mkorzo said:

---

I think for a lot of people (including at least one person on this jury) it's impossible for them to separate the idea that it was a bad idea for Kyle to make the choice to insert himself into what he knew would be a riot armed with the idea he is able to legally defend himself. And probably at least one person on the jury is trying to conflate "it was a bad idea" with "well, that in itself was provocation."

---

The judge should be hammering home to the jury that they need to separate the issues. I would like to see the defense object every time the prosecution came up with that emotional argument.

Ritika law brought up a good point that if there's a mistrial and the da decides to prosecute again, he knows that the only thing he had success with is that emotional argument that Kyle shouldn't have been there in the first place. And that's what he's going to hammer on for a week straight when they try him again.

Yeah, I like yours better.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

You missed the favorite ones for TexAgs.

Tow the line

Commander and Chief

---

Only a looser cares about that kind of stuff

Waffledynamics said:

---

I'm glad I can finally watch this Rekieta stream today. It's really a great format.

Also, sometimes I wish I went into Law.

---

If you talk to a lot of young lawyers, you will probably change your mind. Or try reading some older Supreme Court decisions. It certainly changed mine after being pre Law.

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

mkorzo said:

---

I think for a lot of people (including at least one person on this jury) it's impossible for them to separate the idea that it was a bad idea for Kyle to make the choice to insert himself into what he knew would be a riot armed with the idea he is able to legally defend himself. And probably at least one person on the jury is trying to conflate "it was a bad idea" with "well, that in itself was provocation."

---

The judge should be hammering home to the jury that they need to separate the issues. I would like to see the defense object every time the prosecution came up with that emotional argument.

Ritika law brought up a good point that if there's a mistrial and the da decides to prosecute again, he knows that the only thing he had success with is that emotional argument that Kyle shouldn't have been there in the first place. And that's what he's going to hammer on for a week straight when they try him again.

---

Why wouldn't a competent judge point out that it's anyone's constitutional right to be at any public place unless an official tells you to leave? Just like he scolded the prosecution for trying to make a point that the defendant has the constitutional right to silence.

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

mkorzo said:

---

I think for a lot of people (including at least one person on this jury) it's impossible for them to separate the idea that it was a bad idea for Kyle to make the choice to insert himself into what he knew would be a riot armed with the idea he is able to legally defend himself. And probably at least one person on the jury is trying to conflate "it was a bad idea" with "well, that in itself was provocation."

---

The judge should be hammering home to the jury that they need to separate the issues. I would like to see the defense object every time the prosecution came up with that emotional argument.

Ritika law brought up a good point that if there's a mistrial and the da decides to prosecute again, he knows that the only thing he had success with is that emotional argument that Kyle shouldn't have been there in the first place. And that's what he's going to hammer on for a week straight when they try him again.

---

I think the defense walked in with much more navet than the prosecution. Even with all the dirty tricks, I think all the prosecution managed to do was barely hang a jury.

Hopefully Kyle, and the entire defense team have had their eyes opened to the importance of jury selection, will accept more outside help and bury the state with the help of the masses. The facts and evidence will ALWAYS be on Kyles side, only positive things will come out in a second trial (more witnesses, less surprises)

Perhaps the defense (or, hopefully, the new defense team) will learn from their wall of mistakes and do it better at the next trial.

FbgTxAg said:

---

Karen 54 trying to figure out how to get the judge to allow the jury to vote by mail - then have Binger count the votes.

---

I wanted to star this...but it had 54 stars already and I didn't want to upset the irony

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

DA's office now has the problem of a mountain of bad testimony that defense can use to impeach all of their witnesses.

---

Agree. The DA would be a fool to try Kyle again, if this jury is hung as to all charges.

The Ritika law panel was predicting that if retried the DA knows exactly whose testimony he could tweak and probably would have new surprise witnesses to plug the gaps in the first trial. You would have witness come forward to say that Kyle was pointing his gun at them earlier in the evening acting threatening. This is probably the biggest fear.

this whole thing is like a bad cooking show, then selling the cookies to the public

Has there been ANY new info today or nothing yet?

hbtheduce said:

---

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

mkorzo said:

---

I think for a lot of people (including at least one person on this jury) it's impossible for them to separate the idea that it was a bad idea for Kyle to make the choice to insert himself into what he knew would be a riot armed with the idea he is able to legally defend himself. And probably at least one person on the jury is trying to conflate "it was a bad idea" with "well, that in itself was provocation."

---

The judge should be hammering home to the jury that they need to separate the issues. I would like to see the defense object every time the prosecution came up with that emotional argument.

Ritika law brought up a good point that if there's a mistrial and the da decides to prosecute again, he knows that the only thing he had success with is that emotional argument that Kyle shouldn't have been there in the first place. And that's what he's going to hammer on for a week straight when they try him again.

---

I think the defense walked in with much more navet than the prosecution. Even with all the dirty tricks, I think all the prosecution managed to do was barely hang a jury.

Hopefully Kyle, and the entire defense team have had their eyes opened to the importance of jury selection, will accept more outside help and bury the state with the help of the masses. The facts and evidence will ALWAYS be on Kyles side, only positive things will come out in a second trial (more witnesses, less surprises)

---

Will cost Kyle alot more money. ALOT.

But, since the point of this trial was to make an example to the rest of the country that when lib hired thugs come to your town, you better let them do whatever the **** they want to do, I have little doubt if allowed, this trial will happen again.

any chance they are agreed on not guilty for murder, but hung on the lesser charges?

