Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course they do.
But what's to say that the next jury won't face the same political pressure as this one?
It makes no sense.
LOL
BREAKING: Rittenhouse defense team asks for a ‘mistrial with prejudice’ after prosecutors withheld evidence [UPDATED]
The Rittenhouse defense team is set to ask for a mistrial with prejudice this morning after it was revealed that the prosecution didn’t share a high def video with the defense until after arg…therightscoop.com
Last time I checked, every time the defense has asked for a mistrial, it's been with prejudice, which means Kyle couldn't be tried again.
Even if it was a mistrial without prejudice, there's a good possibility the DA's office wouldn't choose to prosecute again after the debacle this trial has been.
There's evidence Rosenbaum didn't threaten Rittenhouse earlier. And what Rosenbaum threw at Rittenhouse was a plastic bag with socks, an empty water bottle, toothpaste and discharge papers. And up until Rittenhouse pointed his gun, Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse with unknown intentions, seemingly provoked by Rittenhouse pointing his gun moments earlier at Ziminski. Then when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum was within his right to defend his own life from someone threatening him with a "lethal weapon."Listen. Try to follow along. I’m not trying to convince you that I would do nothing. If you’ve already chased me and thrown and object at me and threatened to kill me and are lunging at me, you bet I’ll react.
but here, by the time Rittenhouse raises the rifle, he cannot be provoking Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum has already taken his nearly final actions on Earth. He is already driving toward Rittenhouse and gets shut IN that process.
once again, the provocation which is prohibited is the kind that elicits a REACTION from the “victim.” The consequence of the reaction can’t be used by the shooter. Rittenhouse can’t say “I shot him in self defense” because of what he was doing — IF what Rosenbaum was doing was provoked by Rittenhouse.
What Rosenbaum was doing was already done, he was chasing and driving or diving at Rittenhouse. It was only then that Rittenhouse leveled the gun and fired.
Rittenhouse couldn’t have “provoked” Rosenbaum to lunge “because” the gun has been raised or pointed. Rosenbaum was already doing the conduct that required Rittenhouse to defend himself.
Why, if the video corroborates Rittenhouse's testimony that he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum?
The pursuit and the throwing of the object (which was not preserved for evidence and the contents of which we will never know) and the death threats all came at the defendant before he raised the weapon.There's evidence Rosenbaum didn't threaten Rittenhouse earlier. And what Rosenbaum threw at Rittenhouse was a plastic bag with socks, an empty water bottle, toothpaste and discharge papers. And up until Rittenhouse pointed his gun, Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse with unknown intentions, seemingly provoked by Rittenhouse pointing his gun moments earlier at Ziminski. Then when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum was within his right to defend his own life from someone threatening him with a "lethal weapon."
And the provocation occurred before Rosenbaum lunged. The lunge appears to be the result of Rittenhouse when he first pointed his gun at Rosenbaum about 3-4 seconds before the lunge.
But one of the defense attorneys asked for a mistrial without prejudice in the open courtroom about an hour ago.
I'm flabbergasted.
I agree,andbut this is a gamble on the defense side.
The only thing I can think of is that this was a verbal request, while the 'with prejudice' was a written motion. I'm assuming written motions hold more weight than verbal motions do.
The death threats were proven false and a witness testified to what was in the bag.The pursuit and the throwing of the object (which was not preserved for evidence and the contents of which we will never know) and the death threats all came at the defendant before he raised the weapon.
The problem you have (whether you see it or not or admit it or not) is simply that: Rosenbaum provoked the Rittenhouse response. Not the other way around.
Rittenhouse hadn’t done shit to Rosenbaum. But at the crucial moment, Rittenhouse showed that by the evidence he had legit & reasonable reason to fear Rosenbaum. Self defense.
Why? It means this case isn't the slam dunk you thought it was.View attachment 565423
I find this reaction puzzling...
Did he? I was not aware of that. Was that about the crappy video?
Pretty much everything about a criminal trial is a gamble. If you don't have some gambler in you, you don't become a trial attorney.
Can’t change video recordingsLast time I checked, every time the defense has asked for a mistrial, it's been with prejudice, which means Kyle couldn't be tried again.
Even if it was a mistrial without prejudice, there's a good possibility the DA's office wouldn't choose to prosecute again after the debacle this trial has been.
Stop lying. You have no idea if that software was even used on the video.Yep.
The defense is raising an issue with how the state supposedly gave the defense an altered copy of the drone footage. The state had an HD version and gave the defense the SD (the crappy video) version.
And the state's attorney has supposedly been caught with video editing software on his laptop, Handbrake they call it.
Don't know what you're trying to say here, but If you believe that Kyle pointed his gun at some point at yellow pants guy, then produce evidence of such....Rittenhouse pointed his gun at YellowPants guy, though there no indication Rittenhouse saw that.
But then Rittenhouse did see him point his gun at Ziminski. And then of course, he saw Rittenhouse point his gun at him.
