Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,206
2,011
113
Carlsbad
Kyle's airtight case didn't get him acquitted, his $2million worth of free handouts did.
It wasn't the resources which led to the State's star witnesses directly contradicting their primary talking points. It wasn't the money that got the judge to read the law as written and throw out the weapons charges. KRs atty isn't even some high priced out-of-town specialist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GromsDad

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
37,495
5,648
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
It wasn't the resources which led to the State's star witnesses directly contradicting their primary talking points. It wasn't the money that got the judge to read the law as written and throw out the weapons charges. KRs atty isn't even some high priced out-of-town specialist.
These idiots just refuse to accept the facts of the case and have to create some conspiratorial bullshit rationale for why Rittenhouse won. He won because the facts, the evidence (much of which was video) and the Law were all on his side.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: plasticbertrand

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
16,333
6,405
113
A Beach
You mean the law loopholes were on his side.
Burden of Proof is not a loophole, it's a foundational pillar of our legal system. Therefore, you have to remove all doubt from 12 jurors minds in order for them to give a Guilty verdict. Given that there were several videos showing him retreating and being attacked before shooting, that provides plenty of doubt. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the defendant in a system that puts the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.

At best you could've gotten a weapons charge if the "loophole" did not exist, which was still only a misdemeanor.

Seriously, how many times has this been explained :unsure: :foreheadslap: :roflmao:
 

plasticbertrand

Kelly Slater status
Jan 12, 2009
9,578
5,336
113
I see you're still bent over the fact that the law didn't prohibit KR from open carry the AR. That's unfortunate.

I'm wondering if their future attempts to amend the law will even be successful.
I'm not amending anything.

The law deeming AR15 not dangerous and appropriate for minors to open carry, is verifiably insane.

It was an archaic law referring to hunting rifles.

I thought we've already agreed on that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ifallalot

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,206
2,011
113
Carlsbad
I'm not amending anything.

The law deeming AR15 not dangerous and appropriate for minors to open carry, is verifiably insane.

It was an archaic law referring to hunting rifles.

I thought we've already agreed on that.
The law was updated several times since 1987, most recently in 2011. So whatever else you want to call it, "archaic" is one tag that doesn't stick.
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,206
2,011
113
Carlsbad
Or a .22 rifle. Or a shotgun. Or an AK. Or an SKS. etc.

Besides which, have you seen the lengths the Mfgs have gone to in order to mfg rifles which do the same thing an AR does but which don't fit the definition of an AR?