Rittenhouse trial…

@jimm619 said
You didn't read it, Mutt.

yeah I did, thus my reply…your not sharp enough for this thread

@sh76 said
That's for purposes of hearsay. The rule you cited is also unnecessary here. ANY statement made by Rittenhouse is admissible under 801(d)(2) anyway (or its WI equivalent in this case).

That has nothing to do whether he actually meant to "admit" that he pointed his gun at anyone.

You are killing Marauder!!!!

@mott-the-hoople said
yeah I did, thus my reply…your not sharp enough for this thread

He's not sharp enough for any thread.

@averagejoe1 said
You are killing Marauder!!!!

He is.

Glad to see it too.

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL...u just now figuring this out?

Mott ...you actually clicked on a thread from this Son-like person? We need to find more for you to do!!!

@averagejoe1 said
Mott ...you actually clicked on a thread from this Son-like person? We need to find more for you to do!!!

He didn't.

I did. 😔

@sleepyguy said
Hilarious coming from the lefty who always sides with dead thugs, and juries never agree with.

He also thinks that a guy, who knows that if he breaks a law his family will be separated from him, should be given a lot of money if, knowing the consequences, he breaks that law. He really never says WHY the lawbreaker should be given a lot of money....for breaking the law.
I promise that I am not making this up. It is too unbelievable to make up.
As to lefty? Naaah, he is a bit worse than that. He knows what I am talking about, I don't want to shine that light on him. He knows.
I picture him looking exactly like Bill Ayers. Google Bill Ayers Obama if you dont know who ;that is

@mott-the-hoople said
yeah I did, thus my reply…your not sharp enough for this thread

.........You're so clever, Mutt.
I am sharp enough to know that
when someone REALLY cries, there are TEARS~!

@sh76 said
That's for purposes of hearsay. The rule you cited is also unnecessary here. ANY statement made by Rittenhouse is admissible under 801(d)(2) anyway (or its WI equivalent in this case).

That has nothing to do whether he actually meant to "admit" that he pointed his gun at anyone.

801(d)(2) tells you that such statements aren't hearsay; it doesn't tell you what the legal definition of an admission is ( which the cite I gave you did).

Really stop showing such legal ignorance just to try to score points with the right wing morons here.

@jimm619 said
.........You're so clever, Mutt.
I am sharp enough to know that
when someone REALLY cries, there are TEARS~!

study up, then leave the thread.

Sjögren's Syndrome

@no1marauder said
801(d)(2) tells you that such statements aren't hearsay; it doesn't tell you what the legal definition of an admission is ( which the cite I gave you did).

Really stop showing such legal ignorance just to try to score points with the right wing morons here.

you need to drop it, you are looking childish

@no1marauder said
801(d)(2) tells you that such statements aren't hearsay; it doesn't tell you what the legal definition of an admission is ( which the cite I gave you did).

Really stop showing such legal ignorance just to try to score points with the right wing morons here.

<sigh>

YOU used the hearsay definition of "admission" to try to show that Rittenhouse's "I did" had legal significance of an admission (though the context you're trying to use it in has nothing to do with hearsay - everyone agrees it was admissible).

I pointed out that EVERYTHING that Rittenhouse says is an "admission of a party opponent" for hearsay purposes, rendering your hearsay-linked definition completely irrelevant to the issue.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admission-by-party-opponent/

I know and YOU know as well that the fact that Rittenhouse's "I did" is an "admission" for hearsay purposes has ZERO bearing on whether it proves your unfounded assertion that Rittenhouse was "pointing guns at people all night" (it doesn't).

@sh76 said
<sigh>

YOU used the hearsay definition of "admission" to try to show that Rittenhouse's "I did" had legal significance of an admission (though the context you're trying to use it in has nothing to do with hearsay - everyone agrees it was admissible).

I pointed out that EVERYTHING that Rittenhouse says is an "admission of a party opponent" for hearsay purposes, rendering yo ...[text shortened]... oves your unfounded assertion that Rittenhouse was "pointing guns at people all night" (it doesn't).

Maybe you should read the link; it has nothing to do with hearsay (since an admission isn't hearsay).

You're really completely ignorant and/or hopelessly biased to label my statement an "unfounded assertion" when there is a video of Rittenhouse admitting it.

EDIT: Here's the legal definition of "admission". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admission

@mott-the-hoople said
you need to drop it, you are looking childish

Everyone is wrong but you, huh, Mutt?

@no1marauder said
Maybe you should read the link; it has nothing to do with hearsay (since an admission isn't hearsay).

You're really completely ignorant and/or hopelessly biased to label my statement an "unfounded assertion" when there is a video of Rittenhouse admitting it.

EDIT: Here's the legal definition of "admission". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admission

Excuse me….the of-color Lebrawan James says “Rittenhouse didnt really cry”. Well, i say Hillary commited no crimes.
Let us let Judge Suzianne rule on which of us is lying.