Kyle Rittenhouse
- Thread starter anonymoose
- Start date
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
The Judge questions Rittenhouse gun charge, raising doubts about prosecution's case tho e kid may even get off the illegal possession charge. Even if convicted he’ll probably beat that on appeal. That charge should have been thrown out by the judge. GFM appears to be right about that one,
Read here:
Judge questions Rittenhouse gun charge, raising doubts about prosecution's case
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ns-rittenhouse-gun-charge-jonathan-turley.amp
Read here:
Judge questions Rittenhouse gun charge, raising doubts about prosecution's case
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ns-rittenhouse-gun-charge-jonathan-turley.amp
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Awesome! Vigilantism is legal!
He had an illegal gun. That is a real charge.
You wouldnt be very good at it though. Old, short and pudgy doesnt last long. Those proud boys would have your sawed off little pudgy ass roasting on a spit in no time.....
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Read the article. Not according to the letter of WI law. GFM was right.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Nope.
Even the prosecutor scored points for the defense. He didn’t know the law as well as the kid.
“At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. For example, he pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age.
Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defense.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ns-rittenhouse-gun-charge-jonathan-turley.amp
This is one very fucked up and wierd trial. Never seen one where the prosecution witnesses and the prosecutor actually scores points for the defense.”
Last edited:
ExpressLane
Verified User
He ran from shooting ONE person that had threatened to kill him and was lunging for his gun. He had every right to defend himself EVERY RIGHT. Huber and Grosskreutz were attacking an innocent man. They both were using lethal force. Had Rittenhouse not defended himself he might be the one who is dead. This just shows you should let the police handle things.
Just days ago posters were talking about the man who raped a woman on the subway in Philly while bystanders looked away. If one of those bystanders had intervened and clobbered the rapist with a backpack, would you make the same argument about him?[/QUOTE]
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
That prosecutor needs to be fired! I know most lawyers are idiots and retards, but he takes the cake for stuck on stupid. One of the first things you're supposed learn in lawyer school is never ask a question of a witness you don't know the fucking answer to.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
In his defense I don’t think Binger knew the answer to his question until the kid pointed it out do him. But yes, that’s pretty incompetent when an 18 year old kid has to school a lawyer on the law.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You wouldnt be very good at it though. Old, short and pudgy doesnt last long. Those proud boys would have your sawed off little pudgy ass roasting on a spit in no time.....
Yep. That's why I advise everyone like me to make a comfortable spot on their roofs and pick off the violent terrorists from protection and comfort of their own rooftops.
If you were really in the military, then you understand the strategy.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Not a fucking lawyer so I don't know what's normal and what's not in a courtroom.
That said, what Binger was doing was trying to draw a line for the jury between someone who buys an offensive weapon (AR-15) and seeks trouble versus buying a defensive weapon (sidearm) as an "EMT".
Not a very good line, IMO, but it might work for non-military jurors.....and let's face it, the vast majority of Americans aren't veterans.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Not a fucking lawyer so I don't know what's normal and what's not in a courtroom.
That said, what Binger was doing was trying to draw a line for the jury between someone who buys an offensive weapon (AR-15) and seeks trouble versus buying a defensive weapon (sidearm) as an "EMT".
Not a very good line, IMO, but it might work for non-military jurors.....and let's face it, the vast majority of Americans aren't veterans.
A rifle or pistol is no more defensive or offensive than how you use it. It might work on someone who's oblivious to reason, and in a jury setting it only takes one person out of the 12 who sees that to sway the other eleven that the prosecutor is an idiot on this.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I knew that was coming. There's a reason why officers, NCOs and medics often only carried a sidearm instead of a battle rifle before Vietnam and in many situations today.
That's the distinction Binger seemed to be drawing here.