Jury Selection Completed in Karmelo Anthony Trial for Murder – Opening Statements Tomorrow

[DonGlock26]

I just watched this and thought of this thread.

When the defense's star witness becomes a prosecution witness on the stand, the defense is having a bad day indeed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When the defense's star witness becomes a prosecution witness on the stand, the defense is having a bad day indeed.

Sounds like the George Zimmerman trial in reverse. The common theme: an attacker sided with due to his race, and the self-defender excorated because of his.

Then the facts come out.

 

[Polishprince]

Who brings a deadly weapon to compete at a track meet?

Calling this "self defense" is ridiculous.

Comparing this case to Kyle Rittenhouse is ridiculous. The so-called victim in that case was rioting and was armed, not competing in sport, and was a Child Molester while Rittenhouse was a child.

 

[JoeB131]

They were rioters and looters with long criminal records. The “praise” was stating gratitude for him being a veteran. All three of the people shot by Rittenhouse were either actually in the act of attacking him, or had already attacked him. They weren’t victims, they were assailants.

Right. Because Rittenhouse was white, you see. So therefore, he's a victim.

Even though he was the one with the machine gun.

 

[JoeB131]

Who brings a deadly weapon to compete at a track meet?

Calling this "self defense" is ridiculous.

Comparing this case to Kyle Rittenhouse is ridiculous. The so-called victim in that case was rioting and was armed, not competing in sport, and was a Child Molester while Rittenhouse was a child.

No, the first victim in that case was a homeless person who got caught up in a demonstration.

The other victims were exercising their First Amendment right to protest.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Right. Because Rittenhouse was white, you see. So therefore, he's a victim.

Even though he was the one with the machine gun.

Of course.It was not a "machine gun."

But it was enough to save his life from a craze mob up left wing attackers.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Right. Because Rittenhouse was white, you see. So therefore, he's a victim.

Even though he was the one with the machine gun.

Machine gun? Roflmao, what a dope

 

[the watcher]

We may eventually open up psyche institutions again. They must not be complicated, and it will be better to house the potentially violent then spend endless resources to cure to those who cannot. And then when Deplorables demand their rights, that will be used to house those people also as radicals like in other eras in other nations.

Right. Because Rittenhouse was white, you see. So therefore, he's a victim.

Even though he was the one with the machine gun.

That's all you have; Rittenhouse did something remotely similar? Pathetic and self serving at best. Short trial defense only called 9 witnesses. The facts aren't in dispute, just an attempt to justify the stabbing. Pretty cut and dry for the jury, but no one can predict how a jury will act.

 

[Dragonlady]

Rittenhouse was defending the nation from insurrectionists.

No he was not. He had no reason to be there and his gun was illegal.

 

[Polishprince]

No he was not. He had no reason to be there and his gun was illegal.

If he didn't have a gun, the raving liberal mob would have killed him for sure, and possibly violated his butt cheeks.

He was there to protect businesses being attacked by the rabid rioters.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What witnesses? What I saw was that Judge Senile did everything he could to hobble the prosecution.

Are you now claiming there were no witnesses? Or are you just upset because their testimony was not what you thought it should be?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No he was not. He had no reason to be there and his gun was illegal.

No, the gun was not illegal. That's why the judge wouldn't allow the prosecution to use it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Right. Because Rittenhouse was white, you see. So therefore, he's a victim.

Even though he was the one with the machine gun.

It wasn't a machine gun and you damn well know it. Liar.

 

[Meathead]

Right. Because Rittenhouse was white, you see. So therefore, he's a victim.

Even though he was the one with the machine gun.

LOL

 

[Dragonlady]

No, the gun was not illegal. That's why the judge wouldn't allow the prosecution to use it.

Because Rittenhouse was under 18 and not legally allowed to own the gun, the gun was most definitely illegal. And he crossed state lines with his illegal weapon. Rittenhouse should never have been anywhere near that protest in the first place. He didn't even live in the state. And the fact that he was there with an illegal weapon, should have been front and center at that trial.

