Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,369
- Location
- Bucks
Don't worry it will likely get shut down just as they are about to lead to the core issue with more theatre.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
LOL Jono
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
The prosecution seem to be really pushing it.
LOL Dowie
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Mods must condemn.
What, for commenting on the trial that people are obviously following? The post before mine was literally a similar type of comment.
Can see where the prosecution is going with the bullet types - Kyle saying he doesn't know much, kinda indicating he's aware hollow points maybe cause more damage - prosecutor trying to emphasise or lead him onto a claim re: full metal jacket bullets passing through people vs hollow points stopping.. this is perhaps re: the reckless charge re: the journalists who was near Rosenbaum.
What was the excellent point in your opinion out of interest?
Interesting you didnt say the same for this:
Same sort of comment, just declaring an opposite opinion.
Almost like you are biased because you know exactly what i was talking about, yet took objection to me saying it was a good point
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Defense accuses prosecution of trying to provoke a mistrial. It also seems as if the prosecution is trying to provoke the judge.
And as the judge pointed out, there's no guarantee a hollow point will stop in the 1st tag. I was always under the impression that if you wanted maximum 'damage' you'd go with the hollow point, bloody Hollywood getting it wrong
No, not really - it was pretty clear what he was referring to, esepcially given I'd just commented on the same two incidents yet with your comment was about something unspecified point.
Almost like you are biased because you know exactly what i was talking about, yet took objection to me saying it was a good point
I don't though? Why not just make the argument? What was the point you were referring to and why do you think it was good?
As for obvious bias, that's very ironic coming from you especially given your previous comparisons and inability to answer when challenged on claims yesterday.
Just lol. You are a baaaad liar and a hideously disingenuous person.
What was the excellent point in your opinion out of interest?
Literally the one that you and Dowie were commenting on and what the judge was berating them about.
i thought it was pretty clear what everyone was discussing but evidently not (or in Dowie's case, he is just being transparently and intentionally obtuse).
Eh? No, you're just (perhaps naively) assuming that everyone else knows what you mean when it's not always apparent at all - why not just provide clarification when asked instead of always making such a big song and dance about being asked for it. Even if you assume we know what point you were referring to (that wasn't clear) no one can mind read why you think it was a good point.
Note it wasn't apparent to the other poster either who then asked you too.
I'm not sure how deliberately breaching the judge's ruling is making a good point - especially when they're risking a mistrial or giving the defence an opening for appeal in doing so.
Surely you can see the distinction between muttering about wishing he had a gun to shoot some shoplifters while not actually having one.. venting etc.. vs actually being in the situation where he does have one. The US clearly has rules in place about the admission of such evidence which the judge referred to, there are apparently set criteria, which the judge referred to too, this doesn't seem to meet the standards for admission into evidence.
The prosecutor argued that the testimony opened up introducing it but the judge wasn't having any of that as the prosecutor still could have asked (and it was still denied) the defence also noted that when the prosecutor had opened up the possibility of introducing previously inadmissible evidence as a result of testimony they warned and/or checked first.
Last edited:
Oh look, you did know what i was talking about.
... and as i pointed out, i thought the prosecution made an excellent case considering one of the charges is first degree murder. I think its absurd that they aren't allowed to talk about his comments a few weeks prior where Rittenhouse looked at people ostensibly doing a similar thing to the rioters/looters and claimed that he wished he had his AR15 so he could shoot them. Two weeks later, he went and did just that. This case is all about mindsets/the use of deadly force/intentions etc. Not allowing evidence to show that Rittenhouse did at one point very soon before the event claim he wanted to shoot people carrying out crimes is bizarre.
The prosecution also very eloquently pointed out the double standards in terms of the defenses trumping up of the fact that Rosenbaum said he wanted to kill someone whilst not holding a rifle too.
No, I didn't, which is why I asked. Again, I'm not a mind reader - why do you insist on making such a fuss over being asked about straightforward questions/clarification.
Doesn't seem to be a very good point at all - I mean should we lock someone up if they've said they'd like to be alone in a room with Trump for just 5 mins etc.. or any other venting along those lines. You do understand that there are rules in place re: this sort of evidence?
Rather different to the defence pointing out a direct verbal threat made to an individual and then appearing to act upon it.