> Kops and kourts only serve to punish AFTER something happens............Sometimes.
> 
> A well regulated militia could/should and would serve to keep the kops-n-kourts from having to get involved.
> 
> The system that permitted riots is permitting this trial, this system doesn't represent me!


Doesn't represent me in the slightest.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> A 'proper' response to any verdict besides acquittal is 2 to 1 AR's at every "peaceful protest" regardless of the DA's opinions or LEO's barked instructions.
> 
> Come to think of it that's the proper response to all forms of tyranny and antisocial behavior. 
> 
> Kops and kourts only serve to punish AFTER something happens............Sometimes.
> 
> A well regulated militia could/should and would serve to keep the kops-n-kourts from having to get involved.
> 
> The system that permitted riots is permitting this trial, this system doesn't represent me!


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again._

----------


## CCTelander

> Let them burn down their own neighborhoods and cities. $#@! it, who cares.



"As much as 'sunshine soldiers' or 'summer patriots', beware an ally -- more common than you know -- whose fear of the uncertainties of success moves him to surrender at the very moment of victory." - L. Neil Smith

"It is moral weakness, rather than villainy, that accounts for most of the evil in the universe -- and feeble-hearted allies, far rather than your most powerful enemies, who are likeliest to do you an injury you cannot recover from." -L. Neil Smith

----------


## CCTelander

> Bingo! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. With gravy on the side. 
> 
>   That is exactly the "protest" that is called for. Lines of armed individuals guarding personal property. In overwhelming numbers. Using everything considered "non-lethal" when $#@! gets out of hand and backing it with the threat of lethal force if it continues.  
>   Already BLM/Antifa are outside the Kenosha courthouse threatening riots if Rittenhouse isn't convicted. If the police aren't going to quell this $#@! then it falls upon citizens like Kyle to take matters into their own hands.



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again."

----------


## CCTelander

> A 'proper' response to any verdict besides acquittal is 2 to 1 AR's at every "peaceful protest" regardless of the DA's opinions or LEO's barked instructions.
> 
> Come to think of it that's the proper response to all forms of tyranny and antisocial behavior. 
> 
> Kops and kourts only serve to punish AFTER something happens............Sometimes.
> 
> A well regulated militia could/should and would serve to keep the kops-n-kourts from having to get involved.
> 
> The system that permitted riots is permitting this trial, this system doesn't represent me!



+rep

----------


## RJB

Hey, what was the deal with the prosecutors claiming that "Kyle pointed the gun at the man in the yellow pants?"  The defense attorneys looked pissed at him and the judge acted like Binger was making stuff up.  I have been looking for an explanation but it just goes back to the judge admonishing the prostitutor.

----------


## CCTelander

> A 'proper' response to any verdict besides acquittal is 2 to 1 AR's at every "peaceful protest" regardless of the DA's opinions or LEO's barked instructions.
> 
> *Come to think of it that's the proper response to all forms of tyranny and antisocial behavior.* 
> 
> Kops and kourts only serve to punish AFTER something happens............Sometimes.
> 
> A well regulated militia could/should and would serve to keep the kops-n-kourts from having to get involved.
> 
> The system that permitted riots is permitting this trial, this system doesn't represent me!



I just thought this needed to be emphasized ...  over and over again.

----------


## phill4paul

> Hey, what was the deal with the prosecutors claiming that "Kyle pointed the gun at the man in the yellow pants?"  The defense attorneys looked pissed at him and the judge acted like Binger was making stuff up.  I have been looking for an explanation but it just goes back to the judge admonishing the prostitutor.


  Bull$#@! as far as I can tell. I don't remember specific testimony to this affect, although I've seen a lot I haven't seen it all. I think it comes down to the prosecutions use of an "enhanced photo" that showed Kyle pointing the gun at someone with the weapon left sided rather than the right. The defense claims it was a car mirror as Kyle is right handed.

----------


## tod evans

Another day of deliberation.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Should have been a 15 minute deliberation.  One minute to make the decision and 14 minutes to have coffee and donuts before returning to the court room.

This is probably not good.

----------


## tod evans

> Should have been a 15 minute deliberation.  One minute to make the decision and 14 minutes to have coffee and donuts before returning to the court room.
> 
> This is probably not good.


When is the last time you know of 7 women agreeing on anything?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is probably not good.


Prediction?

Convicted on "lesser" charges, Murder two or manslaughter.

Ten years in prison.

----------


## kahless

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kyl...-21/index.html



> Rittenhouse jury concludes deliberations for the day, will resume Wednesday 
> The jurors in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse have concluded deliberating for the day.
> 
> The 12 juror panel is expected to resume deliberating at 10 a.m. ET Wednesday morning.
> 
> Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder said the jurors asked to break for the evening. 
> 
> Jurors in the case will not be sequestered, Schroeder said. 
> 
> ...


I wonder how many wanted to go home and watch CNN or MSNBC before making their decision.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> When is the last time you know of 7 women agreeing on anything?


Right.  Contrary broads who shouldn't be trusted with life-or-death decisions, let alone shopping lists.  Been married twice and wouldn't do it again for a million bucks.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Prediction?
> 
> Convicted on "lesser" charges, Murder two or manslaughter.
> 
> Ten years in prison.


If that's the case, we're dealing with 12 cowards.  Anything short of acquittal in this case is a matter of jury intimidation.  

Hopefully Schoeder declares a mistrial if that is the case - he should, and he should denounce Binder for prosecutorial malpractice.

If anything, this case should have exposed to the people just exactly what scumbags and liars prosecutors are.  They're not to be trusted.

----------


## phill4paul

> Should have been a 15 minute deliberation.  One minute to make the decision and 14 minutes to have coffee and donuts before returning to the court room.
> 
> This is probably not good.


  That's an old canard. There's nothing wrong with a deliberation longer than 15 minutes.

----------


## kahless

> If that's the case, we're dealing with 12 cowards.  Anything short of acquittal in this case is a matter of jury intimidation.  
> 
> Hopefully Schoeder declares a mistrial if that is the case - he should, and he should denounce Binder for prosecutorial malpractice.
> 
> If anything, this case should have exposed to the people just exactly what scumbags and liars prosecutors are.  They're not to be trusted.


If convicted it will send a message to the nation that the rule of law is a joke and the country is too partisan brainwashed to have juries.  That is not a good message to send.  

Only one case and one person, but it would be one of many decisions being made by government effectively telling the people America is done.  A message that if you defend yourself be prepared to either evade the law, fight back with armed resistance against the police or go to jail.  Not good.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> That's an old canard. There's nothing wrong with a deliberation longer than 15 minutes.


Hope you're right.

----------


## spudea

or they didn't want to release a verdict at night, to disperse the likely rioters that were already gathering.  Much better to release the verdict early in the day.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Right.  Contrary broads who shouldn't be trusted with life-or-death decisions, let alone shopping lists.  Been married twice and wouldn't do it again for a million bucks.


No third strike for me either.

Sorry I missed your call the other day.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That's an old canard. There's nothing wrong with a deliberation longer than 15 minutes.


No, but this case shouldn't require more than a couple of hours at most, *if* the jurors are being honest with themselves.

----------


## Occam's Banana



----------


## kahless



----------


## TheTexan

> I don't mean to get all woo woo, but I just have an eerie premonition that no matter the verdict, it's going to be bad.  Yeah, the summer of 2020 was rough, but honestly, watching the riots was just a perverse form of entertainment for most people.  Right now, everybody has been on edge.  Conservative minded people are waking up enough to demand schools not indoctrinate.  The government is calling them terrorists.  The 2nd Ammendment and the right to self defense is a line in the sand that many in this country instinctively hold and I see many progressives ready to challenge that after angrily watching the misinformation that passes as news for the last few years.  That's reaching critical mass with this latest trial.  
> 
> I just have a feeling that this might be the tipping point.


The prosecution's entire case was basically an attack on self defense and the 2A in general.  It had nothing to do with the laws on the books.

This country has become lawless and it will be downhill from here.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yeah, the summer of 2020 was rough, but honestly, watching the riots was just a perverse form of entertainment for most people.  ...


Back to basics, winter is here. It generally isn't rioting season. Too cold. Police can use water cannons, freeze everyone.

----------


## CCTelander

> Quite.



We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. - Benjamin Franklin

----------


## phill4paul

> “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” - Benjamin Franklin


  This.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Carlson addressing this exact issue right now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't mean to get all woo woo, but I just have an eerie premonition that no matter the verdict, it's going to be bad.  Yeah, the summer of 2020 was rough, but honestly, watching the riots was just a perverse form of entertainment for most people.  Right now, everybody has been on edge.  Conservative minded people are waking up enough to demand schools not indoctrinate.  The government is calling them terrorists.  The 2nd Ammendment and the right to self defense is a line in the sand that many in this country instinctively hold and I see many progressives ready to challenge that after angrily watching the misinformation that passes as news for the last few years.  That's reaching critical mass with this latest trial.  
> 
> I just have a feeling that this might be the tipping point.

----------


## 69360

> I don't mean to get all woo woo, but I just have an eerie premonition that no matter the verdict, it's going to be bad.  Yeah, the summer of 2020 was rough, but honestly, watching the riots was just a perverse form of entertainment for most people.  Right now, everybody has been on edge.  Conservative minded people are waking up enough to demand schools not indoctrinate.  The government is calling them terrorists.  The 2nd Ammendment and the right to self defense is a line in the sand that many in this country instinctively hold and I see many progressives ready to challenge that after angrily watching the misinformation that passes as news for the last few years.  That's reaching critical mass with this latest trial.  
> 
> I just have a feeling that this might be the tipping point.


I don't. They only did this whole arrest and trial for show back then to keep the city from burning. Now rather quietly he is on the way to aquittal. There might be a few made for TV moments but by and large nothing is going to happen, the idiots have moved on to the next big outrage already.

There is no news any more. It's all lies and propaganda. They don't even try to hide that anymore.

----------


## TheTexan

> I don't. They only did this whole arrest and trial for show back then to keep the city from burning. Now rather quietly he is on the way to aquittal. There might be a few made for TV moments but by and large nothing is going to happen, the idiots have moved on to the next big outrage already.


I'm inclined to agree.  I'm sure an acquittal will add fuel to whatever next outrage is to occur.

But I don't expect much to occur as a direct result.

----------


## agitator

Jump-kick man identified in Rittenhouse case…

https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...tenhouse-case/

----------


## TheTexan

> Jump-kick man identified in Rittenhouse case…
> 
> https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...tenhouse-case/


Another innocent demonstrator, bravely responding to the threat of an active shooter

----------


## Occam's Banana

The defense's motion for mistrial with prejudice has been released. I am skeptical that it will be granted. I doubt the judge wants to hold on to this particular hot potato - so he'll just toss it back to the jury after finding some excuse(s) to deny the motion. But who knows? It will be interesting to see how thing turn out, no matter which way it goes.

[Discussion of the motion starts at 29:55 in the video.]

*Kyle Rittenhouse Motion to Dismiss AND MORE!*
https://odysee.com/@RekietaLaw:a/kyl...-dismiss-and:d
_Time for a night stream! Kyle Rittenhouse's motion to dismiss has been released and it is EXPLOSIVE. Let's read it and talk about it._


Here are PNG images of the motion document (hidden to save space):

* *

----------


## Occam's Banana

Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 13 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 Trial LIVE - Jury Deliberations DAY 2*
_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=Qbnc9IfSe3Q

----------


## tod evans

*This is new evidence (against the prosecutor) and a new filing from yesterday.*

----------


## Invisible Man

> Jump-kick man identified in Rittenhouse case…
> 
> https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...tenhouse-case/


I read through that fairly quick and may have missed something. But do we know how reliable that identification is?

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## A Son of Liberty

> 


I believe he only used 6, and I believe all 6 hit the intended targets.

