Winners only.

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The prosecution tried to throw that red herring into the argument. This case wasn't about what state Kyle was from. Since when do you need an invitation to go neighboring state in the US? To correct the record, Kyle shot 2 armed men and one unarmed man who threatened to kill him.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases of armed folks attempting to retreat from their attackers and having to shoot them instead. I'd guess it happens daily in the US, probably doesn't even make it to court most the time.

Not a red herring. It’s part of what makes the case “new”, which is what Spokey incorrectly thinks is a prerequisite for a case to be used as a precedent.
He demanded “new” and I gave it to him, even though it has nothing to do with “precedence”.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

So you're implying the the defund the police movement had no effect on policing?

It's beyond defund the police. I'd call more an "anti-police" or even "get the police" movement.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Clearly not lies. We cannot know exactly what was going in Kyle's head, his own testimony/interviews may have been lies. We can only look at the facts we do have and draw reasonable conclusions. Given the fact that Kyle wasn't the only one who thought it was time to arm themselves and "defend the city" I'd say there was probably some common denominator, like the effects of the anti-police rhetoric coming from the left. Claims of systemic racism, etc.

If I can be called a liar and accused of offering hyperbole and misinformation when I relate known and verifiable information, then I sure as hell can call Spokey a liar for making claims over and over again as if they are fact, then calling them “opinions” once they start to fall apart in the face of facts.

I don’t argue using my feelings or opinions as if they are facts to support my argument, and then just repeating them ad nauseum to make them seem true. Some people here do that Often.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Not a red herring. It’s part of what makes the case “new”, which is what Spokey incorrectly thinks is a prerequisite for a case to be used as a precedent.
He demanded “new” and I gave it to him, even though it has nothing to do with “precedence”.

It was a red herring and has nothing to with the case. Either people can legally defend themselves when they're assaulted or they can't. Clearly the court say they can (defend themselves). Nobody cares if you're playing boy cop, an out of town tourist, the liquor shop owner, etc. All the playing boy cop crap was a weak attempt to distract the jury from the weak a$$ case the prosecution had to work with. The video says it all - attack somebody with a rifle and they may respond with deadly force.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

If I can be called a liar and accused of offering hyperbole and misinformation when I relate known and verifiable information, then I sure as hell can call Spokey a liar for making claims over and over again as if they are fact, then calling them “opinions” once they start to fall apart in the face of facts.

I don’t argue using my feelings or opinions as if they are facts to support my argument, and then just repeating them ad nauseum to make them seem true. Some people here do that Often.

His opinions didn't fall apart in the face of the facts. If you don't think the defund the police movement affected how policing was done and how people on both sides viewed these riots, then you've chosen to deny reality.

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

Lol at people who comment and add nothing.

my bad. . . here, ill add something

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

If I can be called a liar and accused of offering hyperbole and misinformation when I relate known and verifiable information, then I sure as hell can call Spokey a liar for making claims over and over again as if they are fact, then calling them “opinions” once they start to fall apart in the face of facts.

I don’t argue using my feelings or opinions as if they are facts to support my argument, and then just repeating them ad nauseum to make them seem true. Some people here do that Often.

You haven't brought any facts to the discussion so far...it's been talking points or I'll be polite...misinformation...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Not a red herring. It’s part of what makes the case “new”, which is what Spokey incorrectly thinks is a prerequisite for a case to be used as a precedent.
He demanded “new” and I gave it to him, even though it has nothing to do with “precedence”.

Again what is this precedent?...you still haven't stated anything that hasn't be affirmed in hundreds of cases over the years...except playing boy cop...but I'm pretty sure there's nothing close to administrative code for that...it's just opinion in a court setting...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

It was a red herring and has nothing to with the case. Either people can legally defend themselves when they're assaulted or they can't. Clearly the court say they can (defend themselves). Nobody cares if you're playing boy cop, an out of town tourist, the liquor shop owner, etc. All the playing boy cop crap was a weak attempt to distract the jury from the weak a$$ case the prosecution had to work with. The video says it all - attack somebody with a rifle and they may respond with deadly force.

