Bill Schoettler-
A unanimous jury found Charles Rittenhouse innocent of all charges. He was released from custody on Friday , November 19, 2021. This date should go down in American history (even revised history) as the turning point in American jurisprudence.Heretofore, way back in the Stone Age, when the US Constitution was written, and for the following 245 years this country followed the obviously now unacceptable and unwelcome and certainly inadequate legal principle that a person as innocent until proven guilty.
Furthermore, it was equally naive for this country to think that a jury of 12 supposedly unbiased persons, chosen carefully by the prosecution attorney and defense attorney (foolishly given equal opportunities to question prospective jurors) would, under any circumstances, reach a politically acceptable verdict.Witness the miscarriage of “justice” that just occurred in the Rittenhouse case.Countless experts, politicians, attorneys, the ACLU, the Lt. Governor of the State (which State prosecuted Rittenhouse), the President of the United States, celebrities galore and members of various organizations have all weighed in on the case (before trial) and the verdict (after trial).
The overwhelming opinions expressed by the majority of such persons has been disappointment in:
a) the verdict,
b) the process by which the matter even went to trial,
c) the obvious inability of the jury to understand and comport with the social and political sensibilities of the objectors.
The current method of dealing with a person accused of committing such crimes as Mr. Rittenhouse would be to charge him with the crimes, permit an attorney to represent him, try the matter before a judge and jury, the latter which would be carefully selected by both the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney, then have the State first present evidence proving the guilt of the charged person and then the defense attorney would be permitted to present evidence to contradict or otherwise explain the evidence to show innocence of the charges.
This method is obviously unacceptable to the general public. I therefore present here an alternative procedure which should be far more satisfying to everyone.Once the act (which has given rise to social objections by so many) has been done, the actor arrested and charged with whatever crime it is that will be charged, the entire process can be shortened, streamlined and made far more efficient.
One method comes to mind when watching the old Western movies when a group of ranchers would find some [usually he was young] man standing beside a dead cow. One of the ranchers would state (with obvious sincerity) the cow belonged to him, the rest of the ranchers would throw a rope over the nearest tree limb, the end of the rope would be fashioned into a noose and the luckless young man would be hoisted into the air by means of the rope. The man would be strangled to death and frequently the body would be left hanging in the air as a lesson, and warning to other potential cattle rustlers.
The alternative, perhaps more appropriate today, considering we don’t have that many cattle ranchers around and they may not have available ropes for the process just described, the more appropriate process would be what has been urged and sort of demonstrated during the lead-up to the Rittenhouse trial.First, the criminal charges would be discussed by the general public based solely upon the impressions gained from listening to newscasters who described the alleged crime(s), newspapers (both on-line and printed), television personalities, entertainment persons and various sports figures (athletes whose competence with various types of balls (i.e., foot, basket, and base) gave them accurate insights into human conduct.Then a poll would be taken of such authorities in an effort to refine various allegations of wrongdoing into a cohesive and comprehensive listing of the various offenses against the sensibilities of the offended experts as described above.
Once there has been such a distillation of charges and a proper definition of the crimes to be charged against the offending person, a prosecuting attorney would be appointed. The prosecuting attorney would have the job of examining the presentations made by the experts listed above, would further seek the opinions of any significant experts (i.e., politicians, newscasters, celebrities, etc) who had yet to weigh in with their opinions on the matter and, once having accumulated such opinions (i.e., evidence), then select an appropriate judicial officer who would be selected on the basis of his (or her) understanding of and sympathies for the victims of whatever offense might have been involved in the criminal charges.At this point it is obvious that wasting time on selecting a jury of 12 people who were supposedly ignorant of the charges, the events surrounding them, or even who had not familiarized themselves with the circumstances and formed an acceptable (to the prosecution) opinion, would be unnecessary.Instead of a trial the prosecution would merely request a poll to be taken by an acceptable (to the prosecution) polling agency and whatever the majority of the [carefully selected] polled persons had to say about the matter, that would be the decision of the court.
The Rittenhouse verdict has been contrary to virtually all the pre-trial publicity given, contrary to the opinions of the President of the USA, the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin, the ACLU, sports figures and other celebrities and most of the newscasters and editorial opinions thus far expressed. By approaching this type of situation (i.e., situations where alleged crimes occur and inspire significant political, social, cultural and emotional opprobrium) in the manner suggested herein the country will quickly resolve such high-profile cases, save tax dollars (by eliminating the long, drawn-out process of developing evidence), permitting the charged individual(s) from wasting the time of an attorney to prepare a defense, and then presenting the entire affair to a supposedly impartial judge and a carefully-selected jury. Shortcutting such an obvious complex and convoluted process will be socially beneficial by allowing the public to move their attention to far more fascinating subjects according to whatever taste they might have.
