Sure it is. All of you also drive pick up trucks with confederate flags on the roof.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
If that's not the norm why dont the cop stop him?
The far-right has been banging on since yesterday about this one single point to shape the narrative and distract attention away from Rittenhouse's damaging lies.
And nothing the prosecutor did is out of the norm. It's a quite common tactic used in countless trials in the US every day. It's well known because lawyers all know a judge with say the jury has to ignore it but psychologically, they can't unhear something so it influences perception. It's hardly something out of the ordinary and a logical artifact of the particulars of the US legal system combined with known psychological research. As someone said, it's a cost-benefit calculation for lawyers in every trial and often they conclude the cost is worth the benefit. I'd be shocked if it resulted in anything but the conservative media is absolutely trying to focus attention on it to distract
Prosecutors comment on the defendant exercising their 5th amendment rights normally????
I looked out my window and only saw 10% of the people carrying an AR-15 down the street so I would not consider it a norm.
He is not guilty of murder, the guy he shot when questioned literally admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only fired at him when he was pointing the gun at him.
If you watch the video, not opinion, not misdirection, not red or blue, just the video, when after shooting the first guy, Gaige briefly puts his hands up, then Rittenhouse lowers his gun. Immediately Gaige goes to attack having seen that, then he gets shot.
Don't believe your lying eyes when seeing the video? Then how about your lying ears when Gaige admits the below:
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun – now your hand’s down, pointed at him – that he fired, right?” the defense asked witness Gaige Grosskreutz. To which he replied:
“Correct…”
Murder is out of the question and he is going to be suing a lot of companies, especially the Tech Giants who denied him the ability to fund his defence.
One of the guys he killed raped five children, may he rot in hell - Joseph Rosenbaum, convicted pedophile.
"Newly released Joseph Rosenbaum sex offender documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Joseph Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old."
Let's not riot over the killing of Rosenbaum eh? Regardless of him being an evil dirtbag, the self defence is evident.
If you watch the video, not opinion, not misdirection, not red or blue, just the video, when after shooting the first guy, Gaige briefly puts his hands up, then Rittenhouse lowers his gun. Immediately Gaige goes to attack having seen that, then he gets shot.
Don't believe your lying eyes when seeing the video? Then how about your lying ears when Gaige admits the below:
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun – now your hand’s down, pointed at him – that he fired, right?” the defense asked witness Gaige Grosskreutz. To which he replied:
“Correct…”
Murder is out of the question and he is going to be suing a lot of companies, especially the Tech Giants who denied him the ability to fund his defence.
One of the guys he killed raped five children, may he rot in hell - Joseph Rosenbaum, convicted pedophile.
"Newly released Joseph Rosenbaum sex offender documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Joseph Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old."
Let's not riot over the killing of Rosenbaum eh? Regardless of him being an evil dirtbag, the self defence is evident.
That's really not how it works.
You are confusing whats legal and whats normal
Do you regard this forum and thread as being balanced or objective?
No discussion involving more than 2 humans will ever be balanced and no conversation involving even a single human will ever be objective.
In the eye of the law if it's legal it shouldnt be a provocation or an invitation for trouble.
That's not how the law works.
If that's how it works wearing a scouse kits in manchester is provocation and if incident happens, he asked for trouble?
No one is objective. Neither the people calling him a murderer nor the people saying he was just defending himself. There's nothing wrong with not being objective. Defending someone under the very tiring pretense of "just being objective" is a much bigger offense in my book. It's from the same playbook as "just asking questions" or "doing your own research".
I think the caf tends to gravitate towards the left, that doesn't make it an echo chamber the though. It's only natural a long lasting Internet community share views. It's a community after all.
I once saw a man take a dump right in the middle of a park and two cops just ignored him. I'm assuming that means it's the norm where I'm from as well?
Actually, now that I think about it...not really helping my point here.
