Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[C-Mag]

Scott Adams has a good take on the Rittenhouse verdict

"This was the point MSNBC viewers found reality"

[Haumana]

Does the judge or the DA have the final word?

Sure. But then again the POTUS and his DOJ, Merrick Garland, set the tone. Rogue District Attorneys are the problem, imo, but I think we are just talking about how many pins can fit on a gnats ass. It's all ass at the end of the day.

It may be "ass" but the judge is held by specific rules of the court, if he/she ignores them and lets a perp go, then we are seeing something else go on, and this alone could cause a judge to lose their seat.

A DA can not pressure a judge.

Well no. A judge has discretion, especially given the context of bail that we are discussing. DAs do pressure judge, all the time. I don't know how one could have watched the Rittenhouse trial and not see that in full effect. Binger was well aware of all of Shrader's pressure points and worked him to his maximum advantage. District Attorneys and Judges are essentially coworkers with defense attorneys being similar but on a lesser scale.

[The Conservative]

Sure. But then again the POTUS and his DOJ, Merrick Garland, set the tone. Rogue District Attorneys are the problem, imo, but I think we are just talking about how many pins can fit on a gnats ass. It's all ass at the end of the day.

It may be "ass" but the judge is held by specific rules of the court, if he/she ignores them and lets a perp go, then we are seeing something else go on, and this alone could cause a judge to lose their seat.

A DA can not pressure a judge.

Well no. A judge has discretion, especially given the context of bail that we are discussing. DAs do pressure judge, all the time. I don't know how one could have watched the Rittenhouse trial and not see that in full effect. Binger was well aware of all of Shrader's pressure points and worked him to his maximum advantage. District Attorneys and Judges are essentially coworkers with defense attorneys being similar but on a lesser scale.

Some states have bails and times required as mandatory... there is no negotiation on it.

[Haumana]

It may be "ass" but the judge is held by specific rules of the court, if he/she ignores them and lets a perp go, then we are seeing something else go on, and this alone could cause a judge to lose their seat.

A DA can not pressure a judge.

Well no. A judge has discretion, especially given the context of bail that we are discussing. DAs do pressure judge, all the time. I don't know how one could have watched the Rittenhouse trial and not see that in full effect. Binger was well aware of all of Shrader's pressure points and worked him to his maximum advantage. District Attorneys and Judges are essentially coworkers with defense attorneys being similar but on a lesser scale.

Some states have bails and times required as mandatory... there is no negotiation on it.

Oh. They say that some chicks have dicks too. What does that have to do with anything being discussed? You wanted to go after the judge, now you are saying that the judge might not have had a choice?

[The Conservative]

Well no. A judge has discretion, especially given the context of bail that we are discussing. DAs do pressure judge, all the time. I don't know how one could have watched the Rittenhouse trial and not see that in full effect. Binger was well aware of all of Shrader's pressure points and worked him to his maximum advantage. District Attorneys and Judges are essentially coworkers with defense attorneys being similar but on a lesser scale.

Some states have bails and times required as mandatory... there is no negotiation on it.

Oh. They say that some chicks have dicks too. What does that have to do with anything being discussed? You wanted to go after the judge, now you are saying that the judge might not have had a choice?

The person was a career criminal, 50 pages of crimes, and several felonies in his career... as far as I know, he should not have been let out period.


http://www.attorneytraceywood.com/Repea ... ers.cshtml

This is based on Wisconsin law too.

Repeat Offender Time Periods

If at the time of sentencing of the current conviction the convicted defendant had been convicted of either one or more felonies or three or more misdemeanors during the five years immediately preceding the current criminal conviction, then they are a repeat offender under Wisconsin law, provided the previous convictions had not yet been reversed, vacated, or amended down to a noncriminal charge.

Previous convictions that have successfully been stayed, suspended, withheld, or pardoned are still used as prior convictions for the purposes of determining repeat offender status, unless those convictions were amended as a result of a not guilty post conviction finding.

Jail time and imprisonment do not count if the incarceration occurred within the previous five years. The period of time during which the defendant was incarcerated in jail or prison extends the five-year period of time.
Increased Sentencing

The term for sentencing of a current misdemeanor or felony providing up to one year imprisonment, so long as all prior convictions were misdemeanors, can be increased up to two years.

The term for sentencing of a current misdemeanor or felony providing one to ten years imprisonment, with the defendant having at least one prior felony conviction, can be increased up to four years.

If the current crime provides for a period of imprisonment of more than ten years, then the maximum sentence of the current conviction can be increased by as much as two years, if all prior convictions were misdemeanors, and as much as four years, if any prior conviction was a felony.

[Haumana]

Some states have bails and times required as mandatory... there is no negotiation on it.

