Rittenhouse Trial

See this is why you need to get a "use of force" or "ballistic experts" on the stand.

If he had JPHs or varmint ammo, the prosecutor would have said he used bullets used specifically for expansion and create the most damage as opposed to FMJ who were "designed to wound".
If he only shot the child sodomizer pedo only once - he would have said - see see, he wasn't really scared for his life - he only shot once!
If he had a shotgun - he would have said a 00 buckshot can kill more than a typical hunting round from a rifle.

Give me a break, if a buddy of mine who's a revolutionary affiliate member, assaults a cop to his head with a skateboard and the cop is on the ground and I rush the cop with a pistol in hand - the cop will absolutely mag dump me, reload, and most likely mag dump me again if I'm still standing - just look at the dozens of cops getting ambushed videos during traffic stops. It doesn't matter if the rounds are FMJ or JPH, it doesn't matter if the cop played call of duty the night before, it doesn't matter if the cop shoots only 50 rounds a year to qualify or practice shooting every other day of the week, it doesn't matter if I could have shot the cop 50 yards away but instead choose to rush him with a loaded gun in hand. It doesn't matter if I technically die on round #1 and the cop keep shooting another 16 without asking me if I'm ok, it doesn't matter if the cop doesn't radios for backup/EMTs and decides to flee to avoid more hostiles before checking on my dead body. It doesn't matter if the cop personal social media profile says 4 DOORS MORE WHORES, or "bruh i want to be famous".

If they can convict Kyle of 2nd degree murder (or god forbid, first degree), based on the evidence that has been presented, how can you possibly expect to get a fair trial for a SD case ever again?
 
“Joseph rossenbaum wasn’t going to hurt anyone, he’s a mouthy little guy, he’s a little dog that barks”

Hmm tell that to the kids he raped
Little dog that barks :mad: :mad: :mad:

Literally anally sodomized 5 young victims under the age of 12 and left the mental asylum the same day to join a violent riot screaming "shoot me nugguh shoot". And the prosecutor is well aware of that, yet chooses to use these words, in his closing argument, to defend this lowest of the low, reprobate scum worthy only of eternal damnation by describing him as a little barky dog.

Yeah sure goy ... totally harmless little man. Geeeez, he was only 5'4, how could he possibly be a violent offender out for blood ? I submit, your Honor, that no manlets under 5'5 have ever been violent in the history of mankind. Case closed.
 
“Joseph rossenbaum wasn’t going to hurt anyone, he’s a mouthy little guy, he’s a little dog that barks”

Hmm tell that to the kids he raped
That’s why they got a faggot for a prosecutor he’s the only one that could say that with a straight face.......
 
Alternate timeline: "The defendant purposely chose to load the most lethal possible ammunition .....called JA-CK-ET-ED Hollowpoints. These are DESIGNED.....to cause massive damage to the human body by exploding on contact with internal orangs. He could have chosen the less lethal bullets, BUT NO. He chose the most dangerous type of bullets to inflict the maximum amount of damage on his victims"
Yep. Catch-22.
That is exactly how it would have been presented.
 
that's nuts as past behavior is a pretty good indicator of future behavior and that wreckless behavior led to him being aggressive and getting shot thankfully
Pedos Previous actions have no bearing on what Kyle knew about pedo, so it is irrelevant in this case when he shot him.

Pedos actions that night alone though earned him a permanent dirt nap and good riddance.
 
that's nuts as past behavior is a pretty good indicator of future behavior and that wreckless behavior led to him being aggressive and getting shot thankfully
No, I think legally it was the correct decision, based on discussions I've seen, else reversible error. However, the prosecution brought in his girlfriend as their own witness, and I believe she even stated that Rosenbaum did not spend that previous night at her place. Some lawyer discussion about that mentioned that a skilled defense could have used that to further probe, because the door was opened, about why that was, which would have uncovered that he had a restraining order due to violence against her, and that was the reason. That could have been followed up further, to demonstrate he was also on meds, then possibly the psyche hospitization the night before, etc., and that would have been the proper path to uncover all that. It was a mistake for the prosecution to bring her in for trial and it could have been skillfully exploited by a good defense, but that didn't happen.
 
No, I think legally it was the correct decision, based on discussions I've seen, else reversible error. However, the prosecution brought in his girlfriend as their own witness, and I believe she even stated that Rosenbaum did not spend that previous night at her place. Some lawyer discussion about that mentioned that a skilled defense could have used that to further probe, because the door was opened, about why that was, which would have uncovered that he had a restraining order due to violence against her, and that was the reason. That could have been followed up further, to demonstrate he was also on meds, then possibly the psyche hospitization the night before, etc., and that would have been the proper path to uncover all that. It was a mistake for the prosecution to bring her in for trial and it could have been skillfully exploited by a good defense, but that didn't happen.
missed opportunity for sure
 
Charge Binger with reckless behavior.

FEQb-o6X0AMNf6n
 
that's nuts as past behavior is a pretty good indicator of future behavior and that wreckless behavior led to him being aggressive and getting shot thankfully
That sort of evidence basically never comes in. It is basically the reason we have the rule of evidence that is the most litigated area of criminal trial evidence, and convictions are routinely reversed when that kind of evidence comes in. Go back about 20 pages and I discuss Rule 404(b). Propensity evidence is classic prohibited 404(b) evidence. Even if offered for a particular purpose, it is never permissible to argue that a person has a certain character trait and so he must be guilty, peaceful, etc., now.

Courts decide based on what happened in the particular incident alleged. It isn't an opportunity for the government to dig into every label you've ever peeled off a mattress to call the accused (or the "victim") a bad person.

Some states have exceptions to this for certain types of cases (sex, domestic violence) but they are not relevant here (this is a homicide case).
 
No, I think legally it was the correct decision, based on discussions I've seen, else reversible error. However, the prosecution brought in his girlfriend as their own witness, and I believe she even stated that Rosenbaum did not spend that previous night at her place. Some lawyer discussion about that mentioned that a skilled defense could have used that to further probe, because the door was opened, about why that was, which would have uncovered that he had a restraining order due to violence against her, and that was the reason. That could have been followed up further, to demonstrate he was also on meds, then possibly the psyche hospitization the night before, etc., and that would have been the proper path to uncover all that. It was a mistake for the prosecution to bring her in for trial and it could have been skillfully exploited by a good defense, but that didn't happen.
Going down the character evidence rabbit hole would probably have been dangerous for both sides, no reason to go there. It'd just distract from what happened, and let's face it, this is a case where how to apply the rules to what happened means everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95
Pedos Previous actions have no bearing on what Kyle knew about pedo, so it is irrelevant in this case when he shot him.

Pedos actions that night alone though earned him a permanent dirt nap and good riddance.
gotcha, makes sense from a legal standpoint but what about it leading to decision making? I'm not a lawyer obviously