Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

we.don't.know.it.was.actually.MSNBC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MSNBC may not have intended to tamper with the jury, but this kind of conduct is still reprehensible. Imagine doing your public duty and serving as a juror in a high-profile homicide case like this, and then see you are being followed home by someone you don't know. That is downright frightening. I've tried so hard over the last few years to defend the press, but then a major outlet does something like this. If I were the judge I would go ballistic on NBC/MSNBC.

I don't disagree with you but getting a license plate number isn't following someone home. It's just looking at a car. That might be scary enough in itself, to a juror or another person, but it's not being followed.

I don't think this producer was interested in the license plate number of the bus transporting the jurors. He was following the bus because it would lead him to where the jurors' vehicles were located. Whether he intended to then follow a juror home or just start writing down license plates, I stand by my comment that the behavior is reprehensible. If jurors want to speak to the media after their jury service is over, they can easily do so. I think these underhanded efforts by the media are grotesque.

There is no way to know the intent of an individual that is stalking a juror. Following the van that the jury is riding in and running a red light to keep up with the van, is stalking. And this is not legal while a jury trial is still on-going. It looks like an attempt to intimidate or tamper with the jury. Media very specifically cannot do this while a trial is still on. Once the jury has delivered their verdict to the judge, then they are no longer protected, but while they are still a sitting jury, it is a crime to attempt to contact or influence a jury member. The media should know this and the judge was correct in barring the employer of the journalist, whether they are a full employee or freelancer, from the trial.

MSNBC will be lucky if they don't file charges for attempting to tamper or influence the jury against them. The freelancer should have waited until the jury had reached a verdict and delivered it to the judge and then he would not be violating any laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You would only write down license plate numbers, if you then had a law enforcement person who could look up these numbers for you.
The media has been telling lies about this case, trying to cause rioting.

If you have access to a LexisNexis database which the news and their legal team almost certainly does they can look up the owner of the license plate and get their information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we.don't.know.it.was.actually.MSNBC.

Yes.we.do.they.already./acknowledged.it.was.one.of.their.freelancers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope they convict this vigilante POS and make an example of him.

+1000 and if they don’t I hope an example gets made of what happens when they don’t convict white supremacist POS.

Wow you know little about this case apparently. It was self defense. The perpetrators attacked him and had criminal records.

Not only that, he isn't a white supremacist. You may want to educate yourself, or watch real news instead of tabloid news. Hope this helps you:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiHoaPKl6L0AhVRpZ4KHY53A8QQ0PADKAB6BAgLEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2021%2F11%2F17%2F10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine%2F&usg=AOvVaw3D7Df2pNg43ctNohkpr7Dd

Biden called him a white supremacist. That’s all the establishment of fact needed. Rittenhouse IS a white supremacist. Period.

[Anonymous]

Whatever was going on with that freelancer, I think we can all agree that it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

[Anonymous]

Now Matt Gaetz wants to offer Kyle a confessional internship. Wowza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Rittenhouse gets acquired the first thing he should do is sue Biden for defamation.

Truth is an absolute defense to libel.


I guess you didn’t go to law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now Matt Gaetz wants to offer Kyle a confessional internship. Wowza.

I guess Gaetz doesn’t know this kid kills sex offenders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha police are investigating a report that a "media person" followed one of the jurors home.

So?

It’s not a crime to follow a publicly owned bus and it’s not a crime to photograph people in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is what a legitimate press organization does - they uncover things in the public interest that are being unethically hidden. The names and images of the jury members are relevant to the public interest regarding this case. The media is doing it’s job. The public has a right to know who these jurors are, their names, where they live. These are people in their community and the public has a right to be informed about them.

Now the judge has committed an extreme violation of the first amendment in prohibiting a credible news agency from covering the trial. This outrage will not be permitted to stand. And this judge has sealed his own fate for disbarment from the bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha police are investigating a report that a "media person" followed one of the jurors home.

So?

It’s not a crime to follow a publicly owned bus and it’s not a crime to photograph people in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is what a legitimate press organization does - they uncover things in the public interest that are being unethically hidden. The names and images of the jury members are relevant to the public interest regarding this case. The media is doing it’s job. The public has a right to know who these jurors are, their names, where they live. These are people in their community and the public has a right to be informed about them.

Now the judge has committed an extreme violation of the first amendment in prohibiting a credible news agency from covering the trial. This outrage will not be permitted to stand. And this judge has sealed his own fate for disbarment from the bench.

Jurors have an expectation of privacy while the trial is ongoing. To seek them out while they are doing their job can be seen as akin to jury tampering. It's illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just now, Judge saying MSNBC had someone trying to tamper with the jury while they are being transported. MSNBC banned from the court now until the investigation is over and this case is over. Yikes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-jury-verdict-live-b1959815.html

‘Fake’ journalist taken into custody for trying to photograph jury
A person claiming to be a producer for MSNBC allegedly attempted to photograph the Rittenhouse jury on Wednesday night.

