Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Thread

[LindyAF]

Lying under oath about your views, in an age is pervasive social media and internet monitoring, is the height of folly and a great way to screw Rittenhouse chances.

I never said "you should lie under oath." I said, "you should represent yourself as best as possible." It's not my fault you failed reading comprehension 101. There is no reason why believing in the second amendment or the federalist papers - part of the constitution of the United States and articles by the founders - should make anyone incapable of "putting their biases aside to consider only the evidence presented in court" in order to serve fairly on a jury for the application of the laws of the United States. Is you think that "believing in the constitution of the United States" is somehow a partisan stance, that doesn't say anything good about you.

This dude is trying to get out of serving on the jury because he doesn't want to be there, not because it would somehow be unfair if he was. If he was just straight up lying about believing in 2A and only said it because he thought it would get him out of jury duty, then okay. If he was saying it because he thinks believing in the constitution is somehow a partisan stance which should disqualify him from the jury, then he's a retard.

 

[Bacle]

I never said "you should lie under oath." I said, "you should represent yourself as best as possible." It's not my fault you failed reading comprehension 101. There is no reason why believing in the second amendment or the federalist papers - part of the constitution of the United States and articles by the founders - should make anyone incapable of "putting their biases aside to consider only the evidence presented in court" in order to serve fairly on a jury for the application of the laws of the United States. Is you think that "believing in the constitution of the United States" is somehow a partisan stance, that doesn't say anything good about you.

This dude is trying to get out of serving on the jury because he doesn't want to be there, not because it would somehow be unfair if he was. If he was just straight up lying about believing in 2A and only said it because he thought it would get him out of jury duty, then okay. If he was saying it because he thinks believing in the constitution is somehow a partisan stance which should disqualify him from the jury, then he's a retard.

'If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury.'

Not represent yourself honestly, but 'as best as possible' aka 'omitting potential biases if/when asked in jury selection' for political reasons.

What that man did honor's the Constitution and it's principles far more than what you propose.

 

[Bacle]

 

[Cherico]

Both a hung jury and innocent work

 

[prinCZess]

What that man did honor's the Constitution and it's principles far more than what you propose.

Eh, case can be made either way really.

If you treasure Constitutional rights but remove yourself from any position of responsibility that serves to enforce or protect them? Even those most basic as jury-duty? It's a degree of selfishness that is interfering with your proclaimed principles--because a healthy body politic requires you respond to such calls to defend it and its systems--in this case by participating in the judicial system when your number gets called.
Unless, in that particular case, you remove yourself from the system by not registering to vote and cede that whole responsibility for whatever reason.

Course, the corallary is that those calls to service can themselves be burdensome or questionable (see: the draft).

In this case, I'd be the mealy-mouthed middle-grounder and question if the guy wasn't reaching for an excuse because that jury is going to be intensely scrutinized and more-than-likely have some paper or partisan interest leak their details to the public.
And even if one steps-up to a responsibility to uphold a Constitutional right and society...Having the Damocles sword of your family threatened or house burned down by more rioting idiotic types ala 2020s shitshow in the area itself with a question-mark as to whether the local government will prosecute your attackers or ignore them...Well, that's a heavy, shitty decision to have to make.

 

[Wargamer08]

Eh, case can be made either way really.

If you treasure Constitutional rights but remove yourself from any position of responsibility that serves to enforce or protect them? Even those most basic as jury-duty? It's a degree of selfishness that is interfering with your proclaimed principles--because a healthy body politic requires you respond to such calls to defend it and its systems--in this case by participating in the judicial system when your number gets called.
Unless, in that particular case, you remove yourself from the system by not registering to vote and cede that whole responsibility for whatever reason.

Course, the corallary is that those calls to service can themselves be burdensome or questionable (see: the draft).

In this case, I'd be the mealy-mouthed middle-grounder and question if the guy wasn't reaching for an excuse because that jury is going to be intensely scrutinized and more-than-likely have some paper or partisan interest leak their details to the public.
And even if one steps-up to a responsibility to uphold a Constitutional right and society...Having the Damocles sword of your family threatened or house burned down by more rioting idiotic types ala 2020s shitshow in the area itself with a question-mark as to whether the local government will prosecute your attackers or ignore them...Well, that's a heavy, shitty decision to have to make.

