Viva's assessment... Binger is in big trouble and Kyle's testimony was solid.
The defence team not only took a risk with Kyle testifying, although that was probably Kyle's choice, they were very negligent in not objecting to the repetitive questioning and allowing Binger an uninterrupted run. You could argue that they wanted the jury to see that he couldn't be broken but that's very risky. The jury doesn't have much opportunity to make judgements about a defendant if they don't take the stand. By putting Kyle up there they put the jury in position to make all kinds of judgements. His breakdown could be seen as manipulative for instance.
The defence has allowed Binger too much leeway to keep hammering away with the loaded language throughout the trial.
Viva's assessment... Binger is in big trouble and Kyle's testimony was solid.
Probably Kyle's choice to testify, but it gave the jury an opportunity to make judgements which wouldn't otherwise have arisen. Perhaps his breakdown made him seem manipulative to some of them. Whether or not it helped in the end the defense allowed Binger too much of a run with the repetitive questions without objecting. Maybe they thought it would show Kyle had nothing to hide, but that's risky. They have allowed Binger to hammer away with the loaded language throughout the trial.
Wow, Ali A. Rizvi* sure is a major league dickhead. Obviously trying to fill the large space reserved for atheist activist slandering dickhead left by Peez.
*Whose credentials as Prominent Atheist Voice™ consists entirely of as an adult having stopped believing that Mohammed rode a flying horse.
The euphoria after Grosskreutz's testimony has now disappeared. Even I could tell from the odd glimpse into the courtroom that the defence performance has been bad. They have been very remiss in the lack of objections, they bargained away expert testimony pre-trial in bad compromise and have now left the jury to deliberate without having elicited full expert testimony on the use of force in self-defence. This should have been open and shut, the defence should have left absolutely no doubt that someone kicking your head in is a threat to life as is someone grabbing your gun or a skateboard to the head. They left so much ammunition on the table. Looks like Barnes was right about Richards and the Rekieta panel agree, one of them even saying he'd prefer court appointed counsel. The morons didn't even object to, and signed, a document typed up by the prosecutor's office agreeing limits to the testimony of a defence expert. The judge let them off the hook by saying the limits weren't what he thought he'd agreed to even though the court had received the document.
Took people's word for it that the media have been horribly dishonest about Rittenhouse but it didn't prepare me for what I've seen now that I'm paying attention. As far as the lefties are concerned Rittenhouse is a malicious little murderer being coddled by a bad judge and they're disgusted with his crocodile tears. Perhaps they should hold themselves accountable for inflaming and justifying violence, hamstringing the police and leaving communities to defend themselves.
Judge said, is 90 minutes each good for closing arguments? Defense said, 90 tops. Binger said, I'll need three hours plus another 30 minutes for rebuttal. Judge gave both two and a half hours. By the time Binger is done droning, the jury will wish Kyle would shoot them.
Sometimes, 'give 'em enough rope' is sufficient as a strategy. Binger has been not only mind-numbingly tedious, but also smarmy, unctuous, prissy, and arrogant. He's been chewed out several times by the judge in front of the jury. Whatever sliver of argument Binger may have put forth -- I saw none whatsoever -- his credibility with the jury has got to be non-existent at this point. And on Monday, this switches from the Kyle Rittenhouse Murder Trial to the Thomas Binger Let Me Bore You Some More Telethon.
As for the Joy Behars and other hateful cunts who've mocked Kyle for choking up, any person with a soul could see he was experiencing real PTSD on the stand. If there's just one mother on the jury, it's acquittal. The Left can read the writing on the wall, which is why they're already in attack mode.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Took people's word for it that the media have been horribly dishonest about Rittenhouse but it didn't prepare me for what I've seen now that I'm paying attention. As far as the lefties are concerned Rittenhouse is a malicious little murderer being coddled by a bad judge and they're disgusted with his crocodile tears. Perhaps they should hold themselves accountable for inflaming and justifying violence, hamstringing the police and leaving communities to defend themselves.
I think quite a bunch of people have taken the first nibble at the red pill over this. The left's whole political identity is based on them being the good guys and what is right being obvious and easy and people who disagree are just being disingenuous. Being revealed as dishonest, politically motivated hacks who can't be trusted to honestly report what day of the week it is seems like it should be a problem for them. Things fall apart.
