do u normally talk with people u dont care about so often?

that's sad actually.

Yes, if I am bored.



I see that you try very hard. I must have hurt your butt somewhere without realizing it.

ur currently taking low effort bait all over pard, tell me again im trying hard while responding to people claiming homeless can claim a park as their own lol.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Come back to me when you are able to be more entertaining.

Sounds like something a 54 year old black man would say

You are in love with me.

Sounds desparate for attention.

I actually do love attention.

dunno where the prosecution is going with some of this, we'll have to wait and see. i heard some good anti-gun lobby talking points. but that won't be enough to convict lil ritty

which btw is my new rap name

This post was edited by proccy on Nov 4 2021 12:59pm

The legal commentary on rekieta stream is pretty interesting, even if they miss a bit
They keep calling out how this prosecutor is very very clearly asking the same question and the defense could easily ask-and-answered objection any time (besides the hundred other missed objections, like every few seconds)
But in this case its interesting because the witness just keeps batting down what the prosecutor is trying to lead him into and ruining his line of questioning, so the fact the defense is letting him keep digging in rather than objecting is helping out (and this is prosecution witness)

The prosecution wanted this witness to say that nobody was chasing Rittenhouse except Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum may not have been trying to grab the gun or may have any reason for his lunge
The witness kept answering that many people were moving in Rittenhouse's direction whether they were running or walking, many shouting aggressively, and that Rosenbaum was very clearly trying to wrest the gun out of Rittenhouse's hands by grabbing at the barrel ("snout")
Even the one exchange where the witness said he was grabbing for the gun and the prosecution said "well I am suggesting that there may have been other reasons" or something to that effect. You're a prosecutor, he's a witness, you cannot make suggestions on examination, that's for closing arguments. And the defense didn't object and the witness didn't agree. Even a jury not honed in on legal manipulations had to have noticed that it was the lawyer making arguments against the witness's testimony, not conflicting testimony.