To say nothing of the track record of the right in defending its adherents as compared to the left.

I will note that the last political show trail had avowed leftists on the jury, were discovered as such and still got the conviction through.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

'If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury.'

Not represent yourself honestly, but 'as best as possible' aka 'omitting potential biases if/when asked in jury selection' for political reasons.

What that man did honor's the Constitution and it's principles far more than what you propose.

If "constitutional principles" involved obeying the letter of the law at the price of injustice, our founding fathers would never have revolted against their lawful king. The law exists for order and justice and might as well not exist if it does not provide them. Kyle Rittenhouse stood for order, and deserves justice -- not self-righteous grandstanding from some traitor generation coward.

 

[King Arts]

The dude also beilives in an unbiased trial.
He isn't a cowardly retard. He is an upstanding everyday citizen.

Fuck your unbiased trial bullshit Zach, you and most other law enforcement suck off the constitution without even knowing it. Well at this point fuck the constitution it has failed to protect the rights of the people. God boomers that just want to cuck to the left and always let the left get away with their shit but pussy out when it’s time to retaliate LEGALLY piss me off.

No.

Lying under oath about your views, in an age is pervasive social media and internet monitoring, is the height of folly and a great way to screw Rittenhouse chances.

Sometimes I think you want people to do dumb shit to get in legal jams, and become martyrs for your causes, because you want civil conflict and want ethnic conflict in the US.

Bacle read please fucking read. There is a difference between lying and representing yourself in the best possible light. Don’t lie but don’t volunteer information either. If you are asked if you can be impartial say yes unless there is proof otherwise. Having a previous opinion on politics does not make you biased in a self defense trial.

'If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury.'

Not represent yourself honestly, but 'as best as possible' aka 'omitting potential biases if/when asked in jury selection' for political reasons.

What that man did honor's the Constitution and it's principles far more than what you propose.

No fuck your honor the constitution. Your idea of honor ends up with it dead and meaningless husk. The constitution is not important because it’s the constitution. There are many pieces of paper with words. What makes it valuable is the words and ideas behind it the right to free speech and religion, right to have a gun for protection. This case is all about that if a little subterfuge is what it takes to protect the real constitution and it’s ideals so be it.

Both a hung jury and innocent work

Yes and no if it’s a hung jury they can try him again if he’s not guilty they can’t.

 

[49ersfootball]

Plus the jury is NOT diverse.

 

[Zachowon]

Fuck your unbiased trial bullshit Zach, you and most other law enforcement suck off the constitution without even knowing it. Well at this point fuck the constitution it has failed to protect the rights of the people. God boomers that just want to cuck to the left and always let the left get away with their shit but pussy out when it’s time to retaliate LEGALLY piss me off.


Bacle read please fucking read. There is a difference between lying and representing yourself in the best possible light. Don’t lie but don’t volunteer information either. If you are asked if you can be impartial say yes unless there is proof otherwise. Having a previous opinion on politics does not make you biased in a self defense trial.


No fuck your honor the constitution. Your idea of honor ends up with it dead and meaningless husk. The constitution is not important because it’s the constitution. There are many pieces of paper with words. What makes it valuable is the words and ideas behind it the right to free speech and religion, right to have a gun for protection. This case is all about that if a little subterfuge is what it takes to protect the real constitution and it’s ideals so be it.


Yes and no if it’s a hung jury they can try him again if he’s not guilty they can’t.

Ahhh,
fuck the constitution eh?
Well, that is exactly what the left does if we have the mentality that "FUCk it, theywant to get rid of it so why bother trying to follow it?"
They might as well get rid of it...
I am sorry I swore and oath to defend the country and consitution from threats foreign and domestic

 

[BlackDragon98]

Jury Selection ongoing rn, livestream here:



Apparently some boomer said that he couldn't be impartial enough for the jury because he believes in the 2nd Amendment and the federalist papers. Holy shit people like this are cowardly retards. If he actually believed in the second amendment he'd be trying to sit the jury in order to defend the right to self defense, not looking for an excuse to get his spot filled by some antifascist freak who'll vote guilty no matter what.