Judge said, is 90 minutes each good for closing arguments? Defense said, 90 tops. Binger said, I'll need three hours plus another 30 minutes for rebuttal. Judge gave both two and a half hours. By the time Binger is done droning, the jury will wish Kyle would shoot them.
Sometimes, 'give 'em enough rope' is sufficient as a strategy. Binger has been not only mind-numbingly tedious, but also smarmy, unctuous, prissy, and arrogant. He's been chewed out several times by the judge in front of the jury. Whatever sliver of argument Binger may have put forth -- I saw none whatsoever -- his credibility with the jury has got to be non-existent at this point. And on Monday, this switches from the Kyle Rittenhouse Murder Trial to the Thomas Binger Let Me Bore You Some More Telethon.
As for the Joy Behars and other hateful cunts who've mocked Kyle for choking up, any person with a soul could see he was experiencing real PTSD on the stand. If there's just one mother on the jury, it's acquittal. The Left can read the writing on the wall, which is why they're already in attack mode.
Leaving it up to prosecution performance is a bad risk. There's no downside to hammering home the soundness of your own case when you have the evidence to back it up. It's possible that the jury is conscientious and will make an attempt to leave antipathy to Binger out of it, in which case you don't want to leave them in any doubt that Rittenhouse had to defend himself.
Roughly one week ago-- I was in a certain mood-- or mental state-- which I couldn't quite grasp, at the time.
Sorta-like how an introvert feels depleted, after a party. That week included work with a bunch of female dingbats, household friction with GF, and buzzkill news events... like the Woke being defeated in Virginia/ soon followed by vax propaganda for 5 year olds & thuggish OSHA rules.
I posted several things which elicited interesting replies-- but when I contemplated replying-- my mind was a bit jumbled-- like trying to read during a bumpy car ride. I couldn't quite order my thoughts into cogent replies. So I left those replies hanging.
Fortunately, GF & I went upstate to the cabin. Didn't bring laptop. Did bring phone, but only read the 'pyt, without logging-in. Lots of quiet. Baking myself in front of the cast iron log-burner. A little fucking-around on guitar. Hot baths in a big tub with a window facing deer & rain. A couple very-short undemanding trail hikes. GF prefers to buzz & keep busy-- so she did all the cleaning, fire tending, grilling, grocery shopping. I did almost nothing. I recharged.
At first the scenery was bleak-- we intended to shut off the plumbing & winterize the cabin until next year. Which felt like a sad ending. But the owner decided he might come up & stay during the winter. So I might get to return before Spring. Rural upstate New York is full of people who seem to be suffering permanent economic recession-- overweight, saggy clothes, dragging themselves in Wal-mart. While wealthy seasonal dilettantes cruise-in to enjoy their country getaway homes, with a segregated economy of pricey restaurants, boutiques, luxury goods... certain Potemkin towns are curated for their enjoyment. Fortunately, this trip, we found some pockets of healthy culture by-and-for the locals. Such as Alto Music-- the type of place which used to exist before Guitar Center & Amazon... with a great assortment of obscure guitar-building parts, instruments for kids in school band, etc. And a town called Chester-- which for-sure has yuppie tourist high-dollar appeal/ but the locals seem happy & prosperous too. And-- maybe it was just the 'magic hour' lighting... but the terrain felt rosy... not reminiscent of bleak dead seasons I experienced in dead-end places in the midwest, growing up.
I did follow the Rittenhouse trial, not firsthand tho. I read pyt posts & the daily posts by Branca at Legal Insurrection. Speaking of the midwest-- I spent a few late-teen years in Wisconsin-- married-into (and was ejected from) a very Wisconsin family. That place makes me fear for Rittenhouse. Wisconsin had a woke college campus elite, long before the term woke was coined. And a normie-progressive no-nothing continent... who blindly hate 'Fox News' and 'Republicans', with full-confidence but little coherent sense. And also a blue-collar version-- the sort of class resentments which Bernie & Elizabeth Warren & Biden try to stoke, by yammering about a bygone era of unions & FDR. A dangerous place, for Rittenhouse to be judged by his peers.
A memorable quirk to my cabin week-- was bringing-along Heinlein's 'Farnham's Freehold' & reading it aloud to GF. Oh my!
Alternate title: John D. Goes To Wakanda
I thought had read the whole book before-- but maybe I never made it far-past the Hebrew Israelites/ Black Lives Matter guys showing-up. I think I had grafted another novel from my memory-- probably Sixth Column-- to imagine I knew the ending.
