It looks like the jury is giving it thought.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Actually, it was exactly what the Prosecutor's star witness said. He tried to say it was "unintentional" but the reality was he testified that Rittenhouse didn't fire on him until he was pointing a gun at him and advancing.
Your ignorance of very clear facts in this case tell me you clearly paid no attention, didn't want to pay attention, had already decided guilt regardless of what was said, and have no business discussing the case with anyone until you do learn about it.
That’s what she said. The first sentence is a statement in irony. The second a statement of fact.
Althea has never let her ignorance of the facts deter her from making uninformed posts...never.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Jarod,
"Looking for Trouble."
That's the operative phrase at the heart of this case.
"Looking for Trouble."
That's the operative phrase at the heart of this case.
I watched a great deal of the trial and the critiques by the learned Virginia law professor, Professor Turley.
He indicated that the prosecutor made numerous errors, some unintentional, some intentional. The Fifth Amendment by Rittenhouse was an egregious mistake that was surely intentional. The SC has ruled on that numerous times and the prosecutor knew it but what the jury hears can not be unheard.
Some lawyers said the case should never have been brought against Rittenhouse.
It was a political attempt to quash any resistance to rioters and anarchists.
It failed, IMO.
He indicated that the prosecutor made numerous errors, some unintentional, some intentional. The Fifth Amendment by Rittenhouse was an egregious mistake that was surely intentional. The SC has ruled on that numerous times and the prosecutor knew it but what the jury hears can not be unheard.
Some lawyers said the case should never have been brought against Rittenhouse.
It was a political attempt to quash any resistance to rioters and anarchists.
It failed, IMO.
there is no gray area, It was self defense, plain and simple. If he had not shot them, he would be dead. Now, the only question is whether the jury has been scared enough by the mob threats to send the wrong verdict.
Keep telling yourself that.
please give us the federal or state statute that makes looking for trouble a crime. Then tell us why it doesn't apply to the rioters of the summer of 2020.
the truth doesn't have to be repeated, it is the truth and it will stand
Life is Golden
The Sage
Indeed. I'm sure they are considering whether or not they want to be terrorized by the woke mob.
Marvel writer urges people to burn down the city of Kenosha over Rittenhouse trial
How's that for due process and the rule of law, Counselor?
It is not a crime, but it negates self defense.
NO, it does not. you know nothing about how the law works. If your life is threatened, you have the constitutional right to remove the threat by whatever means necessary.
Unless you instigated the threat.
true, but Rittenhouse did not threaten anyone. He was attacked and defended himself. We shall see if the threats to the jury and judge are enough to cause them to ignore the law. Do you condone rioting and property destruction if the jury acquits him?
I think it is funny that you cant see any reason for acquittal other than threats. That indicates a lack of imagination on your part. I never condone rioting or property destruction, but I do understand it. Its an American tradition going back to the Boston Tea Party.