Kyle Rittenhouse’s VERY own Thread

Come on, due process is so last year!

1 Like

I guess they will be riots if anything other than a “guilty” verdict is rendered. I heard there have been vague threats made to the jury about how they have their pictures and will be coming for them if the wrong verdict is made.

They did, if I recall correctly they got their hands on the names of people who contributed to his defense fund, doxed them all and then tried to get them fired from their jobs even if the dollar amount was like 10 bucks.

2 Likes

Not true, under certain circumstances - Salinas vs Texas.

I was wondering who would step up to be the armchair resident know it all, I actually had my money on you.

I was quoting Andrew Branca, who

Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He wrote the first edition of the “Law of Self Defense” in 1997

Others have weighed in of course, some have called the decision to weigh in on his silence as extremely egregious, to the point this is textbook 101 stuff that the prosecutor must have known and suggestive of a deliberate attempt to trigger a mistrial, relevant comments from this career prosecutor at @ 40 seconds mark.

https://twitter.com/LionelMedia/status/1458573960564576262

1 Like

As you noted, Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent is inviolate in the context you provided.

Quoting from a summary of Salinas v. Texas:
[T]he Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves. Therefore, as long as police do not deprive defendants of the opportunity to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege, there is no Constitutional violation.

1 Like

Well, I’m no lawyer, just noting the reaction in the court and the reaction of others who are lawyers. Which seems to be one of shock.

Except for some in the MSM, their reaction is not to mention what the prosecutor did, rather focus on the reaction from the judge. They never stop.

1 Like

The way the left-lying media has covered this trial is scandalous.

It’s their usual beyond disgusting and unbelievable “coverage.”

2 Likes

Ok. You can bitch about me knowing stuff, or you can learn that it’s not as inviolate as he makes it out to be. It’s not like I didn’t give you a reference to look it up yourself. Up to you.

Yes, it was. But it’s not as inviolate as the quote you provided states.

I had a look, but not interested to study the law itself, I can rely on sources that have been reliable in the past and have studied and practiced law to form an opinion.

Now if you had some source with equal qualifications to weigh in on the subject, I would be happy to hear what they have to say. You however I am afraid don’t qualify and I’m certainly not going to spend time digging into the normal practices of courts and prosecutors myself. I’ll take the word of the experts as being informed on the norms of expected behavior in a court room from a prosecutor.

That source would be the supreme court decision I referenced, which is much higher authority (one might define it as definitive, eh?).

I don’t. And you don’t need to dig into normal processes of courts - you just have to look at the definitive source.

Which I’m not taking issue with. I’m noting, again, that it’s not as inviolate as claimed in your quote. Supported by a feakin supreme court decision. But your appeal to (a lesser) authority is noted. :wink:

Alright, I gave it a read.

The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Salinas’s conviction, deciding that “pre-arrest, pre- Miranda silence is not protected by the Fifth Amendment . . ., and that prosecutors may comment on such silence regardless of whether a defendant testifies.”

It relates to pre-arrest, pre-miranda silence, which is not what is being discussed here at all. The Prosecutor was referencing his silence as this was being played out on tv, while other defendants were testifying, after he had been arrested and after he had been read his rights.

It seems that is a big no no which is why the judge got upset and others with knowledge weighed in to say this was entirely inappropriate.

The fact you found an instance which doesn’t apply to this case but might apply in some other situation is just wasting everyones time with babble.

2 Likes

Dude, I agreed (multiple times) the prosecutor was out of line in this case. AGAIN, I’m just adding info that the right to remain silent isn’t as inviolate as the quote you provided:

For those who may not know, the right to silence is inviolate, and the fact that a defendant has remained silent may not be used against him in any way—including the prohibition that it may not be mentioned AT ALL by the prosecution at any time of the trial, EVER.

That’s a pretty definitive, and wrong, statement.

And you’re picking a fight where there is none.

Well, whatever, the law is complicated, who knew? You work in Engineering so know NDA’s and the likes are like reading a foreign language with 50 pages of exceptions and caveats.

You found one that is irrelevant to this case and this situation but took issue with someone who is trying to explain the law to lay people like myself in less than 1000 words, bully for you!

My name is not “Dude”.

Duly noted.

I don’t give two hoots about the site article per se - I’m having a discussion about what you posted, what you learned from it, and the part that you thought was interesting enough to quote (and which is wrong). It’d be like defending an article that says it’s illegal to EVER kill someone. If someone was like wow, I didn’t know that until I read that article, you’d want to point out how there’s exceptions to that, right? :wink:

Pretty interesting watching this unfold.

2 Likes

You see the whole ipad pinch to zoom and “ai and logarithms” nonsense? Sometimes you just gotta really hate how stupid courts are.

I did not! Will have to look for it.

Not really clear what you’re trying to say here. The defense’s argument isn’t nonsense, though. The prosecutor is trying to get altered video introduced because he claims it will prove Rittenhouse raised his rifle and pointed it at someone. The video was shot from something like 100 yards to 200 yards away and is pixellated. The prosecution is using digital enhancement, which introduces artifacts into the video from the video processing algorithms. If allowed, there would be no way to know whether a particular dot on the video was added by the software or was something that was actually picked out of the background. It is not particularly different from asking the jurors to use a Ouija board in a seance with the dead pedophile rapist to help the prosecutor with that whole “lunging vs. falling” argument the prosecutor was trying to force on witnesses.

Generally, altered or edited videos aren’t allowed. This may be why the FBI agent’s testimony was struck, because he was supposedly testifying about the magically disappearing and reappearing footage that the FBI didn’t want to make available to the defense. Of course, since they didn’t broadcast the testimony, it’s hard to know what exactly was in it that the judge eventually decided was out of bounds.

Throughout the last few days, the prosecutor has been engaging in increasingly desperate game-playing (such as his forbidden fifth amendment crap, getting argumentative with the judge, and trying to introduce testimony about events that were deemed inadmissible during pretrial motions) to try to cause a mistrial, because he knows he is losing. A mistrial with prejudice could be appealed by the prosecution in the hope of getting the “with prejudice” part thrown out by an appellate court so that the prosecutor could get a do-over on the whole, irreparably blown, prosecution.

So far the prosecutor hasn’t proven a single point, and every witness has only bolstered Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense. Even the prosecution witlesses have done this. I’ve seen it compared to a train wreck in a dumpster fire.

2 Likes

Intentional misspelling? :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

I would ever do such a thing.

5 Likes