After decades of people talking-about Farnham's Freehold with an awkward, reasonable urge to distance-themselves from the book... ("I don't approve of what's in the book, of course")... I think the world has finally grown batty-enough that the book doesn't require a disclaimer. Now, it's just prescient. And reading it in a cabin during the kyletrial-- was an immersive experience. I had some vivid dreams.
Service Dog wrote: ↑
That place makes me fear for Rittenhouse. Wisconsin had a woke college campus elite, long before the term woke was coined. And a normie-progressive no-nothing continent... who blindly hate 'Fox News' and 'Republicans', with full-confidence but little coherent sense. And also a blue-collar version-- the sort of class resentments which Bernie & Elizabeth Warren & Biden try to stoke, by yammering about a bygone era of unions & FDR. A dangerous place, for Rittenhouse to be judged by his peers.
Madison, for sure. But Kenosha County went for Trump. Gotta be able to get at least one Magat out of twelve. Maybe on voir dire, defense should've asked, 'you drink Leinie?'
Service Dog wrote: ↑
A memorable quirk to my cabin week-- was bringing-along Heinlein's 'Farnham's Freehold' & reading it aloud to GF. Oh my!
Alternate title: John D. Goes To Wakanda
Service Dog wrote: ↑
A memorable quirk to my cabin week-- was bringing-along Heinlein's 'Farnham's Freehold' & reading it aloud to GF. Oh my!
Alternate title: John D. Goes To Wakanda
Sounds like a good read!
Hey wait one minute. Here is a review: What are you suggesting!?!?
The New Republic, while conceding Heinlein's desire to "show the evils of ethnic oppression" states that in the process, Heinlein "resurrected some of the most horrific racial stereotypes imaginable," ultimately producing "an anti-racist novel only a Klansman could love."[5
John D wrote: ↑
Ok... so why doesn't someone make this into a movie..
Nobody likes to make movies involving a lot of water -- way too expensive -- except Jim Cameron. And Jim Cameron only makes movies now involving water. My sister and I tried to pitch a TV series about waterborne special ops, and the reply was 'great, but too much water. Have you sent to Jim Cameron?'
I always thought the Laconia affair would make an incredible movie.
Ok.... So if water is too expensive.... then can we afford horses in our movie. This is another movie just waiting to be made. It even has a great title "Operation Cowboy".
Having difficulty getting the KR trial off my mind. The thought off a 17-year old spending decades behind bars for trying to stay alive offends me a lot. The politics of it is secondary, but almost as infuriating. Having just watched some of the Rekieta panel's Friday coverage I'm concerned that KR might be in trouble. The dangers of a defendant testifying and a passive and under-prepared defence became very apparent. Kyle's testimony allowed the state to pursue the issue of provocation and they've rehabilitated their case significantly. Binger has been before Schroeder over 400 times and he must know how far he can push him. It looks like after Schroeder scolds you he calms down and overcompensates. The defence introduced enhanced shots of FBI video which they boldly claimed showed KR pointing a gun at Ziminski, although the judge clearly saw squat when he looked. Basically, the prosecution started testifying and gaslighting the judge who seemed to invite the defence to rebut, but they put up a pathetic response. Now the judge will direct the jury to consider provocation on the basis of a blurry photograph which shows what you want to see, and even if it did show Kyle raising a gun there's no evidence that it was pointing at anyone or that anyone felt provoked. That could be self-defence out of the window.
The Rekieta panel lawyers are really scathing of Richards. He's been passive, letting the prosecution run over the judge and neglecting to object to obvious liberties. I have to say that I share their frustration because it doesn't take a lawyer to see how they repeatedly failed to argue obvious points. Barnes was absolutely right about Richards. His major skill is reclining in his chair, shaking his head and looking grumpy.
