Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was KR the one to select the jury numbers?

WTF? I think this may be true.

You people believe anything

And you are utterly humorless.

Trevor Noah is not very funny...

I’m sure he’ll take your opinion into account.

He doesn't. I know one of his writers (also not funny). Life will go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.

m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.

If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.

Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.

I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

Why are none of the rioters held accountable for breaking curfew? Why is one side, rioting, looting and burning allowed be present, but others standing in front of businesses to help keep them from being looted and burned escalating the landscape. [/b]

Because they were fighting for social justice. And the people trying to stop them from rioting, looting and burning are in opposition to social justice - ergo, they are racists.

This really isn’t hard to follow.

Kenosha protestors WERE arrested. By Sept 4 a total of 250.

There was a 29 second video (not allowed into evidence) where Kyle said he wished he had a gun to shoot looters, days before his shot and killed those people.

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So no quick half-day deliberations and acquittal.

Now we're in for a wait.

Yeah, this is depressing.

If it’s a hung jury can the judge call a mistrial with prejudice at that point?

[Anonymous]

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

Are you comparing the Kent State protesters to those who looted and burned Kenosha?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was KR the one to select the jury numbers?

ATFKM? That’s the clerk’s job, not the accused’s. I hope at the very least the jury wasn’t in the room when it happened because that’s really problematic.

But since you can’t appeal an acquittal, this judge can pretty much do whatever he wants to throw the case in Rittenhouse’s favor.

And how does him picking random slips of paper throw it in his favor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

Are you comparing the Kent State protesters to those who looted and burned Kenosha?

The Kenosha protesters were protesting something more serious than the Kent State protesters, but it's a matter of degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

Are you comparing the Kent State protesters to those who looted and burned Kenosha?

The Kenosha protesters were protesting something more serious than the Kent State protesters, but it's a matter of degree.

The Kent State protesters were principled heroes. The Kenosha protesters were actually rioters, looters and common criminals......utter losers and the dregs of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no quick half-day deliberations and acquittal.

Now we're in for a wait.

Yeah, this is depressing.

If it’s a hung jury can the judge call a mistrial with prejudice at that point?

No. Don't know why you expected a quick verdict. Kyle's lawyer gave an awful closing - this isn't the slam dunk self-defense case he thinks it is.

Any reasonable person looking at the totality of what happened is going to feel very uncomfortable letting Kyle off completely. It's just not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was KR the one to select the jury numbers?

ATFKM? That’s the clerk’s job, not the accused’s. I hope at the very least the jury wasn’t in the room when it happened because that’s really problematic.

But since you can’t appeal an acquittal, this judge can pretty much do whatever he wants to throw the case in Rittenhouse’s favor.

And how does him picking random slips of paper throw it in his favor?

People have an emotional reaction to these things on a subconscious level, so it’s a problem if they know Rittenhouse was the one who picked the numbers (even randomly). If they wanted to be picked, they might feel more favorably toward him for picking them. If they didn’t want to get picked, they might subconsciously hold it against him in the deliberations. Or if they didn’t want to get picked but also don’t want to appear biased because he picked them, it might make them subconsciously give him more benefit of the doubt than is warranted by the evidence to avoid looking like they’re retaliating against him.

Jury trials can be are highly swayed by what seem to laypeople like trivial details, which is why there are so many strict rules around jurors and potential influence. Something like picking the juror numbers needs to be wholly neutral, which is why the court clerk typically does it. The judge letting Rittenhouse do it here is highly unusual and raises a lot of questions as to what in the world he is thinking. This is a criminal trial, not a carnival game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no quick half-day deliberations and acquittal.

Now we're in for a wait.

Yeah, this is depressing.

If it’s a hung jury can the judge call a mistrial with prejudice at that point?

I'm no expert in WI criminal law, but no.

A mistrial ruling means that something egregious has happened during the trial, with the jury present, that would render it impossible for the jury to arrive at a verdict based on the facts and jury instructions alone. The trial is over and the judge has already ruled against a mistrial, so he has no grounds to revisit that decision, much less with prejudice. The exception might be if the entire jury was exposed to something that would taint their opinion during deliberations, but even then, that's a REALLY high bar, if it's even a possibility.

If there's no verdict by noon tomorrow you either have a hung jury or a conviction. There was a lot of information to go through in this trial. While I do think the old adage that a quick verdict favors the defendant is true, I also think you can have a jury determined to go through everything step by step no matter their initial vote (if they took one).

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no quick half-day deliberations and acquittal.

Now we're in for a wait.

Yeah, this is depressing.