Oh. They say that some chicks have dicks too. What does that have to do with anything being discussed? You wanted to go after the judge, now you are saying that the judge might not have had a choice?

The person was a career criminal, 50 pages of crimes, and several felonies in his career... as far as I know, he should not have been let out period.


http://www.attorneytraceywood.com/Repea ... ers.cshtml

This is based on Wisconsin law too.

Repeat Offender Time Periods

If at the time of sentencing of the current conviction the convicted defendant had been convicted of either one or more felonies or three or more misdemeanors during the five years immediately preceding the current criminal conviction, then they are a repeat offender under Wisconsin law, provided the previous convictions had not yet been reversed, vacated, or amended down to a noncriminal charge.

Previous convictions that have successfully been stayed, suspended, withheld, or pardoned are still used as prior convictions for the purposes of determining repeat offender status, unless those convictions were amended as a result of a not guilty post conviction finding.

Jail time and imprisonment do not count if the incarceration occurred within the previous five years. The period of time during which the defendant was incarcerated in jail or prison extends the five-year period of time.
Increased Sentencing

The term for sentencing of a current misdemeanor or felony providing up to one year imprisonment, so long as all prior convictions were misdemeanors, can be increased up to two years.

The term for sentencing of a current misdemeanor or felony providing one to ten years imprisonment, with the defendant having at least one prior felony conviction, can be increased up to four years.

If the current crime provides for a period of imprisonment of more than ten years, then the maximum sentence of the current conviction can be increased by as much as two years, if all prior convictions were misdemeanors, and as much as four years, if any prior conviction was a felony.

We don't disagree but a judge doesn't bring charges the DA does or in this case doesn't. "If at the time of sentencing".... means there needs to be charges and a trial THEN sentencing.

[The Conservative]

Oh. They say that some chicks have dicks too. What does that have to do with anything being discussed? You wanted to go after the judge, now you are saying that the judge might not have had a choice?

The person was a career criminal, 50 pages of crimes, and several felonies in his career... as far as I know, he should not have been let out period.


http://www.attorneytraceywood.com/Repea ... ers.cshtml

This is based on Wisconsin law too.

Repeat Offender Time Periods

If at the time of sentencing of the current conviction the convicted defendant had been convicted of either one or more felonies or three or more misdemeanors during the five years immediately preceding the current criminal conviction, then they are a repeat offender under Wisconsin law, provided the previous convictions had not yet been reversed, vacated, or amended down to a noncriminal charge.

Previous convictions that have successfully been stayed, suspended, withheld, or pardoned are still used as prior convictions for the purposes of determining repeat offender status, unless those convictions were amended as a result of a not guilty post conviction finding.

Jail time and imprisonment do not count if the incarceration occurred within the previous five years. The period of time during which the defendant was incarcerated in jail or prison extends the five-year period of time.
Increased Sentencing

The term for sentencing of a current misdemeanor or felony providing up to one year imprisonment, so long as all prior convictions were misdemeanors, can be increased up to two years.

The term for sentencing of a current misdemeanor or felony providing one to ten years imprisonment, with the defendant having at least one prior felony conviction, can be increased up to four years.

If the current crime provides for a period of imprisonment of more than ten years, then the maximum sentence of the current conviction can be increased by as much as two years, if all prior convictions were misdemeanors, and as much as four years, if any prior conviction was a felony.

We don't disagree but a judge doesn't bring charges the DA does or in this case doesn't. "If at the time of sentencing".... means there needs to be charges and a trial THEN sentencing.

He paid $1000 for bail. The crimes were a felony charge and a misdemeanor.

He should have been in jail for a minimum of a year. Not given $1000 bail...there should have been no bail.

50 pages of crimes... Fucking hell. He should have been in jail til court date period with no chance of parol because of his lack of ability to not commit violent crimes.

[PartyOf5]

8 year-old becomes the 6th fatality of the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre. A number of kids remain in critical condition at Children's Hospital in Milwaukee.

The insane liberal forums I still lurk in won't even mention this topic. To them it never happened. They all know just like our enemy the media that this wasn't an accident. Bunch of evil, hateful hypocrites. they all contributed to this environment with their years of lying and gaslighting.

Thanksgiving could get interesting. I no longer feel that I will be able to hold my tongue of any liberal family members decide to chime in parroting any of the lies they being fed by CNN, MSNBC and the like. If I hear "it was an accident" then it's game on. Same for any Rittenhouse shenanigans.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I just talk openly and honestly when it comes up. If you keep it respectful and civil, there shouldn’t be a problem.

If they make a problem, that’s on them.

[Martin Hash]

I just talk openly and honestly when it comes up. If you keep it respectful and civil, there shouldn’t be a problem.

If they make a problem, that’s on them.

My reputation now precedes me: now no one brings up anything just to stick it in my eye though I will talk rationally if they talk respectfully.