Other people can argue all day and all night about whether or not it is "wrong" to use deadly force to protect property, but all I care about is whether or not it's LEGAL, and in the Great State of Texas it's perfectly legal to shoot a thief, or even a would be thief under most circumstances.
Back to Rittenhouse, I really have mixed emotions on this one. Part of me celebrates the fact that at least someone was willing to stand up to these thugs who were looting, burning and even murdering in the name of "racial equality", OTOH do we really want teenagers with that kind of firepower making life and death decisions without so much as fifteen minutes of training? Like I said, I have very mixed emotions about this one.
That said, come on my fucking property with the intent of doing me harm or stealing my property and you'll leave in a body bag, all with the blessing of local Law Enforcement. God Bless Texas. lol
Regardless of what you think of the case, or Rittenhouse himself, what are your thoughts of the judge? It seems like he make news all too often that has nothing to do with being a judge and everything to do with being a show off for the cameras.
You can see how slanted his is and where he stands deep down inside. But the kid will walk and I don't think they can retry the case. Now, can there be a civil suit against the mother of this kid? He was 17 at the time.
And the question is, what parent will even think let alone drive their kid to a hot spot like this....and now they're crying about books in Virginia.
And the question is, what parent will even think let alone drive their kid to a hot spot
Kyle had driven to Kenosha the day before the shootings to work at his lifeguard job. He then spent the night at his friend’s house, presumably watching Kenosha burn on TV. The next day he went downtown, scrubbed graffiti, met the owners of the car dealership and then returned to his friend’s. There, he picked up the AR-15 and then returned to the car lot with his friends.
The AR-15 never crossed state lines. His mother did not drive him to the riot. She has an extremely low risk of civil liability surrounding the shootings.
Now as far as the judge is concerned, I think that he’s done a good job of making sure the defendant’s civil rights are protected from an overzealous prosecutor who appears willing to violate any rules and norms in order to secure a victory. He seems to forget that the point of a trial isn’t about winning, it’s about finding true justice.
Is when the game isn't about the referee stopping play and throwing flags for nothing.. This judge has suck the air out of this game/case. Talking about Asian food, storing textes, can't call them victims, victims and blah and blah..
And you know, Jeffrey Dahmer grew up in Wisconsin. A shy, polite, loner who lived with his grandmother. he was deemed as a "Nice Kid"..till he bought them home for dinner.
But somehow, regardless if the mother didn't drive him, she did tell him to flee when then got home to Illinois. And I'm not a lawyer but he had the gun in Wis, drove to Illinois....so where's the gun? And he was a minor during this so isn't she responsible for him? So I hope there's a civil suits somewhere in this...If he's going to walk,
-- Modified on 11/12/2021 1:42:18 PM
I’m curious where you obtained your understanding of this case? Was it primarily mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, etc) or your social media timeline?
You have absolutely zero criticism at all for this judge? Nothing comes to mind? Him loudly scolding the prosecutor, something that judges, lawyers and pundits have all said they have never witnessed in decades of court room attendance, doesn't bother you? Ripping the prosecutor for a certain "look on his face?" No issue with that? Him saying that the two who were killed can't be referred to as "victims" (something VERY common in court rooms even before wrong doing is established) but the protestors CAN be called "rioters?" You honestly down see a bias here?
His loud outbursts have been good TV, but keep in mind that the jurors weren’t present for at least the two most significant scoldings.
In both those instances, the judge was righteously angry. Questioning Kyle about his invocation of the 5th Amendment was a severe violation that risked a mistrial. I imagine what the judge really wanted to say was “Are you trying to force me to declare a mistrial, you fucking idiot.”
In the second most egregious instance, the prosecutor had introduced evidence in front of the jury that had been previously been ruled inadmissible.
Although you’re contesting the prohibition on the use of the word “victims”, I’ve read that this type of a ruling in cases where self defense is being claimed is not uncommon.
What appears to be a bias for the defendant I see of more as a bias for the rights of the defendant versus the power of the state. It would take a deep dive by legal scholars into this judge’s previous trials to see whether this predilection against the state runs common through his trials, or is unique to this one.
By having them referred to as Rioters, Looter, and arsonist is tipping the scale . There's a better term the judge could have instructed the prosecution to use, say deceased,..I dunno. By that way of thinking, they could have referred to Rittenhouse as the "killer", I mean that's what he is.
…rioting, looting and committing arson?
the three people shot by Kyle were not dehumanized by the defense team. In fact, they were always referred to by name.
What the judge did authorize was the description of groups of people out in Kenosha that night as rioters, looters and arsonists.
Kenosha was especially hard hit by the nights of riots. A city of just under 100,000 population, it took over $50 million in damages, including 40 buildings.
One of the questions posed by the prosecutors was why Kyle even went into Kenosha armed. It would be stretch to force the defense team to ignore the carnage Kenosha was experiencing those nights, and a lie to call the people attacking police, looting businesses and burning down buildings as merely “protesters”.
...a California judge, he'd be kicked off the bench faster than you could say: "Judge Fucking Judy."
According to the ABA, judicial temperament means that a judge exhibits "compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice."
The National Center for State Courts described judicial temperament as "neutral, decisive, respectful, and composed."
http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_temperament
Schroeder is, to put it in legal terms, a dick.
Just to watch the lefties freak out over justice, shows just how nuts they’ve become.
The Libs have pushed so much disinformation in regards to the case that I believe they are hoping for violence in the event of an acquittal.
I can’t tell you how many Leftists on Blue Check Twitter have bemoaned that Kyle’s mom drove him across state lines with an AR-15, literally dropping him off at the riot.
The facts: Kyle never crossed state lines with an AR-15
Kyle’s mother didn’t drive him there
Kyle didn’t drive straight to the riot. He actually drove to Kenosha the day before the shooting to work his lifeguard shift.