Im telling you, if third dude pulled the 9 and done the mans everyone in the entire world would be calling the dude a hero for stopping the brazen rampage that this ar15 wielding gen z murder suicide run Kyle was on.

Truly think about it, no one would have complained if Kyle took one to the dome from the mans Im just saying. Honestly I do not in any way want Kyle Rittenhouse harmed and reluctantly I do accept the decision the courts made but we all fucking know if Kyle had a hole in his head then everyone would be clapping still

I dont think he's a hero. And at the time it was established that the 2020 riots for drug addict george floyd had a lot of unpredictable chaos.
Several of the situations it's clear he was defending himself. He got wrapped up in the moment and wanted to protect the community he worked in and spent time with.

If you choose to speak ebonics, people may not understand yo.

This post was edited by Mondain on Jul 18 2023 04:03pm

You have to imagine how the court case would have gone down without a couple key things

1. It would not have been so harshly politicized because the NRA wouldnt be funding to keep the "bad guy" (Kyle Rittenhouse) out of jail. It would be portrayed at the dude with the 9 being a hero and NRA would pay to keep him out of jail so its just hero vs the government which is fine and cool everyone is cool with those cases.

2. We would not have had to endure the most pathetic fake fucking crying ever shown on television. That has nothing to do with the case that would just be a giant win for everyone

3. Probably a third reason but Im only writing this to make the list look complete at a glance

1. NRA is NOT an ally of gun owners. They're actually an organization to document and record gun owners who willingly sign up to them. They have time and time again chosen to allow firearm related bans.

2. Not sure how crying due to emotional stress is fake. I also don't think that the kyle case is somehow the pinnacle of anti-gun ban proof.
There are several over siutations that would be better to point to.

3. That's fine, but you went right off the rails with your own thread.
I thought you wanted to talk about flordia and Aileen Cannon.
I'm trying to be nice.

ya an even farther right gun group funded Kyles lawyers.. same tree the apple just has more worms in it.



https://www.salon.com/2021/11/18/the-nra-gave-us-kyle-rittenhouse/

yes the second is an opinion piece so its a bit anecdotal but many understand and agree with the sentiment.. its easy to follow the crumbs to understand the NRAs involvement in keeping White shooters out of prison

This post was edited by Crunkt on Jul 18 2023 04:15pm

Well then do you think it would be fair if a judge appointed by the person on trial would simply recuse themselves from the trial to prevent such controversy? As is written in law.. at least the dont preside over crimes in which your involvement may cause controversy part.

making this a poll question. we will let PARD decide.

This post was edited by Crunkt on Jul 18 2023 04:23pm

The problem here is that a full third of the supreme court was appointed by Trump and that's the highest court so you cannot expect judges who were appointed by Trump to recuse when the final hill is packed with judges appointed by Trump.

Thats a very good point, the republicans did not play fair when it came to appointing SCJ's. as usual, you try to play fair and the Republicans take advantage. But I digress...

In THIS particular case there is a panel of judges that use a 'random' system to give out the cases to the federal judges in this particular district. This means that there are several judges that could easily replace Aileen Cannon. Clearly she should not be involved given the conflict of interest (in my and many peoples opinion, including Glenn Kershner a former DOJ Prosecutor) and she has the ability to simply say ya i recuse myself because the people may not find this fair and therefore I should recuse myself as it is written in the federal judges code.

She can easily recuse herself, it means nothing for her to stay away from it. But she doesnt seem to think there is conflict of interest and she seemingly thinks she shouldnt recuse herself which is ENOUGH proof that she is out of touch with reality and the demands of the American people.

THey could just as easily appoint the Bush appointed judge, and it wouldn't be a conflict of interest. Literally and judge appointed by any other president would avoid the questioning by the American people.

This post was edited by Crunkt on Jul 18 2023 04:53pm

Tell me you know nothing about the rittenhouse trial without telling me you know nothing about the rittenhouse trial

I'm not particularly familiar with this case so there's my disclaimer. But from what I'm seeing here I suspect she isn't at all out of touch she just doesn't want a "anti-Trump" judge to replace a "pro-Trump" judge. She would know that appeals will eventually make it to the supreme court so she's playing strategically. Not saying she's a good person for doing that, just what I think is happening based on the information I've seen. In my experience republicans tend to be far more strategic than democrats.