----------


## spudea

> I believe he only used 6, and I believe all 6 hit the intended targets.


6 did hit, the prosecution claimed he fired at jump kick man and missed.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## RJB

> I believe he only used 6, and I believe all 6 hit the intended targets.


I may be wrong but I think that I heard he shot at the "High Kick Man" twice and missed.

ETA: Ooops, Spudea beat me to it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I'm *really* thinking now that the Bolshevik mob has the jury running scared, and they're gonna burn this kid.

Hope I'm wrong...


*Rittenhouse Jury Asks About Videos; Judge: ‘My Nightmare Has Come True’*

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2021...has-come-true/

JOEL B. POLLAK 17 Nov 2021

The jury in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse asked Judge Bruce Schroeder in the Kenosha County Court on Wednesday morning whether it should view video evidence in court or in private, prompting the judge to quip: “My nightmare has come true.”

The judge was referring to controversies over the video evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial, including whether zoomed-in images enhanced by artificial intelligence were admissible, and whether the prosecution withheld a higher resolution version of a video than the version that had been provided to the defense until the last day of the trial.

The defense moved to dismiss the case on Tuesday, arguing that the prosecution had improperly withheld the evidence.

It was not immediately clear which video, in particular, the jury was asking to review, on its second day of deliberations.

The jury asked two questions — one about where to view the video, and the other about the numberings of video evidence exhibits.

During closing argument last Friday, the prosecution attempted to use high-resolution video to argue that Rittenhouse had raised his rifle and aimed it before he was charged by Joseph Rosenbaum, the first person he shot during the riot on Aug. 25, 2020. The defense argued — with the jury absent — that the prosecution had used an invalid method to enhance the image, and told the jury that Rittenhouse had been facing the opposite direction and would not have aimed a rifle with his left hand.

Ultimately, the judge said that the jury would view the video in court, with all spectators and lawyers absent.

Judge Schroeder also addressed controversies in the media, including his decision to prohibit the prosecution from referring to the three men shot by Rittenhouse (one of whom survived and testified) as “victims,” his unusual practice of allowing the defendant to draw the numbers of six alternate jurors out of a barrel, and his delay on defense motions to dismiss the case.

He also blasted harassment directed against both the prosecution and defense attorneys, calling it “shameful, some of the things that are being done to these people.” He added that he might not be inclined to allow trials to be televised in future.

On Tuesday, the first day of deliberations, the jury asked specifically for 11 additional copies of the instructions on self-defense. The request to review video evidence suggests that they are studying the question of self-defense very closely.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I read through that fairly quick and may have missed something. But do we know how reliable that identification is?


There's a bit more information here, but still not fully confirmed:

*Rittenhouse Trial: Maurice Freeland Suspected of Being Jump Kick Man*
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/20...jump-kick-man/
_Jim Piwowarczyk & Jessica McBride (16 November 2021)_

Maurice Freeland, a felon with a long criminal history and an open domestic violence charge, is accused of being the mysterious supposedly unidentified man known as Jump Kick Man during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

Wisconsin Right Now has learned from a law enforcement source in a position to know that prosecutors informed the Rittenhouse defense team only last Thursday, Nov. 11, 2021, as the trial came to an end, that Freeland had come forward claiming to be Jump Kick Man.

Freeland is listed as being in the custody of the Kenosha County Jail as of Nov. 16, 2021. His most recent booking is listed as a probation hold with no bond.

Its not clear when Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger and his boss, DA Mike Graveley, first learned about Freelands claims, the source said. Clearly, it would be a much bigger issue if the prosecution knew his identity for longer because the defense might have wanted to call or cross-examine him or track him down and vet the story; Wisconsin Right Now wrote Graveley and Binger and asked them for comment, and neither wrote back.

Our source added additional details, saying that authorities were unable to do effective facial recognition analysis to prove definitively that Freeland was Jump Kick Man because videos and photos dont show enough of his face, partly because he was masked.

WISN 1130 talk radio host Dan ODonnell first broke the story that prosecutors had identified Jump Kick Man, although he chose not to name him. Our source then provided his name and gave additional details, also confirming ODonnells account that prosecutors told the defense team that Freeland allegedly wanted immunity for an ongoing criminal case, which prosecutor Thomas Binger didnt grant.

Maurice Freeland was on the streets the night of the Rittenhouse shootings less than two months after getting a plea deal and probation in a domestic abuse case. Binger referred to the men who attacked Rittenhouse as people stopping an active shooter.

Jump Kick Man, who delivered a flying kick to Rittenhouses head after Rittenhouse fell to the ground, a move caught in some of the most searing imagery in the case, supposedly remained unidentified until the end of the trial; the jury instructions, which charge Rittenhouse with endangering his life, refer to him as an unknown man.

[...]

Freeland has several Facebook pages. His most recent is in the name of Maurice Gohard Freeland and says he also goes by the name King Reese. It doesnt have much on it thats visible. Both prosecutors in the case, Thomas Binger and James Kraus, handled some of his previous court hearings on other charges, and he has appeared before Judge Bruce Schroeder in a past case also, according to court records.

[...]

*Jump Kick Man*

Jump Kick Man is a critical figure because Rittenhouse is facing a serious charge relating to allegedly shooting at, and missing, him. His attorneys argue that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Rittenhouse shot and killed Anthony Huber a few seconds later; Huber was hitting him with a skateboard and trying to grab his gun when he opened fire. Then, Gaige Grosskreutz, per his own testimony, moved toward Rittenhouse while pointing a gun at him, and Rittenhouse shot him.

During opening statements, Binger called him the unknown individual.

During opening statements, Binger said this about Jump Kick Man: An individual who is the subject of count number two, the unknown individual, runs in at that point and attempts to kick the defendant in the face while the defendant is on the ground. This unknown individual is unarmed. The defendant, in response, points his AR-15 directly at this individual as this individual is literally flying over his body, and discharges that gun twice.

In the case shortly before the Rittenhouse shootings, Maurice Freeland was convicted of domestic abuse battery, a misdemeanor. Other charges were dismissed or read in, in exchange for his guilty plea in a plea agreement. Binger was the attorney for the state at his March 23, 2020, initial appearance. On June 29, 2020, Judge Mary Kay Wagner sentence Maurice Freeland to 12 months probation.

That was less than two months before the Rittenhouse shootings.

[...]

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> 6 did hit, the prosecution claimed he fired at jump kick man and missed.





> I may be wrong but I think that I heard he shot at the "High Kick Man" twice and missed.


Was evidence presented that he fired 8 times?  Just curious - as far as I'm aware he did not fire at "jump kick man", but I don't know how many cartridges were loaded in his mag, and how many were remaining when presented as evidence, or if casings were collected at the scene after the fact, etc.  

For the record, even if he did squeeze off 2 at "jump kick man", he still landed 6 of 8 shots, and his 2 misses went skyward, and not into a crowd.  That's better than most cops, military, and I'd bet competitive with most SF.

----------


## RJB

> Was evidence presented that he fired 8 times?  Just curious - as far as I'm aware he did not fire at "jump kick man", but I don't know how many cartridges were loaded in his mag, and how many were remaining when presented as evidence, or if casings were collected at the scene after the fact, etc.  
> 
> For the record, even if he did squeeze off 2 at "jump kick man", he still landed 6 of 8 shots, and his 2 misses went skyward, and not into a crowd.  That's better than most cops, military, and I'd bet competitive with most SF.


I thought I heard the prosecutor mention those shots.  I am not sure to be honest.

But yeah, what he did, especially from the ground was impressive.  I have had some training with using a firearm during an attack that included firing when grappling, getting hit and moving and firing during a fall and from on the ground.  That kid, even if he missed two shots was beyond impressive.  Shooting while relaxed is one thing.  Shooting and hitting the target with adreniline at full blast is another, especially not emptying the mag.  I got so pissed at the prosecutor for getting at him over Gaige.  Most people, IMO, wouldn't have withheld fire when Gaige lowered his handgun.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ...whether the prosecution withheld a higher resolution version of a video than the version that had been provided to the defense until the last day of the trial. ...


This is becoming a big deal. Arguments are going on between Defense and Prosecution over file names and file sizes. Prosecution is claiming innocence, but they aren’t very convincing.

The problem is that this particular video is supposed to show a new accusation by the prosecution that Rittenhouse pointed a gun at someone before Rittenhouse was attacked. There is no evidence to support this, and this video is the only “evidence” the prosecution has given. Even the high resolution version is not clear enough to prove anything.

Another key aspect of this video is that no one has testified to actually recording the video. Who recorded it? Who gave it to the prosecution? Why was it held by the prosecution until the last minute?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

This case has shown the lengths that prosecutors will go to, to win convictions at the expense of justice.  These are people without principle, and without moral compasses.  They do not care about you, and if you find yourself under the gaze of the eye of Sauron, rest assured that you will be ruined before they will relent... unless you're a member of the elite; then, you'll walk away unmolested, and your story will disappear from the pages of the media, and we'll move along to the next Big Outrage.  

YOU will always pay the price, no matter how small; and THEY will always walk away, no matter how great the cost.  

You're not governed.  You're not even ruled.  You're subjugated.  And you will either get in line and stay in line, or you will be destroyed.  And they won't shed the slightest trickle of a tear in remorse.  

They hate you.  HATE THEM BACK.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I'm *really* thinking now that the Bolshevik mob has the jury running scared, and they're gonna burn this kid.
> 
> Hope I'm wrong...
> 
> 
> *Rittenhouse Jury Asks About Videos; Judge: ‘My Nightmare Has Come True’*


I hope this is just the jury _appearing_ like they are deeply considering all the evidence.  The question here is so insanely simple:  "Did the kid defend himself against attack?"

If that isn't obvious from a single look at each situation, I don't know that more views could make it clearer.  The kid was in the middle of a war zone while people were chasing him and attacking him - perhaps they should have shown the jury what happens to people like him who DON'T have an AR!!  (Of course, that evidence is not admissible.)

----------


## Dr.3D

Could it be the video was compressed to a lower resolution to be sent as an email?

----------


## Voluntarist

> They're not there to deliberate on the backlash, they're there to deliberate on whether the facts of the case warrant a conviction or not.


Pragmatically, a Fully Informed Juror is there to act according to the dictates of their own conscience. Usually we hear of that in terms of a juror setting aside a law they deem invalid and voting to acquit (like many drug possession charges have been). But a juror can pretty much consider anything they want to in reaching a decision. It's the Yin/Yang of Fully Informed Juries - the judgement's not always going to go the way someone outside the jury thinks it ought to go, and it's not always going to be decided on the facts of the case. As a juror, you can save a life, or take one. It's just a sad reality of our jury-based justice system. Sometimes we celebrate that, other times we mourn it.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Could it be the video was compressed to a lower resolution to be sent as an email?


That's what I initially thought. Doesn't explain the 20 minute difference in creation date. Doesn't explain any different titles.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Could it be the video was compressed to a lower resolution to be sent as an email?


Yes, it was.  But that's not a legitimate excuse for providing the defense with a lower quality video than the prosecution was in possession.  

There are thumb drives.  There is DropBox.  There are a multitude of ways to provide the same quality video.  

This merely continues the prosecution's clear misconduct in this case.  The judge should declare a mistrial with prejudice, not because it would be good for Kyle, but because it would indicate to prosecutors everywhere that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated.  These DA's should be disbarred, at a minimum.  There was a time in this country when their fate would have justifiably been quite worse.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yes, it was.  But that's not a legitimate excuse for providing the defense with a lower quality video than the prosecution was in possession.  
> 
> There are thumb drives.  There is DropBox.  There are a multitude of ways to provide the same quality video.  
> 
> This merely continues the prosecution's clear misconduct in this case.  The judge should declare a mistrial with prejudice, not because it would be good for Kyle, but because it would indicate to prosecutors everywhere that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated.  These DA's should be disbarred, at a minimum.  There was a time in this country when their fate would have justifiably been quite worse.


