Does Poland have a foreign legion?

Fuck yeah! Give that man his AR.

I liked Dishonored 1 and 2 (Gameplay in DotO was OK, story was... I actually remember only three things about that whole story, so not great), as well as the Prey reboot. I've got a soft spot for "Shock-styled" games so I wanted to be interested in this game, but literally nothing Arkane put out about this gave me an iota of interest. Maybe if I see it for $10 or less at some point I'll try it out, but I doubt It will be interesting enough to finish.

Watching this testimony live was absolutely fantastic. The prosecutor performing the cross was clearly angry and kept trying to get him to change his story about their prosecutorial misconduct. Of the trials I've watched the witnesses that seem as well prepared as he was always have a hint of dishonesty to their testimony. He once or twice may have answered a question that wasn't technically what he was asked, but the answers always seemed completely honest and sincere. I'd love to have a drink with a lot of the people involved with this case, and I think next to Kyle this guy is on the top of my list.

No-cep

Please use the preferred terminology of "bye-cep".

Jokes aside, I agree with your assessment. His mannerisms are absolutely drenched with soy. He's supposedly the prosecution's star witness, and his testimony hasn't been a home run for them. The prosecutor even corrected him a couple times because his testimony, while favorable to the prosecution, was contradicted by the video evidence. It hasn't been great for the defense either, but we're not done yet and I'm really looking forward to the cross examination.

I hope so. There were some interesting questions/answers so far, but it's hard watching him lie about some things (for which we have video evidence to contradict. Fuck, even Binger has pointed out at a couple points that his testimony is contradicted by the video evidence ("You had you gun drawn prior to the gunshots.") I'm looking forward to the cross though.

His description of the "fumble" by the defense is quite long, and revolves around the prosecution presenting irrelevant evidence/argument to Kyles (legitimate) case of self defense, either now or in the future. At the end of this he comments with the following:

The defense should return to court in the morning and argue to Judge Schroeder that no reasonable jury could conclude that Rittenhouse’s compelled (and almost certainly lawful) shooting of Rosenbaum can be found to have been an intended or reasonably foreseeable provocation of Anthony Huber or anybody else, and further that Huber’s motive for launching his attack upon Kyle is irrelevant to the legal merits of Kyle’s self-defense, and therefore the state’s whole theory of the case that Kyle has no privilege of self-defense against Huber because Huber was (purportedly, speculatively, without evidence) acting in good faith and with good and heroic motives is an argument unmoored from both centuries-old use-of-force legal principles as well as any reasonable view of the actual evidence, and should therefore be excluded from this trial.

I think they intend to do this for all the major charges when the prosecution rests. Kyle has a legitimate self defense claim in all three cases, and should the prosecution attempt to present irrelevant (and speculative, in Huber and Rosenbaum's cases) evidence or argument that the decedents were acting in good faith to stop an active shooter, that the defense can (and will) show contrary character evidence, as well as video evidence proving Kyle's legitimate self defense claims.

If they do this, the prosecution's narrative to the jury may not matter, as the judge can simply dismiss the charges then, or overrule the jury with a judgement notwithstanding of verdict. Ultimately I don't think that the narrative of the prosecution is strong enough to outweigh the facts of the case, but I don't think the facts of the case are going to convince anyone who went into the trial convinced that Kyle was guilty to find him not guilty. So I'm not worried (currently) about the prosecution's narrative, but simply the fact that Jury selection was handled less than ideally and it's possible that there are members of the jury capable of convincing the jury to convict Kyle on the some of the charges irrespective of the evidence. All he really needs is one juror unwilling to convict and he walks (unless the state decides to retry the case.)

It's entertaining during parts of the trial that would otherwise be dull (there were multiple witnesses today that were dull or difficult to watch without commentary IMO.) I didn't watch any of his commentary on the Vic case (I wasn't interested enough to watch a three+ hour late-night stream live or otherwise), and aside from him disagreeing with what the judge ruled on that case (which is still waiting on appeal, IIRC) I don't recall any bad/biased takes being discussed in any of the KIA forums. What do you mean exactly by "how he handed" it?

I hadn't yet had an opportunity to read through this portion of Branca's summaries yet. From the bits I did glance through I think he's a lot more negative on how the defense did today than Nick, but still believes the day was a win for the defense.

Oh Jesus Christ, no.

