4
sully 4 points ago +4 / -0

Also Tim: "I'm far left"

The dude is in a constant state of denial that he'll ever be considered just slightly conservative. The guy ain't far left at all, he's centrist with a left foot over the line. He's too chicken shit to accept it.

9
sully 9 points ago +9 / -0

The next Republican president better pardon everyone being punished under this administration on day 1. Whether that's Trump or DeSantis, or whoever else has the balls to do it.

2
sully 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nothing will come of her trial. The new judge is a Biden appointed alphabet person.

2
sully 2 points ago +2 / -0

By clicking Delete, you acknowledge that your Tweet violated the Twitter rules

What fucking trash lmao. This is basically eBlackmail

1
sully 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right, which is why they make a new charge like I said. Instead of Capital Murder or whatever else, they would pursue different charges based on the new evidence. Having the entire case as a whole dismissed with prejudice prevents that from happening

2
sully 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just looking at the guy makes me wanna drop a Nadler, myself.

2
sully 2 points ago +2 / -0

Double jeopardy does not always apply to cases where new evidence is discovered. That's why the "with prejudice" in this context is important. Cases can be brought back with the discovery of new evidence that wasn't available before. Mostly on some kind of new charge.

For example hypothetically if there was a video discovered of Kyle saying "I'm off to Kenosha to shoot some dickweed rioters", that would be new crucial evidence that would completely change the entire case.

11
sully 11 points ago +12 / -1

All that means is the case is dismissed and cannot be brought back to court even if there is new evidence. The prosecution is in the clear for the foreseeable future but I hope they get disbarred and reprimanded in some capacity.

16
sully 16 points ago +16 / -0

Yeah, no sorry, I didn't consent to my country being stolen. The Constitution still has overwhelming merit to me. Don't abandon it like the rest of the liberal scum.

7
sully 7 points ago +8 / -1

This is what a few of us have been saying. As of now there's no way to know which way each side of the jury goes.

24
sully 24 points ago +24 / -0

Lmao....prosecution has handbrake on their PC??? A program to re-encode videos. Prosecution stated they had no knowledge how to do such things.

10
sully 10 points ago +10 / -0

Lol without prejudice so the defense attorneys can keep making money.

1
sully 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is absolutely untrue. Every case provides precedent when a similar case gets brought up in the future. How this case turns out, provides a precedence for the next, and so on. That's how case law works. You cite how previous cases were ruled, to substantiate a decision to be made on the new one. These are usually cited in case memorandums and points of authorities to the courts.

If Kyle is found guilty, cases in the future would be swayed in their decisions based on Kyle's case. If Kyle is found not guilty, the same rule applies accordingly. Decisions are preceded by previous decisions made in similar cases before.

0
sully 0 points ago +1 / -1

If I have to defend myself, absolutely. Unlike you, I wouldn't be ready to take a beating and possibly be killed at the hands of an attacker.

You people who say this dumb shit are peak cringe. As if you wouldn't defend yourself. You're more than welcome to cower over and get beat to death if you want. I wouldn't.

16
sully 16 points ago +20 / -4

I think everyone is too quick to want the judge to dismiss the case.

What isn't being realized that a decision on this case is substantial to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights and our right to defend ourselves. A dismissal doesn't address any of these issues. This case doesn't provide precedence if it is dismissed on technicalities. As much as its scary to think Kyle is convicted, I think its also equally as important that this case not be dismissed.

10
sully 10 points ago +10 / -0

Lmao sending evidence through gmail?

This is amateur to the max.

6
sully 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is the corrupt nonsense Child Protective Services does. No thank you.

1
sully 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. Thats why the prosecution held onto the HD footage.

1
sully 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you brandish a weapon before you are in danger, it isn't considered self defense.

15
sully 15 points ago +15 / -0

It's true.

It's along the lines of the saying, "the people who count the votes decide who wins an election".

There's no such thing as an unbiased jury. Anyone can be some secret activist that's just out to get you. The fact it has to be a unanimous jury decision and not a majority rule tells you all you need to know about the process. If 1 out of 12 people disagree, that person basically has to be persuaded, manipulated or gaslit by the remaining jurors into making a decision they didn't want to make in the first place.

3
sully 3 points ago +3 / -0

This. We can't just assume that the 10 out of 12 jurors are looking to aquit.

For all we know the two holdouts are the ones who want to aquit and that's what's holding things up.

The "feeling threatened" aspect to the holdouts could go both ways.

11
sully 11 points ago +11 / -0

Plausible deniability. If they're providing low-res, that means that the defense can't say 100% for certain something happened. In this case it was Kyle pointing the AR before he was chased. The low res you wouldn't be able to know if he did or not, which the prosecution could use by saying "you can't prove that he didn't".

7
sully 7 points ago +7 / -0

It was a feed from outside and not from inside the courtroom

view more: Next ›