Best fucking war movie ever.... Colonel Reed (played by Tom Hanks)... a long time lover of all things horse fears the Russians will not protect the Lippizaner Stallions. He protests to Patton... (played by Gilbert Godfried). Patton refuses and says war is too serious a matter to worry about horses that can wiggle their butt... but Patton's wife (played by Sarah Silverman) tells the story of the great tradition of the horse and Patton agrees. Much turmoil ensues with the Cossacks helping move the horses (Cossack leader played by Sacha Baron Cohen). A firefight ensues with the Germans and the plucky private, who loves the horse he is assigned to protect (played by Ed Sheeren) makes a bold move to save his horse... drives off the Germans... but dies slowly from his wounds (Everyone cries). When the horses finally arrive in a safe area a reckless bitch of a sergeant (played by Adam Driver) causes a horse to break his leg. Tom Hanks weeps as he puts the horse out of its misery. It is the very same horse that Ed Sheeren was so fond of. (Everyone cries). The movie closes with Mrs. Patton (Sarah Silverman) telling the riders that her husband loved the stallions... close with a brilliant and dramatic dressage scene with tears dripping from Mrs. Patton's eyes (Everyone cries).
Horses for the bitches.... war for the men. Action and tragedy. but.... everything was worth it to preserve beauty.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
Having difficulty getting the KR trial off my mind. The thought off a 17-year old spending decades behind bars for trying to stay alive offends me a lot. The politics of it is secondary, but almost as infuriating. Having just watched some of the Rekieta panel's Friday coverage I'm concerned that KR might be in trouble. The dangers of a defendant testifying and a passive and under-prepared defence became very apparent. Kyle's testimony allowed the state to pursue the issue of provocation and they've rehabilitated their case significantly. Binger has been before Schroeder over 400 times and he must know how far he can push him. It looks like after Schroeder scolds you he calms down and overcompensates. The defence introduced enhanced shots of FBI video which they boldly claimed showed KR pointing a gun at Ziminski, although the judge clearly saw squat when he looked. Basically, the prosecution started testifying and gaslighting the judge who seemed to invite the defence to rebut, but they put up a pathetic response. Now the judge will direct the jury to consider provocation on the basis of a blurry photograph which shows what you want to see, and even if it did show Kyle raising a gun there's no evidence that it was pointing at anyone or that anyone felt provoked. That could be self-defence out of the window.
The Rekieta panel lawyers are really scathing of Richards. He's been passive, letting the prosecution run over the judge and neglecting to object to obvious liberties. I have to say that I share their frustration because it doesn't take a lawyer to see how they repeatedly failed to argue obvious points. Barnes was absolutely right about Richards. His major skill is reclining in his chair, shaking his head and looking grumpy.
I would not be at all surprised if Kyle is found guilty of several charges and I would not be surprised if he spends years in prison. The best thing to do in your life is to stay away from the justice system. It is a poor approximation of justice. Imagine.... you are being judged by all your idiot neighbors. Disaster!
How quickly we forget about what was happening in the 70s and 80s. Self defenders were getting regularly prosecuted. This resulted in high crime and good citizens just keeping their heads down (no heroes here... thank you very much).
Remember Bernhard Goetz in 1984? The media and the left made him out to be a monster. There where even a bunch of rock songs about how evil he was. But, essentially, he was afraid of being beaten up. We have returned to this space. Permissive attitudes toward criminals (victims of society) and hatred of self protectors (Evil powerful monsters).
I am saddened that we have to return to this place.... but here we are.
John D wrote: ↑
This is another movie just waiting to be made. It even has a great title "Operation Cowboy".
Greenlight the script, nix on the casting.
What... I think Gilbert Gottfried would make for a great General George Patton. Same voice.... same size.... same attitude....
C'mon, man! It's 2021, your cast isn't diverse enough.
Col. Hobbs: Dev Patel (duh)
Cossack Leader: Gemma Chan
Gen. Patton: Chris Tucker
Mrs. Patton: Eddy Redmayne
Good German officer: Lena Dunham
SS Officer: Aaron Rogers
Horse That Dies: Megan Thee Stallion
Soldier Who Must Shoot Horse That Dies: Alec Baldwin
Also, need more diversity in the horses' coats -- replace Lippizaners with paints, Appaloosas, red roans, blue roans, transroans, etc.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
Having difficulty getting the KR trial off my mind. The thought off a 17-year old spending decades behind bars for trying to stay alive offends me a lot. The politics of it is secondary, but almost as infuriating. Having just watched some of the Rekieta panel's Friday coverage I'm concerned that KR might be in trouble. The dangers of a defendant testifying and a passive and under-prepared defence became very apparent. Kyle's testimony allowed the state to pursue the issue of provocation and they've rehabilitated their case significantly. Binger has been before Schroeder over 400 times and he must know how far he can push him. It looks like after Schroeder scolds you he calms down and overcompensates. The defence introduced enhanced shots of FBI video which they boldly claimed showed KR pointing a gun at Ziminski, although the judge clearly saw squat when he looked. Basically, the prosecution started testifying and gaslighting the judge who seemed to invite the defence to rebut, but they put up a pathetic response. Now the judge will direct the jury to consider provocation on the basis of a blurry photograph which shows what you want to see, and even if it did show Kyle raising a gun there's no evidence that it was pointing at anyone or that anyone felt provoked. That could be self-defence out of the window.