Everything that happens leading up to a case that can be used in trial will be. “What was his state of mind three days before? How did he feel about the shooting prior to the riots? Did he ever attend any vigilante rally” etc. etc. etc. They tear shit apart, and you know it. Hell, his lawyers tried to fight extradition for the trial, and every other headline was about the “Illinois teen” who drove to Wisconsin and ended up killing two people.

A lot of hullabaloo for something that has nothing at all to do with a case?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Everything that happens leading up to a case that can be used in trial will be. “What was his state of mind three days before? How did he feel about the shooting prior to the riots? Did he ever attend an vigilante rally” etc. etc. etc. They tear shit apart, and you know it. Hell, his lawyers tried to fight extradition for the trial, and every other headline was about the “Illinois teen” who drove to Wisconsin and ended up killing two people.

A lot of hullabaloo for something that has nothing at all to do with a case?

It wasn't just extradition they fought...Rittenhouse's attorney fought for a change of venue because they felt they couldn't get an impartial jury...everybody that goes on trial has the right to make that motion...it's nothing new...and being incarcerated anywhere near Kenosha would've been a risk to his well being...

The prosecution tried all that and had they actually had a case...it would've worked...but against a pretty cut and dry case of self defense (with lots of video photographic evidence)...all the prior to stuff isn't a case...

And headlines mean fck all legally...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

It wasn't just extradition they fought...Rittenhouse's attorney fought for a change of venue because they felt they couldn't get an impartial jury...everybody that goes on trial has the right to make that motion...it's nothing new...and being incarcerated anywhere near Kenosha would've been a risk to his well being...

The prosecution tried all that and had they actually had a case...it would've worked...but against a pretty cut and dry case of self defense (with lots of video photographic evidence)...all the prior to stuff isn't a case...

And headlines mean fck all legally...

The above makes it rather dubious that his travel meant nothing to the case or trial, no? I did not watch the trial, so I would have to ask if it was brought up at all that he was from another state.
I think Jimi watched it. Maybe when he’s online again (in Ireland?) he can share that info.

Headlines can mean plenty legally. Ever heard of a sequestered jury? Did you know they ask potential jurors what they’ve seen or heard about a case? Did you know that mistrials or calls for a new trial can happen from jurors getting info that can sway their decision?
Headlines can mean a lot more legally than “fvckall”.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

The above makes it rather dubious that his travel meant nothing to the case or trial, no?

Headlines can mean plenty legally. Ever heard of a sequestered jury? Did you know they ask potential jurors what they’ve seen or heard about a case?

They sequester juries and ask about what they already to help pick impartial jurors...not because a headline means anything in court...all a headline can do is prejudice a potential juror one way or another...that doesn't give the headline legal standing...

You're hung up the fact he traveled...everybody has the right to interstate travel...it's not a new concept...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

They sequester juries and ask about what they already to help pick impartial jurors...not because a headline means anything in court...all a headline can do is prejudice a potential juror one way or another...that doesn't give the headline legal standing...

You're hung up the fact he traveled...everybody has the right to interstate travel...it's not a new concept...

Headlines can cause a mistrial. That’s not “fuckall” when it comes to a trial.

It was suggested that his travel and permanent residency had nothing to do with the case. A quick glance at the transcript of the hearing shows it was one if the very first things discussed, and was brought up quite a bit thereafter. It was brought up by the prosecution and the defense.
A lot of talk about an irrelevant topic?

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Headlines can cause a mistrial. That’s not “fuckall” when it comes to a trial.

It was suggested that his travel and permanent residency had nothing to do with the case. A quick glance at the transcript of the hearing shows it was one if the very first things discussed, and was brought up quite a bit thereafter. It was brought up by the prosecution and the defense.
A lot of talk about an irrelevant topic?

Headlines cause mistrial because of either biasing the judge or jury...headlines are meaningless in trial...try brining one up as evidence...or even use it as a line questioning...and any ambulance chaser will get it struck pretty damn quick...

Just because it was brought up doesn't deny the fact that he had every right (just the same as anybody else) to interstate travel...