I agree!

And it did change the aspect ratio.  That wouldn't happen in a normal compression to a lower resolution.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Yes, it was.  But that's not a legitimate excuse for providing the defense with a lower quality video than the prosecution was in possession.  
> 
> There are thumb drives.  There is DropBox.  There are a multitude of ways to provide the same quality video.  
> 
> This merely continues the prosecution's clear misconduct in this case.  The judge should declare a mistrial with prejudice, not because it would be good for Kyle, but because it would indicate to prosecutors everywhere that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated.  These DA's should be disbarred, at a minimum.  There was a time in this country when their fate would have justifiably been quite worse.


He sent it from his Gmail, Kraus said, I know that Gmail allows file sizes of 20MB, I am not aware that they compress video's sent. When you send it from your phone, it can ask I guess if it needs to attach a smaller version. However, if you are forwarding an email, as I believe Kraus claimed to have done, it only asks you if you want to maintain the attachments according to my experience. So either way it seems he is telling a different truth. Or of course, his iPhone works different than mine.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I agree!
> 
> And it did change the aspect ratio.  That wouldn't happen in a normal compression to a lower resolution.





> He sent it from his Gmail, Kraus said, I know that Gmail allows file sizes of 20MB, I am not aware that they compress video's sent. When you send it from your phone, it can ask I guess if it needs to attach a smaller version. However, if you are forwarding an email, as I believe Kraus claimed to have done, it only asks you if you want to maintain the attachments according to my experience. So either way it seems he is telling a different truth. Or of course, his iPhone works different than mine.


Concur with both of you.

The bottom line is that the prosecution has CLEARLY engaged in willful misconduct, and it should be an OUTRAGE to all right thinking people.  

Let this be an eye-opener to all the "thin blue line" conservatives out there: this is your justice system.  This is how it "works".  State's attorneys DO NOT GIVE A $#@! about whether you are innocent or are guilty.  They care about their stats, and their careers.  They will ruin your life over a 2% pay increase, and won't lose a minute's sleep over you.  

THIS IS THE STATE.  You're waving flags on behalf of sociopaths.

----------


## 69360

> Concur with both of you.
> 
> The bottom line is that the prosecution has CLEARLY engaged in willful misconduct, and it should be an OUTRAGE to all right thinking people.  
> 
> Let this be an eye-opener to all the "thin blue line" conservatives out there: this is your justice system.  This is how it "works".  State's attorneys DO NOT GIVE A $#@! about whether you are innocent or are guilty.  They care about their stats, and their careers.  They will ruin your life over a 2% pay increase, and won't lose a minute's sleep over you.  
> 
> THIS IS THE STATE.  You're waving flags on behalf of sociopaths.


The country is $#@!ed. It's over. Most of us know that. I still vote mostly for republicans because they are marginally better. But I have no illusions that they can save us.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Particularly of note is Viva's addendum to the full video at the end, where he discusses the prosecution's apparent knowledge of "jump kick man".  

Just further evidence of the muck, rot and malfeasance that you can expect to encounter in our so-called "judicial system".

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The country is $#@!ed. It's over. Most of us know that. I still vote mostly for republicans because they are marginally better. But I have no illusions that they can save us.


Yes, it is over, but they are not done with you yet.  Our mere existence is a threat to them.  And by "our" I mean only those who even incrementally disagree with them.  They're infected with a mind disease, and their only impetus is to destroy everything that disagrees with them.

----------


## phill4paul

Defense asking for a mistrial without prejudice? What the holy hell??

----------


## 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.

----------


## Anti Federalist

The Marxist media organs are enemies of the people.



*10 Media Myths Exploded During the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial*

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-or...enhouse-trial/

JOEL B. POLLAK 18 Nov 2021

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has busted several myths propagated by the media and the Democrats about what happened during the Black Lives Matter riots on Aug. 25, 2020 — which then-candidate Joe Biden failed to condemn until the third day.

1. “White supremacist”: There was never any evidence that Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist,” even by the time Biden made that false claim last September. The prosecution confirmed that fact during the trial when it failed to produce evidence of any kind that Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist” or had racial motivations. The owners of the car dealership who asked Rittenhouse and others for help were Indian-American.

2. Rittenhouse shot first: Actually, a rioter named Joshua Ziminski was the first to fire shots during the fateful melée at the car dealership that Rittenhouse had rushed to protect. Though Rittenhouse testified that he did not see or hear the shots, they were the first ones fired that evening, shortly before Rittenhouse shot his first pursuer, a rioter named Joseph Rosenbaum.

3. Rosenbaum was a “peaceful protester”: Though the prosecution tried to portray Rosenbaum as a concerned citizen who just happened to show up at the riot, even Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had to admit that Rosenbaum had been committing violent acts that night, including setting things on fire, and using the “N-word” to threaten other people. Binger tried to make light of the crimes Rosenbaum committed — an odd strategy, considering he is prosecuting Ziminski for arson.

4. Rittenhouse was never in danger: The prosecution tried to argue that the defendant was never in mortal danger, and that he could have retreated in a safer direction. But even the prosecution acknowledged that Rittenhouse was trying to “save his own skin,” as if that were a bad thing. So Assistant District Attorney James Kraus tried a new strategy: he argued that the defendant should have allowed himself to be attacked rather than shooting, because “everybody takes a beating sometimes.”

5. The “victims” were unarmed: Rosenbaum did not attack Rittenhouse with a weapon, though he wielded a chain earlier in the evening. But Anthony Huber smashed Rittenhouse over the head with a skateboard — twice — and Gaige Grosskreutz, who was wounded, had a pistol that he was not even licensed to carry. Grosskreutz testified that he had pointed the gun at Rittenhouse before the defendant fired — a shocking admission that seemed to confirm Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument.

6. Rittenhouse broke gun laws: The media claimed that Rittenhouse had broken gun laws because he was too young to be in possession of a weapon, or had driven it across state lines. Politifact even ran a “fact-check” against the claim that he was “perfectly” entitled to have his AR-15 rifle. But as prosecutors eventually admitted, Rittenhouse was legally in possession of the rifle because he was over the age of 16 and it was long-barreled. It was also kept at a friend’s house in Wisconsin.

7. Rittenhouse “crossed state lines”: It is true that Rittenhouse is from Antioch, Illinois. But he was working last summer as a lifeguard in Wisconsin, and his father lives in Kenosha — a fact that tripped the prosecution when they tried to portray Rittenhouse as a kind of outsider, a “chaos tourist” who neither cared about nor was familiar with the local community.

8. Rittenhouse’s mother drove him to the riot: This myth, still propagated by CNN, was exploded at the trial. She was not even in the state; Rittenhouse arrived on the scene with other people, as even the prosecution admitted during the trial.

9. Rittenhouse came to kill: Rittenhouse’s own testimony provided strong evidence that he had come to help. He offered medical assistance to rioters — even though he lied about being qualified to do so — and did not shoot anyone who did not attack him, even if they were armed and dangerous. One witness testified that Rittenhouse had even deescalated a conflict.

10. The Kenosha protests were “peaceful”: The jury saw lengthy footage of riots; what they did not see, but which emerged in media reports during the trial, was that the alleged “victims” all had criminal records. That would not, in itself, justify the shootings, but the high proportion of convicted violent criminals among the “peaceful protesters” was a revelation.

----------


## TheTexan

> Ya beat me by a 4 minutes.
> 
> If there is no mistrial ruling, this kid will burn.
> 
> And we will do nothing about it.


Out of respect for Kyle, out of respect for the jury, out of respect for justice, the Constitution, blah blah etc.

The judge needs to dismiss this with prejudice...immediately.

----------


## Anti Globalist



----------


## TheTexan

> The section with the red arrow is impossible to place within the entire frame when zoomed out.

----------


## TheTexan

> It's in the short video below.. I found it the other day, both versions side by side on google images.. I thought I had posted it, but can't find it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a zoomed in version, notice that if he is "pointing the gun" it would appear he is holding it left handed.. but it could also just as easily be the strap, or something else.


In that photo, apparently Kyle had let a huge fart out at the same time.  The lady to the right of him got almost obliterated entirely with a stream of pure white pixels.

----------


## TheTexan

Zoom.  Enhance.  Zoom.  Enhance.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

The jury will go a long time. Then tell the judge they are hopelessly deadlocked. Not innocent, not guilty. The end for now. No accountability. Cannot tell judge they are hopelessly deadlocked after 10 minutes thus the long drawn out deliberations. JMHO.

----------


## TheTexan

> The jury will go a long time. Then tell the judge they are hopelessly deadlocked. Not innocent, not guilty. The end for now. No accountability. Cannot tell judge they are hopelessly deadlocked after 10 minutes thus the long drawn out deliberations. JMHO.


The theory on the Rekieta Law channel is that some leftist Karen is the jury foreperson and because all jury communications go through her, this will definitely go on for a long time.

----------


## Anti Federalist

This just keeps getting better...

*Rittenhouse Attorneys: Prosecutors Knew Who ‘Jump Kick Man’ Was*

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-or...-kick-man-was/

JOEL B. POLLAK 19 Nov 2021

Defense attorneys for 18-year-old defendant Kyle Rittenhouse told Fox News on Thursday that the mysterious “jump kick man” had been identified — and that prosecutors had known his identity all along, but had not brought him to testify.

“Jump kick man” was seen in video of the Kenosha riots on August 25, 2020, pursuing Rittenhouse and kicking him in the face as Rittenhouse attempted to flee to police and stumbled onto the ground. Rittenhouse fired his rifle twice at “jump kick man,” but missed.

One of the two charges of reckless endangerment that Rittenhouse now faces is a result of that altercation — one of five charges currently being considered by the jury — even though prosecutors never named the alleged victim.

Fox News reported that the man is named Maurice Freeland, and that he has a lengthy criminal record. According to Fox, citing defense attorneys, he told prosecutors he would testify in exchange for immunity, but they refused the deal:

The man known as “jump kick man” during the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is 39-year-old Maurice Freeland of Wisconsin, defense attorneys revealed to Fox News Thursday.

…

Freeland approached the prosecution to testify in exchange for immunity for other charges, including a DUI, but they rejected the offer, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Wisconsin arrest records show that Freeland has a lengthy criminal history, including charges for battery, disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana and other offenses this year.

They also apparently withheld his name from the defense, preventing Rittenhouse’s attorneys from calling him as a witness. That could prompt the defense to file a new motion for a mistrial, in addition to the two that are already pending with the judge.

Prosecutors have also faced criticism for charging Joshua Ziminski with arson. Ziminski allegedly fired the first shots that night, before Rittenhouse fired at his first assailant, but his pending testimony in his arson trial means that he could not be compelled to testify in the Rittenhouse trial because that might violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

----------


## phill4paul

From what I have been reading the jury stands 6-6. Juror #54, the foreman, seems to be on the prosecutions side. No matter how long the foreman holds up the verdict I don't see how they can get to 12-0.

----------


## Invisible Man

> From what I have been reading the jury stands 6-6. Juror #54, the foreman, seems to be on the prosecutions side. No matter how long the foreman holds up the verdict I don't see how they can get to 12-0.


How can anybody know that? Is a juror leaking this to someone?

----------


## phill4paul

> How can anybody know that? Is a juror leaking this to someone?


  Supposedly Newsmax overheard one of the defense lawyers say it.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Supposedly Newsmax overheard one of the defense lawyers say it.


Maybe this is a stupid question, but should the lawyers be privvy to that?

When I was on a jury, they weren't. Granted, we didn't deliberate for days on end either.

I wonder if the lawyer was just speaking hypothetically.

