Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?
- Thread starter wiscoaster
- Start date
- Status
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,571
They would be crazy to talk to the press.
LiveLife
Member
Was hoping but still surprised to see this even on CNN and how they reported it as "legal" self defense with jury reviewing all evidence and now a free man from "wrongful allegations".
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,571
Not comparable to G-d forbid being locked up for life.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
MSBNC has done nothing but DOUBLE down on their stupidly.
You can make this stuff up...its truely insane.
MSNBC needs to be taken off the air and all who work for it barred from journalism for life.
They are dangerous to our Republic.
You can make this stuff up...its truely insane.
MSNBC needs to be taken off the air and all who work for it barred from journalism for life.
They are dangerous to our Republic.
LiveLife
Member
NBC reports "Second Amendment is alive ... self defense against rioters ... AR style rifle ... jury sided with defense"
"This case ruling may be a lesson for ... Second Amendment case Supreme Court is considering"
Last edited:
This is an election year. I predict he will have all the money he needs to defend himself and he will also go after the media outlets ... MSNBC anyone ?
Hope you're right!
DrDeFab
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 251
They just doubled-down on doubling-down:
"Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill": https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-homicide-rcna5748
wiscoaster
Member
Sheesh!! No kidding?? Somebody's got to sue those people.
anothernewb
Member
the "author" of that story is completely unhinged. all of his articles are so biased and racist he might even be too extreme for the view.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,124
Big update: Not guilty on all counts.
.455_Hunter
Member
Chuckle. Did you see the last 45 posts?
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,124
Nope. My news comes slower.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I hope none of them do. Wisconsin has no prohibition against post-trial interviews. But, in my opinion, this case would place them in more danger by those who would vehemently object to their verdict.
I found this on the link cited below:
There is no prohibition in Wisconsin on interviewing jurors after their service is completed. Wis JI-Civil 197, "Instruction After Verdict Is Received":
Your service in this case is completed. Many jurors ask if they are allowed to discuss the case with others after receipt of the verdict. Because your role in the case is over, you are not prohibited from discussing the case with anyone. However, you should know that you do not have to discuss the case with anyone or answer any questions about it from anyone other than the court. This includes the parties, lawyers, the media, or anyone else.
https://www.rcfp.org/open-court-sections/d-interviewing-jurors/
Neo-Luddite
Member
Hopefully now everyone involved and interested can go home satisfied that justice was served. And that is enough, right? Thanksgiving comes next week and many---myself included---have much to be thankful for. We will be missing my Mom who passed this year and one daughter who must remain at school until Xmas break, but our elder daughter and two of my oldest friends are joining us for a long weekend; We will feast and laugh and waste ammo with equal abandon! I hope KR can find a quiet path now towards being a police officer, paramedic or whatever career he now wants to pursue and that he gets quality professional counseling now when it will hopefully help him put to rest PTSD-type issues that might otherwise linger into his early adult years. If I forget to mention it later, a Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone so here assembled on THR!--Mike B.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
There was nothing in Kyle's actions that violated any state law, either, and yet here we are. So I take that with a grain of salt.
I'm thinking a judge would not even WANT to grant a mistrial after a not guilty verdict anyway.
If it had ended up a hung jury, then he could have granted a mistrial. For a guilty or not guilty verdict, no.
More than likely, crossing every T and dotting every I, just to make sure there can be no legit complaints.
I can understand that.
.455_Hunter
Member
Smoke signals?
Old_Grouch
Member
Good point.
It makes me wonder how far definitions can be stretched. For murder to be tried under Federal statute it has to have been committed on Federal property. If someone is murdered on an Interstate highway is that "Federal property"? If the street that this incident occurred on were "U.S. Highway xx/State Rte xx " or "Business rte I-xx" (I don't know whether it was or not) can they claim it is Federal property? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if the answers were "yes".
Last edited:
Zerodefect
member
See a camera van, smash a camera van. Let MSNBC know that they aren't welcome anywhere now.
Those treasonous bastards could have gotten the jurors killed.
LiveLife
Member
But then if camera crew is armed, they could shoot the ones smashing the van and claim "self defense" ...
RetiredUSNChief
Member
That's hilarious...because if it WAS, then it was quite obviously designed by the liberal DA who charged Kyle in the first place, followed up by the two ADAs he specifically chose to prosecute Kyle.
I've referred to Binger and Kraus as "Laurel and Hardy", but if you toss in DA Zapf, it really makes this more like Moe, Larry, and Curly.
- Status
