Which part of their policy would be left wing in your country? And what country is it anyway?Here is a joke for you. Republican party would be seen as a left wing hipster party where I live. Its all about perspective
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
He described the prosecutors case as being like a house of cards, that this evidence was making him queasy already, but this is bullshit was making him more queasy, and said that if the evidence has problems the prosecutors will 'have their day of reckoning'
He's threatened to put the lawyers under oath to testify about how the evidence handover went wrong, but has moved away from that at the moment which Krause seems relieved about...
My guy we still have anal sex outlawed. I live in Jamaica. Love my country but Socially we are absolutely in the dark ages compared to most of the world. My brother had to move to SF due to his sexual preference. Would have not been able to live a normal life down here. We have more churches per square mile than any other place on earth. The church has a huge lobby on legislation. Abortion is outright banned, as is most gambling (basically lotto excluded) Ganja is still illegal, and i swear the Church tries its best to cancel carnival every year. Jamaicans are extremely conservative and also extremely racist/racially insensitive.Which part of their policy would be left wing in your country? And what country is it anyway?
What did the judge say about the sole black jurist being chosen to lead it?
Yikes, I had no idea Jamaica was so conservative. Guess it's the laid back stereotype surrounding it?
I learned something today, and I'm genuinely shocked at all this.
Was talking about an old case, not this one.
It was during a rant about the media coverage of the case being terrible. He said that the media back in the day complained about a black juror being on the jury with a black defendant.
He had a terrible moment of calling them 'the black'. Not going to help with the media coverage!
I always assume that when a bloke walks into the pub with an assault rifle that he is collecting for charity.
Dear god.
The title of this thread needs updating
Kyle Rittenhouse Shitshow
Kyle Rittenhouse Shitshow
I can see it happening...
Everyone has gone home for the day.
On to day 3 of deliberations.. Its going to be a hung jury or a negotiated verdict I reckon, defence are panicking to have filed for a mistrial without prejudice at this point.
On to day 3 of deliberations.. Its going to be a hung jury or a negotiated verdict I reckon, defence are panicking to have filed for a mistrial without prejudice at this point.
we are layed back highly xenophobic, racist, homophobic church goers.
Honestly, the born again Christians that knock on my door now and again asking if I want to hear the truth, would probably get a minute or two more if they were in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles.
When that happens to me they tend to hear more truth than they were bargaining for.
When I served on a jury (2 men accused of robbing and stabbing a 3rd), it took us 3 days to deliberate in a fairly open-and-shut case. I'd expect this to go longer. The key will be when the jury is asking different parts of the record read back to them, or if they submit clarification requests to the judge. That would indicate there is not consensus already. Ours was straightforward and took 3 days. I'd expect this jury to at least go through the motions of exercising due diligence and careful consideration of evidence. The Derek Chauvin jury took seven hours over 2 days, but 11 of the 12 were ready to render guilty verdicts from the start of deliberations.
It was never going to be a quick verdict. I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t get one til Friday.
Out of interest how did it take 3 days if it was a clear cut case? Someone holding out for some reason or ????
On the first day we were not all in agreement. We were being asked to try two defendants on three counts each. The way it was worded was confusing and we felt really limited in what we could do. The case basically came down to: 1.) Do you think this man with a 12" scar down his chest was stabbed and robbed? 2.) Do you think these 2 men were involved with either stabbing or robbing that man?
Seems simple enough, but I'll explain why it wasn't:
Right away we said 'yes' on both but we didn't like that it didn't take any sort of balance or nuance into it. We also didn't like that the victim kept lying on the witness stand. He was Chinese and spoke no English so everything took twice as long cuz it had to be translated. So we were reluctant to just return guilty verdicts.
The defendants' main problem was an off-duty cop was sat in his truck with his 15 year-old son at a stop light and literally watched the 2 of them rough the Chinese guy up and walk away from him. The cop watched the two men walk down the block and get into a parked car. The cop then drove over and boxed in the car and waited for backup. Meanwhile the Chinese man staggered down the street after the two men, blood running down his body, finger pointed and screaming that those two men stabbed him (in Mandarin/Cantonese). More police showed up. They pulled the two men out of the back of the parked car and found the victim's wallet plus a big knife.
Each defendant had their own attorney. Both were shit at law. Literally both of the lawyers appeared to have not read the charges against their client(s). They both argued that their client couldn't be found guilty of stabbing the guy, because it was some mysterious third figure known only as 'T' who did it. Then the defendants took the witness stand and said they saw their 'friend' a street prostitute named 'Chocolate' in trouble, so being the civic-minded types, they went to see if she needed help. Chocolate took the 82 year-old Chinese man into a 'port-a-potty' (temporary plastic toilet thing) for a sexual transaction. The defendants were worried that Chocolate was in danger from the old man, and pulled the door open and tried to get Chocolate out. They had no idea where the knife came from and suggested the Chinese man had brought the knife and cut himself. In the chest. Both defendants said they held the knife. Both. One said he picked it up, and when asked why, he said he didn't know. The other one said he picked the knife up and gave it to the other defendant, also for reasons unknown.