----------


## phill4paul

> Maybe this is a stupid question, but should the lawyers be privvy to that?
> 
> When I was on a jury, they weren't. Granted, we didn't deliberate for days on end either.
> 
> I wonder if the lawyer was just speaking hypothetically.


 I have no idea. Just putting it out there.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> From what I have been reading the jury stands 6-6. Juror #54, the foreman, seems to be on the prosecutions side. No matter how long the foreman holds up the verdict I don't see how they can get to 12-0.


6 - 6?

That's staggering.

Separation, now.

----------


## phill4paul

> 6 - 6?
> 
> That's staggering.
> 
> Separation, now.


  Crazy, huh? I was able to watch a large portion of the trial  and I just don't see how anyone could vote to convict unless they had Marxist sympathies.

----------


## otherone

> 6 - 6?
> 
> That's staggering.
> 
> Separation, now.


Not really. It's where the country is now.
Should have been a mistrial.  Jury won't budge, and there's enough crap coming out now that will preclude a retrial.

----------


## Suzu

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x06jrOId-mo


Thank you. I suppose that's as good as it gets. It shows nothing recognizable (to me) as Mr. Rittenhouse or a gun of any kind.

----------


## TheTexan

> Not really. It's where the country is now.
> Should have been a mistrial.  Jury won't budge, and there's enough crap coming out now that will preclude a retrial.


Yep, 6 - 6 is about what I would expect.

Which is, of course, ridiculous, but.... that's where the country is now.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Crazy, huh? I was able to watch a large portion of the trial  and I just don't see how anyone could vote to convict unless they had Marxist sympathies.


There's a ton of $#@!ery going on.  Some people really think you should just call the police if there's any sign of trouble.  It's been bred into them since they first stepped foot into public schools or turned on a TV.  To those types of people, just the fact that Kyle was there meant that he wasn't defending himself.

Obviously, that's not the law, but the prosecution has been railroading this kid so hard that matters of law don't matter.  Major $#@!ery.

----------


## TheTexan

> There's a ton of $#@!ery going on.  Some people really think you should just call the police if there's any sign of trouble.  It's been bred into them since they first stepped foot into public schools or turned on a TV.  To those types of people, just the fact that Kyle was there meant that he wasn't defending himself.
> 
> Obviously, that's not the law, but the prosecution has been railroading this kid so hard that matters of law don't matter.  Major $#@!ery.


The prosecutor was pretty much like, why were you putting out fires to begin with?  Why didn't you just call 911 like a normal person?

(which is ridiculous on the face of it because the police were just down the street and not doing jack $#@! but w/e)

----------


## CaptUSA

> The prosecutor was pretty much like, why were you putting out fires to begin with?  Why didn't you just call 911 like a normal person?
> 
> (which is ridiculous on the face of it because the police were just down the street and not doing jack $#@! but w/e)


I'm just thankful that the American Justice system still allows for one sane, rational person to hang juries.  I know I wouldn't want to be judged by most of my "peers".

----------


## CaptUSA

They're coming back in...  some are suggesting there's a verdict.

Live stream:

----------


## CaptUSA

THIS IS IT.

----------


## jkr

*HOLD!*

----------


## TheTexan



----------


## dannno

Verdict being read:

----------


## CaptUSA

NOT GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES!!!!!!

----------


## Dr.3D

Not Guilty on all counts.

----------


## jkr

THANK GOD!

----------


## Anti Globalist

$#@! YES!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## jkr

money well spent

----------


## Dary

It's time to SUE.

Let's get Brandon.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Binger needs to be disbarred immediately.

----------


## wizardwatson

If I'm understanding, the jury verdict was not guilty, but then the judge dismissed all counts with prejudice, which means he can't even be retried/appealed?

In other words, like the best of all possible outcomes here.

Is that right?

----------


## Invisible Man

Thank goodness!

----------


## Anti Globalist

Every MSM pundit, journalist, and politician that slandered Rittenhouse is about to be sued into oblivion.

----------


## CaptUSA

> If I'm understanding, the jury verdict was not guilty, but then the judge dismissed all counts with prejudice, which means he can't even be retried/appealed?
> 
> In other words, like the best of all possible outcomes here.
> 
> Is that right?


Formality.  A Not Guilty verdict means the charges are dismissed with prejudiced and they cannot be brought again.  But since that motion was still out there, he needed to close it out.

----------


## CaptUSA

Wow.  I'm surprised how relieved I am.  I was really prepared for the end of the concept of self-defense.

----------


## Invisible Man

We should start a volunteer service organization called the Kyle Rittenhouse Society that helps provide protection and services in times of unrest. Honor this young man as a hero for decades to come.

----------


## Cleaner44



----------


## kahless

The court returned an opinion that should have been obvious for a case that should have never went to trial in the first place.  

1. What case and other things did they not want the country paying attention to while they had the country distracted with this? 

2. What will they replace this with to continue to keep us distracted? (not so obvious, perhaps riots for a case anyone can see he was not guilty. So why riots to keep us distracted, see #1)

3.  If they do cover the other case in #1, the country will likely not pay attention due to court fatigue from following the Rittenhouse trial.

----------


## kahless

> Wow.  I'm surprised how relieved I am.  I was really prepared for the end of the concept of self-defense.


I was thinking the same thing all morning before the verdict.

----------


## pcosmar

Thank God.

I watched the verdict come in.. (refrained from the whole trial)

Had to run inside for a "Woo Hoo" moment. let everybody know.

Saw the kid drop to his knees too. 


I agree with a commenter,,"Breath Kid".

----------


## tod evans

WOOT!

----------


## spudea

holy cow, watching Kyle during the verdict was intense.  Case never should have been brought.

----------


## 69360

> We should start a volunteer service organization called the Kyle Rittenhouse Society that helps provide protection and services in times of unrest. Honor this young man as a hero for decades to come.


No, that is a horrible idea. Did you learn nothing from the BS they put this kid through? Don't get involved, these leftist $#@!s will try to get you any way they can. Only defend your own property and family. 

The kid was never guilty of breaking any laws, but I bet he wishes now he stayed at home that night.

----------


## Ender

> Wow.  I'm surprised how relieved I am.  I was really prepared for the end of the concept of self-defense.


YES! I am so happy for this kid & that there is an ounce of hope left in the system!

My gut feeling is that he had better "disappear" himself quickly before someone else does.

----------


## Dary

> ...I bet he wishes now he stayed at home that night.


I don't know.  I bet that if he doesn't feel good about things now, he will after he has a few hundred million dollars in his pocket.

----------


## Matt4Liberty

I can't believe how relieved I am at an outcome that should have been obvious from day one. This should have never even made it to trial.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Thank God.
> 
> I watched the verdict come in.. (refrained from the whole trial)
> 
> Had to run inside for a "Woo Hoo" moment. let everybody know.
> 
> Saw the kid drop to his knees too. 
> 
> 
> I agree with a commenter,,"Breath Kid".


I watched the entire trial since the formal part of the trial started. Based on all the testimony I saw as well as behaviour of everyone, I was solid for acquittal. The whole trial I watched the Law & Crime stream. During the jury deliberations I switched over to Rekieta law to have something to listen to... Interesting discussion mostly, but these people made me more nervous then I was before. (*I did not see all of it live, but I sure did see the verdict live.)

----------


## Anti Globalist

> Wow.  I'm surprised how relieved I am.  I was really prepared for the end of the concept of self-defense.


Same here.  Hopefully this is a sign of good things to come.  At the very least, we need to take victories wherever we can.

----------


## CaptUSA

Verdict Is In: Jury Finds Kyle Rittenhouse 'An Absolute Legend'
https://babylonbee.com/news/verdict-...GTsK7xuqLp0RgM

----------


## Jenard Butler

> I don't know.  I bet that if he doesn't feel good about things now, he will after he has a few hundred million dollars in his pocket.


That, and gaggles of hotties are gonna be throwing soaking wet panties at him for sometime to come.

----------


## Invisible Man

> No, that is a horrible idea. Did you learn nothing from the BS they put this kid through? Don't get involved, these leftist $#@!s will try to get you any way they can. Only defend your own property and family. 
> 
> The kid was never guilty of breaking any laws, but I bet he wishes now he stayed at home that night.


You're right. He sacrificed a great deal for his heroism.

He should be admired and celebrated for it. His sacrifices shouldn't go to waste.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Dr.3D

So what happens to the 2 million paid in bail?

----------


## Anti Globalist



----------


## Anti Globalist

Now we wait for the riots that will ravage across the country during the weekend.

----------


## RJB

> Now we wait for the riots that will ravage across the country during the weekend.


They won't dare touch my neighborhood.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The court returned an opinion that should have been obvious for a case that should have never went to trial in the first place.  
> 
> 1. What case and other things did they not want the country paying attention to while they had the country distracted with this?


Nancy Pelosi crony grab bag pork festival?




> 2. What will they replace this with to continue to keep us distracted? (not so obvious, perhaps riots for a case anyone can see he was not guilty. So why riots to keep us distracted, see #1)


Guy who shot Ahmaud Arbery?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> holy cow, watching Kyle during the verdict was intense.  Case never should have been brought.


What will they say on MSNBC this time? Fake tears again? Or "real tears this time because he got away with a white supremacist murder spree?"

----------


## dannno



----------


## dannno



----------


## dannno



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Now we wait for the riots that will ravage across the country during the weekend.

----------


## 69360

> I would agree that there are better ways to do something like that, with a little more organisation and the risk mitigation that comes from that. However, that's not to say it wasn't legal, as the result of the trial shows.


Yes legal, never a question of that. Ill advised on his part though.

----------


## Anti Globalist

> Cope harder, $#@!!
> 
> https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1461796805411287041

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...60825488777224

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Because of course they are:
> 
> https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status...73703058968582

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1461835678661156879

----------


## TheTexan

> They would be able to wield it as a cudgel for the rest of time


So?

Every second that trial was allowed to continue, was a travesty of justice.  To let that Kangaroo court continue "for the sake of appearances" does nothing except erode our own values in some cuckish attempt to keep the left's favor.

----------


## orafi

The Rittenhouse psyop has to be the gayest narrative to have come out in a while.

----------


## Occam's Banana

_Hmmmmm_ ... whatever could they have talked about, do you think ... ?

https://twitter.com/N1ckSandmann/sta...77342631153664

----------


## CaptUSA

> Source?


Will Wiki work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Lin_Wood

What do you want the source for?  That he worked for Trump during that time or that Trump's team sent him to Kenosha?

----------


## phill4paul

> Will Wiki work?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Lin_Wood
> 
> What do you want the source for?  That he worked for Trump during that time or that Trump's team sent him to Kenosha?


 I absolutely don't do wiki. Period. End. Stop. I won't dispute that he may, or may not have, worked for Trump during that time, but, you are gonna have to come up with some legit that Trump's team sent him.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> But think what this means.  I checked and it is the very same Lin Wood.  Which, let's remember what was going on at the time...  This was a political issue.  So, *Trump's legal team leveraged Wood and sent him up to Kenosha to use this kid as a political pawn piece.*  Is that what 3D chess really looks like?


That the trial was about Trump has been my take for a while now. It was political, and we have to put ourselves back at the time when it happened. I see three leftist establishment political agendas at work. 

As Rittenhouse said in his interview, it was about self-defense, and I would add it was very much about property defense and rights.

And as usual, it was about gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

But at the time that this happened, we need to refresh our memories to the fact that this was very much about Trump, and the upcoming election. They painted Rittenhouse as a racist white supremacist, a militia member, and more than anything, a deplorable, despicable, murderous Trump supporter.

And make no mistake, the left establishment still has a war and vendetta on all three of those fronts.




