@sh76 said"As for the societal factors that led him to be there, I'd postulate that the societal factors that led to the riots in the first place are more concerning."
===They don’t drive over borders with guns to enter semi-warzones. ===
He was living in Kenosha for weeks before the incidents and the gun was not moved over any border (at least not that day) - was at Dominic Black's house. Second, he'd driven past the businesses every day and defending the Car Source was suggested by Nick Smith to Black because he worked there. He didn't ju ...[text shortened]... 'd postulate that the societal factors that led to the riots in the first place are more concerning.
But the riots are not concerning?
1 edit
@sh76 saidRittenhouse opened the door when he repeatedly claimed wasn't looking for trouble when he armed himself and went to the middle of the unrest. It should certainly be allowed in on redirect and it is potentially devastating.
The immediate aftermath seems to indicate his state of mind during the incident. If the prosecution wants to bring a witness that, that night, he said "Ha! Those Antifa-bots got what they deserved" then sure, but months later? Doesn't seem relevant to me.
As for the the comments weeks earlier about the CVS, it's relevant, sure. But it seems like classic character evidence to ...[text shortened]... be robbed." Does any judge in America allow that in without some sort of "opened the door" argument?
If the prosecution's case was as weak as you and others are claiming, it was unwise to call Rittenhouse.
@no1marauder saidthe case was over BEFORE Rittenhouse took the stand.
Rittenhouse opened the door when he repeatedly claimed wasn't looking for trouble when he armed himself and went to the middle of the unrest. It should certainly be allowed in on redirect and it is potentially devastating.
If the prosecution's case was as weak as you and others are claiming, it was unwise to call Rittenhouse.
@sh76 saidIt's a jury question; initial aggressors are not allowed to prevail on self-defense. One of the guys with Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum was belligerent but not a threat.
===They don’t drive over borders with guns to enter semi-warzones. ===
He was living in Kenosha for weeks before the incidents and the gun was not moved over any border (at least not that day) - was at Dominic Black's house. Second, he'd driven past the businesses every day and defending the Car Source was suggested by Nick Smith to Black because he worked there. He didn't ju ...[text shortened]... 'd postulate that the societal factors that led to the riots in the first place are more concerning.
@mott-the-hoople saidApparently his lawyers thought differently.
the case was over BEFORE Rittenhouse took the stand.
@no1marauder saidA good lawyer covers every aspect…what with you being a lawyer all 😂 I would think you should know this.
Apparently his lawyers thought differently.
@mott-the-hoople saidI was referring to the riots.
"As for the societal factors that led him to be there, I'd postulate that the societal factors that led to the riots in the first place are more concerning."
But the riots are not concerning?
@no1marauder said5th Amendment or no, I think it's human nature to want to hear from someone who shoots 3 people and claims self-defense. Calling Rittenhouse was risky, sure. But failing to call him would also have been risky, under human nature if not under the 5th Amendment.
Rittenhouse opened the door when he repeatedly claimed wasn't looking for trouble when he armed himself and went to the middle of the unrest. It should certainly be allowed in on redirect and it is potentially devastating.
If the prosecution's case was as weak as you and others are claiming, it was unwise to call Rittenhouse.
As it happens, I watched almost all of the testimony yesterday (I really shouldn't have killed so much time, but I couldn't help myself). Hamstrung though he may have been, the prosecutor did almost no damage to Rittenhouse on cross and it's very difficult for me to see a conviction after that cross.
@no1marauder saidRittenhouse himself essentially admitted Rosenbaum was "belligerent but not a threat" UNTIL he went for Rittenhouse's gun. At that point, he became a very real threat.
It's a jury question; initial aggressors are not allowed to prevail on self-defense. One of the guys with Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum was belligerent but not a threat.
@sh76 saidYour guesswork at what this particular jury might do is as worthless as the talking heads on TV.
5th Amendment or no, I think it's human nature to want to hear from someone who shoots 3 people and claims self-defense. Calling Rittenhouse was risky, sure. But failing to call him would also have been risky, under human nature if not under the 5th Amendment.
As it happens, I watched almost all of the testimony yesterday (I really shouldn't have killed so much time, but I co ...[text shortened]... damage to Rittenhouse on cross and it's very difficult for me to see a conviction after that cross.
Juries surprise all the time.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidJudge doesn't seem very pleased with
Your guesswork at what this particular jury might do is as worthless as the talking heads on TV.
Juries surprise all the time.
the prosecution
https://news.yahoo.com/dont-get-brazen-with-me-rittenhouse-judge-snaps-at-prosecutor-as-defense-requests-a-mistrial-225840138.html
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidNo need to be patronizing, you are correct; however,
No s**t, Sherlock.
Still it's a jury trial not a bench one.
when you observe that juries are very unpredictable.