If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury. There are going to be left wingers who lied in order to sit it.

That idiot will be crying the day his bolt action gets seized by law.

LOL

 

[King Arts]

Ahhh,
fuck the constitution eh?
Well, that is exactly what the left does if we have the mentality that "FUCk it, theywant to get rid of it so why bother trying to follow it?"
They might as well get rid of it...
I am sorry I swore and oath to defend the country and consitution from threats foreign and domestic

Please tell me how you are defending the constitution when you are cheering for the ideas behind the second amendment to be chipped away? Here is the thing it’s not the constitution itself that is sacred it’s just a piece of paper. If the 2nd amendment was changed with new language that does not make it bad as long as the idea is not bad. The idea of getting rid of guns is bad. But if they got rid of the language of the right to keep and bear arms, and instead said “All US citizens have the right to own any weapons unless they are NBC WMDs.” That would not be bad it would not limit our rights, the constitution isn’t the Bible it’s not infallible it’s good. So please tell me how you cheering for the establishment to take away the right of self defense defends my rights? Cause the right to own guns isn’t for hunting or target shooting that is a small part the big part is defense against tyranny and self defense in general. So it seems like you are the one pissing on the constitution.

 

[Cherico]

Ahhh,
fuck the constitution eh?
Well, that is exactly what the left does if we have the mentality that "FUCk it, theywant to get rid of it so why bother trying to follow it?"
They might as well get rid of it...
I am sorry I swore and oath to defend the country and consitution from threats foreign and domestic

You do a fine job a the foreign but the domestic side needs work.

 

[MrBirthday]

By the way, has anyone been following Robert Barnes on this?

 

[stephen the barbarian]

By the way, has anyone been following Robert Barnes on this?

i have though viva frei.

 

[MrBirthday]

i have though viva frei.

Same, and I've also been watching Bourbon With Barnes on Locals. Anyway, the most recent This Week in Law should be relevant:

The relevant bits are from 11:28 to 1:04:44.
Give it a watch, people.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Well at this point fuck the constitution it has failed to protect the rights of the people.

No, the Constitution was NEVER going to protect us. It is merely the framework within which, We the People are supposed to protect ourselves. We got lazy and fell for all the Bread & Circuses.

What makes it valuable is the words and ideas behind it the right to free speech and religion, right to have a gun for protection. This case is all about that if a little subterfuge is what it takes to protect the real constitution and it’s ideals so be it.

1st Statement: absolutely correct
2nd Statement: I don't even consider what you're suggesting as subterfuge. Answer the question truthfully then stop talking. Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Vaermina]

'If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury.'

Not represent yourself honestly, but 'as best as possible' aka 'omitting potential biases if/when asked in jury selection' for political reasons.

What that man did honor's the Constitution and it's principles far more than what you propose.

Only if you're an idiot.

For big cases both the prosecution and defense do deep dive investigations into Juror's. At which point if they find out a juror omitted a potential bias they will bring it to the judge and request the juror be removed.

At which point the Juror who omitted the things can get in big trouble.

 

[Zachowon]

No, the Constitution was NEVER going to protect us. It is merely the framework within which, We the People are supposed to protect ourselves. We got lazy and fell for all the Bread & Circuses.

1st Statement: absolutely correct
2nd Statement: I don't even consider what you're suggesting as subterfuge. Answer the question truthfully then stop talking. Nothing wrong with that at all.

The constitution will stand, no matter how much an administration tries to get rid of it. We have had plenty of things try and bring it down, this wont be one. I am sure.

We should stand by it om every asepect

 

[Rocinante]

The constitution will stand, no matter how much an administration tries to get rid of it. We have had plenty of things try and bring it down, this wont be one. I am sure.

We should stand by it om every asepect

The constitution is already not standing.

Several states violated it in the last election, and no one is facing any consequences.

It's just a sheet of paper at this point.