> Agree, but experience has shown that the left establishment are almost never held accountable. The prosecution of Rittenhouse was 100% political, decided upon before the DA had any evidence. It was done to satiate the leftist mobs, but more sinister, it was done as part of a DNC smear campaign on Trump supporters and white people. *Remember it was before the POTUS election*.
> 
> Some animals are more equal, and those animals are the establishment left.





> The prosecutor is claiming that his statements which Rittenhouse responds “yes” to allow him to go anywhere he wants with the questioning.
> 
> *Prosecutor has continually used the term “impeach”. He is “impeaching” Rittenhouse based upon words he put into Rittenhouse's mouth. It is also a subtle way to relate this to Trump.*
> 
> Judge is pissed because the Judge had already prohibited the prosecutor from the line of questioning the prosecutor is using. Prosecutor has also violated the law and established legal standards.





> And just a bit from Twitter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse is a super hero only to White supremacists, Trump supporters and Nazis.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## CaptUSA

> I absolutely don't do wiki. Period. End. Stop. I won't dispute that he may, or may not have, worked for Trump during that time, but, you are gonna have to come up with some legit that Trump's team sent him.


Sorry.  No source like that other than common sense.  If team Trump didn’t direct it, they damn sure would have told Lin to focus on winning.  That’s why Lin’s around.

----------


## phill4paul

> That has been my take for a while now. It was political, and we have to put ourselves back at the time when it happened. I see three leftist establishment political agendas at work. 
> 
> As Rittenhouse said in his interview, it was about self-defense, and I would add it was very much about property defense and rights.
> 
> And as usual, it was about gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> But at the time that this happened, we need to refresh our memories to the fact that this was very much about Trump, and the upcoming election. They painted Rittenhouse as a racist white supremacist, a militia member, and more than anything, a deplorable, despicable, murderous Trump supporter.
> 
> And make no mistake, the left establishment still has a war and vendetta on all three of those fronts.


  Give me proof that Lin Woods interjection was at the behest of Trump. That's all I'm asking. It's more plausible to me that Lin Wood found after all these years of relative nothingness he saw it as a great comeback. Cause and all. Who gives a $#@! anyway. Kyle was bright enough to choose the correct defense team. Now his defense team is gonna have to fight against Wood. 
  And dipshits on this forum say "Oh, Kyle just needs to stay out of the spotlight and chill."
   If there weren't MILLIONS of donations involved Kyle would be in prison for life right $#@!ing now.
   That's why he said he identifies with BLM and that he was lucky that his case garnered the spotlight whereas others don't.

----------


## phill4paul

> Sorry.  No source like that other than common sense.  If team Trump didn’t direct it, they damn sure would have told Lin to focus on winning.  That’s why Lin’s around.


  So........NOTHING.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Give me proof that Lin Woods interjection was at the behest of Trump. That's all I'm asking. It's more plausible to me that Lin Wood found after all these years of relative nothingness he saw it as a great comeback. Cause and all. Who gives a $#@! anyway. Kyle was bright enough to choose the correct defense team. Now his defense team is gonna have to fight against Wood. 
>   And dipshits on this forum say "Oh, Kyle just needs to stay out of the spotlight and chill."
>    If there weren't MILLIONS of donations involved Kyle would be in prison for life right $#@!ing now.
>    That's why he said he identifies with BLM and that he was lucky that his case garnered the spotlight whereas others don't.


My post was not focused on Lin Wood. The fact that Trump was brought up goes to my point that the charges and trial were about Trump just as much as anything.

I haven't paid much attention to Lin Wood, so any speculation on how he ended up in this has not come from me.

----------


## CaptUSA

> So........NOTHING.


Nothing.  I have no evidence how any of it happened. 

Maybe this works better: Trump and team see this poor kid and know he’s going to need money in order to be able to survive mob justice. So Wood gets released from his work on the Trump strategy and starts fundraising for the kids defense.  He got a little too carried away in fundraising and Kyle had to suffer a bit, but it all worked out in the end.

----------


## phill4paul

> My post was not focused on Lin Wood. The fact that Trump was brought up goes to my point that the charges and trial were about Trump just as much as anything.
> 
> I haven't paid much attention to Lin Wood, so any speculation on how he ended up in this has not come from me.


  Gotcha. I understand where you are coming from now. I misread what you were saying. On me.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That's why he said he identifies with BLM and that he was lucky that his case garnered the spotlight whereas others don't.


There's a lot of people around the interlinks that have their asses chapped over that comment.

I have no problem with it, for the same reason you mentioned, and the fact that he mentioned and sees just how quickly a corrupt prosecution and cop system can ruin your life.

The fact that the leadership of BLM are nothing but a bunch of filthy Marxist Bolsheviks, does not change that fact or the fact that the solution to out of control cops, courts and prisons is right there in the Bill of Rights, if people would just read and follow the $#@!ing thing.

----------


## phill4paul

> Nothing.  I have no evidence how any of it happened. 
> 
> Maybe this works better: Trump and team see this poor kid and know hes going to need money in order to be able to survive mob justice. So Wood gets released from his work on the Trump strategy and starts fundraising for the kids defense.  He got a little too carried away in fundraising and Kyle had to suffer a bit, but it all worked out in the end.


  Maybe this... Grey Aliens working through the Illuminati use Fluoride, mixed with South American Dart Frog toxin, to inspire Michael Tyson to give truth to the power about the multiple realities of death.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Maybe this... Grey Aliens working through the Illuminati use Fluoride, mixed with South American Dart Frog toxin, to inspire Michael Tyson to give truth to the power about the multiple realities of death.


Listen, I’m not in conspiracy land here. I don’t know how Wood got involved.  I’m just saying that if he was also working for Trump at the time, there was an obvious conflict of interest since this was a political case as much as a legal one.  Maybe Wood completely severed his ties and then went back to the Trump team after being fired from Kyle’s team. Anything is possible.  But he still managed to bring the sleaze with him.

----------


## phill4paul

> There's a lot of people around the interlinks that have their asses chapped over that comment.
> 
> I have no problem with it, for the same reason you mentioned, and the fact that he mentioned and sees just how quickly a corrupt prosecution and cop system can ruin your life.
> 
> The fact that the leadership of BLM are nothing but a bunch of filthy Marxist Bolsheviks, does not change that fact or the fact that the solution to out of control cops, courts and prisons is right there in the Bill of Rights, if people would just read and follow the $#@!ing thing.


  Amen. Let their asses be chapped. You and I are just white patriarchal $#@! lords. Even though the both of us believe in true justice regardless of race, have contributed to organizations like Institute for Justice, and believe in law enforcement reform and limitation. 
  We're white patriarchal $#@!lords because we don't believe multi-repete offenders that are violent and minor exploitive need to be set free on a low or no bail because they are a minority and are owed, time and again, to exploit those of their own race.

----------


## phill4paul

> Listen, I’m not in conspiracy land here. I don’t know how Wood got involved.  I’m just saying that if he was also working for Trump at the time, there was an obvious conflict of interest since this was a political case as much as a legal one.  Maybe Wood completely severed his ties and then went back to the Trump team after being fired from Kyle’s team. Anything is possible.  But he still managed to bring the sleaze with him.


  Well, if you don't have at least..something...then you are kinda in conspiracy land. Lin made a name with Richard Jewell and he's an opportunist. Sorry, unless you can give me something, kinda, sorta, maybe, concrete then you're barking at the moon.

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/NaturalistCap/st...08725652975623

----------


## dannno



----------


## luctor-et-emergo

I did not want to start a new topic on this but maybe we could start a topic regarding the prosecution and how they approached this case.

Below video shows the DUI arrest of Gaige Grosskreutz, where he refuses field sobriety test, refuses blood test, ends up with 3 times as much as legal in his blood.

Interesting choice for the prosecution to drop these charges, you'd say that people who are driving drunk could cause grave bodily harm and or death with their actions as they are in a lesser amount of control of a potential deadly weapon. Interesting.

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...71208044711943

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/MAJTOURE/status/1464521355613851648

----------


## Anti Globalist

Enough about Rittenhouse.  We need to now focus all of our attention on Ghislane Maxwell now, especially since there will be people that will be tweeting all about it starting next week.

----------


## phill4paul

> I did not want to start a new topic on this but maybe we could start a topic regarding the prosecution and how they approached this case.
> 
> Below video shows the DUI arrest of Gaige Grosskreutz, where he refuses field sobriety test, refuses blood test, ends up with 3 times as much as legal in his blood.
> 
> Interesting choice for the prosecution to drop these charges, you'd say that people who are driving drunk could cause grave bodily harm and or death with their actions as they are in a lesser amount of control of a potential deadly weapon. Interesting.


DA's simply do not drop slam dunk DUI. Ever. There had to be some kind of Quid-pro-quo involved. And why was he never charged for concealing a handgun without a license?

----------


## kahless

> DA's simply do not drop slam dunk DUI. Ever. There had to be some kind of Quid-pro-quo involved. And why was he never charged for concealing a handgun without a license?


I think it is pretty obvious as well. Anyone that has any connection politically or with law enforcement is above the law.  This is nothing new. People are always surprised since they have been forced fed propaganda since birth from a myriad of police TV shows presenting a false reality of no one being above the law.




> Enough about Rittenhouse.  We need to now focus all of our attention on Ghislane Maxwell now, especially since there will be people that will be tweeting all about it starting next week.


I agree and have my doubts that we will see much participation here considering the site is pretty much a reflection of what the elites have setup for people to talk about in the news cycle.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> DA's simply do not drop slam dunk DUI. Ever. There had to be some kind of Quid-pro-quo involved. And why was he never charged for concealing a handgun without a license?


I had never heard this story, but it’s pretty obvious that he wasn't charged because he was the prosecution’s key witness. Quid-pro-quo indeed.




> On October 6 of 2020, Gaige was pulled over because he didn’t use his turn signal. His lawyer, who told the judge that this was a “unique case”, is trying to get the charge dismissed because she claims you don’t need to use a turn signal if there are no cars around. (Spoiler alert – There was a cop-car nearby) *Grosskreutz was very uncooperative with police and refused to take the field sobriety tests. West Allis police obtained a search warrant from a judge for his blood and it came back from the lab at almost 3 times the legal limit. Police seemingly found drug paraphernalia in his car, but gave him a break. His friend, who was riding shotgun told police “he (Grosskreutz) was in the national media.”*
> ...
> http://kenoshacountyeye.com/2021/05/...nd-dwi-arrest/





> Gaige was shot and wounded by Rittenhouse on 8/25/2020 when Gaige pointed a gun at Kyle, seemingly trying to kill the then-17-year-old.
> 
> A few weeks later, on October 26, 2020, Gaige was arrested for driving while intoxicated – almost three times the legal limit. The Milwaukee DA didn’t charge him for three months. They charged him after the KCE repeatedly asked why he wasn’t charged. Yesterday, October 27, 2021, a liberal Judge called Jack Divilia, who was appointed to be a judge just last year by Democrat Governor Tony Evers, dismissed the case over a turn signal. We asked the judge if his decision had to do with the fact that Gaige was shot by Rittenhouse on August 25, 2020. He did not chose to respond to our question. 
> 
> The timing is very curious. Under Wisconsin statutes, the defense could have asked Gaige about his pending criminal case. Now that it has been dismissed prosecutors cannot ask him. The dismissal comes just 6 days before the Rittenhouse trial is scheduled to begin.
> ...
> http://kenoshacountyeye.com/2021/10/...t-rittenhouse/

----------


## tod evans

*Rittenhouse files $400 Million suit against CNN*

https://dailyworldupdate.us/you-have-weird-heros/

It looks like Kyle Rittenhouse, the newest hero of true patriots, will soon have enough money to buy CNN, once he’s done suing them.

Sources close to the Rittenhouse legal team have leaked to America’s Last Line of Defense that they are prepping the lawsuit to end all lawsuits for the young man, which would spring him into the 3rd position all-time for profiting from killing someone. George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson are numbers one and two.

