Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

China

China

Posted
Posted

The St Louis couple pardoned for aiming guns at Black Lives Matter protesters showed up to support Kyle Rittenhouse at his trial

 

The St Louis couple who pointed their guns at a Black Lives Matter marchers traveled to Kyle Rittenhouse's trial to support him. 

 

Mark McCloskey, with his wife Patricia standing by, told reporters at the Kenosha County Courthouse on Monday that Rittenhouse is a victim of "cancel culture" and that the couple wants him to be acquitted. 

 

"We feel for Mr Rittenhouse, we think he acted in self-defense," Mark McCloskey told Fox News. "We think he's been politically prosecuted, as were we, and we're hoping that the jury finds him not guilty on all counts and he can go home a free man."

 

The comments chimed with Rittenhouse's defense attorney Mark Richards who argued in his closing statement that prosecutors made a "political case" against him.

 

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, representing the prosecution, said it was impossible to say Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he brought a gun and was "provoking" others. 

 

Protesters outside the court hollered and waved signs both against and in support of Rittenhouse during a portion of McCloskey's comments to the media, as seen in a video by freelance reporter Sergio Olmos.

 

McCloskey and his wife, both lawyers themselves, were fined for misdemeanors after they pointed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters marching through their gated St Louis, Missouri, community in June 2020. They were later pardoned by Missouri Governor Mark Parson. 

 

Both the McCloskey case and the Rittenhouse trial have become celebrated rightwing causes, with their supporters saying they are test cases for gun rights and free speech. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CjSuAvE22

CjSuAvE22

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Hot take incoming…

 

From it’s onset, BLM has been used as a cover by both fringe righty and fringe lefty to exact chaos and destruction upon our economic and political stability.  It always starts with bonafide peaceful marches in the daylight and then out come the ghouls…”which is the way he wants it, well he gets it!”…17YO ammosexual doofuses, 20something felon losers, fat ass lazy cops, the full diorama of pale suburban Twitter sophomore patriot super-genius.  Broke as a joke, armed to the teeth and so very, very stupid.

 

Whatever the jury decides to do with this bag of feral cats they’ve been handed, I hope they have enough emotional and financial stability to disappear from public view for a few months afterwards…with middle fingers held high throughout.

Pretty accurate take, at least we agree on this. Lol I almost asked what ammosexual meant, they need to do something about it all the day time protests were peaceful it was only at night time that people started acted up, if you have a curfew enforce it and send everyone home. 

Edited by CjSuAvE22
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

Listening to WTOP this morning, they played a clip of the judge from I guess last night, calling in the two teams to let them know the jury was still deliberating 

 

and then gave rittenhouse weird words of assurance or encouragement, thanking him for his patience and such

 

It’s a shame this case involves an idiotic prosecution team and this odd/weird/biased judge. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

Kind of bad optics to allow Rittenhouse to “pick” his ow jurors. I mean I think  the kid was only drawing lots, but given the cloud of favoritism and bias because of this judge’s rulings and behavior, inviting the kid to pick the jurors like he was a game show contestant just smells bad. 

38 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

It’s a shame this case involves an idiotic prosecution team and this odd/weird/biased judge. 

The judge is a major reason why some distrust this process and will think a not guilty verdict is nothing but a miscarriage of justice. 
 

He has gone out of his way to unduly prejudice the proceedings. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Larry said:


The fake moon landing would be big, if true, too. 

The above tweet is a play on the Judge allowing Rittenhouse to pick his own alternate jurors. Technically, the judge allowed Rittenouse to draw the lots that signaled who would be signed as alternate jurors, so it was still randomized, but it's still unusual to let the defendant do it. My understanding is that this is almost always an assignment handed to the county clerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The above tweet is a play on the Judge allowing Rittenhouse to pick his own alternate jurors. Technically, the judge allowed Rittenouse to draw the lots that signaled who would be signed as alternate jurors, so it was still randomized, but it's still unusual to let the defendant do it. My understanding is that this is almost always an assignment handed to the county clerk.


And my point was that "fake moon landing" is a more believable thought than "Rittenhouse serves as 13th juror". 
 

