Now I believe his attorney is claiming that he was already in Wisconsin and that the gun belonged to someone else that he was visiting. We are not going to get an honest answer at this point.
If he is all ready resorting to this and claiming he was deputized by a militia shows me his defense is lacking anything substantive.
Attorneys Pounce on Kyle Rittenhouse’s Reported ‘Well Regulated Militia’ Legal Defense https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...eported-well-regulated-militia-legal-defense/
Claims from 'murderer' to 'hero of the 2nd revolution' haha, what a country I don't think the defense is lacking substantive case law but this is just the PR phase. He knows where his legal fees will come from and will pander to them. Real shame for him that the NRA is under investigation, he could have milked them for everything but the graft money they already stole.
"Facebook’s Rittenhouse Mistake": https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-rittenhouse-mistake-11599260134?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Facebook’s Rittenhouse Mistake The speech blackout for his defense threatens due process. By The Editorial Board Sept. 4, 2020 6:55 pm ET Will Facebook let users share this editorial? We’ll see. The social-media giant seems to have declared Kyle Rittenhouse’s fatal shooting of two people amid riots in Kenosha, Wis., a mass murder. Mr. Rittenhouse’s lawyer says his client was attacked and acted in self-defense, but Facebook has banned any “praise and support” for him on the site, including links to contribute to his legal representation. Searches for his name on the platform also come up empty. This is an alarming resort to censorship on an issue of public concern by a company that has advertised its support for First Amendment values. Even more than most political controls on content, this blackout is troubling because it seems targeted at users’ expectation of freedom of speech and Mr. Rittenhouse’s right to due process. By taking down links to pay Mr. Rittenhouse’s legal fees, the company is interfering with his ability to raise money for his defense in a way other criminal defendants might. The fact that the platform may only be used to declare Mr. Rittenhouse’s guilt, but not his innocence—though lawyers say the self-defense argument is plausible—could prejudice a jury pool in the high-profile case. One of America’s most powerful companies is effectively giving its official imprimatur to Wisconsin prosecutors’ case against a specific defendant. Defending Mr. Rittenhouse’s right to a fair hearing, and the public’s right to see information about the shooting, is not a defense of the teen’s actions. The untrained minor exercised terrible judgment in leaving his hometown to act as an amateur police officer amid the looting and arson in Kenosha, and he has been charged with illegal possession of a dangerous weapon. Yet Facebook is lumping Mr. Rittenhouse with terrorist extremists like the 2016 Orlando or 2019 El Paso mass shooters. Video evidence shows this was a tangled situation. Mr. Rittenhouse is seen fleeing an angry crowd on foot, and someone fired a gunshot in the air before Mr. Rittenhouse turned and opened fire at his closest pursuer. Later on someone appears to try to hit him with a skateboard while he is on the ground, and another man approaches him carrying a pistol. We are still learning details, but these aren’t the usual circumstances for first-degree murder convictions. Mr. Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence will be decided in court, but the case is dividing the public and prompting commentary by both presidential candidates. Facebook’s heavy-handed blackout flies in the face of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s commitments last year—which we have defended—that the company would protect free expression and not yield to political demands to suppress speech. Facebook naturally wants to dissociate itself from street violence, but in this case it has made a mistake. It can continue to block incitements to violence, and shut down groups plotting violence, without throwing itself into a murky and politicized criminal case. Prejudging guilt and moving against a person’s legal defense is a bad look for a company that claims to be committed to civil liberties. Voters, and their representatives, will notice. Appeared in the September 5, 2020, print edition.
Facebook’s Rittenhouse Mistake The speech blackout for his defense threatens due process. No, it's a private company they have nothing to do with due process Does due process apply to private companies? State actor. The prohibitions, generally, of the due process clauses apply only to the actions of state actors, and not against private citizens. You might google this stuff before you post it. It takes less 1 second to find it and 20 secoinds to read it.
Not angry, frustrated with stupidity, stupid advocacy, stupid political posturing on the edges of journalism, Trump minions spreading fake news while they decry it. Just take a second to check your **** out before you post it, it's almost always a twisted story, twisted to make low information people believe something from the headline that's not true.
you realize this is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. It stands alone. I post it because a lot of people don’t have access to the Wall Street Journal. If that’s problem, take it up with the Wall Street Journal. Don’t take your frustrations out on me.
While there is no definitive list of the "required procedures" that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority: An unbiased tribunal. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses. The right to know opposing evidence. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented. Opportunity to be represented by counsel. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision. This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
the WSJ is a private company and can write anything it wants. also the editorial makes it clear that the due process being violated is the defendant's ability to raise money for his own defense--his defense is the due process that's being violated.
So you find something that gives you glee, supports your bias, pumps your ego and you just post it. Without thinking, has anyone ever said this, is that right? let me take just a second to check that out. ESPECIALLY in the opinions section, and more so quoting defense attorneys.
and you just decide that today's the day you're gonna unleash on me? yeah, I'll spend some time with that