Rittenhouse, who not only shot and killed two people but also wounded another in an act the court has deemed extremely brave and in self-defense, will be able to sail off into the sunset if he so chooses.

But that’s not what this wonderful young man is all about. We caught up with Kyle, or someone who looks just like him anyway, and asked what he’d do with that kind of money:

_“That’s easy. I’d set up a school for medical training for crisis situations that also teach3es self-defense. Everyone should have the opportunity to shoot unarmed people then cry about it in open court. What a rush!”_

We pointed out that his school would be more of an afternoon course that teaches extremists to carry a medical kit and an AR15, and to fire at will the first time your fragile masculinity feels threatened, to which Kyle responded, “Right? People will pay a fortune!”

Looks like Kyle will be just fine. Good for you, hero.

God bless America.

----------


## Anti Federalist

What bunch of purple haired fagggots did you quote from Tod?

ETA - Ah, never mind, satire site...so damn hard to tell anymore.





> *Rittenhouse files $400 Million suit against CNN*
> 
> https://dailyworldupdate.us/you-have-weird-heros/
> 
> It looks like Kyle Rittenhouse, the newest hero of true patriots, will soon have enough money to buy CNN, once hes done suing them.
> 
> Sources close to the Rittenhouse legal team have leaked to Americas Last Line of Defense that they are prepping the lawsuit to end all lawsuits for the young man, which would spring him into the 3rd position all-time for profiting from killing someone. George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson are numbers one and two.
> 
> Rittenhouse, who not only shot and killed two people but also wounded another in an act the court has deemed extremely brave and in self-defense, will be able to sail off into the sunset if he so chooses.
> ...

----------


## CaptUSA

> What bunch of purple haired fagggots did you quote from Tod?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> *Rittenhouse files $400 Million suit against CNN*
> 
> https://dailyworldupdate.us/you-have-weird-heros/
> 
> It looks like Kyle Rittenhouse, the newest hero of true patriots, will soon have enough money to buy CNN, once hes done suing them.
> 
> Sources close to the Rittenhouse legal team have leaked to Americas Last Line of Defense that they are prepping the lawsuit to end all lawsuits for the young man, which would spring him into the 3rd position all-time for profiting from killing someone. George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson are numbers one and two.
> 
> Rittenhouse, who not only shot and killed two people but also wounded another in an act the court has deemed extremely brave and in self-defense, will be able to sail off into the sunset if he so chooses.
> ...


I encourage whatever limp-dick wrote this unfunny piece of garbage to go through EXACTLY what Kyle went through that night and NOT pull the trigger or get his brains blown out.  

Then we can see "what a rush" really is.  

$#@! these people.

----------


## tod evans

Sorry......

I obviously didn't look into this at all.

I saw this on a racing forum I visit and cross posted it.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> ETA - Ah, never mind, satire site...so damn hard to tell anymore.


When reality and satire have become the same thing, it's too late to be scared.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sorry......
> 
> I obviously didn't look into this at all.
> 
> I saw this on a racing forum I visit and cross posted it.


LOL - No worries brother...we've all been burned by the satire/not-satire sites.

I'm just trying to confirm if he did, in fact, file a $400 million suit against CNN.

Hope he did.

----------


## dannno

> I agree and have my doubts that we will see much participation here considering the site is pretty much a reflection of what the elites have setup for people to talk about in the news cycle.


What are you going to do, study the water color paintings really hard?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Enough about Rittenhouse.


Yeah, no. Just no.

People should continue to pay attention to (and post about) the Rittenhouse affair for just as long as it continues to engage or interest them (however long that might be), and not for one moment less.




> Originally Posted by Anti Globalist
> 
> 
> We need to now focus all of our attention on Ghislane Maxwell now, especially since there will be people that will be tweeting all about it starting next week.
> 
> 
> I agree and have my doubts that we will see much participation here considering the site is pretty much a reflection of what the elites have setup for people to talk about in the news cycle.


I don't agree. People are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and they are able to pay attention to more than one story at once, as well.

At any given moment, there is more than just one important/significant thing going on in the world.

I don't much care for the rather arrogant and presumptuous implication that everyone who doesn't focus exclusively (or even at all) on the Maxwell affair is somehow an ignorant, unwitting, and easily-manipulated dupe of the elites.

I am skeptical that the Maxwell case is going to (be allowed to) come anywhere close to producing the kind of bombshell revelations that some people are apparently expecting (though I would love to be wrong about this). But if it does, I'm certain the Internet in general and RPFs in particular are not going to just ignore it, and will focus on it quite a bit - and anyone who says otherwise is just being overdramatically silly and is not to be taken seriously.

I am starting to wonder what all the people who claim that this, that or the other thing is just some kind of "distraction" from the Maxwell case are trying to distract us from. (There. See how that works? Turnabout is fair play ...)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What are you going to do, study the water color paintings really hard?


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dannno again._

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
> 
> 
> *Levi Strauss Will Host Fireside Chat with Racial Trauma Specialist for Employees over Rittenhouse Acquittal*
> 
> [...]
> 
> The announcement came via email from Levi Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer Elizabeth Morrison, according to a copy of the email obtained by the @libsoftiktok Twitter account.
> 
> ...


Speaking of which (h/t Peter Boghossian):

*Universities Try to Force a Consensus About Kyle Rittenhouse*
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...nhouse/620809/
_Conor Friedersdorf (26 November 2021)_

At universities, the  recent acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse should be an opportunity to study a  divisive case that sparked complex debates about issues as varied as  self-defense laws, guns, race, riots, the rights of defendants,  prosecutorial missteps, media bias, and more. If administrators were  doing their jobs, faculty and students would freely air a wide variety  of viewpoints and have opportunities to better understand one anothers  diverse perspectives. Instead, many administrators are preemptively  imposing their preferred narratives.

The  Rittenhouse saga began in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, amid  rioting that followed the police shooting of a Black man. Rittenhouse,  then 17, armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle and walked into the  chaos, claiming that he intended to protect the community. He wound up  shooting three men, killing two. Last week, a Wisconsin jury found him  not guilty of murder, crediting his claim that, at the moment he fired,  he feared for his life and acted in self-defense. This, many analysts argued, was a plausible conclusion to draw from Wisconsin law and video footage and testimony presented at trial.

More than 2,000 miles away,  administrators at UC Santa Cruz felt otherwise. Chancellor Cynthia  Larive and Interim Chief Diversity Officer Judith Estrada issued a statement that began like this:

We  are disheartened and dismayed by this mornings not guilty verdict on  all charges in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse  We join in solidarity  with all who are outraged by this failure of accountability.
UC  Santa Cruz is a public institution with roughly 19,000 students and  1,000 instructors who, one can safely say, do not all share the same  viewpoints. But Larive and Estrada emphasized their personal feelings  and openly pledged solidarity (meaning unity or agreement of feeling or  action, by one definition) with others _based on whether they too feel angry_.  This is posturing, not engagement with a campus community. I wrote to  Larive and asked her to clarify why the jury should have found  Rittenhouse guilty, if thats what she meant by failure of  accountability. A university spokesperson, Scott Hernandez-Jason,  responded, The campus message speaks for itself.

Indeed,  it does. America has never known a time without sensational murder  trials that seize the publics attention and inflame passions. I have an  old-fashioned answer to how a university should behave in these cases:  It should stay neutral and promote reasoned analysis and debate. But  Larive and Estrada made a different choice. And they arent the only  university leaders who have done so in the days since the verdict.  Rather than encourage independent scrutiny, administrators on many  campuses have issued statements that presuppose answers to hotly  contested questions, and assert opinions about the not-guilty verdict in  the case and its ostensible significance as though they were matters of  community consensus.

The whole episode is an  illustration of a bigger problem in academia: Administrators make  ideologically selective efforts to soothe the feelings of upset faculty  members and students. These actions impose orthodoxies of thought,  undermining both intellectual diversity and inclusion. Certainly,  declared a statement by Dwight A. McBride,  president of the New School, the verdict raises questions about   vigilantism in the service of racism and white supremacy. In reality,  many observers are far from _certain_ that, when 12 jurors  concluded that a white man shot three other white men in self-defense,  they were saying anything about white supremacy.

There are exceptions  in which administrators try to contextualize the Rittenhouse case in  educationally useful ways. Just this week, wrote Gillian Lester, the  dean of Columbia Law School, we have seen the 11th hour commutation of a  death sentence in Oklahoma, the long delayed reversal of two  convictions in the assassination of Malcolm X, andjust todaythe  acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, a case decided against the backdrop of  deep divisions in our national discourse about criminal justice. Note  the attempt at neutrality in phrasing and analysis.

Lesters schoolwide email went on to acknowledge varying viewpoints and cast them as an occasion for academic inquiry:

This  trio of decisions has become a flashpoint for passionate debate about  our systems of criminal procedure, the presence of structural racism in  the application of law, and the moral and political context against  which we judge the adequacy of our legal system.
That  reaction was worthy of what Lester called a community devoted to the  study of law and justice. And she promised a program where we can come  together to share reactions, feelings, analysis, and ideas.

But most top-down proclamations from administrators are unnecessary: As the Brown University professor Glenn Loury explained last year,  they either affirm platitudes or present arguable positions as  certainties. We, the faculty, are the only leaders worthy of mention  when it comes to the realm of ideas, he insisted. Why must this  universitys senior administration declare, on behalf of the institution  as a whole and with one voice, that they unanimouslywithout any subtle  differences of emphasis or nuanceinterpret contentious current events  through a single lens?

Thats  precisely what Douglas M. Haynes, UC Irvines vice chancellor for  equity, diversity, and inclusion, did in a statement that presented a  highly subjective personal analysis as if it were fact. The verdict,  he declared, conveys a chilling message: Neither Black lives nor those  of their allies [_sic_] matter. But other observers, including  UC professors, disagree that it conveyed that message and believe that  statements like Hayness are inappropriate coming from administrators speaking in their official capacity.

While expecting neutrality  from university administrators now sounds idiosyncratic, it was once a  lodestar for many academics. The principle was articulated most famously  in a 1967 report  that a committee led by the legal scholar Harry Kalven produced for the  University of Chicago. The mission of a university is the discovery,  improvement, and dissemination of knowledge, it reasoned, and a  university faithful to that mission will challenge social values,  practices, and institutions. A good university, like Socrates, will be  upsetting, the Kalven report asserted. But the instrument of dissent  and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual  student, not the university itself, nor the administrators who speak  for the whole. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is  not itself the critic.

Greg  Lukianoff, who leads the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,  a nonprofit group that defends the rights of students and faculty, told  me that every time universities speak on a controversial issue they  send the message, This is a space with certain orthodoxies, and that  has done long-term harm to the unique marketplace of ideas that higher  education is supposed to be. Though the bully pulpit is something  university leaders can use, Lukianoff said, they should be very  sparing.

The university, Kalvens committee believed, should not compromise its neutrality even to pursue worthy goals, such as social justice:

It  is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the  day without endangering the conditions for its existence and  effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective  position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it  thrives  If it takes collective action  it does so at the price of  censuring any minority who do not agree.
This  inclusive neutrality arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of  indifference and insensitivity, the report concluded. It arises out  of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of  viewpoints. Doing so offers the fullest freedom for its faculty and  students as individuals to participate in political action and social  protest.

