WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT JURY!!!! THAT ASSHOLE WAS GUILTY AS ALL HELL!!!!!!!

[Scottie Mom]

There is NO reason that the that POS Killer walks!!!!

[Bettie]

1. White Supremacy

that's why he's walking.

[Scottie Mom]

2. That and gun loving stupidity along with a Trump Humper Judge! EOM

[Bettie]

4. Yep.

I wish I could go elsewhere, but few countries want people from the US moving there.

[Johnny2X2X]

3. The judge was a racist

The judge did not allow a fair trial, every second he was rigging it so the prosecution couldn't make a case.

[Scottie Mom]

5. Those killed were not "victims?"

What the fuck??????

[Bettie]

7. Yeah, hopefully

someone will run against him next time he's up for election. He has run unopposed, but with the WI GOP trying to make elections, well, not actual elections anymore, I guess we'll see.

[Hangingon]

20. Race is not a factor here

[Zeitghost]

55. Please

Provide some evidence of the judges racism? Did he say or do anything racist? If so, what?

[Jose Garcia]

32. All of the victims were white

One of the jurors was African-American.

[Bettie]

35. And the victims were supporting people who weren't white

protesting the shooting of a black man.

To white supremacists, the worst crime of all is standing up for those who aren't white...being a 'race traitor'.

The fact that they were white was the ONLY reason there was even a trial.

[LiberalFighter]

39. Except I believe when the judge had Rittenhouse do a drawing

The black juror was only an alternate.

[Bettie]

43. And can you imagine being the only non-white person in

a room full of people eager to let him go free? The one Black person daring to object to a bunch of white people's firmly held belief.

[ecstatic]

38. +1000. nt

[Amishman]

6. WI 939.48 (2) (b)

WI 939.48

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

As soon as it came out that the jury wanted to review the drone video of the Rosenbaum chase, I was pretty certain this would be the outcome. Once KR tried to run and was being chased, nothing that happened before it really mattered given the wording of the relevant statute.

[Dave says]

14. Valid point

[Hav]

18. I see your point but I thought the opposite

Edit: Removed my comments regarding self-defense and provocation because I missed that the jury already came back.

[fescuerescue]

24. thanks for the detail

That's a pretty big one right there.

[themaguffin]

8. DON'T BLAME THE JURY

[Scottie Mom]

9. The Judge and the Jury IMO

Should have been guilty as all hell.

[themaguffin]

23. Have you served on a jury?

[Scottie Mom]

26. Yes.

And I have tried numerous jury cases. Why do you ask?

[themaguffin]

51. If you served on a jury, you would know that they have to follow parameters of the law

None of sat there.

[Bettie]

37. Why? They were the ones who decided that it was cool

to kill those people.

[themaguffin]

52. Have you served on a jury?

[Cattledog]

10. Another "Zimmerman" jury.

This was jury nullification.

[Hangingon]

21. More a Zimmerman prosecution team

[Hangingon]

22. More a Zimmerman prosecution team

[hamsterjill]

44. And Rittenhouse will be just like Zimmerman.

He’ll kill again. Zimmerman has been in altercation after altercation since he was acquitted. Trying to be a smart ass. Rittenhouse will be no different.

Makes me sick to my stomach.

[JohnQFunk]

11. All of the above plus a HUGE LOOPHOLE in Wisconsin law

Drone footage shows the little bigot retreating/fleeing, which under Wisconsin statutes allows him to claim defending himself. Something tells me that the smug little fascist is going to discover that theCosmic Lazy Susan of Karma will not treat him well.

[LonePirate]

12. I hope someone interviews the non-white members of the jury to explain the acquittal vote.

[RegexReader]

28. ¿Why?

The only POC involved was the man that attempted to kick him in the face while he was on the ground.

Be careful of tampering with jurors, is that the precedent you really want to set?
Example: Want to have the homes of jurors & their families surrounded by armed militia members pointing lasers into the windows 24/7?

[LonePirate]

29. There is no tampering after the fact. Juror interviews post trial are quite common in fact.

I believe the non-white jurors will be more honest about the verdict as I suspect the white members will offer a lot of bullshit and racism.

[Happy Hoosier]

13. This verdict will result in more dead people.

The message this sends is that it's perfectly legal to go looking for a fight, kill people, and then claim "self defense."

[Dave says]

17. That's my concern. It declares it's "open season" for gun nuts to pursue as they want

[Chuuku Davis]

15. 12 people were unanimous

So go the days of our lives.

[Sugarcoated]

25. It's okay....the punk will break the law again. He's stupid, pampered and

entitled. Very likely the next judge won't be a Trump loon. The arc of justice is long but it gets there

[Boomerproud]

42. Repub congresscritters have already offered him internships.

[Beachnutt]

16. Gun sales will skyrocket now

folks will feel like it is their only defense as murder is legal now

[Patton French]

19. Don't blame the jury

They judge the case that's put before them.

[bdamomma]

27. two men killed

by a sick ass jerk who thought his gun "was cool looking".

[Polybius]

30. A jury can only vote "Guilty" if it's beyond a shadow of a doubt

Don't blame the jury, with what was presented to them they may have had little choice.

[Scottie Mom]

31. No. Beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt implies no doubt whatsoever.

IMO, there was no reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was guilty.

[Polybius]

33. Yes true

In this case there was no doubt that he shot three people. The only question was were any justified or not.

[Scottie Mom]

34. IMO, one has to be a racist, an idiot, blind to justice or all three to find self defense.

Our Nation, IMO, has become a denizen of sewer dwellers thanks to the RW.

[Polybius]

36. I understand what you're saying, but you have to go into a jury with an open mind

Hear all the facts from both sides, and have zero predetermined outcomes. Perhaps they saw something most of us didn't. For the charge against shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm, the jury basically had no choice but to acquit. The others were more complicated.

[Scottie Mom]

40. Apparently the Rittenhouse jury did not have open minds. IMO, of course. EOM

[Captain Stern]

41. Maybe nothing's wrong with the Jury.

The twelve people that heard every bit of evidence presented in the trial. ALL of them were wrong? Every one of them were wrong? How did every single one of them get it wrong...while you got it right, without even being there?

Maybe be they didn't have the benefit of the insight that you had.....you know, random stuff on the Internet.

[Scottie Mom]

45. I watched the trial. I have tried jury cases.

Your experience is?

No, they did not have the benefit of my insight. Over 30 years of legal experience and trial work.

Hint: Don't assume the person you are posting to has no experience in the field upon which you are commenting.

[Captain Stern]

46. Well, my experience is zero years. So, you have made a good point.

I had absolutely no idea that you had over thirty years of legal experience and trial work.

You should offer up your expertise to the folks in Kenosha.

It sounds like they could use your help.

Or..you could just post here, and complain about the verdict.

[Scottie Mom]

48. I don't offer my expertise if not asked to do so.

I have plenty of work in Los Angeles county and do not need to look out of state. But, thanks for the suggestion.

BTW: Thanks also for your permission to post here. I don't think I need your permission, but nice of you to give me the right to complain.

[Captain Stern]

50. I can understand that. I apprecciate it. I am asking you to offer up your expertise.

It sounds like you would have a lot to contribute to this community. I'm all in.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I was granting you 'permission' to post. That's never been my permission to give.

[sarcasmo]

47. The Whites protecting whites.

[Scottie Mom]

49. RW whites protecting RW whites.

Disgusting.

[Skittles]

53. all they needed was some gun humping racists on the jury

and that was a given

[MustLoveBeagles]

54. I had a feeling it would turn out this way

Even before jury selection. Man I really hate being right.