Pretty much this, if he gets convicted it will provide the context that no one on the right should ever do a damned thing outside of their own property/castle doctrine domains. Kinda feels like short of Trump getting publically hanged, I doubt anything will get an equal response to nation wide riots on the right.
Not really, something like 90% of lawyers make basic office-drone money. 50%+ don't even practice law. And of the ones that do do well, like 0.1% work for big firms like mine, and like 80% of the ones who start with us wash out and go to less intense places before they make partner.
He better not. If they convict Rittenhouse, even under duress, it will be a court case against the right of self defense.
The exemptions for a minor are for hunting and target practice.
TBH, the judge should strike all of his testimony from the record and render it as inadmissable.
Jokes aside he's factually guilty of violating WI 948.60.
iirc its how the judge is interpreting how the law is literally written. Basically the judge says due to his understanding a semicolon in the wording of the law is establishing other clauses that must be met for someone like Kyle to be in violation of it due to the fact Kyle was carrying a rifle and not a pistol or "dangerous weapon".
No, thats not a good idea. Instead, he ought to be brought up on perjury charges, and since the truth is a defense, make him own the original statements to get out of it.
I would rather instead that they pull him up and charge him with perjury and not make his testimony inadmissible. Because it's testimony as it stands only actually hurts the state's case not the defense's case because he admitted under oath that he pointed a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse and then got shot for it.
