“Kids should just get beaten by adults“

I have a few more points on this case in Kenosha.

1 it’s absolutely incredible that the prosecution said to the jury that Kyle- a minor at the time, should have been a “man” and taken the beating from the bipolar child harmer. In Wisconsin, anyone under 18 is a child. Anyone who intends to harm, or recklessly harms a child has committed a felony. It doesn’t matter if the perp knows they are a minor.

2- the judge is not based. He tolerated disrespectful behavior and outright contempt by the prosecution yet didn’t sanction the attorneys. He is a pussy who lacks respect for himself, the court, and the law. He cannot be trusted to defend any.

3- if Kyle is acquitted, it’s no thanks to his attorneys. They put him in harms way numerous times.

Posted in LAW

7 thoughts on ““Kids should just get beaten by adults“

  1. This trial is an exhibition in miniature of how the law in (what was once) the USA is rapidly becoming not merely DYSfunctional, but NONfunctional.

    If the jury in this case convicts, there will never again be another crim I’l nal trial by jury in this country. I seriously hope that PATRIOTS go on the offensive if this travesty of a trial results in a conviction.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is not representative. The vast majority of cases (criminal and civil) are not like this. There are very few self-defense cases that fit this profile. Usually the prosecutor has a much better case, with evidence that actually shows the crime. You just don’t get many situations like this where a single piece of manipulated video evidence is critical to the case (as I was informed this by Mark Bennett, a CDL out of Houston Texas). It’s one of the reasons the courts are so far behind the times pertaining to the admissibility of digital video and photo evidence.

      The bulk of litigation in the U.S. does not go to trial, but is resolved in settlement agreements, plea bargains, and dismissals.

      I can’t say that the system isn’t problematic. It is. I’ve been frustrated personally by my inability to acquire justice, so I’m hardly unbiased. That said, understanding proportionality is important, to direct your ire where it belongs.

      Like

      1. This case is literally worst case scenario. A capital murder trial where the judge just lets in suspect evidence, excludes relevant information, and talks about news coverage of it. He isn’t fit to be a judge.

        All the other attorneys are absolutely incompetent.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “This case is literally worst case scenario.”

        Precisely.

        “He isn’t fit to be a judge. All the other attorneys are absolutely incompetent.”

        As many problems as exist in the legal system, you don’t burn the whole thing down because you witnessed the worst-case scenario. It has to be a pattern. It has to be systemic. Problems with specific attorneys or judges doesn’t prove feeriker’s claim:

        “This trial is an exhibition in miniature of how the law in (what was once) the USA is rapidly becoming not merely DYSfunctional, but NONfunctional.”

        Like

    2. I would also add that media coverage of the trial, which is extremely biased and incorrect, distorts perceptions of how bad it is. Journalism is a bigger problem, having failed to so many things properly:

      1) Provide access to primary sources, such as legal filings and transcripts
      2) Choose legal expert commentators based on experience and ability rather than ideology.
      3) Try to maintain proportional perspective in court coverage.

      Of these, #1 is the easiest. Documents are available. When a politician gives a speech, there should be an accompanying transcript so that readers can verify what the report says. But this almost never happens. Usually if you want a transcript, you have to find the speech on YouTube and transcribe it yourself. I’ve done this on a number of occasions.

      #2 is too difficult. It’s impossible for them to see past their own biases in order to make a correct determination of experience and ability. You can’t fix stupid, either in journalists or the public.

      #3 is never ever going to happen. Journalists make their money by pick and choosing sensational stories. This distorts perspective.

      Like

      1. There is a myth that journalism used to be unbiased and fair. That has never been true in the history of published works. It’s just that for about 80 years last century the publications and tv channels were in lock step

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s