# As Rittenhouse Trial Goes 'Wrong,' Media Retreat To Alternate Universe



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

> The corporate press _really _want a guilty verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old Illinoisan accused of shooting three white protesters last year during the Black Lives Matter riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
> 
> Members of the press want it so badly they're actively ignoring exculpatory evidence offered in court.
> 
> ...


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It's almost as hard for them to admit that they were wrong as it is for them to admit that the writers of the second amendment were right.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Normally I would advise PW to just take the L, but maybe she has an in-depth analysis written by Leonard Maltin or Gene Shalit to rebut the evidence.
These 7 Bombshell Moments Torpedoed the State's Rittenhouse Case - Minnesota Right Now


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

But...but...but, how about the agenda against everything Rittenhouse stands for (2A, Stand your ground, anything anti BLM) ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I smiled listening to a woman whining on tv that Kyle didn't live in Kenosha and so he had no business being in Kenosha.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I don't understand why the property owners weren't out there protecting their own property. Around here if a violent mob showed up and started burning buildings, they would be met with a line of grown men with shotguns. They wouldn't be sitting at home watching their business burn on the news. This young man showed more courage, than all of the residents of Kenosha. And now they are trying to send him to prison. 

This young man shot three domestic terrorists, and the entire country is sitting on their thumbs watching this like it's a soap opera.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

muleskinner2 said:


> I don't understand why the property owners weren't out there protecting their own property. Around here if a violent mob showed up and started burning buildings, they would be met with a line of grown men with shotguns. They wouldn't be sitting at home watching their business burn on the news. This young man showed more courage, than all of the residents of Kenosha. And now they are trying to send him to prison.
> 
> This young man shot three domestic terrorists, and the entire country is sitting on their thumbs watching this like it's a soap opera.


I cut out of work early today and happened to see that Rittenhouse decided to testify in his own defense, so I’m watching now.

The defense handed over to the prosecution an hour or so ago. The prosecution attorney is dirty. The judge has excused the jury twice to hand him his ass for breaking rules.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Nope. Rittenhouse is guilty. 
He pronounces breakfast “breftiss”.

Inexcusable.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


But you are when you're attacked.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


At the time these terrorists were shot they were attacking a 17 year old kid, not a store.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> I don't understand why the property owners weren't out there protecting their own property. Around here if a violent mob showed up and started burning buildings, they would be met with a line of grown men with shotguns. They wouldn't be sitting at home watching their business burn on the news. This young man showed more courage, than all of the residents of Kenosha. And now they are trying to send him to prison.
> 
> This young man shot three domestic terrorists, and the entire country is sitting on their thumbs watching this like it's a soap opera.





kinderfeld said:


> But you are when you're attacked.





Farmerga said:


> At the time these terrorists were shot they were attacking a 17 year old kid, not a store.


Property owners are not allowed to use deadly force to protect their property.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


You can in Texas.

Is your personal life property or something different. He didn't use deadly force to protect property. He used it to protect himself.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Property owners are not allowed to use deadly force to protect their property.


Yep, but they can stand there physically protecting their property holding a gun in case some idiot wants to force him to move out of the way by threat of bodily harm.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


In most places, that’s true.
What does it have to do with this case, though? Rittenhouse didn’t use deadly force to protect property. He used deadly force to protect himself.

The prosecutor seems to know this as well. He listed off a whole bunch of property damage incidents that Rittenhouse witnessed that night, and did not exert deadly force. He reserved deadly force until he had to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.

What was your point?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> In most places, that’s true.
> What does it have to do with this case, though? Rittenhouse didn’t use deadly force to protect property. He used deadly force to protect himself.
> 
> The prosecutor seems to know this as well. He listed off a whole bunch of property damage incidents that Rittenhouse witnessed that night, and did not exert deadly force. He reserved deadly force until he had to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.
> ...


Did you not see the post I referenced.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

i think the prosecutors were bowing to public pressure when they brought murder charges.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> i think the prosecutors were bowing to public pressure when they brought murder charges.


As were many on social media. But that's nothing unusual these days.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The prosecution attorney is dirty.


Very dirty.








