eh I think you're creating some of the best content on the forum. Some true comedy. Typing hillary's bad on the internet is putting in some real work against the cabal soldier. I can't even imagine how invigorating it must've been to write-in Bernard's name. Nearly gives me a panic attack just thinking about it. You sound like a real rebel

In that scenario they are looking good for a Trump pardon in 2025.

I like you both fwiw.

But you pose the question of the ages.

right. You're like the ninja of prop beting. No way did I consider they might be charged with an array of crimes with varying degrees of difficulty prosecuting or filed at different levels of government. I mean, it was such a low profile case that that wouldn't have even occurred to me. I thought it was either first degree murder convictions or they actually get compensated with millions of dollars for court's imposition on their otherwise fruitful lives- nothing in between. You're a shark d2. Just straight sharky.

I'm not going to look up the stats either, but wasn't Georgia the state that gave us a challenge to the death penalty which cited differential rates in death sentences for Black felons? And wasn't that the case which, via advancement to the SCOTUS, entrenched the legal philosophy saying that outcomes are not sufficient to establish racial discrimination and that only direct evidence can establish it? In other words I could start a company, hire 10,000 people of only one race, and as long as there is no explicit recorded evidence of my hiring practices being racially motivated, I couldn't be prosecuted.

You practiced law so I figure you know all aspects of all current law and are familiar with all SCOTUS cases in the lat 100 years in great detail.

I would think if the death penalty assignment is biased then everything else is as well. You could say the bias is in the prosecutor's discretion I suppose.

So why did you say they were favourites to walk?

Lol.

I was imprecise. "on the murder charges" is implied in sloppy American English.

Right. So if they get convicted of civil rights violations, that is a walk?

When you get 5 bet in the big blind, do you consider that a walk, genius?

This is such a weird dig. I never claimed to be familiar with all aspects of the law or all SCOTUS cases. No lawyer could make that claim.

The fact that I I know more than you do about almost every area of the law doesn't make me extraordinary. It just makes me a lawyer. Most doctors know more about every area of medicine than I do.

I described the U.S. justice system as flawed. Through the years, I have been quite clear that I think racial bias is one of the problems.

That wasn't actually a dig just tongue in cheek. I figured a lot of people expect any lawyer to know everything about the law out of a lack of appreciation of how vast it is.

Dude, just fall back. This is embarrassing.

That is a common misconception about lawyers, doctors, tax advisors, etc.

You mean you don't know everything ?

I'm disappointed.

Rittenhouse guy is gonna walk, right?

I know most everything about most everything. But absolutely everything? Not quite.

He's actually got a chance. I have no idea of the details of the law and wouldn't bet either way...also, he's a racist prick.

But he may be able to convince a jury that he was, at the moment, reasonably in fear for his life.

Of course the prosecutor will likely remind everyone that he came across state lines, armed illegally and put himself in the middle of a conflict 'before' he got nervous.

He will likely get a guilty on the lesser stuff of crossing State lines but walk on any thing related to the death.

He should not have been there and was a provocateur, but in much the same way George Zimmerman was, they will find that despite all that he has a right to shoot to kill when being attacked.

Rittenhouse and these guys wont be convicted of murder. proly hung juries.

The law doesn't deal very well with situations in which people arm themselves, go looking for trouble, and find trouble.

The judge in the case has ruled that the people shot by Rittenhouse cannot be referred to as victims but can be referred to as looters, rioters, or arsonists if the defense can justify it. So it would appear things will be going his way in the courtroom.

He raised half a million for his defense fund. The cops are on his side.

Still, he is facing a bunch of charges. It would seem like at least some will stick given the outcomes. In my estimation no, Trolly, he's not going to walk. On the question people are most interested in, the homicide charges, I don't have much support for any position. If I see an antagonistic person with a gun in a crowded area am I allowed to disarm them in the name of public safety? It wasn't legal for him to have the gun anyway, so I would think I should be legally protected in trying to disarm him, including precluding most self defense claims on his part. Otherwise, anyone could go into a public place waving a gun around and acting threatening and if anyone tried to disarm them the threatening person could legally kill them. While that does sound American AF I am hoping that is not the state of things.

It appears that the judge has a longstanding policy of not allowing the word "victim" in homicide cases. That's fine as far as it goes.

I'm not sure why the defense should be allowed to refer to the people who were shot as rioters, looters, or arsonists. Were they, in fact, looting or setting fires?
If they were, then I guess it might be a close call. But if they were simply part of a protest, and some people in attendance were looting or setting fires, then it seems outrageous.

The ruling was that the defense could refer to them as such if the defense provided evidence

Seems like defamation to me, but I guess it’s legal to defame the dead?

I can understand the logic behind not calling someone a victim before the matter is decided, but the dead guys weren’t ever found guilty of anything.

Evidentiary rules don't operate by the same standards as burdens of proof for conviction in a criminal trial.