New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
112
Fighting for Justice (media.scored.co)
posted 1 year ago by diogenesOTarch on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +112Score on mirror )
26 comments
Permalink
Mirrored from scored.co
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
AgnosticTemplar on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
>Oh, and the judge for the Rittenhouse trial disallowed any mention of Rosenbaum's lifelong criminality, being interned at a mental facility before suddenly being released the afternoon of the day he was shot and somehow acquiring transportation there even though the hospital was over an hour away and he never resided in Kenosha and had no reason to be there, or really any facts at all.

Which wasn't in of wasn't the incorrect thing to do. Kyle would have had no way of knowing any of this. Like if I kicked down the door of a random house, shot the occupant, it wouldn't absolve me if it turns out the random guy I killed happened to be a serial killer or something. "The bastard deserved it" isn't a valid legal defense. That said of course, everything else about the case being legit self defense and the prosecutors being subversive faggots applies. Were there ever a trial for whoever was responsible for brining the recently released mental patient to a goddamn riot, that info would absolutely be relevant.
Permalink Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
6
RoulerBleu on scored.co
1 year ago 6 points (+0 / -0 / +6Score on mirror ) 1 child
The reason for not allowing the defense to bring-up that Rosenbaum raped little kids is because the judge assume most normal people will think ''I'm glad Kyle shot the pedo rapist dead, self-defense or not''.

I think this is wrong. Let the pedo-rapist's character shine in court.

Raping little kids absolutely is a reflection of moral character thus an indication Rosenbaum's character is consistent with immoral violent acts onto others.
Permalink Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
3
AgnosticTemplar on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 3 children
This works both ways, though. If one of us were ever accosted by a random nigger, if the prosecutor could use the character of the victim in court 'most normal people' would say *vile racists* like us deserved to be beaten by niggers, even unprovoked.
Permalink Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
2
RoulerBleu on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
The difference is the court will not withold the information if it helps a black murderer walk free to share it.
Permalink Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
0
AgnosticTemplar on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
True.
Permalink Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
1
HegelianDichotomy on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
The facts of the matter should only be pertinent to the matter. It makes sense to limit the scope of the trial in this way. The same judge ruled Kyle's previous comments while watching a dollar general getting looted by niggers inadmissible for the same reason, but that didn't stop the prosecution from trying to bring it up. That resulted in him excusing the jury, but we probably remember that.
Permalink Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
1
TakenusernameA on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
The difference is that we dont go around beating and attacking nogs, whereas this jew already committed multiple counts of a heinous crime.
Permalink Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
Toast message