The jury in the Rittenhouse case has asked to see everything the court has on one of Kyle’s “victims,” Joseph Rosenbaum.

Typically, that kind of request would be tossed right out, but luckily for our side, the judge has allowed anything about any of the rioters to be entered into evidence.

The defense says that’s unfair, since they weren’t allowed to use things about little Kyle, like him celebrating and hanging out with white power people. Not that there’s anything illegal about Mr. Rittenhouse having his own opinions.

As we all now know, Rosenbaum wasn’t a good person. Legal analyst Joe Barron says this may be how the jury ultimately decides:

“Sometimes, you have to weigh what one person did versus who he did it to, and allow some common sense to take hold here. He shot that guy in cold blood. No doubt. But…that guy might have done some really bad stuff some day, and we have a duty to stop that.”

Wisconsin law supersedes the constitution on this, and even though anything the jury may have learned from outside sources that started this line of questioning is fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible, they can still consider the guy’s character if the judge says so in case they’re having a tough time with the whole “beyond a reasonable doubt” thing.

“Juries create doubt all the time,” said a spokesman for Trump, for some reason, “it’s how America beat the Alamo.

Why not, amirite, patriots? At 206 words in, they’ve all clicked a shiny ad and moved on.

God bless America.


No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply