Interesting info about the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting

[grizz]

Why did the fleas have a surveillance drone flying over where the incident took place?
How did they know something was going to happen that needed to be recorded and where to point their cameras?
Did they have agents on the ground working to stir up the crowd and create an incident like they did on Jan 6th?
Were there agents on the ground and in comms with the drone via audio or maybe they wore an IR light to distinguish fleas amongst others in a crowd

I hope that kid has great lawyers!!!


https://heavy.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-photos-graphic/

[JohnyMac]

Yeah Grizz, I have been following the trial and the prosecution keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

One of these days the true story will come out identifying the FLEAS were part of these peaceful protests and January 6th.   

[FeedingFreedom]

Surveillance drones flying over riots is nothing new, they used to use helicopters, but drones are cheaper and have longer loiter times. I'm certain they had some of their people inside the groups on the ground, probably on both sides, and all trying to stir up trouble for political gain.

Kyle has had some bad luck with lawyers. First, Lin Wood raised a bunch of money for his defense, then did a disappearing act with the money. His current lawyer's not that good, but luckily, the judge isn't tolerating any prosecutorial nonsense.

[grizz]

Surveillance drones flying over riots is nothing new, they used to use helicopters, but drones are cheaper and have longer loiter times. I'm certain they had some of their people inside the groups on the ground, probably on both sides, and all trying to stir up trouble for political gain.

Kyle has had some bad luck with lawyers. First, Lin Wood raised a bunch of money for his defense, then did a disappearing act with the money. His current lawyer's not that good, but luckily, the judge isn't tolerating any prosecutorial nonsense.

I cant help but think that the lawyers are being threatened with "never working again" or losing their "license to practice law" because they are going up against the govt. Look at how many of Trumps lawyers tucked tail and ran when things got bad

[Nemo]

I'm watching the trial now it has defendants testimony.

Based on it all (I have watched lots of other testimony) I expect a not guilty and not surprised at granting a motion to dismiss with prejudice or directed verdict of not guilty.

Nemo

[JohnyMac]

I caught some it on the radio. The judge ripped the Prosecutor a new asshole at one point just before the lunch break.

I can't watch or listen as I have work to do but it is obvious the Prosecution is grasping at straws at this point.

In my opinion this may go, mistrial, a motion to dismiss, or probably be best for the Defendant a not guilty verdict from the jury. Put a fork in it...Its done.

[FeedingFreedom]

Defense has stated their intention to file for mistrial with prejudice. I think at this point the persecutor is tired of stepping on his own rakes and will probably take the mistrial instead of risking an outright loss.

[grizz]

I watched as much as I could today and it was very interesting. The persecutor is a piece of work, the judge chewed his butt a few times

[JohnyMac]

Help us out here Nemo.

If there is a mistrial then the prosecution can retry.
If the jury acquits, then due to "double jeopardy", the trial and counts of offense are dismissed never for Kyle to see again. 

[FeedingFreedom]

If there's a mistrial because of judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, it would be double jeopardy to have a retrial. If it were to happen because of a juror or the defense, it could be a decision "without prejudice" which would allow a new trial for the same act. I think the persecution team has stepped on this judge's toes enough times that he won't have much sympathy for them.

[pkveazey]

I was delighted when the judge chewed the prosecuter a new ass for bringing up the mention of the defendent evoking his 5th amendment right. That is a HUGE No, No and the prosecuter could actually be disbarred for doing it. There isn't a Lawyer in the whole country who doesn't know that you are not allowed to mention that at trial. I also liked the part where the prosecutor tried to get the Defendent to say that he meant to kill his attackers. I'm sure his Lawyer had warned him to never say that under any circumstances. He gave the perfect legal answer when he said he was trying to stop the attack. I think he'll walk.

[JohnyMac]

We pray that he does.

As a side note, the Prosecuting team keeps stepping on their dicks. Again, I am not a lawyer. Does anybody else think that the Prosecution is trying to get the case thrown so they can re prosecute and tidy up their mistakes for the next time?

[FeedingFreedom]

There's no do-over for prosecutorial misbehavior, that would constitute double jeopardy. I think he's just trying to get out of the frying pan at this point, so he can go back to being a no-name loser small-time bureaucrat. The TV attention he thought would boost his career just seared his behind. They'll take another "L" and move on to demonizing the J6 people until they get a day in court.

[Felix]

As a side note, the Prosecuting team keeps stepping on their dicks. Again, I am not a lawyer. Does anybody else think that the Prosecution is trying to get the case thrown so they can re prosecute and tidy up their mistakes for the next time?
[/quote]
 

It might be worse than that.    Outcome for Kyle will serve as a bellweather for all.   If the prosecution can't convict but keep retrying Rittenhous anyway, then the process becomes the punishment.
The right to self defense isn't the only thing on trial here.
The projected costs (amounting to ruination?) for anyone else contemplating exercise of this right are also going to "leave a mark".

[JohnyMac]

Well written Felix.

I was thinking last night that Kyle's punishment may be this trial not prison time. To make him go through it again when it is obvious to me that he acted in self defense, would be in violation of the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Hey, question to all. Two rows behind the defense table is a dapper man with a gray mustache and goatee who writes notes on a yellow legal pad and holds the pad up at times so the lady behind him in the next row can read what he wrote. (Nice run on sentence huh?)

Who is he and who is he working for? Anybody know?

[grizz]

I think the prosecutor is presenting his resume to congress in order to get hired for those scum bags, he fits right in

If Kyle walks there will probably be more riots which will lead to the push for more gun laws

[Nemo]

If there's a mistrial because of judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, it would be double jeopardy to have a retrial.

Yes, but the judge would have to make specific ruling like that.  Defense has made proper motions on that basis.

If it were to happen because of a juror or the defense, it could be a decision "without prejudice" which would allow a new trial for the same act.

Correct.  Or if it results in a "hung" jury.  That is when they cannot make a unanimous decision either way.

That would result in a retrial.

I suspect (not sure re: Wisconsin) if it were a "with prejudice" dismissal it would be appealable and the judge would need to include his findings for the basis of the prejudice.

Nemo

[Nemo]

If the prosecution can't convict but keep retrying Rittenhous anyway, then the process becomes the punishment.
The right to self defense isn't the only thing on trial here.
The projected costs (amounting to ruination?) for anyone else contemplating exercise of this right are also going to "leave a mark".

Prosecutions generally get a second bite at a hung apple.

Beyond that there are strong arguments and bases for no more if the second jury cannot make a unanimous decision.

Nemo