and:

https://www.crimeonline.com/2021/10/08/kyle-rittenhouse-hunting-laws-allowed-17-year-old-to-have-gun-at-protest-report/

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

---

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?

---

There are two separate issues:

• Did he have a reason to be there? Yes - he has stated that his intent was to protect his community from burners, looters, and murders as well as to provide medical care to injured if needed
• Was it smart for him to be there? No - a 17-year-old should not willfully participate in a volatile, violent situation

I agree it was unadvisable for him to carry a gun. However, had he not he likely would have been dead or seriously injured. The key fact that many keep missing is he did not provoke an attack - it was the opposite.

---

He did not have a good reason to be out alone amongst rioters carrying an AR.

---

Which one of the rioters who attacked Kyle that night had a good reason to be out there in a riot? Which one of them made a good decision to try to injure or kill an armed man?

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

---

Again, as several people (myself included) have pointed out, there are conflicting statutes that make this point far from clear. It is an issue at trial and there is currently a motion to dismiss under consideration in front of the court.

Thus a conclusory statement such as yours is inappropriate in this case.

---

Calm down princess...just citing their law.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

---

I am very calm. I am also following the trial.

Statute you cite also has a section (c): "(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

29.304 and 29.593 are exceptions for possession by a person over 18 of a rifle or shotgun.

That is the source of the ambiguity and the defense motion. The court has not ruled. I think there is enough ambiguity here to dismiss the charge, if not outright say KR did not violate the statue due to the exception in 29.304.

---

Both of those you cite involve hunting

---

yes, but 948.60 states that it only applies to persons under 18 who are not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, each of which KR WAS in compliance with. Hence the ambiguity / exception that is pending before the court.

---

29.304 only applies to persons under 15 years of age

this explains it better

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

---

As does this (with a different conclusion): https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/the-injustice-of-the-gun-charge-against-kyle-rittenhouse/

we can keep posting competing partisan links or we can agree that it is an open question, which it is.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

---

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?

---

There are two separate issues:

• Did he have a reason to be there? Yes - he has stated that his intent was to protect his community from burners, looters, and murders as well as to provide medical care to injured if needed
• Was it smart for him to be there? No - a 17-year-old should not willfully participate in a volatile, violent situation

I agree it was unadvisable for him to carry a gun. However, had he not he likely would have been dead or seriously injured. The key fact that many keep missing is he did not provoke an attack - it was the opposite.

---

He did not have a good reason to be out alone amongst rioters carrying an AR.

---

Which one of the rioters who attacked Kyle that night had a good reason to be out there in a riot? Which one of them made a good decision to try to injure or kill an armed man?

---

None. They were idiots for what they did. I think most of the peaceful protesters had left, and it was mostly idiot rioters that remained.

fadskier said:

---

and:

https://www.crimeonline.com/2021/10/08/kyle-rittenhouse-hunting-laws-allowed-17-year-old-to-have-gun-at-protest-report/

---

go back and watch the trial video, this link does not accurately describe what the judge decided (he has not made a ruling).

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

---

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?

---

There are two separate issues:

• Did he have a reason to be there? Yes - he has stated that his intent was to protect his community from burners, looters, and murders as well as to provide medical care to injured if needed
• Was it smart for him to be there? No - a 17-year-old should not willfully participate in a volatile, violent situation

I agree it was unadvisable for him to carry a gun. However, had he not he likely would have been dead or seriously injured. The key fact that many keep missing is he did not provoke an attack - it was the opposite.

---

He did not have a good reason to be out alone amongst rioters carrying an AR.

---

Which one of the rioters who attacked Kyle that night had a good reason to be out there in a riot? Which one of them made a good decision to try to injure or kill an armed man?

---

None. They were idiots for what they did.

---

That is right, none of them. However, they were not idiots. They were violent people bent of violently attacking Kyle Rittenhouse. If you want to play the "but for" game, the worst decisions were made by the wannabe revolutionaries. Had they not attacked Rittenhouse, then they would all be alive and intact.

---

No actually they were idiots. I can't imagine the people who got shot choosing to act with any more idiocy.

