Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Ohio has been doing very well economically for a decade. A pro business environment definitely pays off over the long run.

[lineygoblue]

WaPo is making a "racial bigotry" thing out of the Judge's asian food comment. Is WaPo really an actual news outlet, or are they a cheap grocery store tabloid?

[iam416]

Ohio has been doing very well economically for a decade. A pro business environment definitely pays off over the long run.

More accurately, Columbus has been doing spectacularly well for a decade.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[AlabamAlum]

The judge in the Rittenhouse case is going to allow one lesser count be considered by the jury.

[Mike]

Is it called “not guilty”?

[AlabamAlum]

Well, that would be the only just finding, but here’s what the judge allowed to be added for jury consideration:

https://apple.news/A_HNjYbc7T022tbvXdfhUtA

[THE_WIZARD_]

Disturbing the peace...or not guilty?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Steve Bannon indicted. Now that's how you start a weekend off on the right foot! A victory for the Constitution and anyone who loves American civil society.

[lineygoblue]

Finally. Now we can get on with our lives again ...

[Mike]

Well, that would be the only just finding, but here’s what the judge allowed to be added for jury consideration:

https://apple.news/A_HNjYbc7T022tbvXdfhUtA

Thanks. Reuters has done a really good job of reporting the facts as presented in the trial.

So here's the key info:

Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation they are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defense. So if the prosecution can argue Rittenhouse was the aggressor, it could raise the bar for the defense.

The prosecution is hinging their entire case (as it now seems) on whether Rittenhouse pointed his gun at a guy in yellow pants (formally referred to as "yellow pants guy" in the trial because he did not participate) as he walked down the street. It doesn't seem like he did but Binger got out of him during cross examination that he, Kyle, did admit to sarcastically telling the guy "yeah, I did it". Rittenhouse claims he was just trying to avoid confrontation and go about his business which is consistent with all the footage of him that night.

Also, of huge importance, is that the people who claimed they had weapons pointed at them do so because a laser dot appeared on them. They assumed it was from a laser scope on a firearm but it could have been a laser pointer, too. But here's the problem: Rittenhouse's weapon did NOT have a laser scope on it. It was one of the very first things defense council Richards brought up in his opening statement. The defense team is on their game.

So the jury can now consider if Rittenhouse provoked the rioters by pointed his gun at them - which isn't supported by any evidence other than a flippant comment he made. Even if they conclude he DID do it all it does is raise the bar for the use of deadly force. It does not wipe it out all together. It's a big win for the defense to have it allowed in the instructions because otherwise their case was DOA. Now they have something slightly north of a 0.00% chance.

[Mike]

I'm sure Bannon is a nervous wreck.

The record of successful prosecutions for contempt of Congress is a slim one. The authority was widely invoked during the anti-communist hearings of the 1950s, but many of those cases ended either in acquittal or dismissal on appeal.

The last Justice Department prosecution of a contempt referral came in 1983, during the Superfund investigation in the Reagan administration. Former EPA official Rita Lavelle was charged with contempt but her case, too, ended in acquittal.

https://news.yahoo.com/former-trump-...205800607.html

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm sure Bannon is a nervous wreck.

The record of successful prosecutions for contempt of Congress is a slim one. The authority was widely invoked during the anti-communist hearings of the 1950s, but many of those cases ended either in acquittal or dismissal on appeal.

The last Justice Department prosecution of a contempt referral came in 1983, during the Superfund investigation in the Reagan administration. Former EPA official Rita Lavelle was charged with contempt but her case, too, ended in acquittal.

https://news.yahoo.com/former-trump-...205800607.html

Lavelle ended up doing a short stint in prison for perjury though. So tell the truth when you get asked questions, Stevie!

[Hannibal]

Thanks. Reuters has done a really good job of reporting the facts as presented in the trial.

So here's the key info:

Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation they are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defense. So if the prosecution can argue Rittenhouse was the aggressor, it could raise the bar for the defense.

The prosecution is hinging their entire case (as it now seems) on whether Rittenhouse pointed his gun at a guy in yellow pants (formally referred to as "yellow pants guy" in the trial because he did not participate) as he walked down the street. It doesn't seem like he did but Binger got out of him during cross examination that he, Kyle, did admit to sarcastically telling the guy "yeah, I did it". Rittenhouse claims he was just trying to avoid confrontation and go about his business which is consistent with all the footage of him that night.

Also, of huge importance, is that the people who claimed they had weapons pointed at them do so because a laser dot appeared on them. They assumed it was from a laser scope on a firearm but it could have been a laser pointer, too. But here's the problem: Rittenhouse's weapon did NOT have a laser scope on it. It was one of the very first things defense council Richards brought up in his opening statement. The defense team is on their game.

So the jury can now consider if Rittenhouse provoked the rioters by pointed his gun at them - which isn't supported by any evidence other than a flippant comment he made. Even if they conclude he DID do it all it does is raise the bar for the use of deadly force. It does not wipe it out all together. It's a big win for the defense to have it allowed in the instructions because otherwise their case was DOA. Now they have something slightly north of a 0.00% chance.

So in summary...

you have to tie yourself into a massive intellectual knot to come up with some sort of obscure penumbra that finds Kyle Rittenhouse guilty on an insane technicality that involves him being chased down by a mob of Communists who didn't actually see him commit a crime, but still chased him down, tripped him up, curb stomped him, and bashed his head with a skateboard, tried to grab his weapon, and tried to kill him with a pistol...

...all out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Kapture1]

Kyle shot (shot at) 0% of the people not attacking him.


Again, I don't know how he held it together being 17 and how fucking proficiently he handled that rifle. If he was a mass shooter, and only there to kill, there would have been more than 2 bodies.

So fuck you gofundme for not allowing this kid the opportunity to raise a defense fund.