The Rittenhouse Judge should declare a Mistrial

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
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.

That's ok. I didn't expect you to address the points.

He didn't say it was up to the Judge to apply any strategy. He said the Defense should have requested a complete barrier.

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?

Not gathering. Assembling. Like when somebody buys unassembled furniture 😃

Gathering would happen in an apple orchard for example 😃

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.

Agreed. However there is an issue.

Your rights end where another individuals begin.

The argument exists that at what point does a mob have the effect on jurors making their own decision not based on outside influence.

Now, the jurors shouldn't sway their verdict based on anything but the evidence and not let even the loudest, scariest protester intimidate them....but its possible and the defendant suffers the consequence.

IMO the judge should have seen this as a possibility, strong one at that and addressed it before the trial. Sequestration for the jurors or maybe even a buffer zone. Idk exactly.

Found this while looking at the FBI Videos, seems to me this needs to be shown to the Judge before he rules on a mistrial.
Don't listen to the guy talking , mute it first and just watch. It appears Rittenhouse never points his weapon. He raises it a bit but you never see it pointed at the pedo arsonist, nor the Ziminskis, which i think planned on ambushing Rittenhouse with pedo arsonist.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Thanks and noted

a reply to: toktaylor

No problem. Glad to do it.

originally posted by: phishfriar47
So why did/do folks have to get permits to gather? You know if its protected in the Constitution?

In almost every case where you are on public property you do not need a permit.

originally posted by: network dude
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.

That's called 'jury tampering' and is a felony. Does anyone have evidence that this felony has taken place? Because they should alert the defense counsel and the Judge as neither one has said anything about that.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
He didn't say it was up to the Judge to apply any strategy. He said the Defense should have requested a complete barrier.

Let me know when the defense uses this 'lawyers' strategy. Or better yet, why don't you alert him. Bring that YouTube video down and teach him a thing or two about the law.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That depends on where you are.

originally posted by: JinMI
Now, the jurors shouldn't sway their verdict based on anything but the evidence...

This is all that needs to be said. Once again, we operate on the honor system in this country when it comes to jury duty. I took it very seriously the times I served and I know everyone else did. All these what ifs in the thread are meritless and once again make people look like whiners who only like things when they agree with them.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
That depends on where you are.

Hence the 'in almost every case' comment. But by and large you do not need a permit to protest.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There's always a kid who takes the whole bowl of candy on Halloween.

Some folks aren't operating within the honor system.

I'm not claiming anything other than likely death threats against the judge which I'm sure isn't new.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did you miss when the judge announced that they had approached someone who had been taking photos, the police/baliff/whathaveyou forcefully deleted the pics, and said next time they'll take the phone.

Whos to say that wasnt immediately hitting the cloud and is now in the hands of those who plan on using the info?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Did you miss when the judge announced that they had approached someone who had been taking photos, the police/baliff/whathaveyou forcefully deleted the pics, and said next time they'll take the phone.

Did you miss the part where no one tampered with the jury? When it happens then it's a felony. Looks like the balliff was doing their job properly.

originally posted by: JinMI
There's always a kid who takes the whole bowl of candy on Halloween.

Some folks aren't operating within the honor system.

And? Let's blow up the whole system then. I'm not quite sure what to tell you, this is the jurist system we have. If you don't trust it then that's something you need to work out.

I'm not claiming anything other than likely death threats against the judge which I'm sure isn't new.

Death threats against the judge, if they happened, are a felony but aren't jury tampering.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So dramatic.

Mitigation of known circumstances don't equal blowing up the system.

originally posted by: JinMI
Mitigation of known circumstances don't equal blowing up the system.

What 'known circumstance'? Your one kid stealing candy? No one has tampered with the jury that anyone is aware of. Unless that happens there is no 'known circumstance'.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Mitigation of known circumstances don't equal blowing up the system.

What 'known circumstance'? Your one kid stealing candy? No one has tampered with the jury that anyone is aware of. Unless that happens there is no 'known circumstance'.

Known circumstances being media, protesters, video documentation of jurors.

No need to misrepresent what I'm saying.

originally posted by: JinMI
Known circumstances being media, protesters, video documentation of jurors.

No need to misrepresent what I'm saying.

Let me know when any of that = jury tampering.

Here's a hint, it doesn't.