• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Update on Kyle Rittenhouse

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
3,373
Reaction score
8,974

CopperSilverGold

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
2,179
Location
Midwest
1637370303388.png
 

Goldbrix

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
20,540
Reaction score
32,247
No, he was not acquitted. He was found "not guilty." There's a difference.
Thanx WillA2, I was meaning to address that but kept getting sidetracked. Ya know CRS = Can't Remember SH...err "STUFF".
 

Goldbrix

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
20,540
Reaction score
32,247

the_shootist

Mother Lode Found
Sr Midas Sup +++
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
71,162
Reaction score
149,943
im surprised that 556 performed so exceptionally well. i've read so much BS by "experts" that say the AR that aint effective. Well, from what I seen, it dropped that antifa trash like it were steaming piles of shit. nice! imma have to get me one of them AR's!
They're cute but are no match for the M1 Garand!
 

the_shootist

Mother Lode Found
Sr Midas Sup +++
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
71,162
Reaction score
149,943

the_shootist

Mother Lode Found
Sr Midas Sup +++
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
71,162
Reaction score
149,943
1637372918806.png
 

the_shootist

Mother Lode Found
Sr Midas Sup +++
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
71,162
Reaction score
149,943
1637373067487.png
 

viking

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
2,318
Reaction score
3,207
Didn’t OJ get off, then a civil lawsuit where he lost?
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
63,650
Reaction score
137,575
Location
Rocky Mountains

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
23,607
Reaction score
49,606
Location
ORYGUN
Based on the acquittal BULLSCHIFF reactions, ANY DECENT person that is a democrat, should have a second thought about their political party/position.
I hope this severely reduces the demorats membership.
 

the_shootist

Mother Lode Found
Sr Midas Sup +++
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
71,162
Reaction score
149,943
1637374592703.png
 

3rd&20

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
67
Reaction score
75
Lol I'm pretty sure the Philistines had a "clearly there's more work to be done" moment when a young pre king David dropped Goliath ..

I'm happy for Kyle he seemed to have much restraint... I not so much had I been in his position..... Great young man..
 

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
5,225
Reaction score
7,567
Location
Coal Country
An actual democrat, wow who knew any existed?

She has some good stuff to say and some stupid stuff to say. If we shacked up I could probably deal with her but, I'd always be trying to change her mind.
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
3,373
Reaction score
8,974
Lol I'm pretty sure the Philistines had a "clearly there's more work to be done" moment when a young pre king David dropped Goliath ..

I'm happy for Kyle he seemed to have much restraint... I not so much had I been in his position..... Great young man..

He will have some healing to do. I imagine the vets who have seen action will understand what he's facing.
 

pay dirt

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,290
Reaction score
1,122
The Kenosha Kid already has a whiskey named after him.

rittenhouse-rye.jpg
 
Last edited:

Irons

Outlaw Prospector
Midas Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
32,300
Reaction score
66,021
She has some good stuff to say and some stupid stuff to say.
That is exactly the way I remember actual democrats being some 30 years ago.

EDIT: Way I see things now is there are no republicans, conservatives do not know when to shut up and mind their own business and democrats are flat out communists. Fucked all.




.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
63,650
Reaction score
137,575
Location
Rocky Mountains
Riketa Law had over 100K viewers covering this courtroom drama on YT.

Several of the lawyers there did 'sidebar' comments about 'objecting' to certain pieces of evidence and comments as they were being made.

This fits 'right in there' with what they were saying.


A Follow-Up on My Earlier Rittenhouse Story -- Forcing Prosecutors to "Lay a Foundation" for Introducing Evidence​

A "War Story" from when I was a young and dumb prosecutor.​

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F33b21820-81bb-4013-af66-ab3a6a06389d_400x400.jpeg


Shipwreckedcrew
Nov 18

While cogitating over today’s events in the Rittenhouse case, and thinking about this earlier story critical of the defense failures to vigorously contest the admission of the drove video surveillance, I remembered a story from very early in my career that is a perfect example and easily understandable.

