So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?

[Zelen]

The judge is indicative of the problem we have in the country as a whole.

Talks a lot about adhering to the law, and willing to wag his finger at wrongdoing by the Left, but is too afraid of regime propaganda to actually punish said wrongdoing and stick to the law (even when it's unpopular).

[Willmark]

This keeps getting "better":

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1461078850511810565?s=21

[Ratman_tf]

[FingerRod]

This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.

[Willmark]

Hate to agree but I'm guessing you're right.

[Shasarak]

This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.

The rumour that I heard was that a Karen had been chosen as jury foreman and is trying, unsuccessfully to shaft Kyle.

The question is whether the brave jurors can resist her tyranny or will fold to get home for Thanks Giving.

[3catcircus]

This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.

The rumour that I heard was that a Karen had been chosen as jury foreman and is trying, unsuccessfully to shaft Kyle.

The question is whether the brave jurors can resist her tyranny or will fold to get home for Thanks Giving.

I'm not against them beating the shit out of tuning up the foreman if needed.  We all know those insufferable cunts - they're the same ones who run PTAs and lord over everyone on HOAs.

[Pat]

This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.

The rumour that I heard was that a Karen had been chosen as jury foreman and is trying, unsuccessfully to shaft Kyle.

The question is whether the brave jurors can resist her tyranny or will fold to get home for Thanks Giving.

I'm not against them beating the shit out of tuning up the foreman if needed.  We're all know those insufferable cunts - they're the same ones who run PTAs and lord over everyone on HOAs.

Fortunately, the Attorney General of Wokeness is siccing the FBI on those Karens.

[FingerRod]

If a retrial happens, it will be interesting to see if they opt for a bench trial.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I sometimes wonder how these kinds of Karen cunts come about. They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.

I was a member of a Capital Jury, and we actually had a Karen woman just like this. We complained to the Judge, that she was obviously ignoring his instructions to the Jury, and he told her to get fucked, and she was summarily dismissed. She was then immediately replaced by an alternate Juror, and we proceeded with our deliberations. We came to a unanimous judgement that the defendant was guilty on all counts, and we sentenced the vicious criminal to DEATH.

The Karen CUNT wanted to vote NOT GUILTY...because of "reasons". She insisted that she had an inner tuition that said that someone else, somehow, was guilty for the crimes of capital murder, torture, kidnapping, while citing no meaningful, fact-based evidence whatsoever. She was a FAT, SOBBING, LIBERAL CUNT.

That trial I participated in was many years ago, now. I see that our society continues to create these kinds of fucking Liberal cunt morons. So sad. They all need to gargle with napalm.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[RPGPundit]

Here's the thing, it's unlikely there will be a not-guilty verdict at this point (though not impossible) but it's also clearly very unlikely of a guilty verdict.

The DA could try all over again, but given how badly they blew it this time, and how evident the course of the last trial made the case for self-defense, they would only be betting on hoping for a rigged jury.

There's also the possibility, given that he has not yet ruled, that the Judge might decide to Dismiss With Prejudice. I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand, he could choose to do this AFTER hearing the verdict, which might explain why he hasn't done this already (since he clearly and rightly believes that it's justified). The Judge would rather that the Jury did the dirty work for him, but he might (I hope) be brave enough to do it himself if the jury cannot decide to.

And again, ALL of this is happening because TERRORISTS are threatening to murder anyone who they feel is responsible for not sentencing an 18 year old boy who did nothing wrong to what would likely be a death sentence in jail. And the Establishment Media are openly aiding and abetting these terrorists' intimidation tactics.

[Pat]

Greetings!

I sometimes wonder how these kinds of Karen cunts come about. They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.

You must really, really hate 12 Angry Men.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.

You must really, really hate 12 Angry Men.

I was just about to cite that example. Everybody wants to see themselves as Juror #8 in that story, and the tragedy is that if there are holdouts on the jury for the sake of "punishing who really deserves it", they're actually probably more like Juror #3, determined to gain satisfaction for an unresolved grudge that has only the barest affiliation with the actual defendant.

I often find that the first step in understanding why anybody does what they do is to think, "Everybody sees themselves as the hero in their own story, which means they always see what they're setting themselves against as the villain." Figure out why someone would see that opposition as villainous, and you're halfway there.

[Shasarak]

There's also the possibility, given that he has not yet ruled, that the Judge might decide to Dismiss With Prejudice. I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand, he could choose to do this AFTER hearing the verdict, which might explain why he hasn't done this already (since he clearly and rightly believes that it's justified). The Judge would rather that the Jury did the dirty work for him, but he might (I hope) be brave enough to do it himself if the jury cannot decide to.

From what I have heard, if the Judge waits for the jury to make a verdict and then decides to dismiss then that can be appealed by the State.

It would be better for Kyle if he did it now but he seems to have trusted in the jury to come to the right decision.

[Pat]

They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.

You must really, really hate 12 Angry Men.

I was just about to cite that example. Everybody wants to see themselves as Juror #8 in that story, and the tragedy is that if there are holdouts on the jury for the sake of "punishing who really deserves it", they're actually probably more like Juror #3, determined to gain satisfaction for an unresolved grudge that has only the barest affiliation with the actual defendant.

I often find that the first step in understanding why anybody does what they do is to think, "Everybody sees themselves as the hero in their own story, which means they always see what they're setting themselves against as the villain." Figure out why someone would see that opposition as villainous, and you're halfway there.

My experience is that juries make decisions for emotional reasons, and almost completely ignore the evidence. While the lone hold outs may be holding out for irrational reasons, those are exactly the type of people who are more likely to be swayed by the soft pressure to conform.

Not really sure how any of this applies to the Rittenhouse case, because it's more likely they're making decisions based on whether they feel personally threatened. Which is rational, but orthogonal to the merits of the case.