I just wish it wasn't so expensive for people.

Then don't come to Texas!

I'd expect the same for any time police have to shoot someone, they too should be going to court.

Or at least have a grand jury determine if they should.

Rather than a DA.

It doesn't always go to court but if it is reasonably questionable, we should want it examined in a court of law. Kinda like voter fraud.

Like, everyone should want that for all kinds of reasons.

I think Rittenhouse's case should have first gone to a grand jury tbh

Agreed

I think the fact the DA is in charge of prosecuting officers is... questionable to say the least.

It should be handled by the grand jury imho.

Too open to corruption otherwise.

And even with a grand jury, it's still open to corruption.

I still want to see the ballistics report on the first shooting. It is not clear from the video that Kyle was the shooter. Not saying he wasn't, just that it isn't clear.

I have no doubt it was him that shot and killed Rosenbaum.

If a jury sees the ballistics report, we will too.

As I'm sure the coroner didn't either, which is why they didn't really offer much of a statement suggesting otherwise.

Many believe that. There is often a quarter inch gap between what people believe and reality.

They do check the projectile type and damage inflicted.

Kyle was using very specific ammo.

If you say so.

(It's the reason Gaige's arm ended up the way it did)

And why it was so lethal.

It was purpose-built rapid expansion fragmentation ammo for SD.

All of these things are establishable through due process. I'm not 100% sure what makes anyone want to preclude that but I recognize that some do.

Like, it goes beyond your typical 5.56 JHP round.

This was more like RIP ammo.

So it was likely SP ammo.

Either that or extremely light JHP.

Doesn't it have to go the other way around?

the prosecutor has to prove that he wasn't?

at least from what I remember from reading Branca

Don't believe so no.

As self-defense is an affirmative defense.

affirmative defense just means you must admit the to the murder

but once you take the self defense route, it is on the prosecutor to prove you wrong

that was my understanding of Branca

maybe I'll put it out next weekend and give it another read

Affirmative defense means you did something but were justified in doing something, iirc.

google says affirmative defense does _not_ necessarily mean the burden of proof is on the defense

if self defense required the burden of proof on the defendant, it would be almost always useless