Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

jayrebb said:

Has there been a motion to dismiss on that basis?

Why is the judge allowing this to go to trial if there is video with expert testimony on each shot fired being consistent with self-defense against a lethal threat?

Does the jury really need to hear an argument about how the man with the gun pointing at Kyle didn't intend to use it? It's completely unreasonable for Kyle to hold fire on any of those shots. No normal person in a normal state of mind would hold fire.

Click to expand...

Whether the use of force is reasonable is a fact question for the jury. The judge can't intervene in that and substitute his judgment.

The only time they can is if there is a statute which says use of force is always reasonable under these conditions (i.e. castle doctrine) and it's not disputed that those conditions existed.

This is going to go to a jury, and it'll depend on the jury makeup whether he gets a fair trial.

Gavinmad said:

Why are you guys posting that as if it's news? No fucking shit the defense found an expert to say it was a reasonable use of force, and the prosecution will find an expert to say it wasn't.

Click to expand...

And the prosecutors expert will be a joke just like the one in the Chauvin trial, contradicting himself repeatedly and obviously twisting logic into a pretzel to try to form an opinion, but the biased jury won't care and will find him guilty of murder anyway.

It's all about the jury. And it's all about the judge striking jurors for cause who are obviously biased, which didn't happen in the Chauvin trial. There were BLM protestors on the jury.

People talk about lawyers and greedy plaintiffs but the problems in the legal system are 100% on the judges who don't enforce the rules (against people they don't like) and let things go off the rails.

Gavinmad said:

I think he's in a much better position to be acquitted than Chauvin was.

Click to expand...

The Rittenhouse judge from what I've seen seems a lot more fair than the Chauvin judge. It also depends on the makeup of the county. The jurors in Minneapolis were always going to be a shit show.

Gavinmad said:

He's also not a cop, the people he killed weren't black, and the video evidence is unambiguous. You'd need an egregiously biased jury to convict him of any serious crime.

Click to expand...

A. Being a cop actually legitimizes what Chauvin was doing since he was, you know, doing his job.
B. Chauvin didn't kill anybody, so it doesn't matter what color they were.
C. The video evidence was also unambiguous in Chauvin's case; nothing he did caused the death of Floyd.

You would need an egregiously biased jury to convict either of them; but one already happened. I'm not ruling it out that it could happen again, it absolutely will.

Lanx said:

half the chuvin jury were blackies

we all knew he was fucked when they had that affirmative action diversity quota

Click to expand...

I know, but thats my point. It's all about the jury. And who controls who gets on the jury? The judge.

You guys are sitting here going "its on video, there's no way!" The fucking medical examiner testified in Chauvin's case that Floyd died not because of anything Chauvin did. Still guilty in like 1 hour. Completely ridiculous, they had made up their mind before they went in there, just sorting out voting and chit chat takes 15-30 minutes. They didn't deliberate ANYTHING.