The Rittenhouse Judge should declare a Mistrial

a reply to: CryHavoc

I don't think there should have been a trial to begin with.

The only reason we have a trial is that a political ideology can't stand people defending themselves.

As for influencing the jury?

It's now day 3 of deliberations. They've been influenced, they are deadlocked and it'll be a hung jury.

In my humble opinion.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Protesting outside a public building is protected free speech.

Are you sure about that? I think you're just guessing.

Maybe he's wrong, I don't know, but I believe this Lawyer over you.

starting around 06:57:00

He says that what the protestors are doing is 'Extrajudicial Impermissible Influence on the Jury', and you do not have a 1st Amendment right to do that.

and that the Defense should have requested a complete barrier so that the protesters could not be within eyesight or earshot of the Jury.

Ah those "peaceful" BLM "protests" popping up again. Totally not any oxymoron.

Kind of like the totally peaceful BLM protests in Louisville where the unhinged BigBird woman with the microphone was stomping around outside the convention center, berating 10 year old girls for their "white privilege".

MEANWHILE back at the ranch, parents who raise their voices at school board meetings are now in the cross-hairs of the DoJ.

All completely normal and perfectly within the "letter of the law" with respect to the Constitution.

🤡🤡🤡🤡

But we all know how the hypocrisy works now.

If the "shoe was on the other foot", words like "microaggressions" and "trigger warnings" would be trotted out as justification, for example, of putting people that have merely "peacefully" raised the volume of their voice onto terror watch lists.

But oddly, the idea of criticizing and shaming those that treat parents (also using their protected First Amendment speech!) as "domestic terrorists" seems to elude some folks.

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Honestly, it's not going to matter. It's going to be a hung jury and the prosecutor isn't going to re-charge.

a reply to: CryHavoc

They will need to import people from BFE to have a non biased jury and not hear the outside 'protestors' and I use that term loosely.

I have seen the videos and imo that kid should be let the heck go! Come at me with a gun and yea I will shoot back.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CryHavoc

I don't think there should have been a trial to begin with.

The only reason we have a trial is that a political ideology can't stand people defending themselves.

As for influencing the jury?

It's now day 3 of deliberations. They've been influenced, they are deadlocked and it'll be a hung jury.

In my humble opinion.

I agree with this.

I'd add that the puppeteers/pay masters that assemble and unleash the BLM foot soldiers and cannon fodder such as the 3 men shot at the original Kenosha riot, it turns out those people are somewhat clever, or they employ legal people that are clever on their behalf.

Allowing an act such as this, where violent arsonists and rioters were shot in self-defense, to go legally unchallenged, might be construed as setting a precedent. Having the jury decline finding the defendant guilty of charges might similarly set a precedent.

The riot puppeteers are probably quite anxious about the impact this case might have on future deployments of their riot shock troops, in a (I know) crazy world where defending yourself against violent arsonists and rioters is deemed to be not a crime.

Hence, the keen interest and loud jury influencing "protesting" of the BLM foot soldiers.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

What this trial has taught everyone is, if someone is trying to kill you, kill them, but don't tell the cops because a biased DA will try to fry you.

Just bury the body instead.

Fox News has a copy of the high resolution drone video in question. They are working on showing it soon.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
Are you sure about that? I think you're just guessing.

You think that I'm guessing that the right to assemble and protest is protected under the Constitution?

LOL.

You can believe the 'lawyer', maybe he can tell the Judge on the case what's what.

The comicality of this place sometimes is absurd.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

What this trial has taught everyone is, if someone is trying to kill you, kill them, but don't tell the cops because a biased DA will try to fry you.

Just bury the body instead.

That is harder to do for city folk. Digging into the concrete and pavement. You are probably going to hit some pipes down there to.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why should I believe you over him?

You did not address anything he said.

Actually, you just said nothing meaningful.