It's a well phrased joke. It's not "Big, if true". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CjSuAvE22

CjSuAvE22

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Care to summarize?  All the media attention is on the Rittenhouse case.  I haven't been actively following this one yet.

This one is terrible, 3 guys basically assume a black kid is out robbing a home that under construction so they chase him down and attempt a citizens arrest a brawl with one of the idiots thats carrying a shotgun i believe and the black kid is shot with it. But instead of just calling the police and letting them handle it they went out of their way chased the guy down and murdered him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

Additionally the judge basically said it appears obvious the jury selection was based on racism but he couldn’t do anything about it. 
 

and he yelled at the defense for something racist the other day. I forget the details :(

 

While I think that case is much more cut and dry, and the judge appears to not be biased like in rittenhouse, the setting just reeks of them getting off for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PartyPosse

PartyPosse

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

 

This one is terrible, 3 guys basically assume a black kid is out robbing a home that under construction so they chase him down and attempt a citizens arrest a brawl with one of the idiots thats carrying a shotgun i believe and the black kid is shot with it. But instead of just calling the police and letting them handle it they went out of their way chased the guy down and murdered him. 

Didn’t they all have shotguns? He was shot more than once in an abandoned home under construction. Same crap where they’re citing self-defense when Arbery allegedly fought for the gun out of fear for his own safety. This should be a much more open and shut case….

 

you’d think.

 

The defense already tried for a mistrial because the mom cried in the courtroom looking at pictures of her dead son and because there were leaders from the African American community sitting with her (I believe it was Jesse Jackson?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BatteredFanSyndrome

BatteredFanSyndrome

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

 

This one is terrible, 3 guys basically assume a black kid is out robbing a home that under construction so they chase him down and attempt a citizens arrest a brawl with one of the idiots thats carrying a shotgun i believe and the black kid is shot with it. But instead of just calling the police and letting them handle it they went out of their way chased the guy down and murdered him. 

I should have clarified - I know about the case, I was more referring to him describing the trial as a 'debacle'.

 

I haven't been paying attention to it thus far, but from everything I saw and read when these guys were arrested - it seems much more cut and dry than the Rittenhouse case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I haven't been paying attention to it thus far, but from everything I saw and read when these guys were arrested - it seems much more cut and dry than the Rittenhouse case.

Yeah. 
 

there would have to be some damning piece of info we don’t have in my opinion. Like that he was actually stealing. Even then I’m unsure how Georgia law would handle that. 
 

they case has had a lot of moments with the judge. Like arguments over evidence that the defendants had confederate flag stickers on their truck and stuff like that. 
 

my understanding is the judge has worked pretty hard to do a good job with these though. I’m still perplexed about tge 11 white juror thing because it’s just odd to me that a judge can sit there and declare on public record that a fundamental aspect of a fair trial (jury selection) has been compromised by racism/bias/prejudice, and then say he can’t do anything about it. 
 

but the defense is doing everything they can. And honestly I’m ok with that, that’s their job. What I don’t like is when the state colors outside the lines, or when the judge appears to be heavily biased (either way, but I’m way less angry when they’re biased towards the defense because I think the system is supposed to be that way, but I think the system should always be that way for everyone, and we can tell it’s not and racism plays a big role in that, so it’s complicated for me)

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

Right. Its not even that racist.

 

But come on man lol. You could have not said that and it would have made no difference 

I actually think he’s right in making the argument. 
 

those figures are distractions. They’ve made their entire living off that. Anytime they show up anywhere you know exactly what it’s about and what they’ll say. I do not think he was wrong for taking issue and trying to stop it. Although I would have thought he’d word it a little more eloquently 😂 
 

but… I think the judge is also right that they’re allowed to be there, they’ve done nothing wrong, and he won’t decide “black pastors” can’t be in there because that’s racist… that he’s holding everyone to the same standard of etiquette. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PartyPosse

PartyPosse

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, tshile said:

but… I think the judge is also right that they’re allowed to be there, they’ve done nothing wrong, and he won’t decide “black pastors” can’t be in there because that’s racist… that he’s holding everyone to the same standard of etiquette. 

I agree. He put it very well that so long as they (and everyone) conform to the expectations of courtroom etiquette then there’s no reason they, or anyone for that matter, shouldn’t be allowed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...