Odd, Great Concern Of Riots IF Rittenhouse Acquitted, But None If He Is Convicted

Why is that??

Link:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ky...s-live-updates

Should be the other way around. And if there were 1000's of us with AR's there that night, we would not be in this position now. Time to start standing up fellas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirginiaCat

Should be the other way around. And if there were 1000's of us with AR's there that night, we would not be in this position now. Time to start standing up fellas.

---

Which is exactly what it is going to take, eventually. That said, when will it be too late?

If you believe like the leftists and go burn things and bring guns into the streets (remember RIttenhouse shot a guy with a Glock pointed at his head), that's a "mostly peaceful protest" and you are just expressing your rights.

If you don't agree with them and you go out into the streets, guns or not, you're a domestic terrorist trying to subvert democracy.

It's hard to keep track of the language when the Ministry of Truth keeps changing it around. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Armored cars and guardsmen on the street is jury intimidation. “Convict or burn.”

This Jury has already been out longer than it should have. Open and Shut Self Defense. Not even any way to argue it.

It depends on how the jury interprets their instructions. Among other things.
I agree that this is, and always has been a clear case of self defense. Period. But after watching this case unfold in court, (and this is just my opinion of what I saw, and I am noting here now that I did not watch the trial in its entire length) I believe that the State did not once make a good argument for this trial ever having been brought into court to begin with. And it's Wisconsin, so just like any other State in this Union, I would wager that at least one juror has no earthly idea, even after having heard all of the testimony and having seen the evidence provided of what to think, because, yes folks, even intellectually hampered people can serve on a jury. I don't know exactly how the Courts in the State of Wisconsin administers jury selection, but if it's anything like Florida, then there is always a chance that there will be at least one person on the jury who can't make a decision if his life depended on it. And never mind that it's someone else's life that's on the line here.
JMHO, but I believe, based upon what I saw, that the State did everything it could possibly do to muddy up the waters after its star witness sunk their case against Rittenhouse with his admission that he did indeed point a loaded gun at Rittenhouse while he was on the ground that night.
This jury is going to convict Rittenhouse of something. Just sit back and watch.

What ever happened to "a preponderance of the evidence", and "what would a reasonable person believe"?? If this jury convicts Rittenhouse, then that standard doesn't exist in Wisconsin. JMHO.

They know the political situation. The jury will want to convict of something even a token just to be able to say he was "convicted". That's not justice, but it's not the first time justice bowed to the mob.

This case still has a good shot to end in a mistrial with judicial prejudice or a directed verdict.

Pretty good read that gives perspective on the 3 "victims" in this case. All 3 of which had criminal histories and were not good people. They were all white, and all out there for a riot, not a political protest.

The prosecution has had the gall to suggest in court that Rittenhouse should have just taken a beating, that it was not right to shoot a gun to protect himself from being beaten. This is a state prosecutor.

What the f kind of place is Wisconsin running that he thinks that? That there's no right to self defense in this country? That if some bunch of criminals come after you to beat you and put a gun in your face you're supposed to take it?

Not sure what planet that thinking comes from, but clearly I was born on a different one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

This case still has a good shot to end in a mistrial with judicial prejudice or a directed verdict.

---

Yeah, typically when the President of the nation refers to the accused as a "white Supremacist" without any evidence of such, that could prejudice a jury

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Pretty good read that gives perspective on the 3 "victims" in this case. All 3 of which had criminal histories and were not good people. They were all white, and all out there for a riot, not a political protest.

The prosecution has had the gall to suggest in court that Rittenhouse should have just taken a beating, that it was not right to shoot a gun to protect himself from being beaten. This is a state prosecutor.

What the f kind of place is Wisconsin running that he thinks that? That there's no right to self defense in this country? That if some bunch of criminals come after you to beat you and put a gun in your face you're supposed to take it?

Not sure what planet that thinking comes from, but clearly I was born on a different one.

---

Clearly since he brought a gun, he was asking for it. Much like the girl who wears sexy closet a nightclub...clearly she would be asking for it as well. Just that the "it" is something different

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Pretty good read that gives perspective on the 3 "victims" in this case. All 3 of which had criminal histories and were not good people. They were all white, and all out there for a riot, not a political protest.

The prosecution has had the gall to suggest in court that Rittenhouse should have just taken a beating, that it was not right to shoot a gun to protect himself from being beaten. This is a state prosecutor.

What the f kind of place is Wisconsin running that he thinks that? That there's no right to self defense in this country? That if some bunch of criminals come after you to beat you and put a gun in your face you're supposed to take it?

Not sure what planet that thinking comes from, but clearly I was born on a different one.

---

Mostly Germans that emigrated here after the 1st world war. The were never allowed to have guns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Pretty good read that gives perspective on the 3 "victims" in this case. All 3 of which had criminal histories and were not good people. They were all white, and all out there for a riot, not a political protest.

The prosecution has had the gall to suggest in court that Rittenhouse should have just taken a beating, that it was not right to shoot a gun to protect himself from being beaten. This is a state prosecutor.

