Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

>there's a reason this thread is a disaster 

Im sure you’ll go back and correct all of the  “He shot three black men” and “crossed state lines with an illegal weapon” statements, right?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

You didn't ask about both in the post I quoted.

 

I responded directly to a direct question and am somehow accused of Q'ing, disinformation.....

 

Fucking bullshit.

settle down and try not to take all this shit so personally. jesus, i have enough problems with my teenage sons. this is just a forum. act like a grown up.

Posted
Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

>there's a reason this thread is a disaster 

Im sure you’ll go back and correct all of the  “He shot three black men” and “crossed state lines with an illegal weapon” statements, right?

i'm sure i will.

i haven't really been paying attention to this thread, as i prefer to do news + opinion on cloak room. you want to point out other disinformation, i guess that's fine. i'll correct them if you link them, unless it was fog of war lack of information, which is distinct from disinformation.

Posted
4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

um, i asked about both.

i thought the motion to dismiss was old news that i read yesterday, and it was:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-mistrial-prosecutorial-misconduct-20211116-awjig565ynf3xknzhavdxdh7tm-story.html

the kick man, you're getting your news from am radio.

what i dislike, especially on this thread, is people making news assertions without news links. @Johnny Sack what i thought you were doing is presenting new news that just happened without a link. this thread is a shitshow of people just saying fuckall without any kind of news backup. 

you want opinions? go to cloak room. you want news? post real news. there's a reason this thread is a disaster.

I did not see the MTD posted yesterday, so it was new to me.  Was it posted here? Before I mentioned it?

Posted
2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:i'll correct them if you link them, unless it was fog of war lack of information, which is distinct from disinformation.

Wow. That’s some top tier level bullshit right there. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I did not see the MTD posted yesterday, so it was new to me.  Was it posted here? Before I mentioned it?

i dunno. 

i just know you didn't link to any news information about it. that's what i was simply asking about. it sounded like a new development that had just been breaking news. 

Posted
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

What the actual fuck?

I heard the lawyers on that Rekieta youtube channel discussing it.  

 

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/16/maurice-freeland-jump-kick-man/

 

WISN 1130 talk radio host Dan O’Donnell first broke the storythat prosecutors had identified Jump Kick Man, although he chose not to name him. Our source then provided his name and gave additional details, also confirming O’Donnell’s account that prosecutors told the defense team that Freeland allegedly wanted immunity for an ongoing criminal case, which prosecutor Thomas Binger didn’t grant.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Is the video even admissable?  Seems this needs to be determined before bantering about how many times the jury can see it?  Such a cluster

The videos are already in evidence. 

The Monday Defense motion to dismiss based on the failure to provide HD footage is under advisement. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

How is it even appropriate  that the defense wasn't supplied with the higher resolution version the prosecution held back?

Potential Brady violation (deprivation of due process for the Defendant). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/260_waifagsn.pdf (Remedies for Brady violation)

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

How is it even appropriate  that the defense wasn't supplied with the higher resolution version the prosecution held back?

We’ll find out, but seems like a slam dunk on appeal. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

We’ll find out, but seems like a slam dunk on appeal. 

As long as we're not the ones languishing in jail; waiting on things to play out.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

We’ll find out, but seems like a slam dunk on appeal. 

The defendant can't appeal a not guilt verdict.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

For the real lawyers here ... not looking good for the defense, eh? The jury taking this long points to conviction on something?

Not necessarily. It just means it’s not a slam dunk win for either side. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

How is it even appropriate  that the defense wasn't supplied with the higher resolution version the prosecution held back?

It’s not appropriate if it happened. I’ve had defendants in civil cases pull this crap. It’s shady as fuck but likely wouldn’t be grounds for a mistrial in a civil case. Dunno about a criminal case though. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

For the real lawyers here ... not looking good for the defense, eh? The jury taking this long points to conviction on something?

Traditionally, quick verdicts were seen as signs of guilty and longer verdicts favored the defense. I am not sure those metrics are proven true by research. Some juries take their responsibilities seriously and take longer.

Posted
2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Traditionally, quick verdicts were seen as signs of guilty and longer verdicts favored the defense. I am not sure those metrics are proven true by research. Some juries take their responsibilities seriously and take longer.

