Quote of the day—David Hardy

My guess: if it happens again, the judge will grant the mistrial with prejudice and a lot of findings about the prosecution motives, and how they kept screwing up even after he warned them. If it doesn’t, the judge will wait for the verdict. If not guilty, no need to rule. If guilty, he grants a new trial.

David Hardy
November 11, 2021
Still more disasters in Rittenhouse case
[Interesting hypothesis.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Hardy

  1. Off topic: has anyone else noticed the “previous” and “next” links have stopped working? At least they have for me, using Firefox and Vivaldi on Android devices.

    • I never use them but since you brought it up I just tested them. They work fine on my desktop but not on my Android phone with Edge or Chrome. Perhaps a recent update broke. If so, then I expect they will be fixed soon. WordPress updates come out every week or so.

  2. Wait till the end of the trial. See what washes out. To many moving parts.
    What we do know is that every bit of what’s gone on to date is pure bullshit commie politics. Judge and defense included.
    What they don’t see is that by putting Kyle away, will only tell the rest of us to go big, or stay home.
    If you have to use deadly force to defend yourself. Might as well clear a path out of the hot zone. It’s the first pedophile that costs you. The rest are all free.
    And I don’t know about you, but I can’t run like a 17 year old anymore.

    • The various videos seem to show that Kyle was the slowest runner that night. Might have just been pacing himself, knowing how far the cop concentration was located, but no one had a problem catching up to him. Maybe trying to sprint while carrying his rifle/carbine was a problem, along with his medical gear?

      • Could be. I mean… I’m not trying to throw stones at the kid, don’t get me wrong, but he was a slightly-pudgy 17 year old, not a fresh-from-boot Army or Marine infantryman. He probably just couldn’t run as fast under his load.

        Although I’ve heard from numerous vets that his shooting was exemplary. Which, I suppose, is a good point in his favor.

        • I read in his testimony that he became lightheaded and fell. That is consistent with the out of shape hypothesis. Once, when running at a track meet in high school, I pushed myself to the point that my legs went numb and I blacked out for a second or two as I collapsed to the ground a few feet from the finish line.

        • His shooting ability was excellent! The only glitch was that he only fired once at the pistol pointing guy (#3).
          Doing a shoot house exercise, employing the standard 2 rounds/target, I only fired once at the final target (from it’s location, it was obviously the last one). Upon debriefing around that last target, I was questioned why only once? Didn’t know why. I got the impression from the group of instructors that it wasn’t uncommon for a last target.

  3. Consistent with my 20 years of non-lawyer litigation experience and my own read as well.

    For a judge, nothing is as unassailable as a jury acquittal. He can rule of the mistrial at any point, even after the verdict. That means that his safest bet is to wait for the verdict, and then fix it if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.

    The problem with this scenario is that a lot of judges get cold feet if the jury comes back strong on conviction, and then they balk at reversing the jury.

Comments are closed.