Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

[M14 Shooter]

Never thought there would be over a day's deliberation.
Kyle might be looking at some jail time.

Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.

 

[JohnDB]

Never thought there would be over a day's deliberation.

Kyle might be looking at some jail time.

Nope...
Not likely... when the judge notices a case of perfect self defense...it's not likely to go wrong.

Here's a case law argument from Georgia where in ALL jury cases the judge is the 13th Juror.


And he is capable of reversing a jury decision.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Correct. He was carrying a rifle in a ready position while engaged in a violent riot. That’s a provocative act.

Oh good grief----

 

[john doe 101]

Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.

You mean the rumor you just started?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.

Translation: some right wing paid liar gave me this idea

 

[Turtlesoup]

Or stay home where you belong.

Oh brother---you are saying instead of protecting the country that you should hide in a corner from the criminals that are attacking looting and burning down city after city.

Cowards get beat to death and robbed hun. It's time that we all start acting like we got some morals and some backbones and stand up to the criminals and our corrupt prosecutors.

Kyle committed no crime and was doing a good deed unlike the 3 criminals and the spare criminal that didn't get shot. He had every right to be there--they didn't.

 

[Resnic]

Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.

If that's true I understand their hesitation and concerns. But I could also not abide by them, I couldn't sleep at night if I knew I ruined someone's life by not being honest in a court of law.

Worrying about some domestic terrorists might do isn't worth not be honest and truthful as a juror. If they lie just to avoid a riot they still let those scumbags win.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We n

once again for the very last time. One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation. This is backed by the law.

But what is NOT backed by law is YOUR completely stupid assertion that the mere possession of a firearm IS PROVOCATION, ************!!!

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

Not appropriate for the judge to be seated that close to the defendant. The defense attorney is supposed to approach the bench if he'd like to chat.

So you've no credible examples then?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Heavy sigh. You’re a freaking loon. You are completely clueless. You are nothing but a mynah bird relating the talking point you get fro people like Hannity.

Here, I will do your job for you and beat your ass with it:

940.08  Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire.
(1)  Except as provided in sub. (3), whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
(2) Whoever causes the death of an unborn child by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a health care provider acting within the scope of his or her practice or employment.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1985 a. 293; 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295; 2001 a. 109; 2011 a. 2.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: The definition of the offense is broadened to include highly negligent handling of fire, explosives and dangerous weapons in addition to firearm, airgun, knife or bow and arrow. See s. 939.22 (10). [Bill 191-S]
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381, 01-3063.
In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon; 2) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and 3) the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.

Let's look at that JC note again, shall we:

In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon;
2. the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and
3. the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.

We need to know what "criminal negligence" means, right?

Here you go:

939.25  Criminal negligence.
(1)  In this section, “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, except that for purposes of ss. 940.08 (2), 940.10 (2) and 940.24 (2), “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to an unborn child, to the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or to another.
(2) If criminal negligence is an element of a crime in chs. 939 to 951 or s. 346.62, the negligence is indicated by the term “negligent" or “negligently".
(3) This section does not apply to s. 948.21.
History: 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 56 s. 259; 1997 a. 180, 295; 2017 a. 283.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware. [Bill 191-S]
The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994).


And now for the JC note:

This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware. [Bill 191-S]
The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994).


So, what action of Rittenhouse, a minor at the time, created a SUBSTANTIAL AND UNREASONABLE risk of death or great bodily harm to another?

Explain yourself.

 

[jc456]

Being there or not is his own decision.

again, we aren't in East Berlin are we?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.

If that is true, deliberations are a sham. The jury does not want to make a responsible decision are is kicking it back to the judge. They are simply waiting it out. The judge will either declare it a hung jury or a mistrial. He will have the responsibility. Not them.

There are two motions for mistrial, one with prejudice, one without. The judge has said he will not rule on either one until a jury verdict. This is an indication that there will be no hung jury at all. If the jury cannot make a decision it will be a mistrial, probably with prejudice.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Here, I will do your job for you and beat your ass with it:

940.08  Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire.
(1)  Except as provided in sub. (3), whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
(2) Whoever causes the death of an unborn child by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a health care provider acting within the scope of his or her practice or employment.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1985 a. 293; 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295; 2001 a. 109; 2011 a. 2.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: The definition of the offense is broadened to include highly negligent handling of fire, explosives and dangerous weapons in addition to firearm, airgun, knife or bow and arrow. See s. 939.22 (10). [Bill 191-S]
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381, 01-3063.
In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon; 2) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and 3) the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.

Let's look at that JC note again, shall we:

In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon;
2. the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and
3. the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.

We need to know what "criminal negligence" means, right?

Here you go:

939.25  Criminal negligence.
(1)  In this section, “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, except that for purposes of ss. 940.08 (2), 940.10 (2) and 940.24 (2), “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to an unborn child, to the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or to another.
(2) If criminal negligence is an element of a crime in chs. 939 to 951 or s. 346.62, the negligence is indicated by the term “negligent" or “negligently".
(3) This section does not apply to s. 948.21.
History: 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 56 s. 259; 1997 a. 180, 295; 2017 a. 283.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware. [Bill 191-S]
The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994).


And now for the JC note:

This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware. [Bill 191-S]
The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994).


So, what action of Rittenhouse, a minor at the time, created a SUBSTANTIAL AND UNREASONABLE risk of death or great bodily harm to another?

Explain yourself.

Here is where you made your mistake. The law that you cited is not part of the jury instructions. They won't even be discussed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If that is true, deliberations are a sham. The jury does not want to make a responsible decision are is kicking it back to the judge. They are simply waiting it out. The judge will either declare it a hung jury or a mistrial. He will have the responsibility. Not them.

Well, like I said - a rumor.
And I agree - the judge is holding the mistrial or directed verdict in his pocket.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Well, like I said - a rumor.
And I agree - the judge is holding the mistrial or directed verdict in his pocket.

I'd say this won't go beyond tomorrow. The judge won't let this drag on into another week.

 

[FA_Q2]

So. You have nothing to refute anything but childish insults. Got it.

You’re a sperm gurgling Twink.

ROFLMAO.

No, it was an actual fact. You actually are an asshat.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is where you made your mistake. The law that you cited is not part of the jury instructions. They won't even be discussed.

Right. They didn't charge him for criminal
negligence because they can't prove negligence. The mere possession of a firearm is not negligence.

They had NOTHING so they threw the book at him.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, like I said - a rumor.
And I agree - the judge is holding the mistrial or directed verdict in his pocket.

I think this is the original source of that rumor:
edited - removed video.

Original claim was by Posobeic. Also not a credible source.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here is where you made your mistake. The law that you cited is not part of the jury instructions. They won't even be discussed.

And here is your mistake: the judge may let the jury consider lesser charges.