The ideas of trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, all such are clearly outmoded in today’s world. Why waste the time and money on trials when perhaps the old west way would be even quicker?
Just sayin.
ht/ nm
Charles?
Actually prosecutors found Mail-In jury votes At 3AM – Rittenhouse Now Guilty!
https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1462043057742917632
Too complicated. Just do an online poll to determine the sentence. Everybody knows Rittenhouse murdered two black men in cold blood, hunted them down with an Assault Rifle.
The only question should be how many consecutive life sentences and how many years in solitary confinement, or should he be placed in the general population for more justice?
Charles? My first thought also. Is this supposed to be satire?
I’m sure the native americans have some traditional methods of determining “guilt” or “innocence”. These methods would surely be acceptable to the woke crowd. As an alternative, we could turn to sharia law.
Reminds of the time when 12 jurors found o.j. not guilty and there was all the rioting in the streets…..oh wait.
They are pushing the narrative he got a fair trial with an ulterior motive. Watch out. What they are trying to do is normalize pulling the same stunt on others.
There is a damn good reason I keep repeating that it is never warranted to concede good intentions to followers of the progressive movement. They are NEVER well intentioned. To concede good intentions to them is to accept Satan himself as well intentioned, but misguided. No, they are wicked and evil and actively hostile to The Good.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/11/_kyle_rittenhouse_did_not_get_a_fair_trial.html
From the name of the website I am impressed that the author has lived among the filthy reprobates and is truly capable of understanding them as only someone with personal experience is capable of. When I tell others who don’t have that experience they may think they understand the unmitigated depravity of followers of the progressive movement, they don’t have a clue. I 100% mean it. Their capacity for wickedness and evil is infinite.
This is getting close to what I have been saying for well over a decade. Finally, others are waking up. Or, maybe just deciding to be honest.
Straight up, anyone who has expressed ANY sympathy for convicting an innocent man who was obviously defending himself is unworthy of the least bit of respect on any level. Period. Full stop.
Anyone who still thinks that a person of that caliber is a good person, but misguided, now has to know they are lying to themselves. Only a wicked and evil subhuman piece of shit would, could, hold such a view. Recognize them for EXACTLY what they are and consider them accordingly. Only someone who has thrown in their lot with Satan could have such moral turpitude that they would convict an innocent man who was clearly the subject of unprovoked deadly physical attack and wish him imprisoned for life.
Get anyone who fits that description out of your life altogether.
I have absolutely no sympathy for any suffering any of these fucking losers feel, they have brought it on themselves. I do not even pity the poor bastards. Indifference to what suffering they have brought on themselves is the absolute best I can offer them. I despise them, and for good reason, it is all I can do not to actively hate them and wish them deeper into their own personal hell. But that is the direction they are pushing me in.
I can state as a stone cold natural fact that it is my belief that they have of their own free will, left humanity behind. I do not have any quarrel with them having been born in the image of God, however they leave me with no other option than to accept that they have of their own free will surrendered their birth right and thrown in their lot with Satan as sworn enemies of The Good and earned the recognition I give them as subhuman pieces of shit, unworthy of any concern for what they alone are responsible for doing to themselves.
This is from the article, it sure sounds familiar.
“Moreover, I simply don’t care about them on any level. Not any longer. For most of my life I’ve been a great proponent of basic humanity and the practiced understanding and compassion which attends it, but these reckless, dangerous, disingenuous nihilists are simply not entitled to such charity. What they’re entitled to is an orange jumpsuit, a speedy trial, and proper punishment. There is criminality attached to the Rittenhouse prosecution, but it doesn’t involve the teenager who was holding the rifle.