Rittenhouse Witness Claims Prosecutors Asked Him to Change Statement


Nathan DeBruin testified in Rittenhouse's trial and claimed that prosecutors asked him to change parts of his statement to match their story.




www.breitbart.com


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Seems those on the left would have preferred the young man was killed in the first attack on him.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Property owners are not allowed to use deadly force to protect their property.


NO one Did!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> Seems those on the left would have preferred the young man was killed in the first attack on him.


i don’t think he should have been there with a gun, but I don’t think the other “protesters” should have been doing what they were doing either. I think that he was acting in self defense and hope that he’s acquitted on those charges. I think there is a strong likelihood that he would have been killed if he hadnt acted in self defense.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> I think they hav
> 
> i don’t think he should have been there with a gun, but I don’t think the other “protesters” should have been doing what they were doing either. I think that he was acting in self defense and hope that he’s acquitted on those charges. I think there is a strong likelihood that he would have been killed if he hadnt acted in self defense.


Yep, the other guy with a gun might have finished the job, since the first two attackers weren't successful.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Property owners are not allowed to use deadly force to protect their property.


In most places you can use deadly force to prevent arson. If I place myself between the terrorists and my property, they would have to attack me to get to my property. If they attack me, I am justified in the use of deadly force. Where I live you are not required to retreat from a threat.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Did you not see the post I referenced.


No. You didn’t reference a post.
Directly above your post is an ad for jackets.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am


muleskinner2 said:


> In most places you can use deadly force to prevent arson. If I place myself between the terrorists and my property, they would have to attack me to get to my property. If they attack me, I am justified in the use of deadly force. Where I live you are not required to retreat from a threat.


You can do that in certain circumstances. In this instance, the people with guns were not the property owners. This was a business and the owners themselves were not in danger. 

Riitenhouse should not have been there. He was there illegally and illegally had a gun in his possession as well. I expect he will get off on murder charges but he put the wheels of this diaster in motion and while he may not be proven guilty under the law he is morally guilty.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> …he put the wheels of this diaster in motion and while he may not be proven guilty under the law he is morally guilty.


Who is ‘he’? 

Rosenbaum?
Huber?
Grosskreutz?

You obviously don’t mean Rittenhouse, because that would be absurd saying that an armed person, who attacked no one, “set disaster in motion”, just by being present and armed, and not the three people who physically assaulted him.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> Yep, the other guy with a gun might have finished the job, since the first two attackers weren't successful.


Or had his skull smashed with a skateboard.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> morally guilty.


Morally guilty of what? If a large band of domestic terrorists hadn't been burning, looting, and trying to murder him, he would not have had to defend himself.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I am
> 
> 
> You can do that in certain circumstances. In this instance, the people with guns were not the property owners. This was a business and the owners themselves were not in danger.
> ...


ALL of them…Rittenhouse and all of the protesters were there illegally because they were violating the curfew. And legally Rittenhouse should not have had a gun. But he was entitled to defend himself so I don’t think he is morally guilty.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> ALL of them…Rittenhouse and all of the protesters were there illegally because they were violating the curfew. And legally Rittenhouse should not have had a gun. But he was entitled to defend himself so I don’t think he is morally guilty.


I think they were all morally guilty. They were all looking for trouble and some of them got it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Let's not forget the rioters.




























BREAKING: FEDERAL AUTHORITIES CATCH MASSIVE ANTIFA WEAPONS DELIVERY TO KENOSHA!





__





BREAKING: Federal Authorities Catch MASSIVE ANTIFA WEAPONS DELIVERY To Kenosha! – 3%






threepercenternation.com


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I think they were all morally guilty. They were all looking for trouble and some of them got it.


That probably is true. But not legally.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I think they were all morally guilty. They were all looking for trouble and some of them got it.


There is a difference between being prepared for trouble, and looking for trouble. Rittenhouse didn't burn anything, he didn't loot anything, he didn't attack anybody, and he didn't murder anybody. Other than a misdemeanor curfew violation, and a unconstitutional firearms law, he didn't break anything.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> the people with guns were not the property owners


You don't have to be the property owner, there is no law against protecting your neighbors property.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458481536026746888


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> You don't have to be the property owner, there is no law against protecting your neighbors property.