It seems as though the prosecutor is trying to throw the case like Matthew McConaughey in The Lincoln Lawyer

303Bear said:

---

br53 said:

---

It seems as though the prosecutor is trying to throw the case like Matthew McConaughey in The Lincoln Lawyer

---

Seems more than possible. Their case in chief was a total mess and really did not disprove any of the necessary self-defense elements. They have sense been grasping at straws to try and introduce some evidence of incitement or instigation by KR to negate his clean hands.

Both ADAs (Binger and Kraus) have come off, to me, as insufferable hacks that failed to bring a cognizable case or stick to anything approaching a consistent theory.

Seems to me they tried to throw out cause for a mistrial to get a second shot at it later.

---

So someone else can put their name on this stinkbomb

fadskier said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

fadskier said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

What law did he break to justify your "fine?"

---

Unlawful possession in the state of Wisconsin (he wasn't 18). Also, I believe you have to have an Illinois firearm ID which he did not possess.

---

How long has it been illegal for crossing state lines in America?

---

Where did I saw it was illegal to cross state lines?

---

You said he should be fined for crossing state lines - hence illegal:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/97056/replies/2419102

fadskier said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

I agree with you his decision to attend the riots that night was a foolish one, but if you are going to fine him or hold him accountable, there has to be a law that he violated. I've yet to hear what it is.

---

In Wisconsin you have to be 18 to possess a dangerous weapon.

It's a misdemeanor, which I am saying he should just be fined.

---

As I told you above, it appears rifles don't fall within the dangerous weapon definition. So again, there needs to be some clear cut law he has violated. Again, I haven't seen that.

303Bear said:

---

br53 said:

---

It seems as though the prosecutor is trying to throw the case like Matthew McConaughey in The Lincoln Lawyer

---

Seems more than possible. Their case in chief was a total mess and really did not disprove any of the necessary self-defense elements. They have sense been grasping at straws to try and introduce some evidence of incitement or instigation by KR to negate his clean hands.

Both ADAs (Binger and Kraus) have come off, to me, as insufferable hacks that failed to bring a cognizable case or stick to anything approaching a consistent theory.

Seems to me they tried to throw out cause for a mistrial to get a second shot at it later.

---

That could easily backfire. All the judge has to do is rule a mistrial "with prejudice", and that's done for this case.

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

I agree with you his decision to attend the riots that night was a foolish one, but if you are going to fine him or hold him accountable, there has to be a law that he violated. I've yet to hear what it is.

---

In Wisconsin you have to be 18 to possess a dangerous weapon.

It's a misdemeanor, which I am saying he should just be fined.

---

As I told you above, it appears rifles don't fall within the dangerous weapon definition. So again, there needs to be some clear cut law he has violated. Again, I haven't seen that.

---

He violated the well known statute that prohibits making bad decisions. Ask Peteroso, that is a serious infraction.

The prosecutor and the judge are embarrassments to the rule of law. Neither belongs in a courtroom.

I've never seen any prosecutor above municipal court (1) argue the defendant's silence with a (2) a Motion in Limine in place. If the fix is in then the state is in on it.

The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.

As to defense counsel, I liked his carefully walked line between jury nullification and contempt; aces. I coached a young attorney in my firm on that very issue and Tuesday he stayed inside and still got an acquittal that could only be based on nullification.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

Makes you look bitter, that.

---

Which procedural rule are you whining about?

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

Makes you look bitter, that.

---

Which procedural rule are you whining about?

---

You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

---

You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.

---

The trial is being held to determine their status. They aren't victims if the shootings were justified.

---

No. The trial is to determine the guilt/innocence of the defendant. That much is obvious, or should be.

One survivor is available to be tried as something other than a victim; he has not been charged with anything.

There's no way he can.

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.

---

The trial is being held to determine their status. They aren't victims if the shootings were justified.

---

No. The trial is to determine the guilt/innocence of the defendant. That much is obvious, or should be.

One survivor is available to be tried as something other than a victim; he has not been charged with anything.

---

Specifically, the result of the trial will determine their status as either victim or perpetrator. Can't legally defend yourself from your victim, right? Being charged is no proof of guilt, and not being charged is no proof of innocence. If we haven't learned that in spades during this trial…

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.

