Hmm, so they actually ARE going with the “She was of Legal age, so prove it was forced and that Andrew KNEW it was forced” route. Exhibit A for the defense: She’s smiling in that picture of the two of them.*

I’d like to think that if the supreme court did go “Yep, looks like they are right, constitution doesn’t prohibit what they are doing”. Something prohibiting it would rather quickly become the 28th amendment.

Agreed. I feel the risk of alienating the jurors is probably a bigger risk, but if it simply becomes standard practice, that risk becomes largely nonexistent as both sides are assumed to be doing it, so the alienation is equal.

From what I’ve read of the Trial, I’m not seeing how the prosecution is going to pull off a guilty verdict even if the Jurors aren’t biased. The testimony of the one witness saying Rosenbaum was hyperaggressive and saying he’d kill any of them he caught alone (Apparently right next to Rittenhouse) is pretty damning to…

And you know everyone on that jury has either Twitter, Facebook, or some other racist online filing cabinet.

Or didn’t want to get out.

What did they cite the driver for? My guess is there has to be an objective driver error for them to cite on the spot. E.g. speeding, crossing the white line, etc. “Failure to control speed” is subjective.

Vehicle vs. vehicle accidents have a whole lot of extra protection that bicyclists don’t, and are thus rarely fatal. They also (typically) have a much smaller DeltaV when they do collide, giving more time to react and resulting in less impact.

Because cycling infrastructure comes at the direct expense of driving infrastructure. Bicycle lanes eliminate traffic lanes (or parking), making life worse for MANY more people than they help.

The area I live in a few years back (in California) passed a law basically making it:

The linked article somewhat answers this:

Everybody has the right to a competent defense, and somebody has got to provide that defense.

Because he’s famous, so it’s good advertising.

“tackle difficult cases in the interest of justice,” and “fight for individuals whose rights have been violated by the criminal justice system.”

What’s worse. A clean quick execution, or cutting off somebodies arms, legs, gauging their eyes out, but making sure they live to die of old age?  Murder isn’t the worst thing you can do to somebody.

Eh.

Please note the total erasure of the impregnating parties from this picture.

Yes and no. From what I understand their defense for the actual shooting is that it was self defense: Ahmaud went for the gun and the shooter was afraid Ahmaud would gain control of it and shoot him. Which.. Maybe? I don’t know, I haven’t watched the video, but I have heard it described as they were struggling over…

As far as I can tell, in Georgia Burglary (entering a structure with intent to commit felony or a theft) is itself a felony, and doesn’t require the theft to exceed any particular monetary value. It doesn’t even require the theft to actually occur or be attempted. E.g. I sneak into your house through a door you forgot…

Yes, barring some surprise footage of the Ahmaud stuffing a bunch of copper wire in his pockets, they don’t have anything near reasonable suspicion.