No.
The Prosecutor knows he is losing, so he is playing dirty to get a mistrial.
But the judge saw through it and so they carry on.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
No.
The Prosecutor knows he is losing, so he is playing dirty to get a mistrial.
But the judge saw through it and so they carry on.
Your post indicates this is a lie.
What an absurd comparison. You clearly haven't understood the concept of what is being talked about at all.
What does? You're making no sense here at all?
You've never heard of anyone venting - or saying things out of frustration that they wouldn't actually act upon?
You're oblivious to why there might be rules in place to stop the admission of this sort of stuff in trials?
Of course I have. So what?
No one is denying there aren't rules along these lines. The prosecutor was making his case as to why they did not apply, which i agreed with.
I think the usual advice of the defendant not testifying in criminal trials gets flipped sometimes in the cases of self-defence... in this case, two of the other people are dead, the facts are mostly already known - not much new coming to the table. So what he was thinking at the time, how he perceived things, his explanation for his actions is kinda relevant to a self-defence claim.
That seemed to be the general consensus about Rittenhouse testifying that I've noted, but from what I've read getting a self-defence verdict is easier if you can get the mindset of the accused.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,295
Good thing the judge seems to have some backbone.
Coming from the guy that tried to argue that chasing after a person that is armed is a logical move when you feel like your life is being threatened.
That clip is hilarious. The facepalm at the end is just the cherry on top.
Coming from the guy that tried to argue that chasing after a person that is armed is a logical move when you feel like your life is being threatened.
He acts like I'm a mind reader or something - literally just asking the guy a question will set him off with a load of deflection when he could just give a straight answer.
Coming from the guy that tried to argue that chasing after a person that is armed is a logical move when you feel like your life is being threatened.
Perfectly plausibly if your intention is to disarm someone with a rifle who you perceive to be a threat and who you think might be going around shooting people. I would argue attempting to remove the long range weapon from someone who you perceive to be a threat is possibly a good option if you are in an open area and have no immediate cover or place to take shelter.
Are you suggesting that in every possible situation that you feel your life is threatened by a person with a weapon, that you should attempt to hide/take shelter?
Is it just me or are the defence a bit annoyed that the prosecution are trying to get a miss trial?
almost like they just want it to be a show for the media and bring the justice system into disrepute.
I don’t know much about US law. But the two lines of question even I know where wrong. Almost ****** myself when the judge lost it.
You can already see on Twitter that everyone is already blaming the judge.
almost like they just want it to be a show for the media and bring the justice system into disrepute.
I don’t know much about US law. But the two lines of question even I know where wrong. Almost ****** myself when the judge lost it.
You can already see on Twitter that everyone is already blaming the judge.
Most people with an IQ above room temperature would argue chasing someone with a semi automatic rifle is rather.....foolish.
So you do not agree with ever attempting to disarm someone who you may perceive is shooting/killing people or as a threat to yourself? You would agree that in any circumstance, you must always run off/take shelter etc?
There are no feelings or thoughts in a court case .
There is only facts.
The prosecutor is doing a bad job of it.