The Rekieta panel lawyers are really scathing of Richards. He's been passive, letting the prosecution run over the judge and neglecting to object to obvious liberties. I have to say that I share their frustration because it doesn't take a lawyer to see how they repeatedly failed to argue obvious points. Barnes was absolutely right about Richards. His major skill is reclining in his chair, shaking his head and looking grumpy.
I would not be at all surprised if Kyle is found guilty of several charges and I would not be surprised if he spends years in prison. The best thing to do in your life is to stay away from the justice system. It is a poor approximation of justice. Imagine.... you are being judged by all your idiot neighbors. Disaster!
How quickly we forget about what was happening in the 70s and 80s. Self defenders were getting regularly prosecuted. This resulted in high crime and good citizens just keeping their heads down (no heroes here... thank you very much).
Remember Bernhard Goetz in 1984? The media and the left made him out to be a monster. There where even a bunch of rock songs about how evil he was. But, essentially, he was afraid of being beaten up. We have returned to this space. Permissive attitudes toward criminals (victims of society) and hatred of self protectors (Evil powerful monsters).
I am saddened that we have to return to this place.... but here we are.
Two people were killed so it isn't that outlandish that KR is being tried. In the normal course of events I would expect him to be acquitted of the murder charges but, the jury influencing aside, the main reason KR might be in danger here is the incompetence of his legal team. Prosecutors being cnuts is not unusual. Defence this bungling in a major case would appear to be unusual.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
Two people were killed so it isn't that outlandish that KR is being tried. In the normal course of events I would expect him to be acquitted of the murder charges but, the jury influencing aside, the main reason KR might be in danger here is the incompetence of his legal team. Prosecutors being cnuts is not unusual. Defence this bungling in a major case would appear to be unusual.
I don't think I would be prepared to call the defence incompetent until after the closing arguments.
The trick the defence pulled off on the gun possession charge was absolutely brilliant and the prosecution never saw it coming.
Since the defence has been super-careful not to give away their defence on the homicide charges, I think it is possible that they have been playing their cards really close for a good reason. In any case I hope they have arguments which will come as a surprise to the prosecution.
Biden’s Banking Nominee Calls to Eliminate All ‘Private Bank Accounts’
SEAN MORAN 13 Nov 2021
Saule Omarova, President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), called during a March 2021 virtual conference to eliminate all private bank accounts and deposits.
....
Omarova discussed one of her papers, “The People’s Ledger How to Democratize Money and Finance the Economy,” which would help “redesign” the financial system and make the economy “more equitable for everyone.”
She said it would change the “private-public power balance” and democratize finance to a more systemic level.
During her explanation of her paper, she said that the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank, can only use “indirect levers” to “induce private banks to increase their lending.”
Her paper calls for eliminating all banks and transferring all bank deposits to “FedAccounts” at the Federal Reserve.
During her conference speech, she said, “There will be no more private bank accounts, and all of the deposit accounts will be held directly at the Fed”:
Omarova said her proposal would give the Fed more “proactive” monetary policy tools, such as “helicopter money.” She also pondered how the Federal Reserve could “take money” from Americans during an inflationary environment.
A former senior government official told Breitbart News that if the Senate were to confirm Omarova, she would have the “most powerful, least accountable” position over America’s banking system.
When talking about FedAccounts, the former senior government official said, “The Democratic Party over the last couple of administrations, they want the government to essentially take over a lot of financial functions from banks.”
