Polls: Trending & News

They will have to let silver get to $100 an ounce to get people to recycle their jewelry, be able to mine deeper to find silver and sell their bullion.

One day soon, there will be no new silver mined, and no surplus above ground. Only Silver jewelry , and items will be only sources. Many silver mines have closed.

The environmental movement means the need for more silver. Solar panels , electric cars. and electronics. Older baby boomers needing medical equipment that only silver can be used.

The media called out the driver that mowed down a crowd in Charlottesville as a racist. Why hasn't the media called out Darrell Brooks as a racist. His social media posts prove he is a racist.

Online court records showed a person named Darrell Brooks, with a birthdate making him 39, has two open criminal cases in Milwaukee County. In one case, filed Nov. 5, he is charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, reckless homicide, disorderly conduct, bail jumping and battery. Records show $1,000 bond was posted on Friday.

In the other case, filed in July 2020, Brooks is charged with reckless endangering and illegal possession of a firearm.

Will the media tar and feather this guy like it did Kyle Rittenhouse?

Now the 2nd Amendment is still alive. The hero is free. May he have a very successful life and put all of this behind him and move on. Thanks God Americans can use gun to fend off gangs and thugs of the Democratic party.

Is this proof or do we need more proof?

I would prefer to see a not guilty however we know there’s going to be riots… course with not guilty we’ll have him out there again so we’re good… Guilty might sate the left fools but it ends fair trials for the country… Mistrial with prejudice means he can’t be retried and probably applies best to this situation as decided when behind hidden illegal but it means we don’t see a verdict. If that happens the left will riot… but he’ll get a hell of a payday for sure.

Honestly politics and fools aside… mistrials probably the most accurate end to this trial especially after the judge stated he didn’t believe the prosecution was after justice and unbiased…

The prosecution team that has had their ass chewed by the judge for ignoring Kyle's 5th amendment rights, not following the judge's instruction, and jury tampering, now is caught withholding HD video footage produced by the FBI, in order to show their grainy video footage, and straight lying to the judge and jury about what the video shows. This... is... a... crime. Does the fact that the HD footage clearly shows the prosecution lied about Kyle's actions-- while it clearly and unquestionably shows Kyle acting in self-defense, change your mind about the case? Should it be dismissed with prejudice, so that Kyle can't be tried again? That's the standard for this type of infraction by the prosecution.

Just for kicks do you think the trial would play put much differently had Kyle been black? if so how?

Judge drops gun charge against Rittenhouse
15 Nov, 2021 16:32 / Updated 25 minutes ago


Defense attorney Mark Richards asks to see Kyle Rittenhouse's rifle before court begins in Kenosha, Wisconsin © Mark Hertzberg/Pool


The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial dropped a gun charge against the 18-year-old on Monday, providing yet another win for the defense as the case draws to a close.
Among the charges prosecutors were levying against Rittenhouse was a misdemeanor gun charge related to a Wisconsin statute that Judge Bruce Schroeder admitted last week was difficult to understand.

READ MORE: National Guard put on standby for Rittenhouse verdict
Rittenhouse is facing multiple charges, including first-degree homicide, for shooting and killing two men and injuring a third during violent protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin last year. Rittenhouse and his defense lawyers have maintained that the then-17-year-old acted in self-defense during the anti-police Black Lives Matter protest last August.

Prosecutors have tried presenting multiple other charges to the jury, including a second-degree homicide charge the judge ruled would not go before the jury last week.

The gun statute in question bars those under 18 from possessing certain short-barrelled firearms. The defense argued on Monday that the statute does not apply to Rittenhouse, as he was not carrying a short-barrelled rifle and the law does not apply a blanket ban on a 17-year-old carrying a firearm.

The statute is meant to exclude minors from carrying certain weapons, while also allowing them the freedom to use rifles to hunt, a common pastime in the state. Critics have argued an AR-15 falls into a “loophole” within the law, but the defense has maintained the statute comes down to barrel length, and Rittenhouse was not in violation.

The gun charge had presented an opportunity for the prosecution to score a conviction on a lower count, should the jury decide Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.