When Kyle's own life hangs on the line - again! Jury too scared to rule. An UPDATE on Deliberations

Complete incompetence from the defence. This is sickening.

The defence team really needs a third person who is better at objection and motions. These two suck with it.

They are great on cross and opening & closing statements, but stuff like this just shows their weakness in key areas.

My opinion.

The judge knows what he will do.

However he wants the process to work and have the jury make the decision that is obvious.

Subtle verbal clues elude to this.

"Day of reckoning."

a reply to: carewemust

On a mistrial, Kyle walks out a free man, The state has to start everything over again if they want to change that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JinMI

"Day of reckoning."

You caught that, too, eh?

How about telling the prosecution they had been "forewarned"?

TheRedneck

a reply to: JinMI

I took the day of reckoning comment to be with regards to purposefully sending the wrong edited video to the defense. He did mention that maybe the state should be willing to testify to that under oath.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think the state has made clear that a mistrial is more favorable to them vs no verdict of guilt.

Wether the two dimwits are the attorneys again matters not to them imo.

a reply to: RMFX1

The state has suffered no culpability for the 3 constitutional violations yet.

I could be reading too much into it

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JinMI

"Day of reckoning."

You caught that, too, eh?

How about telling the prosecution they had been "forewarned"?

TheRedneck

On top of the judge claiming that he doesn't trust the state and believes that they aren't acting in good faith wich also speaks to a certain statute that I cannot remember off hand.

ETA the statute.

law

Bring back trial by combat. This is painful to watch.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Bring back trial by combat. This is painful to watch.

Thats why we are here
Kyle already won in that scenario.

For anyone watching Rekietas stream, I'm sorry I just can't stop thinking that Uncivil Law sounds like a South Park character. I find it funny.

a reply to: RMFX1

Hes a smart dude but yea, I can't stand his voice or cadence.

From what i've seen and heard of this case.

The kid was defending himself, No doubt he feared for his life, but from a situation, he kinda helped create.

Like, when you walk into a party already pished and proceed to tell the party host 'his birds a slut and the hosts an arsehole'

Then you kill said arsehole after he chases you out into the lawn.

At least the drunk has an excuse. He Was Pished!. The defense rests, Your Honor.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

That's not a good description of what happened at all. What have you been watching? Kyle didn't verbally abuse or insult anyone. Completely the opposite infact.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

On a mistrial, Kyle walks out a free man, The state has to start everything over again if they want to change that.

TheRedneck

I want the precedent set that humans who threaten human lives, can be legally killed by ordinary citizens.

Whatever outcome establishes that legal precedent, I'm all for it.

originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: Soloprotocol

That's not a good description of what happened at all. What have you been watching? Kyle didn't verbally abuse or insult anyone. Completely the opposite infact.

He pointed a gun at said arsehole.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: Soloprotocol

That's not a good description of what happened at all. What have you been watching? Kyle didn't verbally abuse or insult anyone. Completely the opposite infact.

He pointed a gun at said arsehole.

With just cause in my humble opinion. I started off as Anti- Rittenhouse, but after watching the trial, I have revised my opinion.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

On a mistrial, Kyle walks out a free man, The state has to start everything over again if they want to change that.

TheRedneck

I want the precedent set that humans who threaten human lives, can be legally killed by ordinary citizens.

Whatever outcome establishes that legal precedent, I'm all for it.

The era you seek is the 19th century wild west...or the stone age. whatever.

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
This Zero Hedge article about the case offers a very compelling theory about what the prosecutors are trying to do: They're trying to cause a mistrial, so they can re-try the case. This is why the defense is asking for a mistrial with prejudice, so they cannot. Under Wisconsin law, the judge can grant this if there is evidence of prosecutorial overreach, which I dare say is manifestly obvious at this point.

Why cause a mistrial, to go again? not likely to do better the second time, some of that shakey evidence will not get in next time. But I agree with misconduct by Binger.

Most of the legal channels figure it's not likely re-tried if a mistrial..but who knows, anything can happen.

do they even really have a "choice" about retrying the case if it is a mistrial? and i am talking about political choice. the radical left lynch mob is howling for their version of "justice". and main stream media (including outside of the US), as well as the President, Vice President, and democrat politicians are just so heavily invested in "Rittenhouse is guilty of murder", it just can't be brushed under the rug.

how much do you want to bet federal charges are already invented and ready to be laid? in fact with just how bad the prosecution, and case has been, you really have to wonder if the case is being thrown just for that reason. what better way for biden and the democrats to come riding to the rescue. perhaps even get some new federal gun control laws placed, as well as federal laws to stop people from being able to defend themselves. and that is not at all far fetched as it sounds. after all other countries have laws in place where killing, or harming in self defense is pretty much illegal. unless quite literally there is no escape. and if you use a "weapon", it had better be smaller/less powerful, than a weapon being actively used by the criminal (and if they say drop their weapon, you better drop yours at the same time). and where going to the aid of others to defend them at all is completely illegal. as is defending any property. such as in Canada.

Canadian here, I guess thats why I have followed this from the start..the concept of being able to defend yourself..I will defend myself if put in the position.

I totally hear you, and understand your points.