Rittenhouse was cut any number of breaks in this case, which frequently happens when a white man is accused of a gun crime. Rittenhouse was a scared kid, with a gun, in a place where he should never have been. He went to a lot of planning and effort to put himself in that kind of danger.

Killing someone, while in the commission of a crime, is supposed to result in first degree murder convictions in the USA. But if a conservative kills a liberal at a protest, there is never a bad result for the conservative. If a protestor had been waving a gun around at the protest as Rittenhouse did for hours before he started shooting people, the cops would have shot him.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Because Rittenhouse was under 18 and not legally allowed to own the gun, the gun was most definitely illegal. And he crossed state lines with his illegal weapon. Rittenhouse should never have been anywhere near that protest in the first place. He didn't even live in the state. And the fact that he was there with an illegal weapon, should have been front and center at that trial.

Rittenhouse was cut any number of breaks in this case, which frequently happens when a white man is accused of a gun crime. Rittenhouse was a scared kid, with a gun, in a place where he should never have been. He went to a lot of planning and effort to put himself in that kind of danger.

Killing someone, while in the commission of a crime, is supposed to result in first degree murder convictions in the USA. But if a conservative kills a liberal at a protest, there is never a bad result for the conservative. If a protestor had been waving a gun around at the protest as Rittenhouse did for hours before he started shooting people, the cops would have shot him.

That's a myth that you guys continue to fall for. Rittenhouse did NOT cross state lines with the AR.
Several of his family members lived in Kenosha, and the AR-15 style rifle was bought for Rittenhouse by his friend Dominick Black and stored at his house.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Because Rittenhouse was under 18 and not legally allowed to own the gun, the gun was most definitely illegal.

Wrong. Wisconsin state law prohibits people under eighteen from owning firearms if the firearm falls within certain parameters as to size and other considerations. The judge reviewed the state statute and found it was too ambiguous to bother pursuing for the purposes of this trial, especially considering it was a misdemeanor anyway.

And he crossed state lines with his illegal weapon.

Wrong again. A friend of his purchased the gun for him in Wisconsin and he picked it up when he arrived from Illinois.

Rittenhouse should never have been anywhere near that protest in the first place. He didn't even live in the state. And the fact that he was there with an illegal weapon, should have been front and center at that trial.

Given that a good portion of the people there were from out of state, this is a moot point.

Rittenhouse was cut any number of breaks in this case, which frequently happens when a white man is accused of a gun crime. Rittenhouse was a scared kid, with a gun, in a place where he should never have been. He went to a lot of planning and effort to put himself in that kind of danger.

Every single person that was there that night was in a place they should never have been in and a lot of people planned and made efforts to be there and put themselves in danger. So what?

The bulk of your argument seems to be to criticize and blame Rittenhouse for doing exactly what everyone else was doing. All this does is make you appear unobjective.

Killing someone, while in the commission of a crime, is supposed to result in first degree murder convictions in the USA.

I don't understand, what crime?

But if a conservative kills a liberal at a protest, there is never a bad result for the conservative.

How many cases have there been where a conservative kills a liberal at a protest? As far as I know, this is the only one.

If a protestor had been waving a gun around at the protest as Rittenhouse did for hours before he started shooting people, the cops would have shot him.

Rittenhouse never "waved his gun around" and he wasn't the only one carrying a rifle so this is another moot point. Furthermore, Rittenhouse was not the first to fire a weapon that night. Some clown named Joshua Ziminski fired his pistol in the air just as Rittenhouse ran past him with Rosenbaum at his heels. That act alone may very well have been the impetus that caused Kyle to fire in self defense.

Rittenhouse was being pursued by Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum became enraged that Kyle extinguished a dumpster fire. As he is being chased he hears a gunshot behind him which almost certainly added to the tension and fear. He doesn't know who fired or why, he only knows that Rosenbaum was enraged and threatened to kill him. So when he gets cornered in the parking lot and turns around, there's Rosenbaum grabbing for his rifle. The inevitable happens.