---

The trial is being held to determine their status. They aren't victims if the shootings were justified.

---

No. The trial is to determine the guilt/innocence of the defendant. That much is obvious, or should be.

One survivor is available to be tried as something other than a victim; he has not been charged with anything.

---

Specifically, the result of the trial will determine their status as either victim or perpetrator. Can't legally defend yourself from your victim, right? Being charged is no proof of guilt, and not being charged is no proof of innocence. If we haven't learned that in spades during this trial…

---

Defendants raise self defense all the time in trials where there is a victim, and called a victim. This judge is in a small minority but it may be slightly more common in Wisconsin.

And the result of the trial is either one word or two. And neither will be "victim".

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.

---

The trial is being held to determine their status. They aren't victims if the shootings were justified.

---

No. The trial is to determine the guilt/innocence of the defendant. That much is obvious, or should be.

One survivor is available to be tried as something other than a victim; he has not been charged with anything.

---

Specifically, the result of the trial will determine their status as either victim or perpetrator. Can't legally defend yourself from your victim, right? Being charged is no proof of guilt, and not being charged is no proof of innocence. If we haven't learned that in spades during this trial…

---

Defendants raise self defense all the time in trials where there is a victim, and called a victim. This judge is in a small minority but it may be slightly more common in Wisconsin.

And the result of the trial is either one word or two. And neither will be "victim".

---

But it WILL determine whether or not he had victims or attackers. That may not be part of the literal ruling, but to imply a not guilty verdict would NOT show his attackers as anything but attackers is absurd. Based on the behavior of the prosecution, it certainly wasn't out of the realm of possibility that they would abuse that word. "When your first victim approached…" and the like repeated constantly needed to be quashed right away.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ashli Babbitts shooter was cleared for self defense.

Think about that in comparison to Rittenhouse.

---

Rittenhouse was defending the Capitol while a Constitutional duty was being performed by the legislative branch?

From this distance, looks like Rittenhouse is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

---

Babbit was behind a door 10 yards away from the man who shot her.

Rittenhouse had a gun pointed at him while he was on the ground.

---

After she broke into the Capitol?

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ashli Babbitts shooter was cleared for self defense.

Think about that in comparison to Rittenhouse.

---

Rittenhouse was defending the Capitol while a Constitutional duty was being performed by the legislative branch?

From this distance, looks like Rittenhouse is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

---

Babbit was behind a door 10 yards away from the man who shot her.

Rittenhouse had a gun pointed at him while he was on the ground.

---

After she broke into the Capitol?

---

Armed with a mob of people.

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ashli Babbitts shooter was cleared for self defense.

Think about that in comparison to Rittenhouse.

---

Rittenhouse was defending the Capitol while a Constitutional duty was being performed by the legislative branch?

From this distance, looks like Rittenhouse is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

---

Babbit was behind a door 10 yards away from the man who shot her.

Rittenhouse had a gun pointed at him while he was on the ground.

---

After she broke into the Capitol?

---

unarmed..

Rittenhouse was attacked with multiple weapons… if the Babbit case was clear self defense and protecting property then surely the young man being attacked while defending property is allowed to defend himself?

Rittenhouse has one thing in common with Babbitt, the 2020 election, the Mueller investigation, and most of the other controversial cases that have made news recently. Justice will be done. Will conservatives then believe America is great? One can only hope.

303Bear: "I doubt any judge would make such a ruling in a case like this."

I agree. No one wants to be seen as having unilaterally "decided" the case. The prosecution has bungled their case beyond anything I expected, and their recent behavior indicates they are hoping for a mistrial and effectively a do-over.

I do not believe the judge will give the prosecution that gift. He wants the jury to decide, but if the prosecution's behavior makes a mistrial unavoidable, I think the judge will make sure there is no sequel to this trial.

I believe the prosecution knows they will lose the decision, but want to make it about the judge to limit damage to their careers.

Hopefully tomorrow Harris Faulkner will shut the hell up while the trial is going on. Two days in a row she talked over what seemed like minutes of trial.