Beyond disgusted

[Colgate 64]

As I lawyer in practice 33 years I am beyond thoroughly disgusted with the trial of little Kyle and the horrendous verdict. It seems that Trump's theory of being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue without consequences is now the state of the law to all RW wingers. I can't wait to see the Aubrey verdict - they'll probably give Shotgun Bob the Medal of Freedom.

Yee Haw - "When do we get to use our guns?". Now, Jethro. Now.

[Frasier Balzov]

1. Was there lack of prosecutorial skill in selecting the jury?

Perhaps we have failed to recognize the frustration Kenosha citizens felt at civil unrest in their city.

And how they were loathe to punish someone they perceived as having stepped forward to do something about it.

[Colgate 64]

2. I'm not sure you could have picked a jury there

that wasn't subject to those thoughts. Plus the maternal instinct for a "poor, suffering, crying boy". (If needed: )

[Bluethroughu]

3. One thing I think the prosecutor should have done...

Was clearly state the First Amendment Right that gives us the ability to protest. Those people murdered had the right to scream in the streets.

It has been proven outside white supremacists were moving around the country lighting fires during the BLM protests.

Rittenhouse was NOT A RESIDENT OF THAT STATE.

Why was he there?
Why was he armed?

[Yarnie]

6. The right to protest

is sacred, and it is protected under the Constitution; HOWEVER, smashing windows, starting fires, etc., all of which was happening in Kenosha, is not protected. It is criminal behavior, and there is no degfending it.

[Bluethroughu]

7. There were Proud boys throughout the country starting fires and breaking

Windows among other criminal behavior. The Kenosha protestors may NOT have been the people doing the criminal behavior. They were not on trial, the murder was.

[Hav]

4. As a lawyer,

what is your understanding of the events of this case and where did the jury get it wrong on the specific charges? With that I also mean, was the defense's narrative so unreasonable that the jury had to recognize that when presented with the jury instructions?
We have so many opinions on DU but we all agree that most of us lack the legal background.

[Tomconroy]

5. What kind of law did you practice?

[Colgate 64]

8. Criminal (Defense)

[PDT69]

9. You're a criminal defense attorney...

of 33 years a can't see that the KR case clearly shows it was self defense? The evidence is pretty damn clear, like it or not. I'm not even sure the case should have ever been brought to trial. At least on those charges.

The Aubrey case is completely different. I imagine those idiots get convicted.

[pfitz59]

11. WTF? Not self-defense

The little shit showed up strapped. he was the provocateur.

[Colgate 64]

12. This case was a loser from the beginning. The judge

so put his thumbs (and both feet) on the scales that the result was always only going to be 1)acquittal or 2) mistrial. The Prosecution had no realistic way to convict the budding Vigilante.

[Hav]

13. The prosecution couldn't get a conviction

because they couldn't persuade the jury solely based on the facts of the case. Everyone takes a beating sometime wasn't a convincing argument against self-defense. When one of the victims testifies that he only got shot after raising his gun on Rittenhouse then that part of the case was already lost.

The prosecution delivered the reasons for a possible mistrial, everything else is a fantasy.

[Colgate 64]

14. Thanks for your professional opinion.

[Hav]

15. Well, this is your thread

with lots of baseless claims. But despite your alleged experience, you have offered absolutely nothing of substance regarding the case.
I actually wished that more people with the relevant expertise would explain how the jury got it wrong, for example. But for some strange reason the experts never deliver.
So, thanks for your professional opinion right back at you.

[Tomconroy]

10. Huh.

[Devil Child]

16. Win/loss count or ratio?

I ask because you have already provided personal information to establish authority re: discussion of this subject.

[Colgate 64]

17. Lost less than 10% of cases that went to trial.