As for the obviously insane minions who march to the beat these sociopaths drum out, I feel a slight twinge of empathy for them – but that is rapidly waning. One can only allow dangerously defective mental cases to run free for so long, especially when they’re clearly bent on destruction and no appeal to reason will stop them. I’m willing, as a compassionate human being, to offer them the pity their condition entitles them to, but little else. Where the degenerate leaders of “their side” would say I need “re-education”, I’d say likewise that they need proper medical care and treatment, but given the deteriorating condition of our medical establishment and the sheer numbers involved, I don’t believe even that is an option at this point.”
https://thebluestateconservative.com/2021/11/21/if-the-rittenhouse-trial-made-you-angry-whats-happening-now-should-infuriate-you/
At a bar in Kenosha. A guy walked in, sat down and waited for the Bartender. The Bartender (a beautiful blond of exceptional intelligence unlike the dumb bitch from the Bronx) approached the patron and said, “I bet I know exactly what it is you would like” and the patron replied, “And what would that be?” The Bartender said, “Todays special”. “Yes by all means” was the patrons reply. “I’ll have A Kyle Rittenhouse with a chaser followed by three shots.”
But don’t treat Alec Baldwin badly for neglecting very basic gun safety rules, and killing 1, injuring another.
I really despise these cretins.
I don’t understand these post-trial/verdict analyses. Justice was done in the way that it should be. That this is such a disappointment to those whose credo is “Social Justice” instead of the real deal, I say cry me a river and go suck your collective thumb.
Justice was done in the way that it should be.
No it was not, but the Lord works in mysterious ways and perhaps he used Kyle’s suffering to teach us that we don’t have to take the shit these subhuman pieces of shit dish out.
Tiffany Cross Offers Her Bank Account for Rittenhouse Lawsuit Draining
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XylxcB4ZWio&feature=youtu.be
In tax court you’ve guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
TRF wins the thread!
Yer killin’ me LOL LOL LOL
But all of this is OK, when are these people going to be put on trial?
The MSM needs to be charged as accessories to the crimes.
A comprehensive list of police officers injured or killed in US riots
https://tnc.news/2020/06/10/a-comprehensive-list-of-police-officers-injured-or-killed-in-us-riots/
There is no such thing as social justice with progressives, social verdicts, social lynchings, social punishment but not justice! Nothing just in what they do!
GiveSendGo.com, The Only Platform to Stand With Innocent Man, Kyle Rittenhouse
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/givesendgo-donation-platform-kyle-rittenhouse-issues-statement/
Thank you, Nunyo. We just sent him a contribution. Looks like the goal has far been exceeded, but who knows that the future holds?
Fake trial, fake judge & fake fockin verdict. You think your the only ones that can cry foul & there is no justice in America.
This case and this trial reveals the moral chasm that exists in our society. It’s incredible to watch.
The media, elected officials, and “influencers” continue to tweet and speak of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as “victims.” They are not the victims.
Kyle Rittenhouse was the victim.
If someone is trying to beat you and kill you, YOU are the victim. If you defend yourself and the person trying to kill you dies, they don’t suddenly be “the victim.”
I heard a member of the “mob” say “someone needs to be held responsible” for the death of Rosenbaum and Huber. You know who is responsible?
Rosenbaum and Huber are responsible for their deaths. Period.
They are dead because of their own decision to attack another person who had the legal and moral obligation to defend himself.
Now, the morally confused, Woke Justice Mob is marching again and has added these 3 names to their banners and to their chants of “Justice for…!” Let them rage and scream; There is no issue of “Justice” that remains to be resolved for Huber, Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz. None. They are owed nothing.
The matter of JUSTICE in this case was in the Law and our legal process exonerating and freeing Kyle Rittenhouse from those trying to charge him with a crime and imprison him.
“They are dead because of their own decision to attack another person who had the legal and moral obligation to defend himself.”
AND the ABILITY to defend himself.
That’s the part they weren’t expecting.
And that’s how this ends.
When EVERYONE has that ability.
Not before.
Anonymous, were you even watching the trial or were you standing in line at the pot shop?
Rittenhouse should sue the crap outta anyone who says he’s a murderer.
In a just world I can imagine the world’s largest class-action law suit of White men everywhere suing CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and all their inbred, nepotistic associates!
“The ideas of trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, all such are clearly outmoded in today’s world. Why waste the time and money on trials when perhaps the old west way would be even quicker?”
Which is why we celebrate when a criminal is put down with a $1 (or less) bullet and saves us money and time that we would have to spend trying and incarcerating the perp for the rest of his life.
An armed society is much more polite to each other. You tend to watch your actions and mouth more when your life may be at immediate risk for it.
Do we have one schizophrenic Anonymous here or two very different people using the same screen name?
Who can answer this age-old question?