Kyle Rittenhouse trial & updates [Verdict: NOT GUILTY]

[Dr.3D]

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

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

 

[RJB]

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

Lol

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I get the difference.

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

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

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

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

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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

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

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

 

[dannno]

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

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

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

I believe they brought up the content of this video:

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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

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

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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

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

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


Someone is going to have to stand up and be not afraid. Someone is going to have to stare down the gauntlet and say, " fucking 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 fuck 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 shit, 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, " fucking 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 fuck 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 shit, 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!"