At the New School, McBride described a starkly different ethos:

I  dont know immediately how to parse the Rittenhouse verdict at a  university where students, faculty, and staff work so tirelessly and  passionately for social justice. Therein may lie the answer in this  moment: when we dont know yet what to say, lets take solace in each  other. Lets unite in our shared commitments and values. I am grateful  to be part of this community that is so driven to confront inequality,  unpack systemic racism, challenge oppression, and create positive  change.
Tellingly, McBride continued:

While  we dont know what to say, we know what to do, which is to act to build  stronger communities, unite amongst ourselves, and use our scholarship  and research in service of social justice.
Hes  not calling for searching, candid discussion among people with diverse  views. Hes presuming that the community is united in one collective  viewand, whats more, that the community is somehow united _both_ in not knowing what to say _and_  in knowing what to do about it! And what about professors and students  who disagree that the verdict was unjust, or feel upset by inaccuracies  in media coverage, or believe that Rittenhouse was a victim of  prosecutorial misconduct, or worry that widespread criticism of the  verdict is undermining the jury system?

Indeed,  there are as many different views of whats wrong in the world as there  are individuals on a campus. People also differ widely in which news  events, if any, they find upsetting. Students and faculty should  challenge university leaders who, as if speaking for their entire  communities, put forth subjective assessments and notions of what  everyone else thinks or must do. These administrators tell the group  what they think it wants to hear, create incentives for people to hide  other views, and harm everyones ability to inquire and to learn from  one another.

----------


## kahless

> Yeah, no. Just no.
> 
> People should continue to pay attention to (and post about) the Rittenhouse affair for just as long as it continues to engage or interest them (however long that might be), and not for one moment less.
> 
> I don't agree. People are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and they are able to pay attention to more than one story at once, as well.
> 
> At any given moment, there is more than just one important/significant thing going on in the world.
> 
> I don't much care for the rather arrogant and presumptuous implication that everyone who doesn't focus exclusively (or even at all) on the Maxwell affair is somehow an ignorant, unwitting, and easily-manipulated dupe of the elites.
> ...


I went back and read what I quoted/replied to and it looks like I skimmed - skipped reading a few words like "all" in his post. I only picked up that it is something that should be focused on and replied. 

So my sentiments reflect what you wrote.  It was not my intention to come off that way about anyone here except to @danno of course.....j/k.   It has more to do with frustration in my dealings within the elites and the fake news media.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I went back and read what I quoted/replied to and it looks like I skimmed - skipped reading a few words like "all" in his post. I only picked up that it is something that should be focused on and replied. 
> 
> So my sentiments reflect what you wrote.  It was not my intention to come off that way about anyone here except to @danno of course.....j/k.   It has more to do with frustration in my dealings within the elites and the fake news media.

----------


## Occam's Banana

From the _New York Times_ (of course).

And written by a prosecutor (of course).

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/29/o...ttenhouse.html

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yeah, no. Just no.
> 
> People should continue to pay attention to (and post about) the Rittenhouse affair for just as long as it continues to engage or interest them (however long that might be), and not for one moment less.
> 
> I don't agree. People are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and they are able to pay attention to more than one story at once, as well.
> 
> At any given moment, there is more than just one important/significant thing going on in the world.
> 
> I don't much care for the rather arrogant and presumptuous implication that everyone who doesn't focus exclusively (or even at all) on the Maxwell affair is somehow an ignorant, unwitting, and easily-manipulated dupe of the elites.
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> From the _New York Times_ (of course).
> 
> And written by a prosecutor (of course).
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/29/o...ttenhouse.html


I actually wanted to read what Ms Foreign Flag $#@! had to say, but it's behind a paywall.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I actually wanted to read what Ms Foreign Flag $#@! had to say, but it's behind a paywall.


Try here (or see below): https://dnyuz.com/2021/11/29/self-de...flood-of-guns/
[Basically, this all just boils down to "people who have guns are to blame if they end up defending themselves with them". - OB]

As pundits and legal experts consider why Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder, many have focused on the prosecution’s choices — and possible errors — in the case, or else on the rulings of the presiding judge.

But even more than the prosecution or the verdict, it is really the defense’s strategy that we will have to live with for years to come — a strategy based on a bold and unapologetic acknowledgment of the dangers inherent in carrying a gun. The defense doubled down on the right to bear arms and asserted a right to fire, too. Such a strategy, which has adherents at the poles of the political spectrum, will increase gun violence, not only in red states, but wherever it is allowed to go unchallenged.

A claim of self-defense when you are caught on tape shooting people, as Mr. Rittenhouse was, is predictable. This case was never a whodunit. Instead, Mr. Rittenhouse’s team had to explain why his shooting three people, killing two of them, were not crimes. And what put him in imminent danger serious enough to justify his use of deadly force, according to Mr. Rittenhouse, was the presence of his own gun. Recalling the final moments of his decision to fire at Joseph Rosenbaum, Mr. Rittenhouse testified: “I remember [Rosenbaum’s] hand on the barrel of my gun.”

As a prosecutor, I have often seen arguments like these during investigations of police officers who have shot and killed unarmed people. In those cases, the officers cite their fear that their own weapons would used against them. From an armed civilian, this claim is different. Instead of distancing Mr. Rittenhouse from or minimizing the effect of his weapon, Mr. Rittenhouse and his lawyers built their case upon it: Because he had a gun, he found himself in a situation where he needed to use it. In other words, the gun he carried was not a deterrent, but the very reason for the escalation to violence.

Meanwhile, across the country in Georgia, a jury just finished deliberating over a very similar defense strategy. In another shooting caught on tape, Travis McMichael, who shot and killed Ahmaud Arbery, has now been convicted of murder along with his father and neighbor. Mr. McMichael testified that his fear of Mr. Arbery crystallized when Mr. Arbery reached for Mr. McMichael’s gun. That’s when Mr. McMichael started to worry about his child at home, contemplated life and death, and began to shoot. Mr. Arbery was unarmed. “I shot again because I was still fighting,” Mr. McMichael testified. “He was all over me, he was still all over that shotgun, and he was not relenting.” (The jury may have doubted Mr. McMichael’s credibility, since he originally told investigators he was not sure if Mr. Arbery had reached for the gun.)

These assertions of a right to fire exploit standard self-defense laws. In Wisconsin, Georgia, and most states, the law allows you to use deadly force as long you sincerely believe that you are in imminent danger, and as long as your response is reasonable and proportionate to that danger. Wisconsin, Georgia, and nearly all 50 states even require prosecutors to disprove claims of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Self-defense laws have ancient roots. They reflect our shared sense that we should be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And they are important checks on criminal prosecution. But in states that also have weak gun safety laws — like Wisconsin and Georgia — they have given lethal shooters a path to acquittal, as the attorneys for Mr. Rittenhouse, and now Mr. McMichael, well understood.

What should we do from here? To narrow self-defense laws might seem one obvious answer. But concentrating on the aperture of self-defense, and whether it should be narrower or wider, misses the point.

As I watched the Rittenhouse and McMichael trial broadcasts, I could not help thinking of a case before the Supreme Court right now, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the petitioners have challenged a 110-year old law that requires New Yorkers to demonstrate proper cause if they want a permit to carry a concealed gun. It is the first time in over a decade that the court has considered broadening the Second Amendment, and its consequences can be monumental: One in four Americans lives in a place that, like New York, seriously restricts the right to carry a concealed weapon. It tells us why the Rittenhouse and McMichael defenses will continue to matter for public safety across the nation.

As you would expect, this Supreme Court case has generated the usual briefs from gun rights advocates: the N.R.A., gun clubs, libertarian scholars, Republican politicians. What is strange, and disheartening, is that the petitioners have also received support from a group of prestigious and seasoned New York public defenders, who argue that the New York law should be overturned — not really on Second Amendment grounds, but because of the way the law is enforced against their clients, Black and brown, poor defendants who need to carry guns for self-defense. The public defenders argue that, historically, permits have been issued unevenly, and that still today, in many places, it is easier for whites and members of the middle class to get permits than it is for people of color and the poor. And they argue their clients should have guns just like other Americans do. In other words, the progressive left has met far right in describing dangerous streets and the need to be armed on them.

Theirs is not a legal argument, but a political one, and is unlikely to sway a Supreme Court focused on the text and original meaning of the Constitution (though the court may find it a useful fig leaf if it decides against New York). It is meant to shock, and it does, in its nihilism — a nihilism that echoes the far right champions of the men we have seen on trial. Instead of taking guns out of the hands of the Rittenhouses and McMichaels of the world, these progressive public defenders want to level “up”— to make guns more readily available to their clients, to all of us. Their vision, if realized, would make the self-defense claims of Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. McMichael unremarkable, not only in red states, but across the country.

The audacious position taken by these New York public defenders should give pause to anyone tempted to understand, and maybe even discount, the Rittenhouse and McMichael defenses as essentially conservative arguments playing to conservative juries in conservative states. If we start to think of guns only as a problem in the hands of the Other (white supremacists, the far right, criminals), we will miss the simple fact that unregulated guns escalate violence across ideological lines. Their presence tends to create a need for self-defense on both sides of the trigger, about which the law has very little to say. If Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. Arbery did indeed reach for those guns, weren’t they, no doubt, acting in self-defense? More guns, no matter in whose hands, will create more standoffs, more intimidation, more death sanctioned in the eyes of the law.

----------


## acptulsa

> The defense doubled down on the right to bear arms and asserted a right to fire, too. Such a strategy, which has adherents at the poles of the political spectrum, will increase gun violence, not only in red states, but wherever it is allowed to go unchallenged.


That's not what the numbers say.  They say armed societies like red states are polite societies.

----------


## acptulsa

dp

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> That's not what the numbers say.  They say armed societies like red states are polite societies.


Switzerland is not a red state but generally a country of religious people who take being a decent person quite seriously. However, the [gun] homicide rate has been below 0.2/100k for numerous years. The US average over the past 10 years around 4.0 or so ? Gun ownership in .CH is at around 30%, so not very low either...

Kinda indicates that decent people do not kill each other, even when armed.

----------


## Invisible Man

> The US average over the past 10 years around 4.0 or so ?


And when that's broken down to where in the US those occurred, there's an inverse correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates, and a positive correlation between strictness of gun control laws and homicide rates.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> And when that's broken down to where in the US those occurred, there's an inverse correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates, and a positive correlation between strictness of gun control laws and homicide rates.


Rural vs Urban
Poor vs Rich

Probably a number of other factors that play into this. I do not think that removing gun control in very prohibitive places will lower the amount of gun homicides (necessarily). What I'm trying to say is that without any guns available they would probably be knife deaths or otherwise.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> [From an article]
> ...
> But even more than the prosecution or the verdict, it is really the defense’s strategy that we will have to live with for years to come — a strategy based on a bold and unapologetic acknowledgment of the dangers inherent in carrying a gun. The defense doubled down on the right to bear arms and asserted a right to fire, too. Such a strategy, which has adherents at the poles of the political spectrum, will increase gun violence, not only in red states, but wherever it is allowed to go unchallenged.


In other words, it was about a political agenda. The left wants to eliminate gun rights, self-defense, and by extension, defense of property.




> ... And what put him in imminent danger serious enough to justify his use of deadly force, according to Mr. Rittenhouse, was the presence of his own gun. Recalling the final moments of his decision to fire at Joseph Rosenbaum, Mr. Rittenhouse testified: “I remember [Rosenbaum’s] hand on the barrel of my gun.”


Nice try, but pure nonsense. Rittenhouse was being attacked. The mob could take his gun and beat him to death. Or stab him. Or shoot him with their guns. His gun was not the source of fear for his life, it was his only defense.




> As a prosecutor, I have often seen arguments like these during investigations of police officers who have shot and killed unarmed people. ... From an armed civilian, this claim is different.


Ah, of course. Cops have more rights than normal people. Call the police and hide under your bed. The state will take care of you, but your funeral is on your family.




> Instead of distancing Mr. Rittenhouse from or minimizing the effect of his weapon, Mr. Rittenhouse and his lawyers built their case upon it: Because he had a gun, he found himself in a situation where he needed to use it. In other words, the gun he carried was not a deterrent, but the very reason for the escalation to violence.


That is your hypothesis. But there were a lot of people there with guns. They were not attacked. 

