DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

There won't be a fair trial. The judge has decided to keep all the actions of Rittenhouse leading up to that day out of being entered into the trial.

I heard the jugse chastizing the prosecutor for a line of questioning that would lead to the jury hearing about how 2 weeks earlier he was sitting in a store parking lot saying that he wished he had his gun to shoot some shop lifters because the judge had ruled that it wasn't relavent.

Not relavent? Really?

That's the way most of it has been going. The defense is allowed to paint him as a choir boy while the prosecution isn't allowed to present the contrary. A very one sided version for the jury to look at.

Rittenhouse will get off. The prosecutor is blowing it.

I think he's guilty of manslaughter at minimum, but 100% think he will walk on all of it due to the way this is going. I can't decide how I feel about this judge. He's an odd bird for sure, but he seems to be trying to be impartial, yet very opinionated on the whole thing. I honestly think he acted like Rittenhouse was wrong in his actions at first but now seems to be looking at him as a boy who made a mistake. That's all 100% my interpretation of just what I'm seeing in the little bit I've watched, maybe 2 hours.

I've been reading about this. I'm no legal expert at all but I'm trying to figure out why the judges decisions seem to be so one-sided.

The prosecutor can not enter into evidence the things the judge refuses to allow. His hands are tied. That isn't blowing it. That's stacking the trial in the defenses favor by the judge.

The prosecutors attempt to get around the judge's ruling of what is allowed and sending the judge on a tirade, that never bodes well for a prosecutor. Add that to a mostly white jury and I just don't see them convicting him. How many times as the judge sent the jury out of the room today? And the talking heads are talking mistrial now...

Without that kind of evidence they couldn't convict him either. The defense made him look lika choir boy and any and all evidence to the contrary was barred from being presented.

I get all of that Pit. But that happens, I don't think it's right, but it is what it is. The Judge is there for those determinations. The prosecutor knows he's pushing the limits of this judge's ruling, and they just rehashed it for the third time since I've been watching. When a judge admonishes you for the same thing multiple times... bruh. smh.

I'm going to err with the side that the prosecutor knows he is has to get the jury to hear some of it. All he can get away with anyway. If not the choir boy image that the defense has presented will be all the jury sees. Neither one is a good look so I understand what you're trying to say.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

As long as a jury actually gets to see all of the proof.

I listened to 10-15 minute on the radio in my car today while Rittenhouse was being questioned by the prosecution. During the questioning Rittenhouse totally contradicted himself and the prosecutor completely missed it. Now it wasn't anything case shattering but he should have pointed it out to show that Rittenhouse isn't afraid to distort his recollections. The 1st thing he said was clearly a coached answer but then he threw in an extra statement to another tangentially related question that was obviously an off the cuff truth which made his earlier statement false.

All the evidence legally allowed.

this was in a NYT article, could explain why he's excluding more than he's allowing...

In one of the judge’s highest-profile cases, the 2008 murder trial of Mark Jensen — who was accused of poisoning his wife, Julie, with antifreeze and then smothering her in their garage — a conviction was overturned when appellate courts and the state Supreme Court ruled that Judge Schroeder had improperly allowed evidence in the trial.

The judge allowed the prosecution to present a letter that Julie Jensen had written and given to a neighbor, as well as voice mail messages she left for a police officer, suggesting that if anything happened to her, her husband would be responsible. Mr. Jensen will face a new trial next year.

NYT

LOL I'll be happy with life in prison....

I think he will be not guilty on murder charges and guilty on gun charges.

I agree Eve. This kid made a stupid mistake to be there and be there with a gun. He ended up using the gun in self defense when scum of the earth human beings physically attacked him. He did not set out to kill.

Way to blame the victims. smh.

Totally one sided. I can't understand how someone's previous actions, history, posts on social media ... whatever it might be ... are not relevant to his intentions when he went to a flash point armed and willing to kill. It boggles the mind. Most especially, as OCD said, he's been painted (inaccurately) as a choir boy. Based on the way the judge has stacked this I do not see a guilty verdict.

It begs the question - if a Antifa activist went or in the future turns up to a flash point similarly armed and ends up shooting a Nazi in self defense after putting himself in danger. Would they get the same treatment. I think we know the answer to that.

They were not victims. They were rioters. Criminals who paid the price for their crime the hard way.

They were not victims. They were rioters. Criminals who paid the price for their crime the hard way.
He had no criminal history. I would guess Antifa thugs would have a criminal past so no they would not be treated the same. If they lived a criminal free life first I would guess they would not be joined to a terrorist organization but if they did then I could see them treated the same.