If it’s a hung jury can the judge call a mistrial with prejudice at that point?

I'm no expert in WI criminal law, but no.

A mistrial ruling means that something egregious has happened during the trial, with the jury present, that would render it impossible for the jury to arrive at a verdict based on the facts and jury instructions alone. The trial is over and the judge has already ruled against a mistrial, so he has no grounds to revisit that decision, much less with prejudice. The exception might be if the entire jury was exposed to something that would taint their opinion during deliberations, but even then, that's a REALLY high bar, if it's even a possibility.

If there's no verdict by noon tomorrow you either have a hung jury or a conviction. There was a lot of information to go through in this trial. While I do think the old adage that a quick verdict favors the defendant is true, I also think you can have a jury determined to go through everything step by step no matter their initial vote (if they took one).

I disagree. There's lots and lots of video evidence to watch - that's going to take some time, especially with 2 different crime scenes. A jury that acquits could still take a while, because many people's instinct will be to find something to convict him of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was KR the one to select the jury numbers?

ATFKM? That’s the clerk’s job, not the accused’s. I hope at the very least the jury wasn’t in the room when it happened because that’s really problematic.

But since you can’t appeal an acquittal, this judge can pretty much do whatever he wants to throw the case in Rittenhouse’s favor.

And how does him picking random slips of paper throw it in his favor?

People have an emotional reaction to these things on a subconscious level, so it’s a problem if they know Rittenhouse was the one who picked the numbers (even randomly). If they wanted to be picked, they might feel more favorably toward him for picking them. If they didn’t want to get picked, they might subconsciously hold it against him in the deliberations. Or if they didn’t want to get picked but also don’t want to appear biased because he picked them, it might make them subconsciously give him more benefit of the doubt than is warranted by the evidence to avoid looking like they’re retaliating against him.

Jury trials can be are highly swayed by what seem to laypeople like trivial details, which is why there are so many strict rules around jurors and potential influence. Something like picking the juror numbers needs to be wholly neutral, which is why the court clerk typically does it. The judge letting Rittenhouse do it here is highly unusual and raises a lot of questions as to what in the world he is thinking. This is a criminal trial, not a carnival game.

This judge seems like a total wackadoodle. And while I'm not as far down the road as others that he favors Rittenhoiuse there are some things that are just out there. Letting Rittenhouse pick the numbers is one, for all the reasons you stated. Allowing the defense attorney to call the deceased rioters or looters is another and the most egregious. I get why you would block "victim" in favor of something neutral like "the deceased," but the dead people aren't on trial - they are dead because the defendant killed them. If you are going to (rightly) block all evidence of Rittenhouse's prior actions then the language surrounding the deceased should be neutral as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no quick half-day deliberations and acquittal.

Now we're in for a wait.

Yeah, this is depressing.

If it’s a hung jury can the judge call a mistrial with prejudice at that point?

I'm no expert in WI criminal law, but no.

A mistrial ruling means that something egregious has happened during the trial, with the jury present, that would render it impossible for the jury to arrive at a verdict based on the facts and jury instructions alone. The trial is over and the judge has already ruled against a mistrial, so he has no grounds to revisit that decision, much less with prejudice. The exception might be if the entire jury was exposed to something that would taint their opinion during deliberations, but even then, that's a REALLY high bar, if it's even a possibility.

If there's no verdict by noon tomorrow you either have a hung jury or a conviction. There was a lot of information to go through in this trial. While I do think the old adage that a quick verdict favors the defendant is true, I also think you can have a jury determined to go through everything step by step no matter their initial vote (if they took one).

I disagree. There's lots and lots of video evidence to watch - that's going to take some time, especially with 2 different crime scenes. A jury that acquits could still take a while, because many people's instinct will be to find something to convict him of.

I mean, that's just like your opinion man.

It also goes against everything we know about jury trials. The longer there's no verdict, the worse it is for the defendant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

Are you comparing the Kent State protesters to those who looted and burned Kenosha?

The Kenosha protesters were protesting something more serious than the Kent State protesters, but it's a matter of degree.

The Kent State protesters were principled heroes. The Kenosha protesters were actually rioters, looters and common criminals......utter losers and the dregs of society.

Yes if anything he took out at least some of the trash. The political left theater is putting all of our self defense at risk. Below is a good summation of riots and leftist governing which doesn't work.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjUpPOKtp_0AhXjN30KHbkBBaEQFnoECDIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2021%2F11%2F16%2Freal-lesson-of-rittenhouse-trial-riots-guarantee-death-ruined-lives%2F&usg=AOvVaw1VIEy21jiO5CBj4GhiTgOC