I think the term. [gun violence] is unfair. It implies that 1] if guns didn’t exist in the US, then less violence would happen.

I’ve seen no evidence to back up that idea.

A national museum, the National Building Museum, is making a display about “gun violence”. This display will show histories + artifacts of US people who were murdered using guns.
This display or exhibit is called: “The Gun Violence Memorial Project”.

I think this is unfair.

Where is the display about murder with knives, called, “the Knife Violence Project” ?

Where is the display about murder done with cars, called,, “the Cars Violence Project” ?

Where is the display about murder done with fists, called, “the Fists Violence Project” ?

I think that if civilian GUNS are banned, then people will find other items to do murders with.
The same is true with all violence.

I think this “gun violence” museum display will give people the wrong idea, the idea that if 1] no US (civilian) people owned guns, then 2] the amount of violence, or violent crime in the US, will be less.

I think this museum display can be used by people who want to [unfairly outlaw guns from the US people].

Please contact your Congress members and tell them you don’t want this display.

Better get used to it.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-4-two-state-blunders-create-opportunity-for-the-defense/

Everything I know about the law, I learned from reading AesopSpouse’s textbooks & watching Perry Mason, but I’m pretty sure the first rule is: make absolutely certain that you don’t have any surprises on the witness stand.

This is now two state’s witnesses who aren’t letting the prosecutor drive their testimony.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/11/04/just-a-reminder-about-the-rittenhouse-trial/

Good on them.
As to why Binger didn’t know they were going to say what they said on the stand: did they mislead him, or did he not listen to them during pre-trial preparation, or did he skip the prep?
Maybe some irate underling will leak the answer some day.

But, I thought there was a pre-trial phase in which each side gets to question witnesses before the trial so that there wouldn’t be any “surprises.” Or at least you get to question your own witnesses before trial.

So, if that is the case why didn’t the prosecutor get this straight before going to trial? Or were they so confident that they had a case that they didn’t do their homework? Or perhaps they thought the jury would buy anything they are selling?

or I am just not sure how the law works.

If he gets off, all hell could break loose.

For they, in their heart of hearts, know better.