The chopper was there!He really should have called in an airstrike
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
The chopper was there!He really should have called in an airstrike
Court tv seems to be siding with the defense, we will see… this is getting very interesting.I’m reading the # comments on Twitter and I am now 100% certain that America is doomed.
This professor doesn't like the judge's decision.
View: https://twitter.com/EvidenceProf/status/1458495377343135747
View: https://twitter.com/EvidenceProf/status/1458494218222161920
What does PORTUONDO v. AGARD have to do with anything? First of all, that case was about comments during summation. Second, the judge's ire as I understand it had nothing to do with questioning Rittenhouse's veracity.
Anyone who thinks that if (if) the judge brooms the caseThe Judge would dismiss with prejudice to prevent a second trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, which is what the Prosecutor wants; to be able to blame a lack of conviction on the Judge and not the state's case being political garbage.
If this trial was released on a DVD box set,Binger is not good at this. I’m sure Rittenhouse was prepared for the past few weeks but experienced prosecutor shouldn’t get embarrassed like that by an 18 year old.
It is typical, unfortunately. I guess he couldn't think of a cogent response to what the judge was actually saying, so he mischaracterized what the judge was upset about and responded to that instead, knowing that most people wouldn't understand what he was actually doing. How many times have we seen that tactic?This law prof is way off base. He’s teaching the next generation of lawyer![]()
We all know liberty and justice are aboard a sinking ship. A conviction would be on par with hitting a glacier big enough to sink the Titanic. I pray to God that glacier is avoided.Ive only followed along on NES, but its seems like anything that could go wrong has gone wrong for the prosecution. Sounds like a complete clown-show. Him being convicted anyway would be the ultimate show of power. The message would be "if we want to ruin you, we will and there is nothing you can do about it."
Binger: "Once again, just answer the question I asked."he is but he should shorten his answers to "correct" or "incorrect"
FIFY*frantically searching ammo warehouses for exploding Hollow Point FMJ bullets*
I can think of just a handful of cops right here on NES, a couple of them I know personally from work. If you add up our combined careers it could easily be 150+yrs of LE not murdering anyone, so there’s that, or we can adjust fire onto the medical community who kills a couple hundred thousand a year from negligence or incompetence. I don’t judge. lol
It's a cinch it wasn't going over defense counsels' heads.I'm pretty sure the defense attorneys were just letting the prosecution tie their own noose.
It was really bad, and while it was almost all objectionable, it was more valuable to the defense to let it just play out.
That was their best chance on appeal: judicial prejudice.The anger of the judge was a little surprising.I wonder if the prosecution is just screwing up to get the judge to explode.
And he did, eventually: "To stop him from attacking me."To have him say some very important words.
If he's not prompted to say he was in fear of his life, his lawyer is a failure.
I'm glad you brought up the Arbery case, because I had the same thought.Grosskruetz ran after rittenhouse and asked him what he did (he didn’t know firsthand). He watched rittenhouse be assaulted several times including by Huber, who was then shot, before grosskruetz pointed his gun at rittenhouse and charged at rittenhouse.
Look at what the morons in GA are being prosecuted for in GA in the death or Arbery. They’re claiming they were acting legal under GAs civil arrest law (I doubt Wisconsin has one or anything close to that which would allow someone to use force to detain or neutralize a person fleeing)
The morons in GA were idiots from start to finish but legally they’re trying to use that civil arrest law, saying they had the legal right to do it. But that law requires firsthand knowledge of a current crime, not speculation or a good faith belief. They didn’t have knowledge of a current crime, they believed Arbery “may” have been a person involved in theft weeks and months ago.
Ah, he was going to be held for police to take him in if he was a robber, he got shot because he went for the gun.I'm glad you brought up the Arbery case, because I had the same thought.
People right here on NES have claimed that McMichael shooting Arbery was justified, because Arbery lunged for the shotgun.
Key difference: Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, and lunged for his gun after cornering him; Rittenhouse was trying to escape. The McMichaels had chased Arbery through the neighborhood, and the unarmed Arbery only lunged for the gun after he had no more options.
That was their best chance on appeal: judicial prejudice.
It doesn't come anywhere close to their own prosecutorial misconduct and incompetence, but they're grasping at straws by now.