do some vigilante shit

A few thoughts:

The point is, if either of these would have killed or maimed Rittenhouse, there would be no trial.

The part where Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse w/o any apparent provocation, whereby Rittenhouse had every right to legally defend himself?

Because they are the one that lived to tell their story?

Considering how many people are going on and on about it in this very comments section, when numerous people have pointed out the judges full statements...

1. He lived ~20 miles away. He had friends and relatives there. It may have been across state lines, but it was HIS stomping grounds.

Sure. Firing a gun is “Deadly Force”. But, again, since gun shot wounds are survivable, (and, you know, people also miss) shooting at somebody doesn’t mean you know you are going to kill them.

I don’t think anyone is saying it wasn’t “ok” for him to go...

To me, the amazing thing is how people are calling the judge biased and having a double standard when he then told the defense they can only call the deceased “arsonists/rioters/looters” if they prove it.

As far as I’m aware, the prosecution has to give the defense everything they find during their investigation, so presumably it *all* would have come out. The Grosskreutz stuff is just an obvious example.

1. Gun shot wounds are frequently survivable.

No idea. But I see the argument against those terms iff the defense is arguing some form of self defense, which, I believe, usually isn’t the case. If I’m arguing it was an accident or that somebody else did it, the deceased was still a victim. Maybe just not mine. But if I’m arguing he attacked me, then my entire defe…

Ok, I guess, except...

1. Which is possibly why he’ll be found guilty of the gun charge, but is completely irrelevant for all the other charges. Having the foresight to bring a visible means to defend yourself in case you are attacked doesn’t somehow negate your right to defend yourself if somebody chooses to ignore that obvious deterrent…

In defense of the prosecution, odds are that testimony would have come out eventually. The defense clearly wouldn’t have just sat on that picture they had showing Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before being shot if the prosecution hadn’t brought him up as a witness.

The whole “prepaying” depreciation is what’s so weird. Particularly 75% depreciation for what, I assume, is mostly real estate. Which tends to go UP not down.

I’d be curious what percentage of these patients are college/military. (or similar occupation where one typically stays a significant distance away from ones legal place of residence)

Based on the arguments, I think a lot of it in the Arbery trial is going to come down to how:

Well, that’s... amazing. One of the two presumably slam dunk charges, the curfew violation, (which, to be realistic, is only like a $200 fine) was dismissed by the judge basically because the prosecution forgot to try to prove it before resting their case.