In my very first federal criminal trial, I was “Second Chair” to one of the more experienced prosecutors in the office. He did most of the heavy lifting, but I did uncover what turned out to be the key piece of physical evidence that led to the conviction. He rewarded me for my pretrial work by giving me the Opening Statement and Rebuttal argument, while he did the Closing Argument. The defendant was convicted and was sentenced to life without parole.

But in doing my part in that case I was “working with a net.” If I screwed something up, my partner was going to save me and fix it.
In my second trial, I was all alone. No more net.

It was a not altogether simple bank robbery case with three defendants and two banks. This was before “HD” video surveillance, and the teller descriptions were problematic. But a car stop the day after the second robbery put a couple of likely suspects in focus, and a semi-auto handgun was found in the trunk. The gun was a bit of an issue because one teller said the guy at her station had a semi-auto, and the teller next to her said it was a revolver. So there was that.

But the gun had a fingerprint on it of a third guy with a prior bank robbery conviction.

I’ll skip all the details of the case and get to the problem about the gun and the fingerprint.

I came to the US Attorney’s Office from a civil law firm — I had no prior criminal law experience. The agents knew enough to tell me that we needed to subpoena the fingerprint examiner to testify to the ID of the person whose print was on the gun, as that was the defendant we believed went inside and robbed the teller.

So I have the fingerprint examiner on the stand and I go through the obvious questions about examining the handgun, finding a print, lifting the print, and conducting the comparison analysis.

I asked “Whose fingerprint did you deterine was on the handgun?”

One of the defense attorneys objected — “Lacks foundation” — and the judge sustained his objection. The judge told me to lay a proper foundation.

This was an “Oh crap” moment for me because I had no idea what I had failed to do.

I went through the same series of questions again, and asked a second time “Did you identify the person who left the print on the gun?” The same objection, and same ruling — but a bit more exasperation on the part of the judge.

I conferred for a moment with the Case Agent. He didn’t have much experience and was of no help. I looked around the courtroom to see if any of my colleagues were watching and might help me figure out what I was missing. There was no one.

So, I did it all again— same result, and now a quite unhappy judge and a perplexed jury.

We went to a sidebar. The judge looked at me and said “Don’t do it for a fourth time. If you don’t know what you’re missing, I’m going to dismiss this witness and we’ll take it up later.” What could I do? He dismissed the witness and we moved on to other testimony.
But without the fingerprint on the gun, I couldn’t put the defendant inside the bank.

During a break, the Agent heads to the US Attorney’s Office — in the same building — and brings back the senior prosecutor who was with me in my first trial. I explained to him what had happened.

One of the defense lawyers — friendly with everyone, not a bad guy — is there listening. My more senior colleague after hearing the story looks at the defense lawyer and says “He didn’t lay the foundation for the print card, did he?” The defense lawyer responded, “No, he didn’t.” That was it.

To admit fingerprint evidence the analyst testifies about how he lifted the latent print from the piece of evidence where it was found, and then compared the latent print to a “known rolled print card” of the person who is suspected of having left the latent print. But the analyst must testify where the “known rolled print card” came from, when and where it was created, and how it is that the analyst knows that card are the “known rolled prints” of the defendant.

That lays the foundation for both the latent print taken from the gun and the “known prints” of the defendant such that the analyst could testify it was the defendant who left the latent print on the guy based on matching it to the “known rolled prints.”

I never asked the analyst to identify for the record the “Known Rolled Print Card”, where it came from, or when it was made. So there was no “foundation” for the analyst to testify that the latent print on the gun matched the defendant’s fingerprints taken at the time of his earlier arrest.

I wasn’t exactly dumb - I just had never done it before and didn’t consider the fact that I needed both parts of the evidence to have a proper foundation before the testimony would be allowed.

With the problem solved, the three defense lawyers conferred and then told the judge they were withdrawing the objection and would stipulate that the print on the gun belonged to one of the defendants. From their perspective, the jury had seen me struggle and never actually heard from an “expert.” Stipulating rather than letting me rehab myself and have the jury hear from the expert that it was the defendant’s print was worse for them than just choosing to not contest the matter further.

