The Rittenhouse Judge should declare a Mistrial

originally posted by: JIMC5499
They are not going to move those people.

Protesting outside a public building is protected free speech. I know there's a bunch of people on this site who like to wrap themselves in the Constitution but they only do it when it aligns with their personal beliefs or when it's politically convenient for them.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
You guys always do this now.

You set up a reason why something isn't "valid" even BEFORE you get the results.

Like voter fraud. You cry voter fraud EVEN BEFORE you lose. Here you claim there should be a mistrial before the verdict.

Is this so you can whine and cry if things don't go your way? So you can be angry and indignant? I'm serious. I'd like to hear why? Seems to me, you guys can't handle losing too well.

Or, and follow me closely here, it’s true.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

and the right to a fair trail exists as well. Where does one right begin and the other end?
Perhaps it's not just black and white.

a reply to: CryHavoc

The judge should have delivered a directed verdict of acquittal.

The prosecutor should be disbarred at the very least. The Grand Jury that delivered the indictment should be ashamed.

originally posted by: network dude
and the right to a fair trail exists as well. Where does one right begin and the other end?
Perhaps it's not just black and white.

It is black and white. The jury system in the United States relies on the honor system, i.e. less up-your-ass government, the Judge, who has the ability to decide if actions need to be taken, can sequester the jury if he sees fit.

He obviously doesn't see the need but I'm sure everyone on here who was applauding him last week now wants to hang him along with Mike Pence.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JIMC5499
They are not going to move those people.

Protesting outside a public building is protected free speech. I know there's a bunch of people on this site who like to wrap themselves in the Constitution but they only do it when it aligns with their personal beliefs or when it's politically convenient for them.

this is true. that being the case, all courthouses, and anywhere a juror might be (and all juries should always be securely sequestered), should be completely soundproofed, without windows, so that no juror would be able to hear any protesters, even with bullhorns, nor even be able to see that any protests are even happening. juries should be completely cut off from the outside world, until after the trial ends. and yes that would include things such as communicating with family members.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Protesting outside a public building is protected free speech. I know there's a bunch of people on this site who like to wrap themselves in the Constitution but they only do it when it aligns with their personal beliefs or when it's politically convenient for them.

What could they possibly be protesting about? Also I'm pretty sure there are threats mixed in so you need to add peaceful in front of it all.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
I assume the reason they have let them remain is because there aren't very many of them...

It would actually be that pesky First Amendment thing.

Yeah...about those fences around the Capitol...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The jury system in the US has been crushed for more than a century. The process began with the Sparf decision in 1895. Most juries today are merely rubber stamps for the government, and that was shown clearly in the Branch Davidian trial.

The Fully Informed Jury Association is trying to inform US citizens of their jury powers and duties.

fija.org...

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

originally posted by: CryHavoc
The Jury in the Rittenhouse case should be kept from hearing the Protestors outside. Any influence of the Jury by the Protestors makes it an Unfair Trial and should be moved to a secure, secret location where the Jury can't be influenced. These Protestors don't care about whether it's a Fair Trial or not - they just want a White Boy in Jail or Dead.

What do you think about this Civil Unrest?

Of all the crazy stuff the prosecutors have done in the case, protestors are the least of their worries. From 5th amendment violations, brady violations, not only should it be a mistrial with prejudice, the prosecutors should be disbarred.

originally posted by: generik
this is true. that being the case, all courthouses, and anywhere a juror might be (and all juries should always be securely sequestered), should be completely soundproofed, without windows, so that no juror would be able to hear any protesters, even with bullhorns, nor even be able to see that any protests are even happening. juries should be completely cut off from the outside world, until after the trial ends. and yes that would include things such as communicating with family members.

Like I said, we operate mostly on the honor system and your plan is unwieldy and impractical.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What could they possibly be protesting about?

Ask them, I frankly don't care what they happen to be saying.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Yeah...about those fences around the Capitol...

Great whataboutism.

originally posted by: Salander
The jury system in the US has been crushed for more than a century. The process began with the Sparf decision in 1895. Most juries today are merely rubber stamps for the government, and that was shown clearly in the Branch Davidian trial.

The Fully Informed Jury Association is trying to inform US citizens of their jury powers and duties.

Not seeing the relevance to the conversation.

He'll declare mistrial after the verdict is unfavorable to an appeal 😃

It's already ass backwards enough ain't it ?😃

[strike up the barn dance music!!]

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Ask them, I frankly don't care what they happen to be saying.

The concern is not people peacefully protesting it is all about violent protesting that could effect the judgement of the jury. It has happen before , so its not like something new. In today's age it is even worst as people can find anyone they want to include jury members that acquit him.

That is the concern here... I agree with you in who cares what the F they want to protest in a peaceful way, but that isn't how these things go these days, now is it.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
You guys always do this now.

You set up a reason why something isn't "valid" even BEFORE you get the results.

Like voter fraud. You cry voter fraud EVEN BEFORE you lose. Here you claim there should be a mistrial before the verdict.

Is this so you can whine and cry if things don't go your way? So you can be angry and indignant? I'm serious. I'd like to hear why? Seems to me, you guys can't handle losing too well.

Comical as usual.
The prosecutorial misconduct on multiple occasions in this trial is enough to call a mistrial.
It’s also comical that BLM is all up in arms about 3 white losers getting shot.
Clown world.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The concern is not people peacefully protesting it is all about violent protesting...

When it gets violent let me know, until then the Constitution-hating marys need to suck it up.

originally posted by: xuenchen
He'll declare mistrial after the verdict is unfavorable to an appeal 😃

It's already ass backwards enough ain't it ?😃

[strike up the barn dance music!!]

I love how he played hardball yesterday, just like the arsehole judges who wouldn't look at evidence democrats stole the 2020 election for Joe Biden.

"I may rule a mistrial if the jury incorrectly finds Mr. Rittenhouse guilty."

We need tough arsehole judges on OUR SIDE too.

Glad we found one!