Rittenhouse Trial Outcome - Protests Emerge

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/windows-smas ... 10074.html

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Law enforcement in Portland declared a riot Friday night as about 200 demonstrators protested the acquittal of a teen who killed two people and injured another in Wisconsin.

[clearspira]

This is an argument about where your 1st amendment ends and your 2nd amendment begins. In a way, its also a test of the 5th, 6th and 7th too as these are there to settle such disagreements.

As Biden said: The jury came to a decision and he stands by it.

[hammerofglass]

The judge was blatantly acting as part of the defense and kept the jury from seeing most of the significant evidence. The trial was a complete sham.

[sayla0079]

The judge was blatantly acting as part of the defense and kept the jury from seeing most of the significant evidence. The trial was a complete sham.

Agreed whatever the outcome ended up being the trial was going to be a circus either way.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Certainly could have done without the love-fest from the bench, but hey, at least the judicial bias allowed a child to shoot protestors for fun. The most positive thing I can say is knowing that they are open season for hunting by the right kind of people hasn't had any chilling effect on protestors.

Trial results like this are why I try to pace my consumption of news items and get them with a little comedy thrown in.

[McAvoy]

Pretty sure we will hear about this kid soon or later.

[Madner Kami]

He got away with multiple murders/planned homicides. I can't imagine why he'd ever be in the news again...

[Mickey_Rat15]

The judge was blatantly acting as part of the defense and kept the jury from seeing most of the significant evidence. The trial was a complete sham.

The prosecution attempted to violate 5th Amendment right to remain silent by suggesting Rittenhouse invoking that right was evidence of guilt. They withheld evidence from the defense. They attempted to suborn perjury from at least one of their witnesses. They tried to introduce embargoed evidence without the judge's approval. It is arguable that the judge was rather tolerant of the prosecution's bad behavior.

The prosecution had a bad case, and did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their own witnesses kept blowing up their theory of the defendant's guilt. You wanted a verdict that upheld your political views of the world, how very Cardassian of you.

[hammerofglass]

The judge was blatantly acting as part of the defense and kept the jury from seeing most of the significant evidence. The trial was a complete sham.

The prosecution attempted to violate 5th Amendment right to remain silent by suggesting Rittenhouse invoking that right was evidence of guilt. They withheld evidence from the defense. They attempted to suborn perjury from at least one of their witnesses. They tried to introduce embargoed evidence without the judge's approval. It is arguable that the judge was rather tolerant of the prosecution's bad behavior.

The prosecution had a bad case, and did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their own witnesses kept blowing up their theory of the defendant's guilt. You wanted a verdict that upheld your political views of the world, how very Cardassian of you.

The "political view" that cold blooded murderers who openly boast about their crimes should not be let off on the pretext that it's self defense if the people you're shooting at looked scared? That embargoing all the important evidence to get your pet terrorist off is a gross miscarriage of justice? Just... any respect for rule of law? Sure.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The judge was blatantly acting as part of the defense and kept the jury from seeing most of the significant evidence. The trial was a complete sham.

So I'm in the process of checking on this stuff, just as I'm not very acquainted with the procedure of the trial at all. None of the less this sounds interesting as part of the goings on, and I'll try to see what I can make of it.

The prosecution attempted to violate 5th Amendment right to remain silent by suggesting Rittenhouse invoking that right was evidence of guilt.

They withheld evidence from the defense.

They attempted to suborn perjury from at least one of their witnesses.

They tried to introduce embargoed evidence without the judge's approval. It is arguable that the judge was rather tolerant of the prosecution's bad behavior.

The prosecution had a bad case, and did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their own witnesses kept blowing up their theory of the defendant's guilt. You wanted a verdict that upheld your political views of the world, how very Cardassian of you.