It's like people have never even seen Twelve Angry Men...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Traditionally, quick verdicts were seen as signs of guilty and longer verdicts favored the defense. I am not sure those metrics are proven true by research. Some juries take their responsibilities seriously and take longer.

WzI9.gif

  • Like 1
Posted

The jury is likely weighing two things:

1. Do they want to see their town burn again even if they acquit an innocent kid

2. How safe do they feel after there have already been threats of them being recorded? Do they need to sacrifice KR for their own safety

Edit: fixed a spelling issue

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

um, i asked about both.

i thought the motion to dismiss was old news that i read yesterday, and it was:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-mistrial-prosecutorial-misconduct-20211116-awjig565ynf3xknzhavdxdh7tm-story.html

the kick man, you're getting your news from am radio.

what i dislike, especially on this thread, is people making news assertions without news links. @Johnny Sack what i thought you were doing is presenting new news that just happened without a link. this thread is a shitshow of people just saying fuckall without any kind of news backup. 

you want opinions? go to cloak room. you want news? post real news. there's a reason this thread is a disaster.

There are two motions.  This one is tied to the prosecutor trying to introduce previously excluded evidence and trying to make an issue of out the defendant's pre-trial silence.

There's a new one this morning because the state showed the jury during closing arguments enhanced drone footage that was not included in evidence.

The Jumpkick Man is a developing story.  We seem to know that he approached prosecutors to testify for immunity, and that the prosecutors disclosed this to the defense last Thursday.  We don't know when the prosecution was aware he was Jumpkick Man.  He was convicted of a misdemeanor battery in October and was arrested again yesterday if this guy is indeed Jumpkick Man.

Edited by JBJ
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hate said:

The jury is likely weighing two things:

1. Do they want to see their town burn again as an if they acquit an innocent kid

2. How safe do they feel after there have already been threats of them being recorded? Do they need to sacrifice KR for their own safety

This is utterly terrifying and should send shivers to everyone, regardless of which side of the isle that you sit on.  

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hate said:

The jury is likely weighing two things:

1. Do they want to see their town burn again as an if they acquit an innocent kid

2. How safe do they feel after there have already been threats of them being recorded? Do they need to sacrifice KR for their own safety

They shouldn't be doing that, but it is what it is - and they probably will speculate on the impact of their decision.

Not guilty or guilty, it is best that they go through the evidence in painstaking detail.

Posted
24 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

They shouldn't be doing that, but it is what it is - and they probably will speculate on the impact of their decision.

Not guilty or guilty, it is best that they go through the evidence in painstaking detail.

They shouldn't be, but look at the CR thread on this topic and it becomes clear why the have to.  There are posters actually hoping this kid gets murdered on his way out of the court house while others would settle for 3 weeks afterwards. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Hate said:

They shouldn't be, but look at the CR thread on this topic and it becomes clear why the have to.  There are posters actually hoping this kid gets murdered on his way out of the court house while others would settle for 3 weeks afterwards. 

They've probably already started a bail fund for the killer. I continue to be fascinated by what triggers the crazies.

Edited by Harrison Bergeron
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hate said:

They shouldn't be, but look at the CR thread on this topic and it becomes clear why the have to.  There are posters actually hoping this kid gets murdered on his way out of the court house while others would settle for 3 weeks afterwards. 

Surly mods be like

Hillary Clinton Idk GIF

  • Haha 6
Posted

I thought Black Friday wasn’t until the following week?  Either way, y’all take it easy.  I’ll cover yo shift.  

Posted
2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

um, i asked about both.

i thought the motion to dismiss was old news that i read yesterday, and it was:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-mistrial-prosecutorial-misconduct-20211116-awjig565ynf3xknzhavdxdh7tm-story.html

the kick man, you're getting your news from am radio.

what i dislike, especially on this thread, is people making news assertions without news links. @Johnny Sack what i thought you were doing is presenting new news that just happened without a link. this thread is a shitshow of people just saying fuckall without any kind of news backup. 

you want opinions? go to cloak room. you want news? post real news. there's a reason this thread is a disaster.

So you can't post opinions in DT now? Where is that fucking rule?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

They've probably already started a bail fund for the killer. I continue to be fascinated by what triggers the crazies.

ironic alanis morissette GIF



×
×
  • Create New...