Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So I frighten white supremacists and trumpers and keep them awake at night?

Cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why don't you post your license plate number so we can see how innocent it is?

It’s way worse for someone to underhandedly try to get your license plate when you’re a juror on an extremely high profile case where the evidence points to an acquittal and you know that probably means violence and rioting from the left wing mob than for a random person on the internet to post a license plate number and claim it’s theirs.

This is literally the definition of jury intimidation. I cannot believe that anyone thinks this is okay.

Because until you can show you’ve actually been harmed by that, it’s not intimidation.

We don’t live in a world of “what if”. We live in a world of facts. And until something actually happens, there is no crime. We do not deal in “what if?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why don't you post your license plate number so we can see how innocent it is?

It’s way worse for someone to underhandedly try to get your license plate when you’re a juror on an extremely high profile case where the evidence points to an acquittal and you know that probably means violence and rioting from the left wing mob than for a random person on the internet to post a license plate number and claim it’s theirs.

This is literally the definition of jury intimidation. I cannot believe that anyone thinks this is okay.

Because until you can show you’ve actually been harmed by that, it’s not intimidation.

We don’t live in a world of “what if”. We live in a world of facts. And until something actually happens, there is no crime. We do not deal in “what if?”

You know nothing about criminal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why don't you post your license plate number so we can see how innocent it is?

It’s way worse for someone to underhandedly try to get your license plate when you’re a juror on an extremely high profile case where the evidence points to an acquittal and you know that probably means violence and rioting from the left wing mob than for a random person on the internet to post a license plate number and claim it’s theirs.

This is literally the definition of jury intimidation. I cannot believe that anyone thinks this is okay.

Because until you can show you’ve actually been harmed by that, it’s not intimidation.

We don’t live in a world of “what if”. We live in a world of facts. And until something actually happens, there is no crime. We do not deal in “what if?”

You know nothing about criminal law.

Would you like to compare LSAT scores?

What was yours?

[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.

If the jurors have no expectation of privacy during the trial, why haven't their names been published?

[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’re an utter imbecile and not unlike Rittenhouae with your wannabe tough guy rhetoric.

[Anonymous]

The judge is letting the jurors take the jury instructions home with them??? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why don't you post your license plate number so we can see how innocent it is?

It’s way worse for someone to underhandedly try to get your license plate when you’re a juror on an extremely high profile case where the evidence points to an acquittal and you know that probably means violence and rioting from the left wing mob than for a random person on the internet to post a license plate number and claim it’s theirs.

This is literally the definition of jury intimidation. I cannot believe that anyone thinks this is okay.

Because until you can show you’ve actually been harmed by that, it’s not intimidation.

We don’t live in a world of “what if”. We live in a world of facts. And until something actually happens, there is no crime. We do not deal in “what if?”

You know nothing about criminal law.

Would you like to compare LSAT scores?

What was yours?

Dude, we can compare resumes if you like. I attended law school. There is a substantial body of case law dealing with inchoate offenses. You do not have to wait until someone is harmed before an offense is committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the jurors have no expectation of privacy during the trial, why haven't their names been published?

DP I would let you know if I acquitted. After we smoked a blunt.

[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.

Thanks for proving case law on juror intimidation.

Whether the judge further sanctions the prosecution for this intimidation remains to be seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why don't you post your license plate number so we can see how innocent it is?

It’s way worse for someone to underhandedly try to get your license plate when you’re a juror on an extremely high profile case where the evidence points to an acquittal and you know that probably means violence and rioting from the left wing mob than for a random person on the internet to post a license plate number and claim it’s theirs.

This is literally the definition of jury intimidation. I cannot believe that anyone thinks this is okay.

Because until you can show you’ve actually been harmed by that, it’s not intimidation.

We don’t live in a world of “what if”. We live in a world of facts. And until something actually happens, there is no crime. We do not deal in “what if?”

You know nothing about criminal law.

Would you like to compare LSAT scores?

What was yours?

DP. My LSAT was 178, but I would not presume to have particular expertise in criminal law because I do insurance coverage litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Biden has said a lot of $hit that is outright false.
It's hysterical that you put Biden in the preeminent position of determining the mindset of people when he apparently doesn't even know his own mindset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is letting the jurors take the jury instructions home with them??? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

That seems a little unusual. The jury instructions would have been read into the record so they are public information, but jurors aren’t supposed to look up anything about the case at home so they wouldn’t be allowed to access a trancript or recording of the instructions online or anything from home. The juror might not actually do anything improper with the instructions at home, but it just doesn’t feel right. Jury deliberations are supposed to be done as a group, not a solo activity.

Did either side object to the request? If not, then I guess they don’t view it as an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks for proving case law on juror intimidation.

Whether the judge further sanctions the prosecution for this intimidation remains to be seen.

DP. The prosecution had nothing to do with the freelancer following the jury van.

[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.

They absolutely do have an expectation of anonymity and privacy DURING THE TRIAL. If you try to dox them while the trial is on-going, you expose them and their family to intimidation and potential threat and run the risk that you are tampering with the jury and can cause a mistrial or a summary judgment if you are at all involved in either side of the case. Any attempt to influence the jury, including intimidating them or exposing them to perceived threat, is illegal while they are on the jury.

Once they have rendered a verdict and delivered it to the judge, then they no longer have an expectation of privacy or anonymity. News agencies have to be very, very careful that any research that they do is not considering tampering. Researching on-line or taking a license plate from a distance and looking it up are not intimidating. Acting like paparazzi and following their vehicle including traffic moving violations is stalking and is intimidating. There was a line and the freelancer crossed it.