17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha

[Picton]

No pretense? It's nothing BUT pretense, and that's what's sold to the general population so they don't suddenly realize what they're actually living under and commence to nailing mayors, state reps, building inspectors, and (if lucky) someone higher upon whom they can lay hands to the nearest tree.

I'm sure, Critter, you're noticing I'm not really responding to your posts on this. No offense, but I'm QUITE well aware of your viewpoint on all of this, and I don't really see a need to reply. You're consistent, at least, but I can't refrain from pointing out that nobody's stopping you from buying some nails, finding some trees, and getting started. It gets old reading the same tough talk.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Baby Billy]

Smart decision. There’s nobody with a more overinflated view of themselves than him.

John Mayer might have him beat.

 

[wilson911]

Well, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Anyone who expects a "fair trial," EVER, should always be prepared for disappointment. In the end, it's an artificial process with no pretense at "truth" or "fairness;" everyone involved in the legal industry admits that.

At this point? the process is well underway. If we don't like it, there's nothing stopping us from going to law school and becoming a judge in some middle-of-nowhere town in Wisconsin.

I have no illusions of fairness in the justice system. While this judge is a CrackPot, most of my derision would be aimed at the defense. He needs more dynamic representation. This trial was always meant to be a show. Their defense never pushes the judge to do his job and basically been asleep in thier chairs all week.

 

[Bonesinium]

John Mayer might have him beat.

I don’t know who that is but it was a bit of hyperbole anyways.

 

[Picton]

I have no illusions of fairness in the justice system. While this judge is a CrackPot, most of my derision would be aimed at the defense. He needs more dynamic representation. This trial was always meant to be a show. Their defense never pushes the judge to do his job and basically been asleep in thier chairs all week.

They might have gotten complacent.

I hope that doesn't come back to bite Kyle.

 

[SpaceCritter]

I'm sure, Critter, you're noticing I'm not really responding to your posts on this. No offense, but I'm QUITE well aware of your viewpoint on all of this, and I don't really see a need to reply. You're consistent, at least, but I can't refrain from pointing out that nobody's stopping you from buying some nails, finding some trees, and getting started. It gets old reading the same tough talk.

Best of luck to you.

And you seem to think things will somehow, magically, change otherwise.

Despite the historical record of how humans actually behave.

BoL to you likewise. And to your species.

 

[Bonesinium]

I find it fascinating how even despite some of you knowing and admitting you understand that the system and trials aren’t fair and are for show, still seem to think there some magic trump card Kyle’s attorney’s can play to win.

 

[Bonesinium]

This thread makes it obvious that many people posting have never followed a trial before.

 

[AHM]

* Why was he crossing state lines? - Umm why were the 'protestors' coming from all across the country and besides Kyle lived only minutes away and had family in Kenosha

When protestors are coming from across the country,
Kyle is only minutes away.

I’m not sure what you mean. He dismissed that one. Before they started deliberations.

Now that they’re deliberating? Why not let it play out? A jury verdict is obviously the best outcome. If he disagrees with it, he can just set it aside…

Maybe read the whole article on verdicts
and see if it clears up anything for you.

ETA: There's probably a slide set out there that covers
criminal motions and verdicts more comprehensively.

 

[GM-GUY]

NECN just did a piece on the trial today, not a mention of the withheld video or motions.

 

[SpaceCritter]

NECN just did a piece on the trial today, not a mention of the withheld video or motions.

My shocked face:

 

[TLB]

They had Robert Barnes and the current defense team disagreed with his jury consultant and kicked Barnes off the team at the start of the trial.

They screwed the pooch on jury selection. If he goes to trial again, these defense attorneys need to go, IMO.

 

[Bonesinium]

They screwed the pooch on jury selection. If he goes to trial again, these defense attorneys need to go, IMO.

How would you know that? They haven’t even rendered a verdict yet?

 

[Baby Billy]

How would you know that? They haven’t even rendered a verdict yet?

Because they selected a jury. If they never selected a jury, there wouldn't have been a trial

 

[Picton]

And you seem to think things will somehow, magically, change otherwise.

No, I don't. I'm expecting CWII.

But I'm not going to advocate that others start it when I'm not willing to. You love to talk about arson and crucifixion, but you won't do it yourself. So... okay. But it just makes people ignore you the 57th time you say it.

And, while we're on the subject, we get it. You don't like the guys in Davos. Repeating it fourteen times per thread isn't necessary. Many of us agree with you, anyway.

 

[Spartan65]

The fact that they have not come back with a verdict is good news for him. I have a feeling they will find a reasonable doubt.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

The fact that they have not come back with a verdict is good news for him. I have a feeling they will find a reasonable doubt.

There is no clear cut way of saying it’s better or worse for it to drag out though really.

It could be 1 person holding strong for a guilty or innocent verdict.

If I’m Kyle I’m shitting my pants every step of the way.

 

[TLB]

How would you know that? They haven’t even rendered a verdict yet?