I would agree with most of that. I think what makes the Caf an echo chamber is the tendency to drown out and ostracise anyone who goes against the grain, in threads such as this. It often seems to just descend into cheap point scoring amongst the majority, as though various posters are just trying to impress each other with their genius wit and guile through the admonishing of anyone who doesn’t share their views.
Was it a man or a pigeon?
It is also the way someone goes against the grain.
Asking for context of a picture of someone making white supremacist signs with a white supremacist group tends to invite ridicule.
I go agree with you and I'm guilty as well on that count. Especially with my wit, it's a bit shit. However, there is going against the grain and there's Drainy in this thread.
the specific example varies by trial of course, but prosecutors or defense attorneys working in a comment that's technically off-limits is quite normal as mentioned. I'd be surprised if anything of note happens over it. Either way, that's hardly the major takeaway as that was a tiny incident that won't affect the jury's decisions most likely. Far more likely to affect that is how Rittenhouse's lies compare with other testimony and the videos.
I'd say the judge's questionable actions are much more troubling from an overall point of view.
Technically a man but he was Scottish so it's difficult to nail down the exact species.
I genuinely think they couldn't be bothered dealing with himdid the cop thank them for it and hand them toilet paper?
Oh, I think Rittenhouse is guilty as feck and America isn't a place where everyone just "Yee Haws" around their town firing one of their fifty guns in the air every morning but, at the end of the day, this is a football forum and I gave up trying to have proper debates when Trump and Johnson were elected because it's too depressing.
It’s not
I'm prejudiced against Rittenhouse here but I saw the clip and I thought the judge was a real clown.
I felt the same, then I discovered Costco sells 1.5L of decent bourbon and here I am.
Edit: Actually I did have to self ban myself from COVID threads. It was getting unhealthily depressing.
Well, we'll see if this survives to a jury verdict. The judge seems really keen for the jury to be the ones to decide.
Some of the criticism has been a bit unfair, he's let a lot go from the prosecutor as well - a lot of leading the witnesses, recently a lot of badgering.
He's just watched one of the lawyers breach the constitution and then try to sneak unadmitted evidence into the court - both of which were done in front of the jury. Of course he was pissed off.
Weird rant, Drainy isn’t getting stick because he’s attempting to argue a different viewpoint, he’s getting stick because he’s extremely biased In the viewpoints he’s arguing.
Dude, I've lived in the US for 15 years and I understand Miranda rights very well, thank you. I also understand the right to live very well, that Rittnehouse denied a couple of guys, whom you were willing to laugh it off based on their past lives which has no connection with the case. I'm sorry man, I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye with each other on this and many more issues.
If you think that's badgering, I'd suggest you haven't seen a lot of US trials. It's been really mild as far as "badgering witnesses" goes. Anyway, feel free to tag me if the prosecutor ever gets disbarred and I'll happily admit I was wrong on that one.
The most important takeaways are that Rittenhouse lied multiple times that night and in court. Factually speaking, it looks bad for Rittenhouse. At least reckless homicide and reckless endangerment.
The judge clearly wants attention and has "doorman syndrome."
Cleared the jury again. Oh shit here we go
The feck are you talking about? He raised $500,000 from right-wing groups.
Couldn't agree more .
Damp squib, the judge was swayed by Binger on this one... just.
This right-winger testifying is a real clown. Here is a description from his website: "He has made multiple appearances on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox News Shows, OANN, NEWSMAX, INFOWARS, and MORE." Yes, this guy is certainly a reliable witness with absolutely no bias whatsoever.
Reading a bit about this trial and defendant said he took the rifle just in case needed. Has the prosecution asked him why he didn't just stay at home?
(May have been posted but I'm away and only dipping in and out of the Caf)
(May have been posted but I'm away and only dipping in and out of the Caf)
yes, the prosecutor should attack his credibility.
Talking about him retaining a lawyer that works for the same firm as the expert who did bundles for the defence is as weird entry point to that though and further damages Binger's credibility if not done right.