The Kenosha Police Department issued a statement about the incident on Thursday morning.

“Last night a person who is alleging to be affiliated with a national media outlet was briefly taken into custody and issued several traffic related citations,” the statement read.

“Police suspect this person was trying to photograph jurors.

“There was no breach of security regarding the jury, nor were there any photographs obtained. This investigation remains active and open, no further information.”

Police reportedly determined the man was not affiliated with MSNBC or NBC after speaking with other journalists at the court who did not recognise him.

Judge Schroeder addressed the incident on the bench and said he had barred anyone from MSNBC from entering the courthouse as a result.

Megan Sheets 18 November 2021 17:29

That’s wrong info. They have names of who sent him from msnbc and other reporters were asked if they know this person and it was reported that they don’t, BUT that means nothing until the police investigate further. The police have specific names from MSNBC that they will follow up on. Sounds more like MSNBC’s hands are dirty. But we shall see. Will wait until police are done with their investigation. I’m sure they can pull this dudes W2’s to see if he has any affiliation. Dirty dirty business.

According to the Independent article, the police believe the supposed affiliation with MSNBC "is a lie."

The judge read the name of the person as "James J Morrison." No one knows who that is. Bongino is posting a bunch of speculation that he's linked so some random NBC producer based out of San Diego (no evidence provided, just hearsay).

Again, CNN is confirming photographer worked for NBC. Stopped the lies.

https://mobile.twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1461395030464204802

Yep, for those who won't click on the link......

If what NBC said is true, why the hell was he following the bus (he ran a red light so he wouldn't lose the bus).
What was his purpose for doing so? I hope they keep him locked up.

If you are interested, keep reading Twitter. The reason is explained. The reason is to find where the jurors are staying, find their cars and ultimately track them down for interviews later, after the trial is over.

Whether you agree or not that it's a good idea, it's not tampering with the jury.

It is. You don’t think the wack job posse outside the court would like to know that info? And then send some letters to their families that they know where they live or who they are? Jurors do go home at night. Shame NBC Shame.

That’s a lot of “what if’s” there. And all of that would be prohibited by law anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha police are investigating a report that a "media person" followed one of the jurors home.

So?

It’s not a crime to follow a publicly owned bus and it’s not a crime to photograph people in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is what a legitimate press organization does - they uncover things in the public interest that are being unethically hidden. The names and images of the jury members are relevant to the public interest regarding this case. The media is doing it’s job. The public has a right to know who these jurors are, their names, where they live. These are people in their community and the public has a right to be informed about them.

Now the judge has committed an extreme violation of the first amendment in prohibiting a credible news agency from covering the trial. This outrage will not be permitted to stand. And this judge has sealed his own fate for disbarment from the bench.

Jurors have an expectation of privacy while the trial is ongoing. To seek them out while they are doing their job can be seen as akin to jury tampering. It's illegal.

No, they don’t.

And if one of my neighbors voted to acquit someone like KR, I’d want to know about it. They have no expectation of privacy, nor should they. They are accountable for their decision as part of a jury, and they damn well better remember that. And be reminded of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha police are investigating a report that a "media person" followed one of the jurors home.

So?

It’s not a crime to follow a publicly owned bus and it’s not a crime to photograph people in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is what a legitimate press organization does - they uncover things in the public interest that are being unethically hidden. The names and images of the jury members are relevant to the public interest regarding this case. The media is doing it’s job. The public has a right to know who these jurors are, their names, where they live. These are people in their community and the public has a right to be informed about them.

Now the judge has committed an extreme violation of the first amendment in prohibiting a credible news agency from covering the trial. This outrage will not be permitted to stand. And this judge has sealed his own fate for disbarment from the bench.

Jurors have an expectation of privacy while the trial is ongoing. To seek them out while they are doing their job can be seen as akin to jury tampering. It's illegal.

No, they don’t.

And if one of my neighbors voted to acquit someone like KR, I’d want to know about it. They have no expectation of privacy, nor should they. They are accountable for their decision as part of a jury, and they damn well better remember that. And be reminded of it.

You are scary as hell. Knowing there are people out there like you keeps me awake at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From US v Johnson
" A third party’s threat or perceived attempt to take a photograph of a juror may be no less intimidating to that juror than the actual taking of such a photograph. Thus, the question whether a photograph was taken was not dispositive of the prejudice inquiry, as one or more jurors may have felt intimidated regardless. By limiting its inquiry to the actual existence of photographs, the district court left key substantive matters unresolved, namely, whether anyone had attempted or threatened to take photographs of the jurors, the identity of the alleged actors and their relationship to the case, and the impact of Juror #4’s statement on other members of the jury."

The media has been stating that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist who must be found guilty, and is threatening the jury if they find otherwise.

Utter nonsens. The scope of that finding is very narrow and not applicable to at large arguments of juror privacy.

Read further.