Quote (Crunkt @ Nov 4 2021 11:59pm)
You do understand that Rosenbaums history has nothing to do with any sort of justification for him being shot right?
It actually does. The judge covered the nuance of the precedent in self defense claims and what is allowed into evidence. That was the big legal exchange where he specifically called out Jeffrey Toobin yesterday
Circumstantial evidence of the decedent's violent behavior is admissable under the narrow exceptions of the uncommunicated threat rule, from S. v Baldwin;
"It is now generally recognized that in trials for homicide uncommunicated threats are admissible... where they tend to throw light on the occurrence and aid the jury to a correct interpretation of the same, and there is testimony ultra sufficient to carry the case to the jury tending to show that the killing may have been done from a principle of self-preservation,"....
They have a limited window to show Rosenbaum was a violent person, mostly around the night in question, even if Rittenhouse himself was not present for the threats (although he was also directly death-threatened by Rosenbaum, so we're just piling on top of that). It doesn't admit Rosenbaum's entire criminal history or convictions into the trial on its own however, but the prosecution can still open that door if they call Rosenbaum's girlfriend who is listed as a witness, but as far as I can tell she is a witness to literally nothing
but Rosenbaum's history. As she wasn't at the protests or shooting, and she had a restraining order against him for beating her