Omarova’s radical views led to 21 state financial officers calling for Biden to withdraw Omarova’s nomination for the U.S. comptroller:
The LPE serves as a platform to discuss:
the role of law and legal discourse in the creation and maintenance of capitalism and in mediating tensions between capitalist order and democratic self-rule. Scholars in our network work to understand the relationship between market supremacy and racial, gender, and economic injustice; to articulate the relationship between capitalism and devaluation of social and ecological reproduction; and to explore the distinctive ways that law gives shape to and legitimates neoliberal capitalism, ranging from dynamics of financialization to the relation between the carceral state and capitalism. We also seek to offer concrete legal reforms designed to move beyond neoliberalism and toward a genuinely responsive, egalitarian democracy, with critical attention to the need for power and movement-building as part of any such transformation.
Fegg wrote: ↑
The trick the defence pulled off on the gun possession charge was absolutely brilliant and the prosecution never saw it coming.
What was the trick?
The only elements of the possession charge which are in evidence are:
a) the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was in possession of the gun.
b) the length of the gun as measured by the police witness.
The other elements of the crime can not be argued because they are not in evidence-so the only basis the question can be argued is on the length of the gun. And that will be in the instructions to the jury. Unless the jury believes beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was shorter than the police witness said it was - they must find the defendant not guilty of that charge.
The prosecution did not take notice that the defence got measurements of the gun into evidence.
Maybe I got this wrong, but that was what they seemed to be arguing about on Friday.
Fegg wrote: ↑
The trick the defence pulled off on the gun possession charge was absolutely brilliant and the prosecution never saw it coming.
What was the trick?
The other elements of the crime can not be argued because they are not in evidence-so the only basis the question can be argued is on the length of the gun.
Is the gun not the length the police witness said it was?
Anyway, I thought there was a bunch of ambiguously written stuff in the statute about hunting.
fafnir wrote: ↑
Is the gun not the length the police witness said it was?
Anyway, I thought there was a bunch of ambiguously written stuff in the statute about hunting.
Of course it is. I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand you can't make an argument based on facts not in evidence. The defence made sure that information about the length of the gun was in evidence. The prosecution did not notice this, and so the other elements of the crime become irrelevant. The not guilty verdict on the gun possession is now assured if the jury pays attention to the judge's instructions.
I hope the defence does well on Monday. I think there is a good chance they will.
Fegg wrote: ↑
The trick the defence pulled off on the gun possession charge was absolutely brilliant and the prosecution never saw it coming.
What was the trick?
The only elements of the possession charge which are in evidence are:
a) the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was in possession of the gun.
b) the length of the gun as measured by the police witness.
The other elements of the crime can not be argued because they are not in evidence-so the only basis the question can be argued is on the length of the gun. And that will be in the instructions to the jury. Unless the jury believes beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was shorter than the police witness said it was - they must find the defendant not guilty of that charge.
The prosecution did not take notice that the defence got measurements of the gun into evidence.
Maybe I got this wrong, but that was what they seemed to be arguing about on Friday.
Despite statute titled, "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", carrying long gun not a violation unless under age 16 or barrel < 16".
IIRC, nobody ever measured the barrel. Crybaby Kraus whined that defense could've done that and judge snapped that was your responsibility to prove. The rifle is in evidence, so jury should be able to examine it themselves.
Might seem trivial, considering it's a minor offense, but a lot of folks are hung up on: well if he wasn't allowed to have that gun, he somehow forfeited his right to self defense with it.
Like Fegg observes, defense has not tipped its hand much on the thrust of its argument. In contrast, Binger has telegraphed he's making Kyle out to be a psycho who was 'tryna B famous', clearly evil for carrying a SCARYBLACK-15, abnormal for keeping body armor in his trunk unlike Binger who keeps his ball gag and My Little Pony costume in his trunk and who went to Kenosha that night looking for trouble and incited mostly peaceful protesters by extinguishing their mostly not aflame dumpsters so he could commit mass murder and become NOTORIOUS. And all that hinges on one goofy instagram and a 28x28 pixel image of a blur that's supposedly Kyle aiming his SCARYBLACK-15 left-handed at the gun-wielding Ziminsky who is not depicted in the blur and who Binger never called because Ziminsky is another commie and even worse liar than fellow commie Grosskreuz.
And if a jury wants to convict based on that, there was absolutely nothing a defense team could do other than putting Jesus Christ Himself on the stand as a character witness and He'd still be accused by Joy Behar of faking His stigmata.
fafnir wrote: ↑
Is the gun not the length the police witness said it was?
IIRC, she measured the distance one would need to move the charging bolt to 're-rack', which Grosskreutz claimed Kyle did after allegedly pulling the trigger but misfiring at G while his hands were raised.