There is. You can't use deadly force in that state to protect a building. They were not protecting people.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

painterswife said:


> There is. You can't use deadly force in that state to protect a building. They were not protecting people.


He did not use force to protect property. Force was used to defend himself from being murdered.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

po boy said:


> He did not use force to protect property. Force was used to defend himself from being murdered.


I never said he did. I was responding to a specific post.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458481536026746888


My daughter is a first year defense attorney and said she was shocked that a seasoned prosecutor would’ve brought that up. He deserved that slam from the judge.


----------



## 67drake (May 6, 2020)

GTX63 said:


> I smiled listening to a woman whining on tv that Kyle didn't live in Kenosha and so he had no business being in Kenosha.


BS! I used to live 2 blocks from where this went down. My son lives on Sheridan Rd. a few miles to the north. He said he saw lines of cars with either no license plates, or blacked out, driving by his house to get to the BLM protest. THEY weren’t from Kenosha either.
BTW, my son and a friend were armed and stood guard outside his friends family’s business. Luckily nothing went down in that neighborhood.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> My daughter is a first year defense attorney and said she was shocked that a seasoned prosecutor would’ve brought that up. He deserved that slam from the judge.


I'm just wondering if there might be a mistrial coming up.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> I don't understand why the property owners weren't out there protecting their own property. Around here if a violent mob showed up and started burning buildings, they would be met with a line of grown men with shotguns. They wouldn't be sitting at home watching their business burn on the news. This young man showed more courage, than all of the residents of Kenosha. And now they are trying to send him to prison.
> 
> This young man shot three domestic terrorists, and the entire country is sitting on their thumbs watching this like it's a soap opera.


BLM March here scheduled a while back. I told the Chief I was going to camp out at the office. They moved it over one block and had a police escort!!!


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> There is. You can't use deadly force in that state to protect a building. They were not protecting people.


You can't use deadly force, but you can stand out front of the property as a deterrent. He didn't shoot to protect the property, he shot to protect his life.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Well, so the Chicago police department just canceled all days off, starting Friday and extending through at least this weekend.
The may be an additional black friday shopping day coming up.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

no really said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458481536026746888


Our enemies think they can make up the rules as they go along, in order to promote their agenda. The actual law doesn't mean anything to them.


----------



## sharkerbaby (Jan 15, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> My daughter is a first year defense attorney and said she was shocked that a seasoned prosecutor would’ve brought that up. He deserved that slam from the judge.


He didn't bring it up out of ignorance, he brought it up as a tactic. He knew perfectly well Kyle's silence should have no bearing on the case and is without question inappropriate for trial. He was utilizing power of suggestion on the jury, once you hear something you can't unhear it.

And yes, Kyle's lawyers have submitted a request for mistrial w/ prejudice - meaning if granted he can not be retried on the same grounds.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

How many of the Domestic Terrorists who were setting fires that night have been charged with anything? When will the prosecutions star witness be charged with assault with a deadly weapon? He just admitted under oath that he chased Rittenhouse down the street and pointed a gun at him.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Imagine if Rittenhouse was a black, transgender, Muslim.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

muleskinner2 said:


> Imagine if Rittenhouse was a black, transgender, Muslim.


He would have been thrown off of a rooftop.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Uh oh, apparently the judge's ringtone on his phone is Lee Greenwood's God Bless The USA...and a certain segment of Twitter is having a hair on fire meltdown.
Kyle's dinner should taste pretty good tonight.


----------



## 67drake (May 6, 2020)

GTX63 said:


> Uh oh, apparently the judge's ringtone on his phone is Lee Greenwood's God Bless The USA...and a certain segment of Twitter is having a hair on fire meltdown..


Are you kidding?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nope.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You know that little tune is known as someone's rally song, lol.


----------



## 67drake (May 6, 2020)

Oh brother! Imagine,a judge who loves his country. What’s the world coming to?
Big Butts probably would have made the left happier I suppose.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> He would have been thrown off of a rooftop.


By Muslims.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> Uh oh, apparently the judge's ringtone on his phone is Lee Greenwood's God Bless The USA...and a certain segment of Twitter is having a hair on fire meltdown.
> Kyle's dinner should taste pretty good tonight.