Can you quote any specific bits you were commenting on, as I'm not sure I'd categorize any of that to be paragraphs (there's technically a few, but most of the page is single sentences)? I think he's confused the facts a bit on the one thing he describes as a fumble by the defense, but he may be concerned about future narrative by the prosecution, not any actual facts and testimony before the jury.

Last two days have been fantastic for the defense. First full day of testimony was terrible from the perspective of the defense allowing the prosecution to ignore legal procedure, but even Nick admits that there are competent lawyers that disagree with his assessment (as to how bad it was for the defense, not that the prosecution ignored procedure) and gives Andrew Branca as an example.

I had considered posting summaries, but honestly I think shilling Nick and Branca's summaries/coverage is probably going to be more beneficial (as they're actually lawyers and have some experience with criminal trials, whereas I'm just a layman who's basically just watched this case and the Chauvin case. Still, I'd love to have some discussions here with other laymen (or people in the legal profession) to get some perspectives I'm not getting during the Rekieta streams (or while browsing the /pol/ threads for the reactions/memes.)

I generally agree, but I doubt that the prosecution re-tries any charges on which the jury does not come to a unanimous verdict. That said, the prosecution's case is so bad, and the judge is so favorable, that the defense may not even have to make their case to get Kyle acquitted of at least the most serious charges, and there's a case to be made for severance/dismissal of the two misdemeanor charges, so it could come down to the jury not getting a say in anything but the reckless endangerment charges.

To be fair to the Richards (lead for the defense), it could be possible that he holds the belief that the facts are so strongly in favor of Kyle (true) that the additional help was unnecessary (naïve) and that Barnes etc. were searching for clout/glory (possible.) That said, I also watched Rekieta Law and Barnes and I am inclined to believe their assessment that the defense Kyle is receiving is sub-par (at best.)

This dude was pretty clearly high during his livestream, but in honesty it's really hard to give honest testimony against Kyle.

*Robert Barnes

Apologies, the chief lawyer for the defense is named Richards and I had a brain fart.

Hitler [...] was the greatest political figure of the twentieth century.

What's your justification for him over any of his contemporaries (Churchill, Mao, Roosevelt, Stalin, etc.)?

Is there a source for this? I haven't played the game in a while but I distinctly remember Coloumbia being over a (large) body of water, but I don't specifically remember anything indicating whether Finktown was floating or not.

I'm more concerned where Dom is. I caught a temp ban (my first, kinda proud) around the same time TI1 did and still haven't gotten an explanation for exactly how the post violated R1 and R2.

What's their hit rate compared to Alex Jones?

Hey Dom, I know you dOiTfOrFrEe and all, but could you possibly reply to the message I sent regarding the temp ban I picked up?

Ah, well, I'd imagine my comment is still accurate, even if I confused the governmental subdivisions of the UK (England doesn't have it's own, separate parliament, does it? It's directly under the UK parliament as I understand it.)

Brown, Asian, Black, Lesbian, Fatso?

I didn't really feel like listening to the vapid discussion (or skipping around in the video to re-check the final ranking.)

I think you're also ignoring that as a (nominal) federation, the US has states with virtually no restrictions and what anti-restrictions they can put in place against non-government entities. So many states here are going to be more free than the UK, and won't have the political will for more restrictions in the future (which almost certainly exists in the UK.)

I'm wondering if my elderly grandfather is going to live through an economic crisis worse than the one he lived through at the beginning of his life. I'm also wondering how we're going to come up with a name more dire than "The Great Depression."

OK, that was unclear. I was unaware of any action by the .win admins that would require us to have any rules aside from "don't break US law", which was why my first post asked about that. But if there's an "outside" threat I don't think there's much we can do to stave that off, ultimately.

Now I'll admit I've been somewhat rhetorical in my previous posts. I think that prohibiting discussion is ultimately more harmful than allowing people to advocate for political violence as a strategy. You don't convince people that political violence is ineffective by saying "you can't say that." You convince them by letting them state their case (or vent) and then providing counter evidence.

Kyle was prepared to do violence in defense of his community. I'm not suggesting anyone go out and meet peaceful people with violence, but we've already seen that large segments of the left are willing to engage in violence against us to get what they want. And not just by their rhetoric, but by their actions.

You didn't ask me for a situation where someone went intending to do violence, you asked me how using violence right now would solve anything, so I gave you both a specific example where it did, and a more general case that didn't necessarily map 1:1 to the specific case.