What the f kind of place is Wisconsin running that he thinks that? That there's no right to self defense in this country? That if some bunch of criminals come after you to beat you and put a gun in your face you're supposed to take it?

Not sure what planet that thinking comes from, but clearly I was born on a different one.

---

The prosecutors have been over the top, including sticking in a Roadhouse meme about not taking a gun to a fist fight. Claiming the presence of a firearm disqualified Rittenhouse from using a self defense claim, etc.

The use of the AI modified drone footage and not providing it to the defense makes a mistrial with prejudice fairly guaranteed.

I’m not taking a beating before I exercise my right to defend myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

I’m not taking a beating before I exercise my right to defend myself.

---

I'll be really clear. I have every intention of bringing a gun to a knife fight, and being in the South I have every right to do so. I conceal carry, and that's pretty much the point of conceal carry. I'll be damned if some punk lowlife criminal gets to beat me up with a skateboard or point a gun in my face and I just take it.

Carrying around an AR-15 in the middle of a riot is sure a message, and maybe even provocative, but it's not illegal, at least not where I live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The prosecutors have been over the top, including sticking in a Roadhouse meme about not taking a gun to a fist fight. Claiming the presence of a firearm disqualified Rittenhouse from using a self defense claim, etc.

The use of the AI modified drone footage and not providing it to the defense makes a mistrial with prejudice fairly guaranteed.

---

The judge won't dismiss with prejudice and preclude a retrial, but he could declare a mistrial. I doubt it though b/c of the political environment. He'll try to get a verdict if he can make it work, and then the defense can appeal.

This jury deliberation is taking way too long. Way too long. This should have already been decided and made public. So, at this point, I am kind of feeling that this jury is going to convict this young man of something he did not do and force this up to the next Court. Which IS NOT how this is supposed to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

This jury deliberation is taking way too long. Way too long. This should have already been decided and made public. So, at this point, I am kind of feeling that this jury is going to convict this young man of something he did not do and force this up to the next Court. Which IS NOT how this is supposed to work.

---

I served on a jury years ago and was elected foreman. Me being elected foreman should give you and idea about the mental capacity of the remaining jurors on the panel. The case we worked on was a malpractice case and the prosecution did a terrific job of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty of malpractice. The judge gave us our instructions, which included the dollar amounts we would be allowed to award the plaintiff. $50,000.00, $500,000.00, $1,000,000.00, and $2,000,000.00 were our choices. It was clear from the testimony of 3 different experts that it would cost the plaintiff something over the $2,000,000.00 mark to have surgeons to repair the crap work that had been done by the defendant.

We were shuffled off to the jury room and I got every one settled in and asked them if they had any questions. None were asked, so I handed out some slips of paper and pencils and told them to vote G for guilty and NG for not guilty. The votes came back 100% Guilty.
I thought this was gonna be a slam dunk so I handed out slips of paper for the penalty phase and reminded them they had to choose from one of the 4 choices assigned by the judge. I gave everyone sufficient time to write down their number and then asked for their ballots back. 10 votes for $2,000,000.00, one for $1,000,000.00 and one for $500,000.00. Judge had told us we had to be in 100% agreement on the penalty award. Well crap.

I spent about 30 minutes in discussion and asking for questions and set about getting another vote. 11 $2,000,000.00 and 1 for $500,000.00. We went thru 3 more discussion and votes but everyone stood pat. I wanted to get this over with that day cause we were working on the 3rd day as it was. I polled the group to see if everyone was willing to reveal their vote so we could focus on getting to a finished verdict. Everyone agreed. Around and round we went and we were unable to convince the 70+ year old lady that not only was surgery expensive , but that she could not buy a new car for $10,000.00 nor could she replace the roof on her house for $500.00.

She finally gave in at 3:30 so that we could end our service that day. Her hang up was that she did not want the insurance company to pay the plaintiff more than she deserved. I do not know if the jury in this case is all in for guilty or not guilty and there is some other quirk they have to look at or not, but it does happen.

Or they are close to it and one juror is not on board…..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

This jury deliberation is taking way too long. Way too long. This should have already been decided and made public. So, at this point, I am kind of feeling that this jury is going to convict this young man of something he did not do and force this up to the next Court. Which IS NOT how this is supposed to work.

---

Look at it this way. 1/12th of a jury, enough to hang one, is 8.33%.

Does anyone here not agree that at LEAST 10% of this nation's population are complete morons?

So statistically on any jury you're likely to have at least one idiot. If you don't great, you probably will.

If I ever go to jury trial, God Forbid and save me from it, I want a jury of my peers, not just 12 random Americans. My peer group is aging businessmen who have graduate degrees from the School of Hard Knocks, own guns, and think John Wayne and Ronald Reagan should be added to Mt. Rushmore. Do that and I may be OK.