But I wasn't paying much attention to the testimony, cuz she was absolutely gorgeous.
Anyway, I thought there was a bunch of ambiguously written stuff in the statute about hunting.
Judge accepted defense argument that the hunting sections did not apply.
fafnir wrote: ↑
Is the gun not the length the police witness said it was?
Anyway, I thought there was a bunch of ambiguously written stuff in the statute about hunting.
Of course it is. I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand you can't make an argument based on facts not in evidence. The defence made sure that information about the length of the gun was in evidence. The prosecution did not notice this, and so the other elements of the crime become irrelevant. The not guilty verdict on the gun possession is now assured if the jury pays attention to the judge's instructions.
I don't understand. What aspects of the crime were not in evidence. They have his age, him giving his friend money to purchase it and him possessing it. I don't understand what information is missing.
Fegg wrote: ↑
The trick the defence pulled off on the gun possession charge was absolutely brilliant and the prosecution never saw it coming.
What was the trick?
The only elements of the possession charge which are in evidence are:
a) the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was in possession of the gun.
b) the length of the gun as measured by the police witness.
The other elements of the crime can not be argued because they are not in evidence-so the only basis the question can be argued is on the length of the gun. And that will be in the instructions to the jury. Unless the jury believes beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was shorter than the police witness said it was - they must find the defendant not guilty of that charge.
The prosecution did not take notice that the defence got measurements of the gun into evidence.
Maybe I got this wrong, but that was what they seemed to be arguing about on Friday.
Despite statute titled, "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", carrying long gun not a violation unless under age 16 or barrel < 16".
IIRC, nobody ever measured the barrel. Crybaby Kraus whined that defense could've done that and judge snapped that was your responsibility to prove. The rifle is in evidence, so jury should be able to examine it themselves.
Might seem trivial, considering it's a minor offense, but a lot of folks are hung up on: well if he wasn't allowed to have that gun, he somehow forfeited his right to self defense with it.
Like Fegg observes, defense has not tipped its hand much on the thrust of its argument. In contrast, Binger has telegraphed he's making Kyle out to be a psycho who was 'tryna B famous', clearly evil for carrying a SCARYBLACK-15, abnormal for keeping body armor in his trunk unlike Binger who keeps his ball gag and My Little Pony costume in his trunk and who went to Kenosha that night looking for trouble and incited mostly peaceful protesters by extinguishing their mostly not aflame dumpsters so he could commit mass murder and become NOTORIOUS. And all that hinges on one goofy instagram and a 28x28 pixel image of a blur that's supposedly Kyle aiming his SCARYBLACK-15 left-handed at the gun-wielding Ziminsky who is not depicted in the blur and who Binger never called because Ziminsky is another commie and even worse liar than fellow commie Grosskreuz.
And if a jury wants to convict based on that, there was absolutely nothing a defense team could do other than putting Jesus Christ Himself on the stand as a character witness and He'd still be accused by Joy Behar of faking His stigmata.
The defence should have made a stronger argument for why the image didn't and couldn't prove anything. Without that evidence the judge would probably not have instructed the jury to deliberate on the provocation issue. Provocation is now the pivotal issue affecting the self-defence claim and it should never have made it to the jury to decide on. There is now scope for jurors activate their "he should never have been there" biases in deciding on provocation. My gut reaction was that the defense were regularly letting opportunities slide and increasing their burden. I'm going to take the similar opinion of 6 or 7 lawyers watching the trial live over the Pyt opinion. Regardless of what cunning plans they think they've got up their sleeves the defense have given unnecessary opportunities to the jury to convict. It is probably going to come down to the objectivity of the jury and it needn't have come to that. There should have been no need for clever strategies even if they actually have one.
fafnir wrote: ↑
OK, but Fegg said the police had testified to it's length. Are we saying the police were incorrect about that detail?
I may be mistaken, I will have to see if I can find the right part. The trouble is there is massive amount of video.
On the livestream from legal insurrection from November 12 at about 1:00:30 there is a reference to evidence of of barrel length obtained by the defence under cross-examination of the state's witness.
fafnir wrote: ↑
OK, but Fegg said the police had testified to it's length. Are we saying the police were incorrect about that detail?
I may be mistaken, I will have to see if I can find the right part. The trouble is there is massive amount of video.
