
The right wingers who showed up to instigate trouble and shoot people are losers and dregs of society, I agree. Because across the country it was shown that the protestors were peaceful, and then trouble showed up in the form of white supremacist degenerates looking to start a race war. And you don’t even know that because you’re a victim of right wing propaganda. |
The New York Post? Is a good summation? Oh my lord. ![]() |
While there obviously are exceptions, this is correct about the general trend. If a jury is comfortable that someone is not guilty, they are generally able to reach that conclusions early in deliberations. It’s when a jury is leaning toward conviction that they are more likely to go through the jury instructions carefully and step by step to make sure their conclusion is correct. As much as people don’t want to serve on a jury, once they are selected most take it seriously, that much more so for a major criminal trial where they could send someone to prison for a very long time. People want to make sure they are right before they make that call, because they don’t want to be personally responsible for sending an innocent person to prison. |
Actually I saw that and thought the same thing. They must have a rogue writer over there because it was quite good! Or it was their last day! |
Well the problem with that being the facts don't support your statement. The thugs had records. All three to be exact ranging from rape, theft, and child molestation! Good riddance! Rittenhouse isn't affiliated with any white supremacist groups, so you may need to stop watching your agenda news. More lies defending criminals who chose to attack someone. |
I'm not the last word on this by any means, but I'm a lawyer who has tried a few jury trials and I've also served on a jury. My sense is that the trivial details and the strict rules don't sway juries so much as lawyers like to think. For the most part, I think jurors tend to be reasonable people trying to take their jobs seriously and do the right thing. I think lawyers trying to get an edge talk themselves into the idea that one trick or another is going to be the thing that seals the deal for them. But the existing law and the underlying totality of the facts really do account for the bulk of how juries make their decisions. The emotional ploys and whatnot mostly work for the very close cases (which, in fairness, are the ones that are more likely to make it to an actual trial.) At least that's my opinion on questions of guilt or liability. When it comes to assessing damages in a civil trial, all bets are off. Jurors are usually horrible with numbers and math. |
Little known fact -- Rittenhouse was like Bruce Wayne and looked up his targets on his Bat Computer before going out to dispense justice, so he clearly knew about these records before shooting them. The Lame Stream media doesn't want you to know that! |
Just an anecdote, but on a minor criminal offense jury I was on it took two and a half days for us to agree on not guilty. Everyone believed the defendant likely was involved in the crime, and no one believed his alibi witness.
But the prosecution simply did not provide enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt, and the policeman who was the prosecution's main witness gave sloppy testimony full of holes. It took a while for all the jury members to agree that was the case. |
There certainly was propaganda: ![]() |
Hmmm. The Rodney King verdict kind of disagrees with what you are saying. White people will always give white people the benefit of the doubt. Poc never get the benefit of the doubt. |
“Conservative firing line.” If that fire was like the ones in my town, they were set by right wingers bent on giving racists something to grouse about, which is exactly what I implied in my pp and something that you completely missed. Kyle Rittenhouse showed up with an illegal gun and killed two people. Turns out there were a sht ton of right wing agitators. |
So many peaceful protesters in towns across this country were assaulted by the violent thugs of the right wing klans. There is so much video. Many show police there doing nothing as the protestors are assaulted. We know who the violent thugs are. We saw them all over the Capital 1/6. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
It baffles me that people can be this misinformed. Looking at the facts of the case without a biased lens, this is a clear-cut case of self-defense. |
|