This takes me back to the issue of the drone video and the failure of the defense to challenge the prosecutors — doing a poor job overall — to lay the necessary foundation for that video before it was allowed into evidence for the jury to see. The prosecution would have likely struggled in front of the jury, and may not have been able to get the necessary testimony to allow for the admission of the drone video. By simply accepting it as another piece of evidence without a foundational objection, they may have passed on the chance to keep it out altogether.

 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,363
Reaction score
16,318
1637385076278.png

1637385147252.png
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
63,650
Reaction score
137,575
Location
Rocky Mountains
I would be more impressed if he said it before the verdicts.
That would be like Joe Biden calling Kyle a white supremacist.

Trump is smart enough to not voice his opinion before the verdict. Joe, not so much....
 

Irons

Outlaw Prospector
Midas Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
32,300
Reaction score
66,021
That would be like Joe Biden calling Kyle a white supremacist.

Trump is smart enough to not voice his opinion before the verdict. Joe, not so much....
I pray he and who ever told him to say it are on the top of the list of leftists getting their asses sued off for defamation.



.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
63,650
Reaction score
137,575
Location
Rocky Mountains
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
63,650
Reaction score
137,575
Location
Rocky Mountains

Nick Sandmann speaks out on Rittenhouse verdict in Hannity exclusive​

 

BeefJerky

Site Supporter
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
1,839
That would be like Joe Biden calling Kyle a white supremacist.

Trump is smart enough to not voice his opinion before the verdict. Joe, not so much....
It's not like the videos of what went down weren't immediately available. There is no comparison.
 

Scorpio

для продажи слегка подержанный
Founding Member
Board Elder
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,326
Reaction score
54,162
Riketa Law had over 100K viewers covering this courtroom drama on YT.

Several of the lawyers there did 'sidebar' comments about 'objecting' to certain pieces of evidence and comments as they were being made.

This fits 'right in there' with what they were saying.


A Follow-Up on My Earlier Rittenhouse Story -- Forcing Prosecutors to "Lay a Foundation" for Introducing Evidence​

A "War Story" from when I was a young and dumb prosecutor.​

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F33b21820-81bb-4013-af66-ab3a6a06389d_400x400.jpeg


Shipwreckedcrew
Nov 18

While cogitating over today’s events in the Rittenhouse case, and thinking about this earlier story critical of the defense failures to vigorously contest the admission of the drove video surveillance, I remembered a story from very early in my career that is a perfect example and easily understandable.

In my very first federal criminal trial, I was “Second Chair” to one of the more experienced prosecutors in the office. He did most of the heavy lifting, but I did uncover what turned out to be the key piece of physical evidence that led to the conviction. He rewarded me for my pretrial work by giving me the Opening Statement and Rebuttal argument, while he did the Closing Argument. The defendant was convicted and was sentenced to life without parole.

But in doing my part in that case I was “working with a net.” If I screwed something up, my partner was going to save me and fix it.
In my second trial, I was all alone. No more net.

It was a not altogether simple bank robbery case with three defendants and two banks. This was before “HD” video surveillance, and the teller descriptions were problematic. But a car stop the day after the second robbery put a couple of likely suspects in focus, and a semi-auto handgun was found in the trunk. The gun was a bit of an issue because one teller said the guy at her station had a semi-auto, and the teller next to her said it was a revolver. So there was that.

But the gun had a fingerprint on it of a third guy with a prior bank robbery conviction.

I’ll skip all the details of the case and get to the problem about the gun and the fingerprint.

I came to the US Attorney’s Office from a civil law firm — I had no prior criminal law experience. The agents knew enough to tell me that we needed to subpoena the fingerprint examiner to testify to the ID of the person whose print was on the gun, as that was the defendant we believed went inside and robbed the teller.

So I have the fingerprint examiner on the stand and I go through the obvious questions about examining the handgun, finding a print, lifting the print, and conducting the comparison analysis.

I asked “Whose fingerprint did you deterine was on the handgun?”

One of the defense attorneys objected — “Lacks foundation” — and the judge sustained his objection. The judge told me to lay a proper foundation.

This was an “Oh crap” moment for me because I had no idea what I had failed to do.

