aTmAg said:

---

The MSM (the few snippets of it I see on youtube) make it sound like the prosecution is kicking ass and taking names. The blatant dishonesty blows my mind. They aren't even trying anymore.

---

And will do nothing but spark violence if he is found not guilty (as he should be). People who are only reading the summary put out by the MSM are thinking he is guilty.

Day 7 thread???? I'll be patient.

BuddysBud said:

---

GarryowenAg said:

---

richardag said:

---

captkirk said:

---

SUPERCUT!

Media: Why do reporting when we already know Rittenhouse is a terrorist? pic.twitter.com/abebdPyiIs

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 9, 2021

---

If law is served in the Rittenhouse case and he is found innocent of all charges, then these alleged news reporters and their superiors need to be sued for enough money to make them hesitant in the future from defamation, slander and libel.

---

The Reiketa (spl?) Law YouTube that I'm watching for this trial discussed the possibility of civil suit for Kyle if he's acquitted. They basically said it would be virtually impossible for him to win a civil case because he was publicly charged with a crime. I'm no lawyer, but if 9 attorneys agreed on that YouTube page, then I'd be included to trust their opinion.

---

So if the state falsely charges you with a crime then you are open game for slander by the media?
This seems ripe for government and media collusion to enact tyranny.

When did we shift from presumption of innocence to Napoleonic law?

---

When race and politics became more important than God.

Sandman didn't "win" his case and there was no "award".

His claims / cases were settled with the Media Liability insurers and, to the extent the value was below any self-insured retention, the media companies themselves.

Defamation cases are exceedingly difficult to prove and rarely actually go to trial, but in Nick's situation, he didn't 'thrust himself into the discourse' recall the elderly gentleman confronted Nick as he was simply standing nearby which is how the determination is made with respect to the duty owed to a party being reported upon.

Legally speaking, Kyle likely would obtain such a designation, thus enabling the media to pretty much say whatever they want about him as long as the falsehood isn't made with knowledge of the statement's falsity.

IOW, I don't believe he has a case.

(Mostly a lurker. Licensed, but non-practicing attorney who works as a Risk Manager for a private family; so I do reserve the right to defer to someone with more experience than I. But, I studied defamation quite a bit in law school and wrote a case study on the Mike Price lawsuit against Sports Illustrated which my professor used in later copies of his text for the course.)

And Epstein didn't kill himself.

Rekieta is live:

edit: He counts jury selection as Day 1 - that's why this is Day 8.

NAL question: when Binger is trying to get Kyle to say what he knows or thinks about different ammo, what's to prevent Kyle for making comments to the DA like: "I think you are misleading the jury with your questioning and you are testifying on things you know little about to make me look bad"

Do they shut down comments like that from the witness? They just tell him "answer the question". ?

EnviroAg96 said:

---

NAL question: when Binger is trying to get Kyle to say what he knows or thinks about different ammo, what's to prevent Kyle for making comments to the DA like: "I think you are misleading the jury with your questioning and you are testifying on things you know little about to make me look bad"

Do they shut down comments like that from the witness? They just tell him "answer the question". ?

---

NAL. It hurts Kyle to be a condescending ass in front of the jury. Answer honestly and let the DA keep digging. Nothing in that line of questioning is going to make a strong case.

Man, the one day I can't listen or watch, Rittenhouse testifies.

What's the tl;dw summary of how it's going?

mkorzo said:

---

Man, the one day I can't listen or watch, Rittenhouse testifies.

What's the tl;dw summary of how it's going?

---

He's educating the DA's office on gun laws. The DA is saying that the laws are bad. Has nothing to do with self-defense.

Kvetch said:

---

EnviroAg96 said:

---

NAL question: when Binger is trying to get Kyle to say what he knows or thinks about different ammo, what's to prevent Kyle for making comments to the DA like: "I think you are misleading the jury with your questioning and you are testifying on things you know little about to make me look bad"

Do they shut down comments like that from the witness? They just tell him "answer the question". ?

---

NAL. It hurts Kyle to be a condescending ass in front of the jury. Answer honestly and let the DA keep digging. Nothing in that line of questioning is going to make a strong case.

---

Kyle has not done so, I agree it would be a mistake for him to start doing so.

Nothing wrong with admitting confusion and asking DA for clarification, as opposed to doing what most of us would do, which is call the DA a dumb@$$ and argue with him.

FbgTxAg said:

---

Let's say - just a hypothetical - that this jury convicts and then they go home and find out that Rosenbaum was a CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST WHO JUST GOT RELEASED FROM AN ASYLUM.

Completely ridiculous they don't get to know this.

---

This was all over the news in the days following the shooting.

Wait, Rittenhoiae is testifying ?

I'm shocked by that. He must have done exceptionally well in the woodshed. Still seems like an unnecessary risk. Possible that Kyle insisted on it, or that this is something they felt like they need to do to avoid the jury coming back with a conviction on one of the lesser charges as a compromise verdict. Still risky and surprising given how the trial has gone to this point.

You need to go to the Day 7 thread