Is that what you call withholding key evidence, lying to the court, questioning post arrest silence in front of the jury etc? You call that being paid by the defense? How many court cases you been involved with friend?
I did not say he was paid by the defense, I stated that he worked as if he was paid by the defense. And indeed... you tell me why the judge had the conversation about the withholding evidence, and the part that they used something that the judge just recently said they could not use, but did it anyways. That's besides the point about how they questioned the witnesses and plenty of it was rather damaging in their "attempt" to get Kyle convicted. Everybody who looked at this case knows the prosecutors were a total joke. To say this would have the same outcome with people who were eager to have Kyle locked up, is simply based on nothing. And such things are defo not going to happen during the civil case when the lawyers are paid by the families, if they do their jobs right. And no doubt a civil case is going to be filed.
It's based on the evidence. NO prosecutor could have won the case. It wasn't ineptitude of the prosecutors it was the ineptitude of the evidence he was guiity of an illegal shooting. They should never have charged him in the first place.
It's based on presentation, and which lawyer makes the best case at hand. It's a freaking skill. Some lawyers are paid massive amounts of money and some do not.... because some are good, with decades of experience and some are just crap. Just weird that I have to explain this to you.
Is that your final explanation for all of the misinformed posts you’ve made on this subject? It’s the judge, not you, who doesn’t understand the law?
That would be because they were working so hard for a conviction they cheated the ethical rules. Happens alot with prosecutors because they have immunity essentially. The prosecutors were a joke, but not because they were working for the defense. Its not based on nothing, its based on the ridiculous amount of verbal self touching that occurred during and after the verdict. Civil case: Can't have a wrongful death suit on someone you were committing a felony against who self defensed you. Before you say OJ: OJ got acquitted of crim charges based on not enough evidence to prove bard he murdered the two victims and then caught a wrongful death suit under the preponderance standard that could be proven that he did murder the 2 victims. The difference being here we know and admit rittenhouse killed and shot the 3 persons, but they weren't victims because he was acquitted based on self defense since they were committing crimes against him. Now please stop discussing things you know nothing about.
Again.... I did not say that they worked for the defense. I stated they worked as if they were paid by the defense. /facepalm But I'm glad you agree they did a very bad job on it. And in a civil case, the people prosecuting Kyle can drag up what Kyle is all about, and actually enter the vids of Kyle beating up girls and him saying that he would kill looters. And he got acquitted because of a beyond reasonable doubt thing, where in a civil case the bar is much lower. With that, that civil case ends up being a whole different ballgame.
No he got acquitted because he had a legal excuse for the homicides and shootings IE self defense. He had a legal excuse because the perps were committing felonies, each of them. It will be procedurally killed because you cannot maintain a wrongful death claim against someone when you were committing a felony against them and they were acquitted on self defense. You don't know anything about civil cases dude. Please stop watching cnn.
And the legal "excuse" is called ... beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't work like that in a civil case. Somehow you think both lawsuits got the same rules, while it's not the case.
No the legal excuse is called self defense. OJ got off because the homicide couldn't be proven bard but could be proven by preponderance. OJ denied the homicide. Rittenhouse doesn't deny homicide, he asserts a legal excuse and was acquitted on that ground, and there is tape of each instance from at least 3 angles. You'll find that by a preponderance standard self defense is just as obvious. You'll also find that irrelevant issues, like him punching a girl which you would like to use to poison the jury, don't come in.
Do whatever you want to do, but the fact remains Rittenhouse was only feet away from his targets. If he was shooting people 10' and greater from him, it would hardly be self defense.
Again: You want me to get you "trained riflemen" missing from 10' or under? You won't be excoriated for admitting 6 of 8 shots hitting their mark in extremis, from a kid with zero training and only 100 rounds downrange with the weapon so no muscle memory, is pretty good performance all told. Same with restraining himself at the end.
2nd time, do whatever, but if you refuse to accept the taped footage of how close Rittenhouse was, then that's your problem.
No one has contested the distance dear. Don't tell stories now. If you refuse to accept that being close doesn't negate good performance under hard conditions from an untrained, unpracticed individual, being praise worthy for their demonstration of skill and discernment, then that's your problem.
Are you familiar with the Tueller drill? Or have any idea how common it is for lawful self defense shootings to have happened over distances greater than 10'?
He doesn't care, he just can't be seen saying the kid is a decent shot because that would be wrongthink
Point remains that in this trial it had to be beyond reasonable doubt, and it remains so it doesn't work like that in a civil case. You're not responding to this. OJ has nothing to do with it.
Arguing with normal, educated people on topics you don’t understand is funny, arguing with a lawyer about the law is ******* hysterical.
I looked up Tueller drill and here I read from wiki MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot. I remember the episode, but I did not remember the name. I will cede to 20', but anything else is crap. In addition, Rittenhouse has to not be facing them. Because if he is facing them, at 20', I will my old point in the next sentence, it is a dead aim. Now all that said...., Rittenhouse, alone, a target, allowed them to get that close. !!!!! He didn't belong there !!!!
Grosskreutz was lucky the bone wasn’t hit or he wouldn’t have a hand to hold another illegally carried handgun.