What Rittenhouse did have was a fire extinguisher, and that is why he was attacked. He put out fires started by the rioters and arsonists. Perhaps a ban on fire extinguishers is in order. Citizens shouldn’t have fire extinguishers, only firemen should have them. Call the fire department, don't try to put out a fire yourself. Leave it to properly authorized agents of the state, in this case, the fire department.




> Self-defense laws have ancient roots. They reflect our shared sense that we should be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And they are important checks on criminal prosecution.


Checks on criminal prosecution? What does that mean?




> But in states that also have weak gun safety laws — like Wisconsin and Georgia — they have given lethal shooters a path to acquittal, as the attorneys for Mr. Rittenhouse, and now Mr. McMichael, well understood.


Gun safety laws? Where did that come from? “Gun safety” was not an issue in either case.




> As you would expect, this Supreme Court case has generated the usual briefs from gun rights advocates: the N.R.A., gun clubs, libertarian scholars, Republican politicians. What is strange, and disheartening, is that the petitioners have also received support from a group of prestigious and seasoned New York public defenders, who argue that the New York law should be overturned — not really on Second Amendment grounds, but because of the way the law is enforced against their clients, Black and brown, poor defendants who need to carry guns for self-defense. The public defenders argue that, historically, permits have been issued unevenly, and that still today, in many places, it is easier for whites and members of the middle class to get permits than it is for people of color and the poor. And they argue their clients should have guns just like other Americans do. In other words, the progressive left has met far right in describing dangerous streets and the need to be armed on them.
> 
> Theirs is not a legal argument, but a political one,


Wow, a political argument? Just like the entire article. And now opposition to “equity”? That’s not politically correct.

The Second Amendment is already equitable. It’s your gun control laws that are not equitable.




> ...Instead of taking guns out of the hands of the Rittenhouses and McMichaels of the world, these progressive public defenders want to level “up”— to make guns more readily available to their clients, to all of us. Their vision, if realized, would make the self-defense claims of Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. McMichael unremarkable, not only in red states, but across the country.


Yeah, we get it. You oppose the Second Amendment, and in your Utopia, only duly authorized agents of the state may have guns. And of course you are ignoring the fact that criminals already have guns, and they don't care about your gun laws and regulations.




> ... More guns, no matter in whose hands, will create more standoffs, more intimidation, more death sanctioned in the eyes of the law.


No need to keep repeating yourself. It’s all political and all about your opposition to the Second Amendment.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Speaking of which (h/t Peter Boghossian):
> 
> *Universities Try to Force a Consensus About Kyle Rittenhouse*
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...nhouse/620809/
> 
> [...]


And speaking even further of which:

*UPDATE: Rittenhouse no longer enrolled in ASU Online ahead of protest demanding the 'violent blood-thirsty murderer' be removed*
_After Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges in connection to his incident of self defense during the Kenosha riots, leftist students continue to accuse him of being a racist and a murderer_
https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18501
_Addison Smith (29 November 2021)_

UPDATE: Campus Reform has confirmed that as of Monday, Rittenhouse is no longer enrolled in the ASU Online program, with the university stating that he is "not currently enrolled in any classes at ASU" and still "has not gone through the ASU admissions process."

Arizona State University students are pressuring the administration to “withdraw” Kyle Rittenhouse from the school’s online program, calling him a “violent blood-thirsty murderer”.

Rittenhouse is currently enrolled in the ASU Online program, and could have even maintained his enrollment had he been convicted of a crime, given that ASU does not require criminal background checks for this programs.

ASU reportedly confirmed to 12News in early November that while Rittenhouse had not gone through the university admissions process, he was at the time "enrolled as a non-degree seeking ASU Online student for the session that started Oct. 13, 2021, which allows students access to begin taking classes as they prepare to seek admission into a degree program at the university."

On Nov. 19, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges after killing two criminals and injuring a third in what many have deemed a clear case of self-defense.

Despite the not-guilty verdict, leftist students at ASU continue to slander Rittenhouse as a “racist murderer”. A Change.org petition started by ASU students to remove Rittenhouse from the school refers to his attackers as "victims" and calls for him to "pay for his crimes".

Echoing this sentiment, Students for Socialism at ASU announced an upcoming protest against Rittenhouse on Twitter, with demands attached.

https://twitter.com/SFSASU/status/1464324758086959105


“Join us and rally against racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse being permitted on our campus – Wednesday at 3:30 outside the Nelson Fine Arts Center on campus”, the tweet says.

Demands include withdrawal of Rittenhouse from the university, releasing a statement against “white supremacy and racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse” -- who shot three white people -- and demanding that school funds be redirected to the multicultural center on campus.

“'Even with a not-guilty verdict from a flawed "justice" system - Kyle Rittenhouse is still guilty to his victims and the families of those victims. Join us to demand from ASU that those demands be met to protect students from a violent blood-thirsty murderer,” the demand letter states.

One of the students referred to Rittenhouse as a “mass shooter”, according to Fox News.

"The goal of these demands is to let the ASU administration know that we as the ASU community do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter, who has expressed violent intentions about ‘protecting property’ over people, is so carelessly allowed to be admitted to the school at all,” they said.

These demands are outgrowths of evidence-less claims by the media that Rittenhouse is a white-supremacist murderer. After footage revealed that Rittenhouse was being pursued, attacked, and even had a loaded gun pointed at him from feet away, prominent leftists have held to the narrative that Rittenhouse was the aggressor.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Someone is going to try and kill that guy.

----------


## Invisible Man

I would love to see Hillsdale or some place offer him a scholarship.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

The School of Hard Knocks should give him an honorary Phd.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Someone is going to try and kill that guy.


Unless he tries to become a public figure I doubt that. If he gives one or two more interviews and continues his life, I'm sure at some point people will forget. Next week something else will happen to make the mob go nuts.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> “'Even with a not-guilty verdict from a flawed "justice" system - Kyle Rittenhouse is still guilty to his victims and the families of those victims. Join us to demand from ASU that those demands be met to protect students from a violent blood-thirsty murderer,” the demand letter states.


So, no matter what any of us *do*, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".

Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.

----------


## 69360

> Someone is going to try and kill that guy.


He should either leave the country or grow a beard and change his name. Stay off TV too.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> He should either leave the country or grow a beard and change his name. Stay off TV too.


Wasn't he in jail for three months?  I hear his lawyers were playing politics or something.

And was there anyone else out there protecting their businesses that night?  Didn't seem to be anyone else high profile.

This is why I don't even give a crap about stuff like this.  Look out for yourself.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So, no matter what any of us *do*, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".
> 
> Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.


Mob rule.  

Be concerned.

----------


## phill4paul

> So, no matter what any of us *do*, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".
> 
> Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.


  And hopefully the school caves to the Marxists and he gets a huge settlement from them too. In fact his lawyers should be suing the $#@! outta the illegal immigrant student club, along with the Students for Socialism, and take away their milk money.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> So, no matter what any of us *do*, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".
> 
> Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.





> And hopefully the school caves to the Marxists and he gets a huge settlement from them too. In fact his lawyers should be suing the $#@! outta the illegal immigrant student club, along with the Students for Socialism, and take away their milk money.


Average American: "But what does this have to do with Marxists?"

----------


## dannno

> Wasn't he in jail for three months?  I hear his lawyers were playing politics or something.


Less than 2 months, he said at first he got some flack but he told them what happened and then they were like, "oh, nice.."




> And was there anyone else out there protecting their businesses that night?  Didn't seem to be anyone else high profile.


There were approximately 100 other armed civilians out there protecting businesses that night.





> This is why I don't even give a crap about stuff like this.  Look out for yourself.


Ok, just know if something ever happens to you, we will be here to stick up for you..

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> There were approximately 100 other armed civilians out there protecting businesses that night.


You keep saying that.  I keep asking for evidence, but see none.  I would think the marxist media would have been all over that one.







> Ok, just know if something ever happens to you, we will be here to stick up for you..


Dude, I call out obvious paid trolls, and people stick up for the trolls.  I can safely assume that I'm on my own for anything remotely serious.  lol

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Less than 2 months, he said at first he got some flack but he told them what happened and then they were like, "oh, nice.."


No, Rittenhouse said in the Carlson interview that he was in jail for 87 days.  This is why I don't believe what people say on the internet.  They can't even verify simple facts.

----------


## dannno

> No, Rittenhouse said in the Carlson interview that he was in jail for 87 days.  This is why I don't believe what people say on the internet.  They can't even verify simple facts.


I wouldn't worry too much about people getting 2 months vs. 3 months in jail when it's not really material, he was clearly there and shouldn't have been there anyway. He said he was without running water for over a month I think, and I thought he said he got out in November so I just did that math as opposed to remembering the number of days from the interview. There is a lot of stuff to remember here.

You were the one who thought there was less than a handful of other armed people there, when there were several dozen, I've heard estimates of upwards of 100 or more. 

That is a way bigger error and is definitely material.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I wouldn't worry too much about people getting 2 months vs. 3 months in jail when it's not really material, he was clearly there and shouldn't have been there anyway. He said he was without running water for over a month I think, and I thought he said he got out in November so I just did that math as opposed to remembering the number of days from the interview. There is a lot of stuff to remember here.
> 
> You were the one who thought there was less than a handful of other armed people there, when there were several dozen, I've heard estimates of upwards of 100 or more. 
> 
> That is a way bigger error and is definitely material.


I'll bet the extra month was material to Rittenhouse, but okay two months versus three months.  

The armed people numbers are too wide ranging, so that's what I'm talking about.  I'd like to have more evidence.

----------


## Anti Federalist

@Occam's Banana

Somewhere, I'm pretty sure it was in this thread, you posted a photo of page from Solzhenitsyn's _Gulag Archipelago_, that was explaining the farce that "self defense" was in the USSR.

Can you re-post that please, want to save that.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> @Occam's Banana
> 
> Somewhere, I'm pretty sure it was in this thread, you posted a photo of page from Solzhenitsyn's _Gulag Archipelago_, that was explaining the farce that "self defense" was in the USSR.
> 
> Can you re-post that please, want to save that.


No problem. It's certainly a keeper.

I'm pretty sure I posted it in this thread, too. But here it is from the TYT MELTDOWN thread:




> https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...30029045678080

----------


## Mach

Sing along....

----------


## Occam's Banana

In which an alleged lawyer hosting a law-themed podcast called "Miranda Warnings" does not know what double jeopardy is (@ 17:00).

Also, Binger (@ 20:20): "If someone [...] had shot and killed Rittenhouse [...] our office would not have prosecuted [that person]. Our office would have not [considered] that person criminally liable."

*Binger CRIES About Kyle Rittenhouse*
_In this video I discuss Thomas Binger the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case doing an interview with the Miranda Warnings podcast where he discussed his decisions during the case. I explain how Binger is even crazier than I thought based this interview_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r57MRjit6no

----------


## RJB

Everybody I have ever known who looked like Binger (including Ned Flanders) have always been a--holes.

----------


## RJB

> In which an alleged lawyer hosting a law-themed podcast called "Miranda Warnings" does not know what double jeopardy is (@ 17:00).
> 
> Also, Binger (@ 20:20): "If someone [...] had shot and killed Rittenhouse [...] our office would not have prosecuted [that person]. Our office would have not [considered] that person criminally liable."
> 
> *Binger CRIES About Kyle Rittenhouse*
> _In this video I discuss Thomas Binger the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case doing an interview with the Miranda Warnings podcast where he discussed his decisions during the case. I explain how Binger is even crazier than I thought based this interview_
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r57MRjit6no


Kyle should add Binger to his list of people he sues.  Binger is the actual prosecutor.  He KNOWS that he is lying.  What is happening to my country?

----------


## Anti Federalist

@Occam's Banana

You sure were right on Lin Wood.

The guy is nuts.

----------