I thought that moron figure was closer to 50%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

It depends on how the jury interprets their instructions. Among other things.
I agree that this is, and always has been a clear case of self defense. Period. But after watching this case unfold in court, (and this is just my opinion of what I saw, and I am noting here now that I did not watch the trial in its entire length) I believe that the State did not once make a good argument for this trial ever having been brought into court to begin with. And it's Wisconsin, so just like any other State in this Union, I would wager that at least one juror has no earthly idea, even after having heard all of the testimony and having seen the evidence provided of what to think, because, yes folks, even intellectually hampered people can serve on a jury. I don't know exactly how the Courts in the State of Wisconsin administers jury selection, but if it's anything like Florida, then there is always a chance that there will be at least one person on the jury who can't make a decision if his life depended on it. And never mind that it's someone else's life that's on the line here.
JMHO, but I believe, based upon what I saw, that the State did everything it could possibly do to muddy up the waters after its star witness sunk their case against Rittenhouse with his admission that he did indeed point a loaded gun at Rittenhouse while he was on the ground that night.
This jury is going to convict Rittenhouse of something. Just sit back and watch.

What ever happened to "a preponderance of the evidence", and "what would a reasonable person believe"?? If this jury convicts Rittenhouse, then that standard doesn't exist in Wisconsin. JMHO.

---

You are so right.

I just cannot get past the point of the young man running away. Twice. To avoid confrontation. By definition, at that point, it is self defense and anyone not able to see or process that is the imbecile you mention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

I served on a jury years ago and was elected foreman. Me being elected foreman should give you and idea about the mental capacity of the remaining jurors on the panel. The case we worked on was a malpractice case and the prosecution did a terrific job of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty of malpractice. The judge gave us our instructions, which included the dollar amounts we would be allowed to award the plaintiff. $50,000.00, $500,000.00, $1,000,000.00, and $2,000,000.00 were our choices. It was clear from the testimony of 3 different experts that it would cost the plaintiff something over the $2,000,000.00 mark to have surgeons to repair the crap work that had been done by the defendant.

We were shuffled off to the jury room and I got every one settled in and asked them if they had any questions. None were asked, so I handed out some slips of paper and pencils and told them to vote G for guilty and NG for not guilty. The votes came back 100% Guilty.
I thought this was gonna be a slam dunk so I handed out slips of paper for the penalty phase and reminded them they had to choose from one of the 4 choices assigned by the judge. I gave everyone sufficient time to write down their number and then asked for their ballots back. 10 votes for $2,000,000.00, one for $1,000,000.00 and one for $500,000.00. Judge had told us we had to be in 100% agreement on the penalty award. Well crap.

I spent about 30 minutes in discussion and asking for questions and set about getting another vote. 11 $2,000,000.00 and 1 for $500,000.00. We went thru 3 more discussion and votes but everyone stood pat. I wanted to get this over with that day cause we were working on the 3rd day as it was. I polled the group to see if everyone was willing to reveal their vote so we could focus on getting to a finished verdict. Everyone agreed. Around and round we went and we were unable to convince the 70+ year old lady that not only was surgery expensive , but that she could not buy a new car for $10,000.00 nor could she replace the roof on her house for $500.00.

She finally gave in at 3:30 so that we could end our service that day. Her hang up was that she did not want the insurance company to pay the plaintiff more than she deserved. I do not know if the jury in this case is all in for guilty or not guilty and there is some other quirk they have to look at or not, but it does happen.

---

Dan, you hit a very important point as it comes to civil cases. Many people on jury duty tend to come from pools of individuals that are retires or not otherwise employed and may not have a grasp on today's economics.

Maybe the same in Criminal now that I think about it. I listened to the Judges Jury instructions. I thought they were confusing and in some ways, made it sound like the wall for Self Defense was very high. I did not like them.

And now it's Friday. And the jury has had this case for deliberation since Tuesday? Anybody want to bet how much negotiating is going on to get this over with by the jury amongst themselves right now? Just to be finished and over with? Ahhhhhh, yes, folks, that kind of stuff happens too.
Is that fair to Kyle Rittenhouse? Absolutely not. Especially if it gives the State of Wisconsin its precious guilty conviction in a clear case of self-defense. And even more important, it desecrates the Constitution AND the 2nd Amendment, and it endangers ALL of us throughout this Republic.

Because, you know, what's the difference in an innocent man's freedom and those jurors getting into their pre-Thanksgiving routine without being inconvenienced by this trial?? :sAng_soapbox:

NOT GUILTY ON ALL 5 CHARGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally! Justice Worked!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirginiaCat

NOT GUILTY ON ALL 5 CHARGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally! Justice Worked!

---

:sHa_clap2: :sFl_america2:

Best wishes to the young man as he starts to put his life together.

:sHa_clap2: :sFl_america2:

I am somewhat surprised that it took them four days to find him not guilty on the remaining 5 charges. But at least the trial by a jury of your peers system worked. This time. And as it does "most" of the time.

And it shows that when properly adhered to and correctly administered, the Constitution still works as it should. This is a good day for our Republic! And I agree with Mick, best wishes to this young man and his family as he begins to put his life back together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickintheHam

Best wishes to the young man as he starts to put his life together.

---

Hopefully he's got enough left in him to let his lawyers start a raft of defamation lawsuits. I agree with the Covington Cath kid, go after them. Right up to the PResident himself for calling him a white supremacist. IMO they are all actionable, esp. with a platform as large as a POTUS.