Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Satoshi
Satoshi

Horrible situation that night. He will be acquitted. The dumbest guy in all this was the one who brought a skateboard to a gun fight. The definition of FAFO

Satoshi
Satoshi

Shots had already been fired at the point of the skateboard guy getting involved. So yeah it reached the level of gun fight at the point he got involved. Not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Brian Fantana
Brian Fantana

I just want to add that I'm not here to pillory Kyle Rittenhouse. He is a fucking child. A child. I had an extensive conversation about this with a good friend of mine who is a juvenile defender by pr

Posted Images

Anastasis

Anastasis 23718

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

criminal does not equal civil.

jesus, man. 

wtf.

Whether criminal or civil, is the following not generally applicable in terms of the potential ethical implications? 

 

14 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Lawyer jokes aside---it would compromise the ethical approach a prosecutor would take/not take to a particular case.  

If a potential financial conflict of interest is incompatible with the concept of justice, seems like we could generalize that incompatibility whether the setting is civil or criminal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 13327

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

One time after closing the jury had a question 30 minutes later and I went and got a colleague I had tried the case with and told him we needed to get back in the courtroom ASAP. I later felt bad about it because I neglected to tell him it was just a question, not the verdict. He thought it was the actual verdict which as the plaintiff in a complicated death case would have meant we lost for sure.

The point is there is nothing more stressful for a lawyer than waiting on a jury verdict. Nothing. Not even the trial itself. Because you’re totally out of control of it. Nothing.

Sounds like marriage.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11402

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Whether criminal or civil, is the following not generally applicable in terms of the potential ethical implications? 

 

If a potential financial conflict of interest is incompatible with the concept of justice, seems like we could generalize that incompatibility whether the setting is civil or criminal. 

you have to be trolling. i really don't get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11402

Posted
Posted
Just now, washparkhorn said:

Judge on the bench: NBC/MSNBC had a reporter follow the sealed bus carrying the jurors. Judge makes a brief statement and back to waiting on the jury.

that reporter should be charged... with something. i dunno what, but jury anonymity is sacrosanct. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

On the lighter side

 

image.thumb.png.eecd9bfd0badb6fb67f10bc8c3216b57.png

He was obviously just practicing for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. 
 

On a much darker side a couple dipshits on Facebook who I’ve unfriended showed up in a post by a guy I haven’t talking about how this idiot and sandmann should both run for Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

He was obviously just practicing for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. 
 

On a much darker side a couple dipshits on Facebook who I’ve unfriended showed up in a post by a guy I haven’t talking about how this idiot and sandmann should both run for Congress.

they’d fit right in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2204

Posted
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

You misspelled “burglary.”

Quote

“We took steps to corroborate the authenticity of the diary. At the end of the day, we made the ethical decision that because, in part, we could not determine if the diary was real, if the diary in fact belonged to Ashley Biden, or if the contents of the diary occurred, we could not publish the diary and any part thereof,” O’Keefe said.

O’Keefe claimed Project Veritas tried to return the diary to a lawyer for Ashley Biden but that the attorney refused to authenticate it, and then that they gave the diary to an unspecified law enforcement agency “to ensure it could be returned to its rightful owner.”

“We never published it,” he added.

O’Keefe’s statement, however, did not address the other right-wing website’s claims that someone from Project Veritas had provided them a digital copy of the diary.

At the time, most media outlets, including conservative ones, did not cover the publication of the digital images from the diary. Throughout the presidential campaign, President Donald Trump and his allies were far more fixated on attacking Hunter Biden, Ashley Biden’s half brother. Separately, Hunter Biden confirmed last December that his taxes are under federal investigation.

Analysis: The full Trump-Ukraine impeachment timeline

O’Keefe on Friday said that FBI agents had seized notebooks belonging to Project Veritas associates and that the FBI had requested he not speak about a grand jury subpoena the group had received. He also stated the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York was involved in the raids. A representative for that office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

O’Keefe also tried to suggest there was something amiss with the timing of the Times’s story Friday. Project Veritas is currently suing the Times, alleging defamation for a previous story.

“Within an hour of one of our reporters’ homes being secretly raided by the FBI, the New York Times, who we are currently suing for defamation, contacted the Project Veritas reporter to ask for comment,” O’Keefe said. “We do not know how the New York Times was aware of the execution of a search warrant at our reporter’s home, or the subject matter of the search warrant, as a grant jury investigation is secret.”

He lashed out at the Justice Department for claiming the diary was stolen and investigating the matter, saying it “smacks of politics.” According to the Times, the probe was opened under the jurisdiction of Trump’s Justice Department, led by then-Attorney General William P. Barr, after federal authorities received a report that Ashley Biden had been burglarized.

Looks like he tried to give it back, but no one wanted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46166

Posted
Posted

Maybe I'm off base here (not a lawyer), but I find it telling that in both trials happening right now regarding right wing nutjobs shooting people, the defense has asked for a mistrial.  To me that means they know they are wrong and are trying to get out on a technicality because it is so obvious they are guilty.

It feels like the equivalent of yelling "IT'S NOT FAIR!" when they realize they are probably going down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10206

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Let's tie all this together by crafting a Robert Duvall inspired beer called Lonesome Love. It's bipartisan in that one can either toast with it or cry in it, depending.

And you only pay for it if you get drunk, sorta like a contingency 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Let's tie all this together by crafting a Robert Duvall inspired beer called Lonesome Love. It's bipartisan in that one can either toast with it or cry in it, depending.

Gimme three Gusses then, and the first two don't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Totally a conflict of interest, though.

Hmmm, so if it's made it low alcohol so you can drink more for free but since everyone knows how you all drink then it needs to be brewed with a high percentage so it makes money before it's depleted, I think you're correct. Total conflict of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The only imaginable contingency arrangement for prosecutors would be "you get your salary if you win, and nothing if you lose", which is obviously a complete non-starter.  

Well, unless the prosecutor is Ricky Williams.

 

 

That would be a conflict of interest.  It is not the job of the prosecutor to win the case.  It is their job to see that justice is done.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shakahorn

shakahorn 1658

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Maybe I'm off base here (not a lawyer), but I find it telling that in both trials happening right now regarding right wing nutjobs shooting people, the defense has asked for a mistrial.  To me that means they know they are wrong and are trying to get out on a technicality because it is so obvious they are guilty.

It feels like the equivalent of yelling "IT'S NOT FAIR! FRAUD" when they realize they are probably going down.

FIFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gidnik

Gidnik 3488

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

That would be a conflict of interest.  It is not the job of the prosecutor to win the case.  It is their job to see that justice is done.

It is the job of the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frank The Tank

Frank The Tank 1503

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

It is the job of the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I actually have to agree with Sack here, begrudgingly so.  Prosecutors take an oath that other lawyers do not.  They are sworn to uphold that oath and "to see that justice is done."

Having done that job for a decade and now being on the other side, I do know that "justice" is not always defined by everyone the same way...but the system is set up so that a prosecutor is not supposed to seek a conviction on every case and at all costs.  Proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt is the job if that's what they believe justice demands, but dismissing the case or reducing it to a lesser charge is also the job if that's what they believe best serves the interest of justice on any given case.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...