(11-16-2021 03:17 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/cathyrusson/status/1...1207968772

HOLD THE ANCHOVIES

I was on a jury once and can tell you that when the court orders pizza for the jurors, that usually means that they aren't going anywhere for a while.

(11-16-2021 03:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 10:40 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 10:30 AM)hburg Wrote:  The longer the deliberate the more we know there is disagreement.

Aren't there 5 charges to hash out? One does not always immediately mean the next one is the same verdict.

As an interested observer it would seem that this should not take more than 2 days to deliberate. I am guessing that the jury will pin at least one charge to him if for no other reason to appease the blood thirsty.... and possibly to protect themselves from the backlash they are set up to receive.

The second that Glockenspiel dope said he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first all bets should have been off on anything other than self defense. The real problem is why did this kid bring his gun in the first place .... The real reason. If you leave that question to open speculation, the jury is gonna find guilt on something. If they believe the kid's answer as forthright - he should walk.

With 5 charges and all that evidence, its not something that would likely be all solved in one day.

I dont know. I think it actually could. Basically---if the jury decides the prosecution failed to present any evidence that, beyond a reasonable doubt, clearly removes the self defense argument from the table---then there isnt really anything else to review. The case is effectively over for all charges as long as the defendant's self defense argument remains reasonable to the jury. Thus, the self defense instructions reflect a single issue that if decided in favor of the defendant effectively ends deliberations. This could actually be over very quickly if the jury comes to that conclusion on the self defense issue---or is largely---as a group---already at that conclusion before a single word is uttered in the jury room.

(11-16-2021 11:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 11:23 AM)Bill83 Wrote:  I could see them stretching for 4b in your earlier post.

They realistically cant convict solely on 4b.

Rittenhouse's only defense to all of the actual act of shooting related charges is self-defense.

If Ritternhouse is not guilty of 4, the only reason will because he is privileged to do so because of self-defense. The privilege in the top charge affects all of the lesser included charges. So the only not guilty possible for count 4 would preclude a guilty in all of the other lesser includeds.

The only way to reach a guilty on 4b with anything but a guilty on 4 is a hung jury on 4, and a guilty on 4b. The families pretty much all have to stand or fall together as a group, but only within the shooting 'family'

One exception: a 'self defense' on the Rosenbaum family precludes a guilty on the endangerment detailed in number 2 --- the underlying act causing the recklessness would be a legal act under a finding of self defense re: Rosenbaum.

By the way, thanks for presenting all this so clearly and concisely.

Agree with attackcoog --- He is spot on that the case is over across the board if Rittenhouse is reasonable in his assertion of self-defense, and the state fails to disprove any element of that assertion. That single issue takes the legs out of every charge on the table.

And honestly, I dont see the issue being dynamic -- that is he was proper in his assertion of self-defense for some of the shooting and not in others. The linchpin to me is the first shooting. If the first shooting of Rosenbaum is a justified action, then every single rioter attacking him subsequently is acting in the defense of another in an unjustified manner. That is because everyone subsequent to Rosenbaum used or threatened deadly force even more explicitly than Rosenbaum (kick to the head, being beaten on the head multiple times with a skateboard as a club, and having a pistol drawn down).

If there is any conviction on less than all the shootings, the conviction should stem from the shooting of Rosenbaum.

At the end of the day, an activist jury doesn't have to consider any evidence or facts. They can come back with "guilty" and that'll be that.

(11-16-2021 05:41 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  At the end of the day, an activist jury doesn't have to consider any evidence or facts. They can come back with "guilty" and that'll be that.

Of course they can---but there is no reason to believe at this point the jury is going to be anything other than a normal reasonably diligent jury.

(11-16-2021 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 05:41 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  At the end of the day, an activist jury doesn't have to consider any evidence or facts. They can come back with "guilty" and that'll be that.

Of course they can---but there is no reason to believe at this point the jury is going to be anything other than a normal reasonably diligent jury.

I want to believe you. But something tells me something fishy is gonna happen.

(11-16-2021 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 05:41 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  At the end of the day, an activist jury doesn't have to consider any evidence or facts. They can come back with "guilty" and that'll be that.

Of course they can---but there is no reason to believe at this point the jury is going to be anything other than a normal reasonably diligent jury.

I just worry about it, honestly.

At the end of the day, if Kyle Rittenhouse goes to jail, is it going to ruin my life? No.

Am I going to be pissed and worried about the future of our country? Yes.

Every branch of government, every agency, every institution we have in this country has been trending towards complete corruption the past decade or so. I wouldn't put it past the jury at this point to be either intimidated or paid for.

Apparently 2 jurors holding up a decision because they are scared for their safety

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(11-16-2021 05:54 PM)maximus Wrote:  Apparently 2 jurors holding up a decision because they are scared for their safety

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

What source do you rely on? Not necessarily a doubt, it may very well be the case, but could you provide a link or a bit better of a reference?

In this case I would hope a fast verdict. To me a quick verdict means the self-defense wiped everything out for the prosecution, and thus a quick verdict means a not-guilty.

Found the source: Jacek Posobiec on Twitter.

"Two jurors holding decision up, outright citing backlash, per US Marshal in Kenosha" 4:24 Central

"More: Worried about media leaking their names, what will happen to their families, jobs, etc" 4:26 Central

"Including doxxing threats from ‘anarchist groups’" 4:31 Central

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec?ref_src...r%5Eauthor

Apparently the jury asked for 11 copies of *only* the self-defense privilege instructions several hours ago. (roughly noon WI time)

Sad that threats of life and violence could potentially send an innocent person to jail.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(11-16-2021 05:54 PM)maximus Wrote:  Apparently 2 jurors holding up a decision because they are scared for their safety

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I mean honestly---whats happening outside is legitmately grounds for a mistrial. Its flat out jury tampering. Supposedly the mob megaphone can be clearly heard inside the courtroom.

This is why China is winning, right here:

(11-16-2021 06:16 PM)hburg Wrote:  Sad that threats of life and violence could potentially send an innocent person to jail.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

If true, that is prima facie case for a mistrial.
Does the judge do it with prejudice?

The most clear cut case of self-defense I’ve ever seen that just so happened to be prosecuted by the most inept state attorneys I’ve ever seen, and the jury is most likely deadlocked. I mean come on. Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty!

I’m telling you. Some nefarious shenanigans could be going down at this very moment. Don’t be surprised if we get a bullcrap “guilty” verdict.

(11-16-2021 06:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 06:16 PM)hburg Wrote:  Sad that threats of life and violence could potentially send an innocent person to jail.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

If true, that is prima facie case for a mistrial.
Does the judge do it with prejudice?

He should. But who knows?

(11-16-2021 06:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 06:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-16-2021 06:16 PM)hburg Wrote:  Sad that threats of life and violence could potentially send an innocent person to jail.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

If true, that is prima facie case for a mistrial.
Does the judge do it with prejudice?

He should. But who knows?

I think the protests outside the courthouse might be grounds for mistrial --- if so probably not with prejudice. The mistrial for protests would be in line with a faulty issue on venue or change of venue. There is no bad deed by the prosecution to do with prejudice.

To swing the mistrial with prejudice needs an intentional bad action or an egregiously harmful action by the prosecution.

Apparently the judge is polling the jury to see if they are done with deliberations for the evening.

per probosiec twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/cathyrusson/status/1...1289563139

LET ME GO HOME I MISS YOU YOU KNOW