I'm not claiming to know for sure. So come on, explain to me how he is wrong.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

He says that what the protestors are doing is 'Extrajudicial Impermissible Influence on the Jury', and you do not have a 1st Amendment right to do that.

and that the Defense should have requested a complete barrier so that the protesters could not be within eyesight or earshot of the Jury.

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.

I agree. I just wish that it worked both ways.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Frankly I don't care if you believe me or not since you obviously don't understand the Constitution.

What you should believe is when the Judge doesn't apply this nudnik's strategy that getting your legal advice from randos on YouTube isn't the best idea.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So why did/do folks have to get permits to gather? You know if its protected in the Constitution?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

I'm just saying this isn't as cut and dry as you portray. Some idiot takes a snapshot of the Jury, Doxes them, and *POOF* you have 12 people who are afraid to give a fair verdict, in a fair trial. Then it's reinforced by a mob of idiots who think that this is somehow a racial issue, which we all have to admit, is proving that the gene pool is mostly piss and needs some shock and chlorine as they scream death threats to that same jury.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Honestly, it's not going to matter. It's going to be a hung jury and the prosecutor isn't going to re-charge.

The judge doesn't want a mistrial as that is what the prosecution wants and seems to be trying to get. Its an old trick when they do bad to push it to a mistrial to just come back and try again with a whole new jury.

originally posted by: phishfriar47
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So why did/do folks have to get permits to gather? You know if its protected in the Constitution?

So that Democrats can deny Conservative permits on the grounds of "safety". Think it through. If on the off chance a Conservative group gets a permit, the Dems lapdogs (BLM, Antifa, etc.) show up and provoke an incident that results in the permit being CANCELLED and the Conservative group being forced to leave or be arrested.

I am not from the USA and I have only been following this case on the threads here at ATS. Two words come to mind which I think is essential to the decision in this case "premeditated and intent". Those are usually the determining factors which drives whether someone is guilty or not guilty. What was his intent to take up arms and travel to a volatile situation.

Absolutely would have to agree.

I'm a former Reddit user, and this whole thing has been the nail in the Reddit coffin for me.
During this whole thing I couldn't believe that 99% of Reddit users wouldn't even watch or acknowledge the video that clearly showed him defending himself from the beginning. Everyone with a brain knew he was innocent right there.

Reddit just kept going on and on and on though, getting people riled up with propaganda and flat out racism against white people. They've stirred themselves into a frenzy, and it's not unintentional. Then I finally understood it, whoever is controlling Reddit is pushing the narrative HARD. I will repeat that, Reddit is nothing more than a PsyOp and needs to be boycotted.

So, as the trial went on and everyone saw how RIDICULOUS the prosecution case was, I thought maybe, just maybe, Reddit would come around and finally see the light. Hah. They doubled down harder than before, the entire front page is littered with "white man bad", "Kyle has white privilege", etc. They've been enraged ever since Kyle had the slightest inkling of innocence that challenged their agenda.

So yes, it's absolutely an agenda being pushed against this kid all over the media. Just like Geroge Floyd, people are being leveraged by the powers that be for their own gain.

originally posted by: toktaylor
I am not from the USA and I have only been following this case on the threads here at ATS. Two words come to mind which I think is essential to the decision in this case "premeditated and intent". Those are usually the determining factors which drives whether someone is guilty or not guilty. What was his intent to take up arms and travel to a volatile situation.

Without knowing where you are from it might be a little hard to explain.

In the US, we pretty much can go anywhere we please, within certain limits. We also have the right to go armed, again within certain limits. Rittenhouse chose to go and protect businesses, he also chose to go armed. There is a gray area in Wisconsin's laws about him carrying a weapon. That is why the weapons charge was dropped. Rittenhouse was attacked three different times. In the US we have the right of self-defense and Rittenhouse used it, three times. His reason for being there, his reason for being armed have no bearing on his defending himself. There is considerable evidence that he acted within the law. It is widely believed that the charges resulting in this trial are politically based. That is about it.