Yeah. I heard that.

I know that correlation doesn’t equal causation, but how much coincidence could it really be that a judge who is willing to hand an overtly dishonest district attorney his own ass in the middle of a courtroom would also just happen to like _God Bless the USA_?

I’m just saying.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

sharkerbaby said:


> He didn't bring it up out of ignorance, he brought it up as a tactic. He knew perfectly well Kyle's silence should have no bearing on the case and is without question inappropriate for trial. He was utilizing power of suggestion on the jury, once you hear something you can't unhear it.
> 
> And yes, Kyle's lawyers have submitted a request for mistrial w/ prejudice - meaning if granted he can not be retried on the same grounds.


unless a mistrial is declared. Then he looks pretty stupid.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> unless a mistrial is declared. Then he looks pretty stupid.


He doesn't care about looking stupid, these people have no shame, looking stupid wouldn't bother him a bit.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> unless a mistrial is declared. Then he looks pretty stupid.


I starting to believe he wants a mistrial so that he can shift the blame to the judge instead of losing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I starting to believe he wants a mistrial so that he can shift the blame to the judge instead of losing.


You might be right


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> unless a mistrial is declared. Then he looks pretty stupid.


Especially if it’s a mistrial with prejudice. Then he looks _really_ stupid.

The defense asked for it, but I doubt the judge will do that. Especially after the MAGA ringtone exploded on the twitterverse (where CNN thinks this case should be tried), mistrial with prejudice, even though it’s warranted, would immediately be spun as a deplorable judge taking the right to verdict out of the hands of the jury.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Especially if it’s a mistrial with prejudice. Then he looks _really_ stupid.
> 
> The defense asked for it, but I doubt the judge will do that. Especially after the MAGA ringtone exploded on the twitterverse (where CNN thinks this case should be tried), mistrial with prejudice, even though it’s warranted, would immediately be spun as a deplorable judge taking the right to verdict out of the hands of the jury.


I love that song and I loathe Trump. 
perhaps the judge feels the same way. 
It far, far predates Trump even being a Republican.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

no really said:


> Seems those on the left would have preferred the young man was killed in the first attack on him.


Many of the "tolerant, progressive people" comments I've read have all but called for the young man to be drawn, quartered, hung by the neck until dead, dragged through the town, and burnt at the stake - not necessarily in that order.

Pity they don't demand the same for the three rioters that attempted to take Mr Rittenhouse's life.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> I love that song and I loathe Trump.
> perhaps the judge feels the same way.
> It far, far predates Trump even being a Republican.


No doubt, but don’t hold it past CNN to spin a narrative where there’s a narrative ripe for spinning.

If Rittenhouse is found anything short of guilty, with immediate sentence of death by beheading with a dulled scimitar smeared with herpes right on the counsel table, Wolf Blitzer will be headlining that Trump personally called the judge and demanded it, his only evidence being that ringtone.

…and many, many… many will buy it.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No doubt, but don’t hold it past CNN to spin a narrative where there’s a narrative ripe for spinning.
> 
> If Rittenhouse is found anything short of guilty, with immediate sentence of death by beheading with a dulled scimitar smeared with herpes right on the counsel table, Wolf Blitzer will be headlining that Trump personally called the judge and demanded it, his only evidence being that ringtone.
> 
> …and many, many… many will buy it.


Heck ‘em.
They‘re gonna freak out anyway if it doesn’t go down the way they want. 
I‘m already seeing the comments.
It’s nothing to do with justice, it’s all about the infernal politics on both sides. 
Every thing in life now is aligned with right or left.
So over it .


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> Heck ‘em.
> They‘re gonna freak out anyway if it doesn’t go down the way they want.
> I‘m already seeing the comments.
> It’s nothing to do with justice, it’s all about the infernal politics on both sides.
> ...


I don't think everything is divided right vs. left. I believe that is what TPTB want people to believe and participate in. Granted on social media and such, that appears to be the case. But, IRL and face to face there does not seem to be quite the divide, despite peoples' differences and opinions.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)




----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


Depends on the state your in


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Lisa in WA said:


> i think the prosecutors were bowing to public pressure when they brought murder charges.


