Your objection to the formation of that code-phrase is duly noted.
No, I think it's genuinely not evidence. With the percentage of rapes that don't go reported alongside claims like these that seem questionable at best, it's hard to draw any strong correlation between self-reported experiences, particularly lack of self-reported experiences, and actual events.
From the same people who brought us "Let's go Brandon."
It tends to work better when it’s written rather than said because then you can sub out the see and you for c and u to make the joke work.
Would a reasonable person think a thing more or less likely if they know a particular thing that is more probative than prejudicial? I think a reasonable person would look at a civil case with a fact pattern arising from a 20ish year old unreported incident should, however slightly, lean in a particular direction.
Welcome to
Darmok on the Ocean. Shaka, when the walls fell. The River Termac, in winter.
You win if you can arrange any group of words to make a sexual allusion, a surreptitious insult, or a pot smoking reference.
The video of the Rittenhouse incidents was released publicly that showed clearly it was self-defense. Even the 3rd victim that the prosecutor put on the stand helped Rittenhouse's case. That is how open/shut the case was but you kept arguing the jury was biased and all this bullshit.
Hmm. It didn't, though, did it? It didn't show how he travelled specifically to the state looking for a fight.
Really? That narrative, you're still pushing. Firstly, it doesn't matter if you go looking for a fight, it's still self-defense if it's self-defense. And the defense attorney would just object to it even being brought up during trial because it has no relevance. And you claim I don't know stuff about the legality of things... Secondly, he didn't travel to another state, one of his parents lives there in that town (and IIRC, he also had a job there), that was his community.
You don't. You just wrote a paragraph of complete waffle, tautology and legal nonsense. That's what that is.
I've been a juror on a criminal case, that's how it works. We based our decision off of probably less than 1% of what was presented to us (in a whole week) because that's all that mattered in the case. You're litrerally arguing against clear video evidence that it was self-defense. You are the one not making any kind of sense.
My man, having been on jury duty is not an accreditation or mark of notable expertise.
Self-defense and murder have simple definitions, you don't have to be some legal expert to understand basic court precedings. And then you have video evidence showing the actual incidents. It's a super basic case that doesn't require legal expertise.
