The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm.

Since the prosecution was not aware of the judge's instruction until after it rested its case, the is no evidence entered to support the charge. So despite the then 17-year-old being seen throughout the trial holding the rifle, he can not be convicted of being a minor with a firearm.

The Judge should have just dismissed the case before it even started. He has made a mockery of justice.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The real mockery will be if he is allowed to remain on the bench after this travesty.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
The real mockery will be if he is allowed to remain on the bench after this travesty.

What makes you think the residents of Kenosha wouldn't reelect him?

Link?

---

short barreled rifles aren't unlawful if you pay the $200 tax on them. Same with a sound suppressor. The ignorant call them a silencer.

But by technical definition, if he even had just the bare lower receiver of an AR platform rifle or pistol, he would be a minor in possession.

The judge is an ignorant buffoon.

This is the legal rifle/pistol part. The rest are just parts.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2021 12:35AM by Racer X.

The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm.


The problem is both the prosecution and the defense relying on a 'poorly worded' statue that allows 16 and 17yos to carry a rifle in public.

WI, like many states probably recognizes rifles as having a minimum barrel length and anything shorter becomes a 'pistol' by law.

The prosecution argued the spirit refers to carrying while hunting, not in the general public, and it looks like the judge is going by the literal wording, whatever that it.

I doubt this was a surprise to the prosecution, but it is a lesser included offense in the context of a murder trial, so I'm not sure it's a major loss.

Letting that charge stand would help the jury to presume guilt where there may not be clear evidence of some.

This is good or bad, depending on whether or not one is sitting at the defendant's table.



Since the prosecution was not aware of the judge's instruction until after it rested its case, the is no evidence entered to support the charge. So despite the then 17-year-old being seen throughout the trial holding the rifle, he can not be convicted of being a minor with a firearm.


This is a mischaracterization of the apparent facts.

The prosecution wasn't blindsided at all, as the state tried but failed to convince the judge for the opportunity to convince a jury.

I'm not following this trial at all, and only know basically what's posted here.

But so far, my only real question so far is why Schroeder didn't/won't allow the enlargement of any video, if that's the case.

Coercing the applause of a defense witness being a Vet is odd, possibly potentially prejudicial, especially if he didn't do likewise for witnesses for the prosecution.

But I find those courtroom antics to be offensive, demeaning, and inappropriate.

Don't get me — I love a parade, just not in a court of law.


[www.msn.com]

---

I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

unfortunately Rittenhouse will walk free and he will get elected to office one he becomes an adult.

Quote
space-time
unfortunately Rittenhouse will walk free and he will get elected to office one he becomes an adult. of legal age

I doubt he will ever become an adult.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The jurors should simply ignore this instruction and do their duty to vote their conscience.

---

Le poète doit vivre beaucoup, vivre dans tous les sens. - Verlaine

Quote
Ombligo

Quote
space-time
unfortunately Rittenhouse will walk free and he will get elected to office one he becomes an adult. of legal age

I doubt he will ever become an adult.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Quote
Marc Anthony
The jurors should simply ignore this instruction and do their duty to vote their conscience.

If this particular judge thought for a moment that they knew what "jury nullification' is, he'd have probably implied it carried with it criminal responsibility, it doesn't.

lot of criticism for a judge reining in an overzealous prosecution.

if you were facing criminal charges on multiple violent felonies would you really want the judge to allow the prosecution, with the jury present, to question you about exercising your right to remain silent?

Quote
Bill in NC
lot of criticism for a judge reining in an overzealous prosecution.

if you were facing criminal charges on multiple violent felonies would you really want the judge to allow the prosecution, with the jury present, to question you about exercising your right to remain silent?

I'd want a judge with a history of favoring defendants, like this one.

What, in your opinion, makes it "an overzealous prosecution"?

Quote
Bill in NC
lot of criticism for a judge reining in an overzealous prosecution.

if you were facing criminal charges on multiple violent felonies would you really want the judge to allow the prosecution, with the jury present, to question you about exercising your right to remain silent?

I'm interested in the answer to this question, too. The word I'd use to describe the prosecution so far is "inept."

Quote
anonymouse1
What, in your opinion, makes it "an overzealous prosecution"?

Quote
Bill in NC
lot of criticism for a judge reining in an overzealous prosecution.

if you were facing criminal charges on multiple violent felonies would you really want the judge to allow the prosecution, with the jury present, to question you about exercising your right to remain silent?

---

It is what it is.

I'd offer that corrupt might also be in the running.

You assign the most incompetent lawyer you have to the case, then feed him a few suggestions on how that prosecutor should proceed and you get the result you want, especially if you finagle to get the right judge on the bench for the trial. Then after the acquittal, you bring in the well regulated militias to enforce the peace, after which you run for governor.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
I'm interested in the answer to this question, too. The word I'd use to describe the prosecution so far is "inept."

Quote
anonymouse1
What, in your opinion, makes it "an overzealous prosecution"?

Quote
Bill in NC
lot of criticism for a judge reining in an overzealous prosecution.

if you were facing criminal charges on multiple violent felonies would you really want the judge to allow the prosecution, with the jury present, to question you about exercising your right to remain silent?

That’s what helps “make the case.” Prosecutor gets yelled at by judge, therefore prosecutor must be overzealous. Conveniently skips all the messy context, circumstance, history, and evidence.

Quote
space-time

Quote
Ombligo

Quote
space-time
unfortunately Rittenhouse will walk free and he will get elected to office one he becomes an adult. of legal age

I doubt he will ever become an adult.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

My guess is six feet under or behind bars by age 21.

Quote
anonymouse1
What, in your opinion, makes it "an overzealous prosecution"?

Quote
Bill in NC
lot of criticism for a judge reining in an overzealous prosecution.

if you were facing criminal charges on multiple violent felonies would you really want the judge to allow the prosecution, with the jury present, to question you about exercising your right to remain silent?

What I posted...any prosecutor would know opening up a line of questioning about a defendant's right to invoke isn't going to fly.

Plus trying to introduce audio where the defendent was never positively identified as the one speaking.

As well as not using a grand jury to screen witness testimony not favorable to the prosecution's case.

Umm...well, especially given that last one, now I'm also coming around to the "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" interpretation.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2021 05:49AM by Bill in NC.