I think your correct.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

sharkerbaby said:


> He didn't bring it up out of ignorance, he brought it up as a tactic. He knew perfectly well Kyle's silence should have no bearing on the case and is without question inappropriate for trial. He was utilizing power of suggestion on the jury, once you hear something you can't unhear it.
> 
> And yes, Kyle's lawyers have submitted a request for mistrial w/ prejudice - meaning if granted he can not be retried on the same grounds.


This type of mistrial would be ok.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

That squirrely looking prosecutor needs to be disbarred. Has that moron ever even read the Constitution?


----------



## 67drake (May 6, 2020)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I starting to believe he wants a mistrial so that he can shift the blame to the judge instead of losing.


Exactly what I thought


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Especially if it’s a mistrial with prejudice. Then he looks _really_ stupid.
> 
> The defense asked for it, but I doubt the judge will do that. Especially after the MAGA ringtone exploded on the twitterverse (where CNN thinks this case should be tried), mistrial with prejudice, even though it’s warranted, would immediately be spun as a deplorable judge taking the right to verdict out of the hands of the jury.


Speaking of Twitter

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458619464329670657


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Lisa in WA said
"i think the prosecutors were bowing to public pressure when they brought murder charges."



Redlands Okie said:


> I think your correct.


The caption below the photo of the prosecutor's face palm could have read
"Why am I here?"


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'll answer my own question. There was some point in time, before the trials, probably way back when, where he determined that he wasn't just playing to the jury but also to his (not _the_) voters.
I saw a report from someone in the reporter pool that remarked as the jury was being excused, many of the 'white women' in the crowd gave motherly like looks and made eye contact with Kyle after he testified.
If the jury sticks to ruling on the black and white text of the law the trial should conclude shortly with the obvious verdict.
If they allow social pressure, the threat of doxxing and fear of their town burning, then maybe not. Or the prosecution will cross the line again and the Judge will put an end to the circus show with a directed verdict before handing the case over to the jury that is going to want to go home for the holiday.
A mistrial with prejudice means done and done. Don't come back.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> A mistrial with prejudice means


Let it burn


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Activision/Blizzard is planning on taking advantage of the prosecutors strategy of blaming video games for Kyle's behavior that evening:

Call of Duty: Rittenhouse


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> Activision/Blizzard is planning on taking advantage of the prosecutors strategy of blaming video games for Kyle's behavior that evening:
> 
> Call of Duty: Rittenhouse


Was there a Vaccinate Me Elmo commercial in the middle of that story for anyone else?

Those guys are hilarious.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Was there a Vaccinate Me Elmo commercial in the middle of that story for anyone else?
> 
> Those guys are hilarious.


Yes, it was there for me as well. And, their writers are wonderfully funny and poke at the absurdity of the lunatics trying to run the asylum.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Was there a Vaccinate Me Elmo commercial in the middle of that story for anyone else?
> 
> Those guys are hilarious.


I missed that one and had to look again. I think they are better than the Onion.


----------



## sharkerbaby (Jan 15, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> I missed that one and had to look again. I think they are better than the Onion.


Without question. The Onion has gone woke so I haven't seen anything they've done for probably a year.

As for the Elmo vaccine ad, my local radio morning radio host played it during his show today, hilarious.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Keep in mind that district attorneys are elected nearly everywhere and as such are political in nature. Keeping that job relies of representing the will of those who elected you. You are not required to be a top notch attorney to hold that elected job. Who they decide to prosecute is often a political decision. If it is a borderline decision on whether or not someone should be prosecuted, the decision is often made with reelection in mind.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The DA knows the judge will not rule in any way to end this case.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

poppy said:


> Keep in mind that district attorneys are elected nearly everywhere and as such are political in nature. Keeping that job relies of representing the will of those who elected you. You are not required to be a top notch attorney to hold that elected job. Who they decide to prosecute is often a political decision. If it is a borderline decision on whether or not someone should be prosecuted, the decision is often made with reelection in mind.


Most of a DA's campaign ads will mention their conviction rate. They usually keep out that it is the percentage of convictions of cases they chose to prosecute.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Did I already read this here?