Then they couldn't explain how 'T', Chocolate, and the Old Chinese Man all fit inside in a port-a-potty, and according to them, they also were inside too. If two people were in one, they would be touching the walls.
The Chinese man denied being in the port-a-potty at all. He denied being there for sex. He said he went downtown to walk around and look at the flower market. On Mothers' Day.
Then they brought the knife out that they had found covered in the Chinese man's blood and in the possession of the two defendants, and the Chinese man said that wasn't the knife. The prosecutor was as stunned as we were. Both defendants said they got the knife in the port-a-potty, so admitting it was the knife used to stab the guy, and the victim said it was the wrong knife.
Next, they found Chocolate and put her on the witness stand. She was slumped so low she was almost lying flat on her back. She was heavy-lidded and slurred her speech, like she was on heroin. Her answers were largely nonsensical. She said she was in the port-a-potty but the Chinese man was not, and had no idea who this 'T' was. Then she remembered 'T' was her pimp. Then she remembered she'd never heard of him.
Meanwhile, the cop who arrested them took the stand and said, "I watched those two men walk away from the port-a-potty, then the Chinese man staggered out screaming and bleeding, and I watched them walk to this car and get in it. Then I found the wallet and the knife."
As the jury, we had to get clarification on how testimony worked. We all believed the Chinese man was lying about what he was doing downtown and what happened. But there was no penalty for him lying, which was interesting.
Our instructions were: Count 1 - do you think this man was stabbed and robbed? Count 2 - do you think it's reasonable to assume a person could be injured while being robbed? Count 3 - do you think the two defendants were involved in either robbing or stabbing him?
And that was it. The defense went on and on spinning tales about who had the knife, who had the wallet, but under California law none of that shit matters. Both people are guilty of both crimes. Their lawyers did not know this. Both defendants admitted to having the fecking knife! And when the cop arrested them they had the wallet out and were sharing the cash! One of the defendants came up with a Hail Mary story, and that's where the legend of 'T' happened. He claimed he couldn't speak before because he was afraid of 'T' but now he was going to set the record straight. This time, he contradicted what he'd said earlier.
The jury asked the judge a few questions about what to do when we thought all the fecking witnesses were lying. The judge gave us some instructions that clarified shit, and at that point we were stuck in voting Yes on all three counts.
The best part was when the case was finished, they dismissed us (the jury) and we walked out into the hall at the same time as everyone else. I went to the elevators and one of the defendant's lawyers was right next to me. He says to me, "You just sent my client to prison for 25 years!" and I screamed at him, "Your fecking client did it! He nearly killed an old dude for whatever was in his wallet!"
So three days of shit.
I'd be willing to be bet both attorneys knew the law.
There is a famous saying from law schools.
"When the truth is on your side, you pound the truth. When the law is on your side, you pound the law. When neither is on your side, you pound the table."
Those lawyers were just pounding the table.
Do you want to talk about Our Lord and Saviour or do you want to meet him?
He was basically 18 already, remember? Can't be grooming.
He's too old for Matt now!
MSNBC banned from the court because someone claiming to work for them followed the jury bus
sounds legit
Libtard network anyway right?
We can just say tard. I doubt Liberals would appreciate the association. to be fair, there are not many cable news channels that are worth being associated with.
Not watched any in ages. Used to enjoy Keith Olbermann back in the day before he went nuts.
Right? No chance its some right-wing troll. I guess someone just had to say "I'm from Fox News" behind the jury bus and Fox would have been instantly banned.
@Drainy where were you yesterday evening?
Not saying it wasn't MSNBC, but the fact that a network perceived as the most "left leaning" and that has been harsh on the judge was banned because someone claimed to be from that network (a claim that has to be incredibly easy to prove/disprove) is a it too on brand.
posting all night on parler while watching Tucker Carlson
I miss him.
Where the hell do you gather this from. There is video evidence and not just "feeling scared". Laws differ from state to state and some states give way too much rights to the gun owner but some do in fact give very little to the point where you you can't defend your own home.
It's really strange the judge just banned them based on a dubious claim without any sort of confirmation or proof this random person was actually from MSNBC.
Which state law are you referring to here?
was great back in the day. I was a proper anti-dubya, not in my name, online atheist with rage lefty back then. Feeling a bit out in the cold politically at the moment. This thread is a case in point
Parler does that to people.was great back in the day. I was a proper anti-dubya, not in my name, online atheist with rage lefty back then. Feeling a bit out in the cold politically at the moment. This thread is a case in point