if you listen to Duane, he says? implies? (I haven't seen it in a while) that the police basically cannot _help_ you when it comes to that, it would be hearsay or something

they _can_ testify about confessions

The "dont talk to police" i have shown it to a few people, vid is 100% right on...sad thing is just wish i could follow such easy advice.

"Dont talk to the cops" highly implies "you've" really fucked this one up and dont need to implicate yourself in further liability.

it that if the police promise you something you dont writing that cant testify they said it makes it hearsay.. funny whatever else you do say will be used against you. its weird what sound or feel right could be the death nail in your case. so just dont say anything till you have lawyer

ya kinda be he makes very good points

or the police f up and their going to cya themself

Yes it happens and a lot more then what you would think

@osok yea I mean if you got a law professor and a veteran detective telling you the same thing...probably best to heed those words. I show that video a lot too

Speaking of don't talk

apparently Rittenhouse talked to The Washington Post and pretty much admitted that he had his friend perform a straw purchase to buy him a rifle

...how and why did his lawyers let him be interviewed by The Washington Post and admit to a straw purchase taking place?

Because they are incompetent.

(to be fair I haven't read the article or seen the interview)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/11/19/kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-interview/?arc404=true

In my queue.

<mean words about his lawyers>

ok lets say there is a straw purchase what if anything dose that have to do with his case. I look at this as two different cases altogether and try n to tie them two together would be a waist of time. Or possibly defense wants this info for some weird double jeopardy thing down the road if they win the trial case.

So hypothetical question about this case...if there was no video for this case how close would the rest evidence be to showing what happened (with video) Also would this case have completely different out come (no video)

@osok, you just advanced to level 3!

We wouldn't be able to speculate with any accuracy. Keep in mind, however, the lack of evidence favors defendants, but witness testimony also could be extremely biased for obvious reasons.

With the absence of evidence, it would be a tossup between playing witnesses to the jury. I'm no legal expert though.

Generally speaking, absence of evidence is favorable to defendants, but it's not a rule and it comes with a ton of caveats and nuance.

It's too easy to wrongly convict people in the existing system.

In this case, however, he opened fire on a left leaning crowd, the ones famous for shouting ACAB and then desperatly calling 911 to scream for help followed by a lawsuit where they sue the police for bigotry.

Im pretty sure if there was no video, commies would have done what they do best. Coordination of lies.

Needless to say, I wouldn't envy any Criminal Defense lawyer representing Rittenhouse if there were not documented video evidence.

Because they'd have their work cut out for them.

Oh, I disagree. Losing battles are the most glorious.

Remember David Crockett and Wallace Hartley?

Keep in mind, you're talking about a 17 year old seeing the rest of his life behind bars if convicted.

oh, indeed.

But he did try to assist criminals, you know.

And yes, I made much worse decisions at 17.

So did many of us probably.

But to bring it back onto the case; he fired in self defense only. That is a very American right. A coordinated lie would change that in absence of video-evidence.

So he caught a break on that one.

need to get a gun cam

I dont like things that runs on batteries, but, yeah. I want one of those FLIR ones with a memory stick. (for different purposes)

Lol ominous

Come on! Dont make me look bad! Im a competing sports shooter, you donkey.