*A sobbing Kyle Rittenhouse already won*​To his supporters, and even many of his detractors, Rittenhouse isn’t a monster. Not _really_. He was a young, dumb kid hyped up on the Foxification or Fox News effect of American discourse on the Black Lives Matter movement in a country that fetishes guns — for show, for sport and for killing​​I mean, look at his red, tear-stained face on the stand, so compelling that the judge stopped the trial for 10 minutes to allow Rittenhouse to compose himself. His tears tell the story.​​Those protesters made him shoot them. It was their fault, and only theirs, not Rittenhouse’s. He was trying to do good, to protect this dying nation.​​And that’s the same nonsense claim people have been using throughout the U.S.​​







Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what's wrong with America


Before Kyle Rittenhouse cried on the witness stand, and no matter how a Kenosha judge rules in his case, his supporters have made sure that he comes out a winner.




www.nbcnews.com




And the cherry on top, from the same link

Predominantly white voters were trying to _defend_ their freedom, so they flocked to an open bigot like Donald Trump and stormed the U.S. Capitol. Angry parents, most of them white, are storming school board meetings demanding an end to critical race theory lessons to _protect_ white children from feeling “guilt” about America’s violent racist history and how it has created the foundation of inequity we still see today. Politicians and local officials — again, many of them white — have stoked this by framing the teaching of race and books that explore its context as something constituents should _defend_ their communities from.​


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Give credit where it is due. The author is Issac Bailey, professor of public policy at Davidson College and author of "Why Didn't We Riot? A Black Man in Trumpland"


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Property owners are not allowed to use deadly force to protect their property.


Victims of violent attacks are.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Hiro said:


> View attachment 102019


I'm glad this one lived to tell the jury what happened.








Gaige Grosskreutz Admits Pointing Gun at Rittenhouse Before Being Shot


Gaige Grosskreutz gave testimony in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial Monday and admitted he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before being shot.




www.breitbart.com


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Hiro said:


> View attachment 102020


One day those armed hostiles will run out of "right wing" meat. Who will they prey on next? 

Of course the biggest question is, how many will it take to get through all the "right wing" meat?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


He as protecting himself while being attacked by adult felons.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am
> 
> 
> You can do that in certain circumstances. In this instance, the people with guns were not the property owners. This was a business and the owners themselves were not in danger.
> ...


How was he illegal?
Defending himself makes him morally guilty?


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

I sure dont think the president has any right in saying anything about a trial. Shame on him
Hope he gets sued


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


He didn’t.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Predominantly white voters were trying to _defend_ their freedom,


What they never seem to get is that most any random group of people, in the US is going to be predominantly white.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Kenosha Bingo


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

What is the difference between the prosecutor in this case, and a Catfish?


One of them is a scum sucking bottom feeder, and the other one is a fish.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> One day those armed hostiles will run out of "right wing" meat. Who will they prey on next?
> 
> Of course the biggest question is, how many will it take to get through all the "right wing" meat?


TOO many for them!!!


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

GTX63 said:


> They usually keep out that it is the percentage of convictions of cases they chose to prosecute.


And includes the please deals they achieved through coercion.

ADA: "Mr. Smith, If you plead guilty to simple trespass we will let you out on probation, otherwise will throw the entire resources of the government against you and charge you with 27 felonies and ask for a 40 year sentence".

Mr. Smith: "But I didnt do anything!"

Defense attorney: "You can pay me $40,000 and I will tell the judge you didn't do anything."

ADA: "Probation, or $40,000 in legal costs and risk 40 years in prison".

MR. Smith....FML (oh, and FJB)


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> TOO many for them!!!


I think so too but I think they want to find out.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

does ANYONE really think 3 felons are at a riot for good reasons?


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

CKelly78z said:


> But...but...but, how about the agenda against everything Rittenhouse stands for (2A, Stand your ground, anything anti BLM) ?


BLM has nothing to do with this, unless BLM thinks that white felons and people lighting dumpsters on fire are good for BLM.
If THAT is the case, well stupid only goes so far.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Fence it off, let it burn


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

painterswife said:


> You are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.


Bravo Foxtrot Sierra

I will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to protect MY property


----------

