Rittenhouse trial

[Astray]

Public opinion matters to the public, politicians, etc. It doesn't matter to the jury. I think you're underestimating the integrity of jurors.

Uh. Real?

[kutter]

Who cares? Why would you risk losing because some young kid said something dumb on the stand because you wanted to win good favor with the public? That makes zero sense. The only opinions that matter are in that courtroom.

Because in the unlikely event of a serious conviction the jurors for the appeal will come from that group watching the TV. All it takes is one for a mistrial. Play the long game and hedge all your bets.

[Gelston]

Because in the unlikely event of a serious conviction the jurors for the appeal will come from that group watching the TV. All it takes is one for a mistrial. Play the long game and hedge all your bets.

And a guarantee you not a single current Juror hasn't heard of the Kyle Rittenhouse case before they were selected. Especially being from the area.

On a case that has gotten this much media attention for the length of time it has, a fully impartial jury is impossible.

[kutter]

And a guarantee you not a single current Juror hasn't heard of the Kyle Rittenhouse case before they were selected. Especially being from the area.

On a case that has gotten this much media attention for the length of time it has, a fully impartial jury is impossible.

I agree that a completely impartial jury is impossible, but an awful lot has come out at trial that was not common knowledge, hell it seems like the prosecution did not even bother to learn half of it. If this goes to a hung jury, and like I said, it only takes one person, then the defense has a much better chance of either an acquittal or a second hung jury.

[Parkbandit]

I hope Rittenhouse and his attorneys decide to go after every single person who committed libel like this.

[Tgo01]

The judge is going to allow the jury to consider that Rittenhouse provoked people into attacking him, which would mean if they buy that argument from the prosecution then Rittenhouse couldn't simply say he was defending himself, he would have had to use all other options to remove himself from the dangerous situation before killing his attackers.

This is after the judge allowed drone footage from something like 100 yards away that the prosecution zoomed in on which supposedly made it look like Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the first person he killed, thus provoking him. Which is all kinds of bullshit because not only can you hardly see anything in the image even when zoomed in, but it's just one still image which means exactly jack shit because we don't live our lives one still image at a time, and to top it all off the PROSECUTION'S OWN EXPERT WITNESS testified that when you zoom in on digital images such as this that the software uses an algorithm to sort of "fill in the blanks" by adding pixels to the image. So when you're looking at the image you're not just simply seeing a bigger version of the image, the software is literally guessing where to add pixels.

And then you have far leftists such as Seran whining that the judge is being a big meanie head to the prosecution. My fucking ass. The judge has practically bent over backwards to give the prosecution everything they have wanted. The only thing he didn't allow them to do was to refer to the people shot as "victims" in court, because why the fuck would any judge allow that? In a trial where the jury is tasked in determining who was the victim and who was the guilty party the prosecution sure as shit shouldn't be able to refer to one party as the victim.

If the jury comes back with "not guilty" then Democrats/rioters have no right to claim that the judge was being biased and made it harder for the prosecution to prove their case. The prosecution had everything they wanted handed to them to prove their case. But Democrats/rioters don't care about facts anymore, they just care about rage.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Judge not allowing prosecution to say victim prior to conviction is standard. It is also a routine motion made by defense attorneys and every time I asked for the same motion in my practice, it was granted.

The reason is that it unfairly prejudices the defendant and fails to recognize due process,which is, the legal and factual finding of criminality and guilt before someone is a criminal, and someone is a victim.

[Methais]

Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what's wrong with America

An actual adult and presumably someone in control of their mental faculties actually wrote this article.

The fuck is wrong with the Democrat media?



How dare an 18 year old, who at the time he defended himself from violent thugs was only 17, cry when he was reliving the moment he shot and killed 2 people. What a monster!

Oh! Right! Like the asshole in the article states they weren't violent thugs, they were "white allies" who were "protesting" against police brutality against black people. You know those wonderful "white allies" who were shouting as many racial slurs against black people as they can and this was all caught on video.

That's some seriously butthurt writing. It sounds like he's still getting all his trial info from CNN instead of the actual trial.

And here's the author:

[Methais]

Public opinion matters to the public, politicians, etc. It doesn't matter to the jury.

If all the jurors lived in a bubble all the way until the trial began, you might have had a point.

I think you're underestimating the integrity of jurors.

With literally everything these days being political and people not giving a shit about facts over feelings or whatever, this is probably also debatable.

[Jeril]

If all the jurors lived in a bubble all the way until the trial began, you might have had a point.



With literally everything these days being political and people not giving a shit about facts over feelings or whatever, this is probably also debatable.

YOUR FACE IS DEBATABLE!