⚖️Law & Order Crimes and trials

It's especially dumb when you consider that "crossing state lines," as a minor or not, with a firearm or not, is not a crime. Not federally and not under the laws of either Illinois or Wisconsin. So even if it were true, it's of no legal significance.
 
DocZaius said:
It's especially dumb when you consider that "crossing state lines," as a minor or not, with a firearm or not, is not a crime. Not federally and not under the laws of either Illinois or Wisconsin. So even if it were true, it's of no legal significance.
Click to expand...

Even more dumb when it's completely irrelevant to self defense/murder charges.

Even if it was against the law, his sentence for that would be insignificant compared to the real charges. They're acting like that be akin to getting Capone for tax evasion
 
DocZaius said:
It's especially dumb when you consider that "crossing state lines," as a minor or not, with a firearm or not, is not a crime. Not federally and not under the laws of either Illinois or Wisconsin. So even if it were true, it's of no legal significance.
Click to expand...

Yeah I wondered if there were any legal implications here and of course there’s not
 
Court having discussion with attorneys right now regarding jury instructions.

He FINALLY dismissed the gun possession charge. Agreed with the defense that minor-in-possession statute did not apply.

He also refused to give defense-requested instruction on the blurry photo that the prosecution claims is evidence of provocation, but cautioned that he thinks there's a risk that if the defense is correct that the technology used to enhance the photo fundamentally altered it, the appellate court would likely throw out any conviction based on it.
 
Judge still giving prosecution shit about the photo. Statute says it needs to be pointed at a person for provocation instruction to stick, but even accepting prosecution's argument that photo shows rifle pointed up, it doesn't show it being pointed at any particular person.
 
He's still giving provocation instruction, but not a more specific instruction that pointing a gun at someone is provocation.
 
Not watching the closing, but my impression from the live comments at Legal Insurrection is that the defense is letting the prosecution get away with a lot of garbage. Lots of "if you bring a gun to a fistfight, you can't claim self-defense" and other such nonsense. It's baffling to me - that's a blatant misrepresentation of the law and he shouldn't be allowed to argue that to the jury.
 
DocZaius said:
Not watching the closing, but my impression from the live comments at Legal Insurrection is that the defense is letting the prosecution get away with a lot of garbage. Lots of "if you bring a gun to a fistfight, you can't claim self-defense" and other such nonsense. It's baffling to me - that's a blatant misrepresentation of the law and he shouldn't be allowed to argue that to the jury.
Click to expand...

You’re asking to get assaulted, doc, wearing those shorts and tube socks
 
So a kid that shouldn’t have been walking around w/ a AR at a shitfest, shoots a pedo asswipe and another dipshit that attacked someone with a gun? Someone should have shot all 3 & cleaned up the gene pool…
 
A summary of the DA's closing argument, with my commentary in parentheses:

  • You can't use self-defense if you have a gun (yes you can)
  • Being scared is not a legal justification (actually, it is - in fact, it's the cornerstone of self-defense)
  • Rosenbaum was such a nice guy (he wasn't)
  • Rosenbaum was a midget so he was no threat (possibly - let's ask vd)
  • Rosenbaum didn't make any threats (except the prosecution's own witnesses said he did)
  • Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz are heroes (they're not)
  • .223 FMJ rounds will stop a tank, they're just that powerful (LOL)
 
I like how the prosecutor was waving the gun around, pointing it at people, all the time with his finger on the trigger.
 
Irish Mike said:
I like how the prosecutor was waving the gun around, pointing it at people, all the time with his finger on the trigger.
Click to expand...

I saw someone comment that this is the most American of trials.
 
Juggs said:
.223 rounds stop a tank? Theyd make a dent, that’s it. Why else would we have anti-tank artillery?

Lies and misinformation, but it’s cool because liberals believe it.
Click to expand...

I was exaggerating but he did say something along the lines of it being able to penetrate body armor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top