2 edits
@no1marauder saidFRE Rule 413(a):
I doubt even Judge Schroeder would agree to such a baseless claim. Given the extremely prejudicial nature of such information, it would be akin to declaring open season on such individuals.
"In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant."
So, Rosenbaum's conviction could have been used against him if he were on trial in a future alleged sex assault case.
Edit: The policy reason to worry about prejudice against the alleged sexual abuser seems stronger when he is on trial than when someone else is claiming self-defense against him.
@sh76 saidNo, it doesn't. Excusing homicides based on irrelevant and prejudicial information is quite different from using it in an accused's trial for related crimes.
FRE Rule 413(a):
"In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant."
So, Rosenbaum's conviction could have been used against him if he were on trial in a future alleged sex assault case.
Ed ...[text shortened]... user seems stronger when he is on trial than when someone else is claiming self-defense against him.
Judge Schroeder didn't allow it, did he?
@averagejoe1 saidI'm not a legal scholar, but there's always been a limited definition of self defense that must meet specific circumstances.
But wildgrass, you suggest that these rabid mob people apply reasonable alternatives. A wasted post,?
Are gun rights activists supporting Rittenhouse because they would like to have the right to enter dangerous situations with weapons and shoot crazy people?
Rabid mob indeed. I think that guns are effective weapons of self defense, and that they promote public safety in the right hands by deterring violence. But that's clearly not the case here. Rittenhouse testified his fear was that someone would take his gun and shoot him with it. In this case, the gun was the problem. He should have left the scene. Instead, we seem to have a self defense argument with circular logic. I need the gun to defend myself but my presence in this melee and indeed the presence of the gun itself is why I need to shoot people. I don't see how gun rights advocates see this as a logical position. At the very least we can say his actions weren't illegal but should be condemned. Vigilantism is not and should not be legal.
Should all citizens be allowed to enter dangerous situations with weapons and shoot people in "self defense"? That seems crazy.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI thought everyone understood that Batman's actions were illegal. You're not allowed to do that in our society.
It appears to be self defense based on the videos I have seen.
Apparently there is no law against carrying a rifle in a city. Rittenhouse was not the only person carrying a rifle in the videos I have seen. I don't think that is a wise thing to do, but apparently there is no law against it.
The trial isn't about what was wise, it is about if he broke any laws.
He ...[text shortened]... e's Batman days are over. I wouldn't worry about him doing it again. Deterrence probably successful.
@contenchess saidDon't look now but you're doing that thing you're always complaining about. Painting everything in racial terms is not my jam.
@wildgrass
Oh stop 🙄
If Rittenhouse was black you'd be defending him.
@wildgrass saidso we are not supposed to point out your racism?
Don't look now but you're doing that thing you're always complaining about. Painting everything in racial terms is not my jam.
@no1marauder saidI don't know. Did the defense try to bring it in?
No, it doesn't. Excusing homicides based on irrelevant and prejudicial information is quite different from using it in an accused's trial for related crimes.
Judge Schroeder didn't allow it, did he?
@wildgrass saidIt's a public street. He has every bit as much right to be there as the protesters. The protesters also knew it was going to be dangerous but they decided to come anyway. They had their reasons and Rittenhouse had his. He says he was there to assist people who need medical help and to defend his friend's car dealership. There's not much evidence that he's lying about that. Those are perfectly legitimate purposes for being there. He brought his gun because he thought things might be dangerous when carrying out those two things.
I'm not a legal scholar, but there's always been a limited definition of self defense that must meet specific circumstances.
Are gun rights activists supporting Rittenhouse because they would like to have the right to enter dangerous situations with weapons and shoot crazy people?
Rabid mob indeed. I think that guns are effective weapons of self defense, and that they ...[text shortened]... wed to enter dangerous situations with weapons and shoot people in "self defense"? That seems crazy.
Of course he would have been required to run away before shooting people. He tried. He tried desperately to run away. He was chased down and at that point, no longer had the option.
@mott-the-hoople saidThese people forget we see their posts about many topics.
so we are not supposed to point out your racism?
It's easy to point out biased people.
@sh76 saidGood fairy tale but I'd stick to Goldilocks and the three bears when talking to anyone but gullible right wingers.
It's a public street. He has every bit as much right to be there as the protesters. The protesters also knew it was going to be dangerous but they decided to come anyway. They had their reasons and Rittenhouse had his. He says he was there to assist people who need medical help and to defend his friend's car dealership. There's not much evidence that he's lying about that. Those ...[text shortened]... d. He tried desperately to run away. He was chased down and at that point, no longer had the option.
@no1marauder saidnow you reduce yourself to petty insults
Good fairy tale but I'd stick to Goldilocks and the three bears when talking to anyone but gullible right wingers.
@mott-the-hoople saidNo1 will always resort to petty insults eventually if the argument goes on long enough.
now you reduce yourself to petty insults