Short answer is it shouldn't be taking this long. I did listen to way too many hours of other defense attorneys discussing the case today.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

How would you know that? They haven’t even rendered a verdict yet?

In fairness to the original comment I subscribe to Barnes local page and he has talked about his experience talking with the defense team with respect to jury selection. Barnes pointed out that the questions he wanted ask such as "If you are on the jury and feel an impending riot based on your verdict, would you still be willing to be impartial?". He had a list of other questions that his just consultant wanted to ask but they were all overruled by the defense team and the questions were thrown out. Hence Barnes is a little salty when seeing the jury going sideways.

 

[SpaceCritter]

The fact that they have not come back with a verdict is good news for him. I have a feeling they will find a reasonable doubt.

I won't hold out an illusion that even bringing this trial is anything less than a f***ING DISASTER for the Republic, AND Kyle.

 

[pdm]

In fairness to the original comment I subscribe to Barnes local page and he has talked about his experience talking with the defense team with respect to jury selection. Barnes pointed out that the questions he wanted ask such as "If you are on the jury and feel an impending riot based on your verdict, would you still be willing to be impartial?". He had a list of other questions that his just consultant wanted to ask but they were all overruled by the defense team and the questions were thrown out. Hence Barnes is a little salty when seeing the jury going sideways.

When most people make up their minds during opening statements, selecting the jury takes on outsized importance.

 

[wilson911]

No, I don't. I'm expecting CWII.

But I'm not going to advocate that others start it when I'm not willing to. You love to talk about arson and crucifixion, but you won't do it yourself. So... okay. But it just makes people ignore you the 57th time you do it.

And, while we're on the subject, we get it. You don't like the guys in Davos. Repeating it fourteen times per thread isn't necessary. Many of us agree with you, anyway.

But, he's a grown man that speaks in the third person and refers to himself as being from some other race (which he seems to actually believe). That he advocates for arson and crucifixion is just bonus for me. I get the sense that his team of therapists thinks this kind of controlled aggression is good for him.

 

[SpaceCritter]

No, I don't. I'm expecting CWII.

But I'm not going to advocate that others start it when I'm not willing to. You love to talk about arson and crucifixion, but you won't do it yourself. So... okay. But it just makes people ignore you the 57th time you say it.

And, while we're on the subject, we get it. You don't like the guys in Davos. Repeating it fourteen times per thread isn't necessary. Many of us agree with you, anyway.

So what's YOUR plan?

Please, elucidate. I'm listening. Obviously you (and others) aren't to me, if it requires I state the obvious "fourteen" ("57"??) times.

So... what do we do? What's been done to date obviously hasn't worked.

 

[vicorjh]

Bricks delivered.

 

[Bonesinium]

Short answer is it shouldn't be taking this long. I did listen to way too many hours of other defense attorneys discussing the case today.

So a quick conviction would be better than taking three days and acquitting?

I don’t see how taking long is an indication they somehow messed up on voir dire.

Do people understand that attorneys only have a limited number of preemptory challenges? Other challenges (for cause) doesn’t necessarily mean those jurors get rejected. And sometimes jurors who seem like they’d be bad for you are actually the most favorable anyways.

 

[SKumar]

Given the preparation of the city, I'm leaning towards Rittenhouse being the sacrificial lamb. It's been done before. It happened to Derek Chauvin. One person to save a million. That's the way they think.


View: https://youtu.be/RUs5Q5fSyqs

 

[Wooderson]

Given the preparation of the city, I'm leaning towards Rittenhouse being the sacrificial lamb. It's been done before. It happened to Derek Chauvin. One person to save a million. That's the way they think.


View: https://youtu.be/RUs5Q5fSyqs

And they'll still burn the town down.

f*** that. Acquit and let them see that there's more now on deck from where the kid came from.

 

[TLB]

So a quick conviction would be better than taking three days and acquitting?

I don’t see how taking long is an indication they somehow messed up on voir dire.

Do people understand that attorneys only have a limited number of preemptory challenges? Other challenges (for cause) doesn’t necessarily mean those jurors get rejected. And sometimes jurors who seem like they’d be bad for you are actually the most favorable anyways.

Based on the polling data of prospective jurors and the case presented, I didn't think a quick conviction was on the table... But that's just my opinion.

 

[headednorth]

I'm sure, Critter, you're noticing I'm not really responding to your posts on this. No offense, but I'm QUITE well aware of your viewpoint on all of this, and I don't really see a need to reply. You're consistent, at least, but I can't refrain from pointing out that nobody's stopping you from buying some nails, finding some trees, and getting started. It gets old reading the same tough talk.

Best of luck to you.

I mean, he's not wrong. You have to admit we're not voting or protesting our way out of this.

 

[meh]

Smart decision. There’s nobody with a more overinflated view of themselves than him.

No, it was an absolutely idiotic decision, and Barne’s opinion of himself is irrelevant. Barnes was only helping with the jury selection and even had a well known body language expert lined up to help out. You’d have to be a complete and utter fool to turn that kind of help.