I'm actually watching the Rittenhouse trial (the defence lawyers are terrible, but the prosecutor is basically showing videos of how self-defense-y it was but running his commentary over it and hoping noone notices), but heard that so far everything is going well for the prosecution on Arbery - no evidence about mental health, criminality or drug use will be admitted.
how so? The judge in Rittenhouse has been good from what I've seen. Are you referring to his judgment that the deceased cannot be called 'victims' because that would be prejudicial given that the trial is to determine whether they are victims? Because that is correct. I have seen that the online media has been complaining about that, when if the defence can prove that there was property damage and things sent on fire that the protesters can be referred to as rioters or arsonists - which again is the right call because there is no reason to put a restraint on language if it can be proved.
Basically that. Seemed prejudicial to me, but your explanation makes some sense. The two were also victims though, they were the victims of being shot. Wouldn’t restricting language to define them as ‘victims’ be restraining language? Would ‘deceased’ or ‘decedents’ be acceptable?
deceased is fine and people have been using that, as well as their names. Defendants have their rights protected in their criminal cases, which will always put some limits on what the prosecutor can do or say. Defendants are given more scope as long its relevant - like the judge in Rittenhouse hadn't allowed criminal records, mental health etc as well, but the prosecutor may have let the door open to discussion of some of it now because he referred to some of it in his opening statement to make him more sympathetic, give a reasoning for him being there and less of a threat.
What medical assistance was Rittenhouse providing?
With the cops doing a bad job thread in mind I'd say that's quite fair seeing as he just murdered 2 people with an assault rifle.
Last post on Rittenhouse in this thread, possibly on the caf about it since people are not open to hearing beyond the narrative.
Gotcha.
Technically you could argue that it was self-defense on all counts. Problem is that it was with an assault rifle he wasn't legally allowed to carry. The guy who was shot in the arm had a glock pointed at rittenhouse head a splitsecond before he was shot in the arm. Thing is you can't asked the deceased whether they tried to take his rifle to use it against him or just disarm him. I don't how the law works in that state. The fact that he was carrying illegally works against him, but I would be surprised if he's convicted of 2 murders.
It does seem a bit difficult, especially these days.
Ok, I'll respond since the thread has been updated - there is currently an outstanding motion to dismiss on the illegal possession charge that the judge is yet to rule on as the defence believe that there is an exemption for possession of a long barrel rifle for 16/17 year olds and there is vagueness in the law. No idea if it will go through, but my understanding of the law is the illegality of the possession is irrelevant for self defence.
Is the prosecutor poor or did he get blindsided by his witnesses?
The prosecutor has been good from a stylistic perspective. The witnesses have just been honest, and the facts are poor for them.
Yes, I would like to know the ins and outs of this as well.
When's the last time you saw the video? Its been shown at the trial within context
What was the context then.
Painful.
Day 1 testimony
OK fine they weren't friendly to him, but, and I actually think I responded like this before, for American cops trying to peppers pray someone who just murdered 2 people with an assault rifle is pretty mellow. I mean, people have been shot in the back 7 times for less.
They wouldn't have known he had killed 2 people and he was approaching with the gun saddled on his back with his hands up. You should actually listen to the evidence before calling it murder, btw. There is serious evidence for self defence from all of the witnesses so far (apart from 1 witness that had no personal knowledge of that night who was a family member where they had to hurry her off because the prosecutor was 1 step away from opening up one of the deceased's history of holding a knife to his brothers throat and then stomach and threatening to gut him like a pig, and to burn the house down).
Why the kid thought he was gonna get murdered? How many people got murdered that night?
have you watched the FBI drone video or listened to the eye witness testimony?
Are you watching the trial?
how many people were chased down and cornered after attempting to flee from a man who threatened to kill them if they got them on their own and then lunged for his gun?
No, busy at work that's just what I would argue against Rittenhouse's claims of self defence.
That would be an argument for their self defence claims if they had killed him.
You don't need to kill someone to defend yourself, only incapacitate them, which they tried to do. Instead, an armed MAGA terrorist shot and killed them with an AR-15.
Could a skateboard to the head kill someone? Could a dropkick to the face while someone is on the ground kill someone?
