Juror #54.......knows some of the witnesses...likely a "Karen," pushing to convict despite the evidence of self defense...

Kill or be killed. He shouldn't feel any guilt for killing those animals no more than he would feel shooting a feral dog that was attacking him.
Agreed. But you don't go into a bull ring and wave red flags either and expect not to be gored.
 
This may piss off a few, but...in MY opinion, the kid should have never been there in the first place. Neither should have the "victims" who got their asses killed. Both sides were being idiots. Kid should be punished in some way just FOR being an idiot. The two killed..good riddance but too bad it had to be for such an idiotic decision on all their parts. And the ones threatening violence to the town/jurors..well...they need to sleep in a jail cell for awhile too because that's just more idiocy on their parts to demand anything regarding punishment..or no punishment.

Oh, and the DA not being honest in sharing info with the defense in what is supposed to be a fair trial....should I day it again? Sure, why not. Idiocy. Fuck it. This whole thing is stupid.
Well, there's no law against Rittenhouse being there. That isn't a legal standard.
 
Well, there's no law against Rittenhouse being there. That isn't a legal standard.
Castle laws actually apply. (They haven't been discussed yet)

Because Rittenhouse was invited to the car lot and the rioters were trespassing and setting fire to the SUV... Kyle had every right to shoot Rosenbaum who was chasing him on the property he was residing on.
Regardless of whether Rosenbaum was armed or not. Kyle could have shot and killed Ziminski for the fun of it and not faced charges under normal circumstances. (He likely wouldn't have...he isn't that sort of person)

But Castle Doctrines and laws apply.
 
Why in the world wasn’t this jury sequestered from the start? My only thought is that the judge figured it was such an obvious case of self-defense that it would be an open-and-shut case with an hour of deliberation.

In one of my jury cases, the plaintiff was so obviously correct (it was a civil matter), that when we all went into the jury room to deliberate, the foreman suggested that we take an anonymous poll to see where we all stood. We wrote our decision on a paper, dropped it in a bowl, and they were read off one by one - all the same.

On the case I mentioned upthread, we did the same thing, and the original count came out 11 to one - with the liberal being the lone holdout. We tried to convince her for days, but she announced at the start that she would NEVER send the black guy to jail.

This could be what happened here. They could have been 11-to-one for acquittal from the start, with the sole liberal refusing to budge.

Yep.....no way you see he video and hear the actual prosecution witnesses and think he is guilty.....any hold outs for guilt are left wing partisans or cowards, adraid of the mob.
 
Agreed. But you don't go into a bull ring and wave red flags either and expect not to be gored.


If he didn't have that rifle he would have been beaten to within an inch of his life.......blmantifa have been beating and killing people since 2015........ask Andy Gno, the reporter they beatsimply for covering the riots...

As a result of the attack, medical examiners determined that Ngo suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage.[19][42]

[Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is bleeding into the subarachnoid space—the area between the arachnoid membrane and the pia mater surrounding the brain.[1]Symptoms may include a severe headache of rapid onset, vomiting, decreased level of consciousness, fever, and sometimes seizures.[1] Neck stiffness or neck pain are also relatively common.[2] In about a quarter of people a small bleed with resolving symptoms occurs within a month of a larger bleed.[1]

 
If he didn't have that rifle he would have been beaten to within an inch of his life.......blmantifa have been beating and killing people since 2015........ask Andy Gno, the reporter they beatsimply for covering the riots...

As a result of the attack, medical examiners determined that Ngo suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage.[19][42]

[Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is bleeding into the subarachnoid space—the area between the arachnoid membrane and the pia mater surrounding the brain.[1]Symptoms may include a severe headache of rapid onset, vomiting, decreased level of consciousness, fever, and sometimes seizures.[1] Neck stiffness or neck pain are also relatively common.[2] In about a quarter of people a small bleed with resolving symptoms occurs within a month of a larger bleed.[1]

Which is why I said he should not have gone. Period. Sometimes its best to just stay in yer own lane. He didn't.
 
Kill or be killed. He shouldn't feel any guilt for killing those animals no more than he would feel shooting a feral dog that was attacking him.
A sane person always feels shame about killing. Why do you think combat veterans have PTSD and always have? The military tries to reduce it by dehumanizing the enemy, but it’s a small reduction.
 
Which is why I said he should not have gone. Period. Sometimes its best to just stay in yer own lane. He didn't.


And that does nothing to change the fact that he is still innocent....

You guys who put out that line about him being there are the same ones who would say a girl who went to a party in a tight top, and short skirt with a flirty attitude provoked the 3 felons who tried to rape her........

Try understanding the actual issues......
 
Which is why I said he should not have gone. Period. Sometimes its best to just stay in yer own lane. He didn't.


He is an American.....he didn't break the law being there.....the 3 attackers were felons..one of them raped 5 young boys....so sell that crap to Biden voters....
 
Andrew Branca over at legal insurrection and his friends think Juror #54 is the reason the jury hasn't come back with "not guilty," yet....they believe she is a "Karen," who wants to convict because she is a likely left winger, and on top of that, if she is a left winger, her social group wouldn't accept a "not guilty" verdict.
I mentioned this yesterday
In any group of 12 random people, you're bound to get one who refuses to see the light.

"What are your 'reasonable doubts' that Rittenhouse shot these people in self-defense?"
 
I mentioned this yesterday
In any group of 12 random people, you're bound to get one who refuses to see the light.

"What are your 'reasonable doubts' that Rittenhouse shot these people in self-defense?"


Since the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," imagine the left winger who has to do the mental gymnastics to make the prosecution lies about provocation enough to put the 17 year old away for most of his life....and being the soul less wonders they are, the leftists will do it happily....
 
Since the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," imagine the left winger who has to do the mental gymnastics to make the prosecution lies about provocation enough to put the 17 year old away for most of his life....and being the soul less wonders they are, the leftists will do it happily....
Well, sure.

That's why I would ask:
"What are your 'reasonable doubts' that Rittenhouse shot these people in self-defense?"
And then attack those doubts.

Easy enough to do.
 

Forum List

Back
Top