On the livestream from legal insurrection from November 12 at about 1:00:30 there is a reference to evidence of of barrel length obtained by the defence under cross-examination of the state's witness.
I had miss remembered - he asked the detective if the barrel had been of legal length,
I sometimes peek in at that chat in the hours before broadcast to see what's new, and saw that Mykeru Media had posted a joke. I wonder how things finally resolved out of his job ... It was looking pretty dire, as best I can recall.
For anyone still unclear this explains the fallout from KR's testimony and the consequences of not properly nuking the blurry image and the prosecution's BS filled monologues about it. Richards's attitude seemed to be that it was irritating but didn't really matter. I don't get the apologetics over this. The defence should have taken every opportunity to kill this trial but they took their boots off the prosecution's neck and now people are saying it's because they have a cunning strategy! Doesn't compute.
I don't get the apologetics over this. The defence should have taken every opportunity to kill this trial but they took their boots off the prosecution's neck and now people are saying it's because they have a cunning strategy! Doesn't compute.
How does the defense 'kill' a trial? When Schroeder warned Binger he was on the verge of triggering a mistrial, Richards announced in that case he'd ask for it with prejudice. Then defense did formerly ask for that and/or a directed verdict, as well as dismissal of the weapons charge.
If Binger knows what he can get away with in front of this judge, then Richards surely knows, too, and how far he himself can push. I don't consider it 'apologetics' to observe that not objecting every single time you could is chosing to be effective over being right.
I don't think the defense has some secret strategy up its sleeve. But this is the most straight-forward self defense case imaginable, and I think they made a very solid presentation of that. A relatively succinct close should seal the deal. If the jury wishes to ignore the obvious to make some political statement, there's really nothing that can be done about that.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
For anyone still unclear this explains the fallout from KR's testimony and the consequences of not properly nuking the blurry image and the prosecution's BS filled monologues about it. Richards's attitude seemed to be that it was irritating but didn't really matter. I don't get the apologetics over this. The defence should have taken every opportunity to kill this trial but they took their boots off the prosecution's neck and now people are saying it's because they have a cunning strategy! Doesn't compute.
I am not convinced Mr. Cornrow Baby Yoda DC Comic is really an expert. Just sayin. Any man over 35 who wears character t-shirts is spending too much time in the basement. You could be right.... but I have no plans to continue watching this man as if he is an expert.
I don't get the apologetics over this. The defence should have taken every opportunity to kill this trial but they took their boots off the prosecution's neck and now people are saying it's because they have a cunning strategy! Doesn't compute.
How does the defense 'kill' a trial? When Schroeder warned Binger he was on the verge of triggering a mistrial, Richards announced in that case he'd ask for it with prejudice. Then defense did formerly ask for that and/or a directed verdict, as well as dismissal of the weapons charge.
If Binger knows what he can get away with in front of this judge, then Richards surely knows, too, and how far he himself can push. I don't consider it 'apologetics' to observe that not objecting every single time you could is chosing to be effective over being right.
I don't think the defense has some secret strategy up its sleeve. But this is the most straight-forward self defense case imaginable, and I think they made a very solid presentation of that. A relatively succinct close should seal the deal. If the jury wishes to ignore the obvious to make some political statement, there's really nothing that can be done about that.
They had effectively won the trial already and they only needed to avoid giving the prosecution any openings. The prosecution's case was essentially dead until the provocation angle breathed new life into it. The defence did not push hard enough to get the image evidence and most likely consideration of provocation out of the picture. The judge was practically asking the defence for reasons to do that and Richards was half-hearted and even said it didn't really matter.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
They had effectively won the trial already and they only needed to avoid giving the prosecution any openings. The prosecution's case was essentially dead until the provocation angle breathed new life into it. The defence did not push hard enough to get the image evidence and most likely consideration of provocation out of the picture. The judge was practically asking the defence for reasons to do that and Richards was half-hearted and even said it didn't really matter.
Defense is spelled D-E-F-E-N-S-E... but that is a cheap shot. Are you a lawyer? Do you really know what the jury is thinking? Maybe the defense had a reason to think they needed Kyle to testify. Maybe they had a "fake" jury in the background giving feedback. Maybe the defense wanted the prosecutor to put more and more bullshit into evidence. This stupid photo (added late) might make him look desperate... so they didn't object. I don't know for sure.... but you are not convincing me that you know anything more than I do. Let's see what happens.
