quote:

Experts confirm that if Rittenhouse is found "not guilty," liberals won't be getting their way, which could lead to massive temper-tantrums, such as arson and looting.

Boy if that isn't a slap in the face with reality I don't know what is....

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^
That Babylon Bee piece was stupid. Are they using SNL writers now?

No, they're actually using Bette Midler and Joe Biden.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
However, I do think it's likely to acquit the murder charges and convict on the underage possession, if he indeed broke that law (I am not clear on WI law about lending a minor a rifle).

On Friday's Rekieta Law stream, they argued the minor possession charge. They went over the statute and determined it didn't apply to Kyle. After verification that the rifle was of normal length, the charge will be removed from instructions. He had the right to be there (no cerfew) and the right to be armed they way he was). As Nick Rekieta discussed, this was a big victory on Friday as jurors may use it to thjnk he shouldn't have been there, let alone armed and believe he is guilty of something.

Double murderer and judge reviewing state's best evidence...smh

I have a question about evidence and testimony. They were arguing that the only testimony given to the length of the barrel is when one of the defense attorneys asked one of the detectives if the rifle itself was legal. Then they argued that they needed testimony specifically about the length of the barrel.

Defense wanted the charge thrown because the State never brought up the barrel length during the case so they didn't meet their burden of proof on that charge.

So my question is: The rifle itself is entered into evidence. Can they not just hold up the rifle with a ruler showing that the barrel is 18+ inches and OAL is 26+ inches? Is testimony necessary?

^^^^
I saw a few things questioning the length of the barrel and whether or not it was an SBR. Does the model number say it was an SBR? Is there NFA paperwork on it? Can it be measured? I mean come on, why is it so hard to prove the barrel is 16" or longer?

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
So my question is: The rifle itself is entered into evidence. Can they not just hold up the rifle with a ruler showing that the barrel is 18+ inches and OAL is 26+ inches? Is testimony necessary?

Yes, and it has to be by a Court Recognized Expert witness

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^
That Babylon Bee piece was stupid. Are they using SNL writers now?

The Babylon Bee is a conservative Christian news satire website

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am well aware. The piece was poorly written and a sophmoric attempt at satire.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^
That Babylon Bee piece was stupid. Are they using SNL writers now?

No, they're actually using Bette Midler and Joe Biden

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hahah. I think it looked more like Hunter's work.

The Jack Posobiec short video is here:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1459392363063820288

It is still confusing to compare to the blurry prosecutor picture. I think the angles of the 2 recordings are different

here is a screen capture from the Posobiec video w some annotations I put in



note the white blob in the prosecutor picture is the guy in the wheelchair

although I don't think it has been mentioned, I think the person on the right is Rosenbaum

watch the video. That person is carrying a bag just like Rosenbaum was. And he has his shirt rapped around his head.

Kyle looks back at him and then turns to run

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
So my question is: The rifle itself is entered into evidence. Can they not just hold up the rifle with a ruler showing that the barrel is 18+ inches and OAL is 26+ inches? Is testimony necessary?

Yes, and it has to be by a Court Recognized Expert witness

The state has the burden of proof if they want to charge illegal possession. This became Kraus's homework to search the submitted evidence. It wasn't pursued. I'll try to find the timestamp from Friday.

Starts at 2:02:30 through 2:21:53

One mans take on why Ziminski was never called. Not a lawyer, but it makes sense to me.

Ziminski, 36, has separately been charged with disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon, arson and obstructing an officer, and he has pleaded not guilty, court records show. A criminal complaint says he admitted to firing a "warning shot" in the air that night.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am confused you said Binger only charged this guy with arson.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
note the white blob in the prosecutor picture is the guy in the wheelchair

That really goes to show just how distorted the Prosecutor’s photos are, both original and enhanced photos.

Theses people are nothing but absolute dirt bags. Damn I cannot imagine in what world I could ever be like that thank God.

I still have faith in humanity and believe the jury will do the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
^ as stated before. Lesser charges give the jury an opportunity to agree where more punitive charges may be harder to have unanimous agreement and lead to a mistrial or hung jury if there are holdouts.

Not an attorney and did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, 'but', this is horse shit. Send the jury off to deliberate the murder charges. End of discussion. Sending them off with a GD cop out is massively stupid. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on the murder charges, the defense always has the option to appeal. Giving the jury a way to simply cop out to some BS lesser charge is criminal stupidity. KR's attorneys need to grow a sack and stand on their defense.

Consider this:

Let's say it does go to the jury,they can't all agree, and they come in as a Hung Jury. That causes a Mistrial and he can be tried again

So you're suggesting Kyle being convicted of some BS charge and going to jail so the jury can cop out on their responsibilities would be preferable to having to go through another trial and potentially be found not guilty?

Defense should argue at closing the prosecutor declined to call Ziminski to testify about anything and therefore did not present any direct witness testimony that Kyle pointed the rifle at Ziminski, except for a blurry photograph.

The most likely reason is that Kyle did not point his rifle at Ziminski, and Ziminski would have testified to that fact, or that Ziminski did not see it so he would have testified that he did not know.

Yet another instance of excluding exculpatory evidence, which is more evidence of Prosecutorial misconduct.

The fact that the national guard has been called up "in case" of riots means the same idiots that rioted before will riot again if they don't get a conviction. I don't think they are worried about riots in the even he is convicted.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
So you're suggesting Kyle being convicted of some BS charge and going to jail so the jury can cop out on their responsibilities would be preferable to having to go through another trial and potentially be found not guilty?

I'm suggesting that he'd prefer not to go through another trial and potentially be found guilty.

I've personally witnessed enough trials and been surprised at the verdict that juries come back to realize that that outcome is just as likely

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
"I don't want to cite you for a moving violation, but I have to cite you for something."

Which, just to clarify, is utter and complete bullshit. She didn't have to cite you for anything. She opted to cite you for something she knew you'd pay and not contest. Ya hear that....Cha Ching.

quote:

Allowing lesser charges to be considered gives the jury something to nail him for. It may not be ideal, but it's a lot better than giving the prosecutor another shot, where he'd have the opportunity to correct the plethora of mistakes in his first go.

Oh bologna. Going to jail for something you're not guilty for is somehow "ideal"? BS. The defense made a very good case and should require the jury to render a verdict on the actual charges, not cop out to some BS option to try and punk out of their responsibilities. A good jury foreman would have this whole thing wrapped up in an hour or less.