Rittenhouse Verdict

[georgina]

I’m not gonna lie - I was shocked
Every time it was on the news I’d say to DH - that kid is going to prison.

And I’ll participate in the page count….I guess 1.375

I was not shocked, sadly. I think the parallels of the other trial going on in Georgia at the same time are remarkable.

 

[lorimay]

Not even guilty of the gun charge?? Really he was a minor with a weapon like that.
Wow just wow!

The police didn't find a need to kill anyone that night, but he killed two......... sickening.

 

[georgina]

Not even guilty of the gun charge?? Really he was a minor with a weapon like that.
Wow just wow!

The police didn't find a need to kill anyone that night, but he killed two......... sickening.

The judge threw out the gun charge before the case went to the jury.

 

[JimMIA]

Wonder if Wisconsin will still need the National Guard which has been on stadby since the deliberations began.

The Arbery prosecutor is doing a more credible job.

The Kenosha prosecutor did one of the worst prosecutorial jobs I've ever seen.

This was a very, very difficult case from the start because they filed their case before the investigation was completed and they vastly overcharged Rittenhouse. And then they committed prosecutorial malfeasance not once, but twice. I'm pretty sure the judge was going to declare a mistrial if there had been any guilty verdicts because of the misconduct of the prosecutor.

The Georgia case was investigated much more professionally, and the prosecutor seems to be better. We'll see what happens with that one.

 

[SteveH]

Not even guilty of the gun charge?? Really he was a minor with a weapon like that.

It was tossed out, you can read why. But basically it was a poorly written law.

From PBS "Under Wisconsin law, anyone under 18 who possesses a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars." "Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that they argued limited it to short-barreled shotguns or rifles. Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style rifle was not short-barreled." Eventually the Judge reviewed the statute and said it was a “big problem”, the Prosecution could (and looking back) should have immediatly asked for appeals court to review it, "He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.”

 

[JimMIA]

Not even guilty of the gun charge?? Really he was a minor with a weapon like that.
Wow just wow!

LOL. That prosecutor didn't even know what kind of gun Rittenhouse had. Once the motion to dismiss was filed, even the prosecutor admitted the gun was legal. That's why the judge threw that charge out before the trial.

 

[lifesavacation]

I flipped between CNN and Fox after the verdict. They both said the same thing about the verdict. The jury came to a logical and just decision.

 

[tinatark]

A just verdict. Overcharged and malicious prosecution.

 

[BrianL]

I thought for sure they would go for one of the lesser charges, but I never expected the highest counts. I felt that would have been appropriate personally. The prosecutor didn't exactly do a stellar job either, which can lead to this sometimes. I feel like the jury didn't like him and the judge definitely didn't - and whether or not that should matter, it absolutely does.

 

[VandVsmama]

If you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at the prosecution.

 

[Imzadi]

Why did the jury bother taking 3 days? Were they in it for the free lunches?

 

[VandVsmama]

In high profile trials like this, the jury is often instructed to strictly avoid reading or watching the news. The jury is required to make their decision based on the evidence presented. Not based on the media’s opinions or public opinion.

 

[dez1978]

I doubt this thread will last, but I know several people who actually watched all the testimony and they all said he wasn't guilty. The news left out a lot of facts and people forget trials are not about emotions.

This.. All of this. The news only reports the sensational bits, not all the facts. And those who watched the whole thing or even most of it know the prosecution did a horrible job and didn't prove their case. This is about facts, not emotion.

The prosecutor did a comicially bad job.

 

[SteveH]

Why did the jury bother taking 3 days? Were they in it for the free lunches?

Why? They took it serious, they took their time and they did their job. Give them credit and the respect for serving and not for ducking their their civic duty and responsibilities.

 

[dez1978]

In high profile trials like this, the jury is often instructed to strictly avoid reading or watching the news. The jury is required to make their decision based on the evidence presented. Not based on the media’s opinions or public opinion.

That only matters during the trial it's self. The whole world saw news about it leading up to it, including those jurors. And you can tell a person to forget everything theve heard prior to this point and time, but you can't make that person forget those things or not take them into account when making a verdict.

 

[JimMIA]

I was not shocked, sadly. I think the parallels of the other trial going on in Georgia at the same time are remarkable.

The only real parallel is that both cases involve civilians inserting themselves into situations which should be left to the police. The major difference is that Rittenhouse was not doing anything illegal. The trio in Georgia were trying to make a "citizens arrest" without having adequate probable cause -- which is illegal.

 

[JimMIA]

That only matters during the trial it's self. The whole world saw news about it leading up to it, including those jurors. And you can tell a person to forget everything theve heard prior to this point and time, but you can't make that person forget those things or not take them into account when making a verdict.

Right, but they take an oath to base their judgements ONLY on the evidence presented in court -- and that is critical to a fair trial.

 

[georgina]

The only real parallel is that both cases involve civilians inserting themselves into situations which should be left to the police. The major difference is that Rittenhouse was not doing anything illegal. The trio in Georgia were trying to make a "citizens arrest" without having adequate probable cause -- which is illegal.

Yeah, I've been watching both trials. The defense in both claimed their client had the right to shoot unarmed people because they felt threatened when they were actually the ones doing the threatening with a gun. If walking around carrying your big gun and pointing it at people isn't illegal, it should be. When Rittenhouse's attorney got up in court and said he was glad he killed people, it is sickening.

 

[dez1978]

Right, but they take an oath to base their judgements ONLY on the evidence presented in court -- and that is critical to a fair trial.

And if you believe that happens 100% of the time, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[kdonnel]

Why did the jury bother taking 3 days? Were they in it for the free lunches?

I think they wanted to get some time away from their families or jobs. Just a few more days of quiet.