SNL mocks Judge Bruce Schroeder in skit calling Kyle Rittenhouse his "client" A SKIT? TRUE TO LIFE.

ALL THEIR MISSING IS MATCHING SWASTICA TATOOS.

FASCIST BUDDIES. 

newsweek.com

SNL mocks Judge Bruce Schroeder in skit calling Kyle Rittenhouse his "client"

The late-night sketch show's cold open saw Cecily Strong as Jeanine Pirro describing Rittenhouse as a "lovable scamp" who was "put through a nightmare

THAT IS THE POINT. THE RITTENHOUSE VERDICT.

 After about 24 hrs, I went on twitter to see what the comments were about. Naturally, ALMOST ALL OF THEM MISSED THE POINT, BUT ONE ASKED A SIMPLE QUESTION, AND IN THE END THE ANSWER TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE VERDICT.

Was it ever considered that these men's sole reason for

attacking Kyle was to take possession of the gun?

ME: THAT IS THE POINT. IF THEY WERE NOT AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO HIM, OR ANYONE ELSE, HE DID NOT ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE. YOU CANNOT RAISE A FIREARM, POINT IT AT SOMEONE, AND THEN CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE AFTER THEY TRY TO DISARM YOU. ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, THE ALTERCATION DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL HE POINTED A DEADLY WEAPON AT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS NOT A PHYSICAL DANGER TO HIM, OR ANYONE ELSE. RITTENHOUSE CLAIMED HE WAS IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE THAT THEY WOULD TAKE THE GUN AWAY AND USE IT ON HIM.

WELL, YOU SKIPPED ONE STEP. WHEN YOU POINT A FIREARM AT ANOTHER, THAT INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT THEIR LIFE IS IN IMMEDIATE DANGER, AND CAN USE ANY REASONABLE AMOUNT OF FORCE TO END THAT THREAT. IN ADDITION, AN INDIVIDUAL CAN INTERCEDE IF THEY PERCEIVE A DEADLY THREAT TO ANOTHER, AND ATTEMPT TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE INDIVIDUAL BY PHYSICALLY DISARMING THE ARMED SUSPECT.

IT IS BEYOND THE REALM OF REASON THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN THREATEN AN UNARMED INDIVIDUAL WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO AT THE TIME HAS NOT PHYSICALLY THREATENED ANYONE, SHOOT HIM, OR ANYONE ELSE, IN A STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF THE GUN, AND THEN CLAIM THE UNARMED INDIVIDUAL IS RESPONSIBLE.

IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM WAS THIS SELF-DEFENSE. HIS CLAIM OF BEING AFRAID FOR HIS LIFE ONLY FLIES IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SAY THAT THE VICTIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE TRIED TO TAKE THE GUN AWAY, BUT JUST STAND THERE AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. I GUESS THAT MAKES ANYONE WHO TRIED TO DISARM SHOOTERS AT THE WORK PLACE, OR SCHOOLS, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS. WHY DON'T YOU RUN THAT LINE OF THOUGHT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS?

A JOKE JUDGE, A JOKE JURY, A JOKE VERDICT. I ASSUME THIS IS THE TYPE OF DECOR. THE JUDGE AND JURY ARE HOPING BECOMES PART OF THE KENOSHA COURTHOUSE EXTERIOR.

OR MAYBE THIS:

"RESPECTING" A VERDICT.

If there is one thing that must be pointed out, before we talk about the RITTENHOUSE VERDICT, is to put to rest that worn out phrase, used by attorneys to mitigate any negative impact that a verdict may have on their reputation or skill is the phrase- "WE MUST RESPECT THE JURIES VERDICT." Guess what, if you define RESPECT in one of the following ways:

- To feel admiration for someone because of their personal qualities, their achievements, or their status, and show this by treating them in a polite and kind way.

- Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

- A feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important...

...or define it in some similar way...

You are speaking about, in law, a definition that does not exist. To often, we are led to believe that verdicts rendered, by Judge or Jury, are noble and selfless decisions, that must not be questioned. THERE IS NO FOUNDATION IN LAW THAT REQUIRES THIS. "RESPECTING" A VERDICT, LEGALLY, MAKES NO MORAL/ETHICAL JUDGEMENT ON THE JUSTICE OR INJUSTICE OF THE DECISION HANDED DOWN. ALL IT MEANS IS:

THAT YOU WILL OBEY THAT PART OF LAW IMPACTED BY THE DECISION, AND NOT ACT CONTRARY TO LEGAL PRECEDENT SET FORTH IN THE VERDICT, REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION(S)  

In no way are you restricted from Criticising, Disagreeing With, or Pointing out the Flaws in the Trial Process that may have led to the Judgement, (IN YOUR OPINION), being UNJUST, AND NOT A TRUE FINDER OF FACT.

In our system, you owe the JUDGE AND JURY NOTHING, AND HAVE NO MORAL OR LEGAL OBLIGATION TO ONLY PRAISE AND COMPLIMENT THEM. (ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CLEARLY DO NOT DESERVE ANY POSITIVE FEEDBACK.)

 

KYLE RITTENHOUSE VERDICT. INITIAL REACTION: "IT'S OPEN SEASON ON UNARMED CIVILIANS IN WISCONSIN. NO LICENSE REQUIRED."

 NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.

A JOKE JUDGE...

A JOKE JURY...

A JOKE VERDICT...

FASCISM WINS A KEY VICTORY IN WISCONSIN.

HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS FOR THE JUDGE AND JURY

TO HELP THEM CELEBRATE THE VERDICT.

AFTER ALL, THS IS THE INTELLECTUAL DEPTH INDICATED

BY THIS "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" VERDICT.

NOW CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STEP IN, AND CHARGE RITTENHOUSE WITH VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE VICTIMS? THEN WE MIGHT GET AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE AND JURY.