To the prosecutor who breaches peoples constitutional rights and tries to get away with it.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
To the prosecutor who breaches peoples constitutional rights and tries to get away with it.
A bit of a contextless post to be fair.
What exactly was the breach?
The judge told the prosecution he'd already given them a reconsideration. He didn't, he gave it to the defence.
THE JUDGE IS A LIAR
He was asking questions about the defendant's use of the right to remain silent in order to draw a negative inference. He did it in front of the jury.
According to the judge its been a foundation of the US legal system for 50 years and he was a whisker away from saying it gives grounds for a mistrial.
He was a whisker away from saying it or he said it was a whisker away from him declaring it? Asking for context.
QUICK, LETS DECLARE A MISTRIAL ..
He was asked if he knew there was a curfew that night, and if he knew there was a curfew in place why did he still go.
What was the little shit's reply?
I think he said something along the lines of, well it wasn’t being enforced properly.
Saying it, not giving it.
The prosecutor asked a question, it was objected, he asked another, objected. The judge removed the jury to tell him off.
They continued, the prosecutor tried introducing evidence that was not admitted but still open to being brought in depending on circumstances. The prosecutor said it knowing that the judge had not heard from him about why it should be admitted. Judge removed the jury and yelled at him.
He then made the comment. Whether you think Rittenhouse is guilty or not, this is unethical and intentional.
Thanks!
Do you think lawyers win cases by being goody too shoes? The prosecution pushed hard against a rule to influence the jury, he knew he was going to get reprimanded, but probably, on the balance of probabilities, thought it was worth it. Its gamesmanship.
He may have caused a mistrial with prejudice. That doesn't serve justice because the jury should be the ones to decide the outcome.
Yeah, and not the judge, who's made repeated and ridiculous judgements for the defence. Its a risky move, no doubt, but was it worth it, we'll see.
Very good 5-10 mins for the prosecution. Making a lot of the same arguments a lot of you have been making and Rittenhouse isn't responding well.
Just watched that blubbering cnut on the stand, total bullshit.
MAGA plot exposed. There's gotta be a Curb Your Enthusiasm theme clip in the waiting!Prosecutor is misleading the court again. This time about how iPad pinch and zooms.
Maybe he's an Android guy?
Video of this?
He's claiming that there isn't an AI algorithm adjusting images when zooming
pinch and zoom is considered ‘high risk’? I can’t even….
Between the prosecutor and the judge, Kyle is walking free. What a crap show.
This is sounding like the “trial” from the movie Sleepers.
no an AI adjusted imagine being entered into evidence before a jury without expert evidence about its accuracy is high risk
Do you realize how stupid this sounds? you cant insert pixels wherever the feck one wants. Lord give me the patience…..
It estimates based on an algorithm. They are wanting to pinch and zoom in a murder trial. Clowns.
It’s drone footage. What else are you going to do?
Big tech conspiring against MAGA twats again. You just know they modified that AI algorithm to frame poor Kyle.
Ask the judge if you can enter it into evidence with acknowledgement of the limitations before the jury gets to see it and not lie about it being like using a magnifying glass.
Not to sidetrack the conversation, but what do you mean by “killing weapon”??
I’ve read in this thread that the AR-15 has been described as “machine gun”, “military assault rifle” and “killing weapon”. I believe that using correct terminology is needed, and if you don’t know about the specific weapons used in certain cases, then either research it for yourself, or refrain from mentioning it. Calling it a “killing weapon” is strange to me.
Last edited:
No. It could benefit Rittenhouse (though obviously we can infer that it doesn't given that the prosecution has tried to show it) and still shouldn't be allowed without expert validation of the results . The prosecutor comparing it to a magnifying glass hoping the judge buys it is again another sign of him behaving unethically.