I went through the same series of questions again, and asked a second time “Did you identify the person who left the print on the gun?” The same objection, and same ruling — but a bit more exasperation on the part of the judge.

I conferred for a moment with the Case Agent. He didn’t have much experience and was of no help. I looked around the courtroom to see if any of my colleagues were watching and might help me figure out what I was missing. There was no one.

So, I did it all again— same result, and now a quite unhappy judge and a perplexed jury.

We went to a sidebar. The judge looked at me and said “Don’t do it for a fourth time. If you don’t know what you’re missing, I’m going to dismiss this witness and we’ll take it up later.” What could I do? He dismissed the witness and we moved on to other testimony.
But without the fingerprint on the gun, I couldn’t put the defendant inside the bank.

During a break, the Agent heads to the US Attorney’s Office — in the same building — and brings back the senior prosecutor who was with me in my first trial. I explained to him what had happened.

One of the defense lawyers — friendly with everyone, not a bad guy — is there listening. My more senior colleague after hearing the story looks at the defense lawyer and says “He didn’t lay the foundation for the print card, did he?” The defense lawyer responded, “No, he didn’t.” That was it.

To admit fingerprint evidence the analyst testifies about how he lifted the latent print from the piece of evidence where it was found, and then compared the latent print to a “known rolled print card” of the person who is suspected of having left the latent print. But the analyst must testify where the “known rolled print card” came from, when and where it was created, and how it is that the analyst knows that card are the “known rolled prints” of the defendant.

That lays the foundation for both the latent print taken from the gun and the “known prints” of the defendant such that the analyst could testify it was the defendant who left the latent print on the guy based on matching it to the “known rolled prints.”

I never asked the analyst to identify for the record the “Known Rolled Print Card”, where it came from, or when it was made. So there was no “foundation” for the analyst to testify that the latent print on the gun matched the defendant’s fingerprints taken at the time of his earlier arrest.

I wasn’t exactly dumb - I just had never done it before and didn’t consider the fact that I needed both parts of the evidence to have a proper foundation before the testimony would be allowed.

With the problem solved, the three defense lawyers conferred and then told the judge they were withdrawing the objection and would stipulate that the print on the gun belonged to one of the defendants. From their perspective, the jury had seen me struggle and never actually heard from an “expert.” Stipulating rather than letting me rehab myself and have the jury hear from the expert that it was the defendant’s print was worse for them than just choosing to not contest the matter further.

This takes me back to the issue of the drone video and the failure of the defense to challenge the prosecutors — doing a poor job overall — to lay the necessary foundation for that video before it was allowed into evidence for the jury to see. The prosecution would have likely struggled in front of the jury, and may not have been able to get the necessary testimony to allow for the admission of the drone video. By simply accepting it as another piece of evidence without a foundational objection, they may have passed on the chance to keep it out altogether.


Think of what this states with these 2 bit hourly workers,

it depends on what you mean by 'is'

followed by, to heck with it, no objections, let it in

all of that drama for exactly no gain by either side,

a complete waste of time for all involved,

now sure, I get the point that the print card verification needs to be proven as accurate, but we weren't there and don't know what or which print card was brought for comparison

source must have been good for the defense to say, we will stipulate that............

justice isn't the goal, it is playing the game and the how

and just for reference, contrary to what this guy stated, the print on the gun does not establish that the person was there,
it only states he handled it at some time in the past

rendering the whole exercise as foolish to me

you guys may have a different take on it
 

Lancers32

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
3,789
Reaction score
5,054
Location
NC
Is anybody rioting yet? I could use a new 42" 4k Fire tv.
42? Fock. Go big or go home. I find it curious that a shitting President would feel the need to comment on this case. We have to abide by the verdict. This and all the other screwballs were fitting him for a striped suit. Sorry it didn't work out for ya Corn Pop.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
9,610
Reaction score
23,810
Location
USA
Reportedly, President Dumb*ss made the white supremacist comment, while he was still campaigning for the office. So, he wasn’t president*, yet and he wasn’t Vice President, either, making him a civilian, at the time.

*Still isn’t, in my opinion.