Yet if he hadn't been breaking those gun laws none of this would have happened. Those people were killed and wounded during the commission of a crime.

Or they were people trying to disarm someone who had been waving a gun around because they felt threatened.

So you wish to assassinate the character of people based on your "guess"?


Sort of like many of the the people that attacked the capital on January 6th? Those terrorists?

So the people who were out rioting, looting, destroying property, and may have attacked somebody first.. are the victims because from a purely political perspective, you agree with their side...

The way I see it, and I have no idea what will eventually happen in this case, is that I can believe he had no business being there, he broke multiple gun laws, he might have been looking for a fight, he might be a total racist...

But if he was attacked first, he had a right to defend himself. Those two points are not mutually exclusive.

I agree those that attacked the Capital were terrorists. I think both are wrong the Capital rioters and the Antifa/BLM rioters. It is perfectly OK to protest but when protest turns to threatening, rioting, intimidating, etc... they are no longer within their rights they are conducting criminal behavior.

Example, those that blocked the car of the Democratic Senator last week from West Virginia. That is no longer a protest those actions became criminal. Or when protests end up in peoples homes, inside restaurants, or physically touching someone like what happened to the Republican Senator from Kentucky. A protest is peaceful what has been happening is far from peaceful. It is disgraceful.

When someone is out there waving a gun around, at what point do you feel threatened by him? These people were killed during the commission of a crime. Had he not been breaking gun laws he would never have been there with that rifle and without the rifle nobody would have been killed.

Here's the thing. Often times in a crowd of people, not everyone is doing the same thing. We saw it during the summer riots. There were a lot of peaceful protestors yet at the same time, after dark some of them turned violent. Not nearly all of them and even many after dark were not violent. So is it fair to label all of them the same? It seems as though you're making a sweeping generalization of everyone who was there based on the actions of some.

When screaming angry mobs are destroying property and marching down your street illegally, at what point are you allowed to feel threatened by THEM?

Had these people not been out there night after night rioting, looting, destroying property, with almost no government interference, he wouldn't have felt the need to go out there with a gun.

Yes, but it wasn't Rittenhouses "street" or even his town. So the excuse is that he needed to cross state lines to protect a town he didn't even live in? He felt the desire to go there, not the need to. He was 17 for God's sake.

Ok but when Mark and Patricia McCloskey had rioters on their own street, who had broken through a locked gate, and they came out with guns to protect their own home and family... the left wanted them locked away forever too.. so what exactly is your argument?

Do you have any evidence those people were "rioting"? I saw videos of the incident and from everything I saw they were just walking down the sidewalk when the McCloskey's came out waving guns at them. And while yes it was a private neighborhood it was not the McCloskey's property nor did it appear anyone was being violent or threatening at the time they brought out those guns. So what's your point?

Yes, they can see with their eyes what is happening. A peaceful person and person who is innocent will want to have no part of that and end their affiliation with that scene. When the chose to stay in a group with the rioters they their selves become rioters.

Are you kidding me with the McCloskey's? They broke down a fence, trespassed on private property, waved guns them selves, shouted threats and insults. The McCloskey's are hero's not villains. They stood up to the mob without breaking the law.

They had illegally broken through a locked gate. They were trespassing. And the McCloskey's never left their own property or shot anybody who chose to stay in the street, just a show of force to discourage anybody from thinking about coming onto their property. Plus, there was plenty of recent history of non-violent protests suddenly turning violent, so they had every reason to believe the same thing could quickly happen here.

There were no reports of any physical or property damage in that entire neighborhood. None. The protestors were on the sidewalk and never went on the McCloskey's "private property" either. The McCloskey's own "their home and property". Not the "neighborhood".

Show me anywhere that they "waved guns at the McCloskey''s". And were those insults after the McCloskey's pointed guns at them or before?

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/l.../63-14a1582a-9372-4494-b8ee-41d5d4d71b61

Yeah, no, they didn't break down a gate either.

The McCloskey's also entered a guilty plea. That doesn't sound like heroes to me.

Uh, the entire street and properties on it were Private Property.

They broke through the gate and trespassed on up the road.

Read the article. The gate was in tact. It wasn't broken down as you allege it was.



The gate was easily held open as others went through. Or will your claim be this is a fake news video? As you can see the protestors were on the sidewalk and were not threatening anyone. So please, just stop it.