Rittenhouse Trial. Anyone watching the live streams?

[DDT951]

Unless someone like me was on the jury , which is usually unlikely.

If I am on a jury I will fairly evaluate the evidence presented and judge per the law including my knowledge of pertinent case law.

[FoxtArt]

If I am on a jury I will fairly evaluate the evidence presented and judge per the law including my knowledge of pertinent case law.

Not disagreeing with your method, me personally, I'll also evaluate if the law is fairly applicable, constitutional, and relevant, as well as it's purpose and intent.

Because there's been all sorts of things that are illegal, yet moral, and all sorts of things legal that are highly immoral. Yep, I'm the guy that may, in some cases, nullify. There is no age of possession for long guns in federal law. Usually, they can be gifted to underage people < 18 even in states that have UBC (like Colorado). The reason I would absolutely not deliver a guilty verdict on that charge is for that reason: Laws like that are often penalizing not the possession of the weapon, but in fact, the method of acquisition. I am not going to penalize someone for that alone when they wouldn't be in trouble, in the same charge, if a rich parent gifted it to them.

And while I've been subject to voir dire I've been excused thus far... lols. Nobody wants independent thought in a jury.

[DDT951]

And while I've been subject to voir dire I've been excused thus far... lols. Nobody wants independent thought in a jury.

As I am a fair and impartial juror, I wouldn't want any posting discovered on social media to suggest that I would be otherwise nor follow the law.

[Doc45]

Learned a long time ago to not guess what a jury will do. Kinda similar thinking about voters LOL.

[Gman]

This really isn't good news for Kyle Rittenhouse. And, the judge hinted he'd be inclined to allow for this (haven't heard if he's actually riled on this yet).


Currently, these are the charges Kyle Rittenhouse faces:

• First-degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
• First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
• First-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
• Attempted first-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
• First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
• Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
  
• Failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government

Personally, I think the lesser charges issue should have been decided before the trial started and especially before Kyle was on the stand. Given that the Prosecution has had FULL control over how to proceed (Charge or not charge? If charging, charge with what? Offer plea deals or not, etc.). Knowing lesser charges were on the table could have drastically changed how the Defense presented their case. The Prosecution moved forward with their case to convict on 1st Degree Murder charges, etc. and they should be held to those charges. Allowing consideration for lesser charges is, in my eyes, a form a double jeopardy and asking for them is certainly a bitter loser Hail Mary effort to get Kyle Rittenhouse convicted of something - since they know they screwed the pooch on their case.

If these charges hold, I can see him being convicted of the last 2 of these charges. As to the "Failure to comply" charge, how many others in the streets that night (including his surviving "victim") have been charged with that crime? Law enforcement knows the names of PLENTY of other folks who were out that night and to only charge/convict Rittenhouse would be BS.

Consider that everyone is aware that an acquittal could result in rioting, the jury may choose to convict on lesser charges to pacify the potential protests - not fair to the defendant, but it's a reality.

FIFY. The curfew charge was already thrown out based on a previous case that involved the curfew. It wasn't deemed enforceable, IIRC.

It was a tack-on charge and was part of the prosecution's case that he shouldn't have been there/shouldn't have been there with a scary gun.

[MrPrena]

Is he not guilty of murder yet?

[crays]

Juries are also all but instructed to rule how the court wants "If the burdens are met YOU HAVE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY" etc. with heavy inference of the court.

It would be nice if there was also a jury instruction: "You don't live under a kings court, and you don't have to justify your decision to anyone." But alas, we do. 95% chance he is convicted of the < 18 weapons possession charge. Unless someone like me was on the jury , which is usually unlikely.

Who, exactly, are you including in "the court"?

Seems to me, the court includes the judge, prosecution and defense.

So you're saying the (supposedly) impartial) judge, the prosecution (fed, district, state, county, etc...) and the defense are all in cahoots from the get go to achieve a communal goal?


Your words:
Juries are also all but instructed to rule how the court wants "If the burdens are met YOU HAVE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY" etc. with heavy inference of the court.

\\

No wonder your handle changes so often.

Sent from somewhere

[Hummer]

Who, exactly, are you including in "the court"?

Seems to me, the court includes the judge, prosecution and defense.

So you're saying the (supposedly) impartial) judge, the prosecution (fed, district, state, county, etc...) and the defense are all in cahoots from the get go to achieve a communal goal?


Your words:
Juries are also all but instructed to rule how the court wants "If the burdens are met YOU HAVE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY" etc. with heavy inference of the court.

\\

No wonder your handle changes so often.

Sent from somewhere

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth to say that while the judge, prosecution or plaintiff, and defense have different objectives there is the communal goal of making money for all the attorneys involved.

And Foxtart is correct that the judge's instructions to the jury are frequently designed to direct a particular outcome that fits the judge's philosophy, prejudices and personal interests. In many cases it dismantles the deliberations by ignoring the laws the judge doesn't agree with and usurps and negates the value of citizen juries.

[FoxtArt]

Cray, court for all intents and purposes just = judge, if you've ever read a legal opinion in your life you'd know that. In such a discussion like this I actually presumed it was common knowledge. Even a dictionary would have been of assistance to you in preventing you from announcing that you are equal measures classy and intelligent.
Court
the judge or judges presiding at a court.
noun: the court

[FoxtArt]

It would also blow my mind if, in this day and age, anyone believes it is truly possible for any judge to be completely impartial. One way or the other, every individual has a desired outcome for almost every case, save those that they hate both sides in equal measure. Only a fool thinks a judge doesn't favor their outcome even if they believe themselves impartial. That said, if a judge observes their favored outcome is definitely going to win, sometimes they will shore up against appellate attacks to try to help out long term. (Seeming as if they are harsh to their favored person, yet helping them out in the long run). This is a system nearly unchanged from 1600. There are better ways, but the control rests with those with vested interest in the status quo.