- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Day 4 (made the thread title more accurate)
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:38 pm to CAD703X
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:38 pm to CAD703X
Can he entertain a motion to dismiss? Or are they too far gone for that?
I'd almost rather an acquittal at this point, if I was Rittenhouse, but 0 risk is better than any risk.
I'd almost rather an acquittal at this point, if I was Rittenhouse, but 0 risk is better than any risk.
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 2:38 pm
1
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:39 pm to WWII Collector
Was Drew trying to change his name to Jacob Blake, since that name was now available?
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:40 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Sure, the State can dismiss the case if the prosecutor wants to stop embarrassing himself.
Can he entertain a motion to dismiss?
Locke
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:45 pm to CAD703X
Case should be dismissed. After seeing the video the FBI was sitting on this kid should have never been charged.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:48 pm to UsingUpAllTheLetters
From whom? DA's and their office have immunity from lawsuits.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:51 pm to boudinman
quote:And "on what legal theory" ... what tort?quote:From whom? DA's and their office have immunity from lawsuits.
Kyle about to get paid Sandmann style
This kid got put through the wringer, and that should not have happened. But he has no justiciable civil case against anyone in state or local government.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:51 pm to boudinman
The DA in North Carolina who pushed the Duke rape case had his immunity pierced because of how he handled matters.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:54 pm to stelly1025
this is probably a dumb question, but will Kyle be taking the stand and testifying?
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:54 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
Technically, he masturbated before the zoom call and was caught cleaning up on the call, but I'm splitting hairs here.
So was Toobin!
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:57 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
This kid got put through the wringer, and that should not have happened. But he has no justiciable civil case against anyone in state or local government.
He could sue Kenosha and the DA. Remember Nifong?
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:57 pm to Badface
quote:
this is probably a dumb question, but will Kyle be taking the stand and testifying?
Not a chance
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:58 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
And "on what legal theory" ... what tort?
This kid got put through the wringer, and that should not have happened. But he has no justiciable civil case against anyone in state or local government
malicious prosecution
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:00 pm to teke184
quote:
The DA in North Carolina who pushed the Duke rape case had his immunity pierced because of how he handled matters.
Nifong ended up being disbarred and spent a night in jail for contempt. I don't know where the idea that the DA is untouchable came from
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:05 pm to jchamil
quote:Nifong lost absolute immunity because he engaged in a whole HOST of extrajudicial activities, taking advantage of the case for personal gain ... including his political race.
He could sue Kenosha and the DA. Remember Nifong?
I've not seen anything of the sort in this case.
But that point is mostly for Boudin. I was more addressing the substantive nature of the tort, as opposed to the immunity issue.
Locke
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:08 pm to udtiger
quote:Zero chance of success
malicious prosecution
quote:This case does not give rise to even a good faith argument that there was no probable cause for the primary charges. Like it or not, Rittenhouse killed two people. The prosecution proved the elements of its case before this trial ever started. In essence, defense counsel admitted this in his opening statement.
Under Wisconsin law plaintiff Kaminske's claim for the tort of malicious prosecution requires six elements: (1) a prior institution or continuation of judicial proceedings against Kaminske; (2) the former proceedings were "by, or at the instance of," WCL; (3) the prior proceedings terminated in Kaminske's favor; (4) malice on the part of WCL in instituting the former proceedings; (5) a want of probable cause for the institution of the former proceedings; and (6) injury or damage resulting to Kaminske from the former proceedings. Strid v. Converse, 111 Wis.2d 418, 423, 331 N.W.2d 350 (1983).
This entire trial is about Rittenhouse’s affirmative defense, which DOES have merit. But failure to exercise prosecutorial discretion and to elect not prosecute based upon an affirmative defense (no matter how meritorious) is never going to give rise to a malicious prosecution case, because the failure to exercise prosecutorial discretion is not remotely the same thing as “lack of probable cause“ on the underlying crime. It is not even an element of the tort.
Locke
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:08 pm to TBoy
quote:
Why the hell is a judge concerned about the press? Make your rulings and if there is a problem the courts of appeal will sort it out.
Because the judicial process is not supposed to be interfered with or influenced by the corrupt press.
This is a very simple self defense case that is purposefully being turned into a political witch hunt.
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:08 pm to TBoy
quote:
Fox is running 24-7 saying the kid is being railroaded. That will potentially affect the jury too.
I’ve been watching Fox non stop since yesterday and they have barely mentioned it.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:13 pm to teke184
quote:
I’m sure the judge is more than willing to give him a verbal smack down on Court TV.
judges are also more than willing to sanction an attorney and/or hold them in contempt. As an officer of the Court, the attorney should know that even if you don't agree with a judge's ruling, you're expected to say "yes sir" and move on. Pissing off a judge and then still persisting with the same nonsense is the exact opposite way for any attorney to conduct himself in court
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:14 pm to jchamil
quote:
Any chance this DA was forced to bring charges by someone behind the scenes
The ADA prosecuting the case has no control over whether to prosecute a high profile case. The elected District Attorney makes that decision, and the ADA assigned to try it does what he's told.
quote:
I honestly can't think of anything else for his strategy here
desperation
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:16 pm to CAD703X
quote:
this was after the scumbag prosecutor was trying to keep rosenbaum's actions that night from being admitted as evidence.
Seems pretty crucial to know what the dead person was doing in a “self defense or murder” conversation
Page 4 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News