Quote:
Originally Posted by Trayderjoe
So a 17 year old (at the time of the incident) is arrested and labeled a white supremacist and guilty of murder by many, all without the benefit of trial. At trial, the star witness for the prosecution admits that Rittenhouse did not shoot him UNTIL HE POINTED HIS GUN AT RITTENHOUSE. Another PROSECUTION witness testified that the PROSECUTION tried to get him to change his statement, and the judge had to admonish the prosecutor for attempting to violate Rittenhouse’s constitutional rights to remain silent.
And what are some concerned about? Whether Rittenhouse actually cried during his testimony. Really? I mean, really? If anything, people should be questioning the potential prosecutorial misconduct and the rapid rush to judge a person absent facts and a fair trial. How dare a prosecutor attempt to introduce that the defendant chose to remain silent until he took the witness stand, and yet there are people who are not outraged by the prosecutor, but they apparently are ready to mock the defendant over his crying. What I saw and heard was not crying, but an attempt to control his emotions at which point the judge granted a recess so that the defendant could compose himself.
I guess lessons weren’t learned after the Nicholas Sandman debacle, hopefully Kyle Rittenhouse has attorneys lined up to drop lawsuits. Given that some of those proclaiming his guilt also attacked Nicholas Sandman, one would think the judgement/settlement against these people should be significantly higher.
|
He shouldn’t have been there and shouldn’t have been armed, but he must have been utterly terrified, and he makes an excellent case for it being self-defense. Seventeen year olds often make very poor decisions, especially if swayed by emotional and one-sided arguments.