If Soros says try him again the DEA is going to say how hard...

This is pretty unusual in terms of how long they've been deliberating right? I mean I would think it means good things for him not getting convicted of the highest charges, but maybe not as good for his changes of getting nailed on some lesser one.

Science Denier said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

mkorzo said:

---

I think for a lot of people (including at least one person on this jury) it's impossible for them to separate the idea that it was a bad idea for Kyle to make the choice to insert himself into what he knew would be a riot armed with the idea he is able to legally defend himself. And probably at least one person on the jury is trying to conflate "it was a bad idea" with "well, that in itself was provocation."

---

The judge should be hammering home to the jury that they need to separate the issues. I would like to see the defense object every time the prosecution came up with that emotional argument.

Ritika law brought up a good point that if there's a mistrial and the da decides to prosecute again, he knows that the only thing he had success with is that emotional argument that Kyle shouldn't have been there in the first place. And that's what he's going to hammer on for a week straight when they try him again.

---

I think the defense walked in with much more navet than the prosecution. Even with all the dirty tricks, I think all the prosecution managed to do was barely hang a jury.

Hopefully Kyle, and the entire defense team have had their eyes opened to the importance of jury selection, will accept more outside help and bury the state with the help of the masses. The facts and evidence will ALWAYS be on Kyles side, only positive things will come out in a second trial (more witnesses, less surprises)

---

Will cost Kyle alot more money. ALOT.

But, since the point of this trial was to make an example to the rest of the country that when lib hired thugs come to your town, you better let them do whatever the **** they want to do, I have little doubt if allowed, this trial will happen again.

---

I'm guessing he will be able to offset most of that cost by raising the funds for it. I know I would contribute.

I had a discussion this morning with the guys I have 6am men's breakfast. All are amazing, conservative men, gun owners (including AR's), fathers, educated, and tough-as-nails.

Two thought this case wasn't cut and dry, and one said openly carrying an AR in public in a tense situation is provoking because of where we are in society. Guns have been demonized, and now anyone seeing someone carrying a gun in public gets nervous.

We all live in Arvada, CO where there was a complex shooting last summer. An active shooter with an AR was shot by a citizen after killing an LEO. The citizen hero picked up the AR to disarm, and was spotted holding it and killed by police as they arrived on scene, as they thought he was the shooter.

As such, one the guys in my group agreed that the other guys in the Kenosha killings could have an argument that they thought Kyle was indeed an active shooter and just tried to disarm him.

Now none of us think Kyle is guilty, but two realize the complexity, and all of us agree this was a horrible situation for everyone to be involved in and should have never happened if the leaders of Kenosha were doing their jobs.

Anywho, I can see why the jury is hung.

EDIT: All that to say, once the judge allowed the vagueness of "provoking" to enter deliberation discussions, we knew this was going to be hung. Provoke is in the eye of the beholder and the law isn't defined well enough. As such, here we are.

Sea Speed said:

---

Has there been ANY new info today or nothing yet?

---

I think this is new stuff, but I could be wrong
1. New evidence shows prosecution directly lied to the court about the source of "the video"
2. New evidence shows that the prosecution called a witness to the stand, knowing the testimony was a complete lie.

Probably more, but those are the two that are the biggest to me.

Big Johnson Ag said:

---

For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it's a peach of cake.

---

What a moran.

That's terrible. Your guys that don't like AR in public. They don't like the laws, they like feels and conform to what they see as society which doesn't respect them

YouBet said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

mkorzo said:

---

I think for a lot of people (including at least one person on this jury) it's impossible for them to separate the idea that it was a bad idea for Kyle to make the choice to insert himself into what he knew would be a riot armed with the idea he is able to legally defend himself. And probably at least one person on the jury is trying to conflate "it was a bad idea" with "well, that in itself was provocation."

---

The judge should be hammering home to the jury that they need to separate the issues. I would like to see the defense object every time the prosecution came up with that emotional argument.

Ritika law brought up a good point that if there's a mistrial and the da decides to prosecute again, he knows that the only thing he had success with is that emotional argument that Kyle shouldn't have been there in the first place. And that's what he's going to hammer on for a week straight when they try him again.

---

I think the defense walked in with much more navet than the prosecution. Even with all the dirty tricks, I think all the prosecution managed to do was barely hang a jury.

Hopefully Kyle, and the entire defense team have had their eyes opened to the importance of jury selection, will accept more outside help and bury the state with the help of the masses. The facts and evidence will ALWAYS be on Kyles side, only positive things will come out in a second trial (more witnesses, less surprises)

---

Will cost Kyle alot more money. ALOT.

But, since the point of this trial was to make an example to the rest of the country that when lib hired thugs come to your town, you better let them do whatever the **** they want to do, I have little doubt if allowed, this trial will happen again.

---

I'm guessing he will be able to offset most of that cost by raising the funds for it. I know I would contribute.

---

Didn't he try to make a go-fund-me thingy, but it was somehow not allowed to stay up?

singapore_sling said:

---

This is pretty unusual in terms of how long they've been deliberating right? I mean I would think it means good things for him not getting convicted of the highest charges, but maybe not as good for his changes of getting nailed on some lesser one.

---

conventional wisdom (and I have no idea why it's conventional or wise) says that the longer the jury deliberates, the less likely they are to convict.

BMX Bandit said:

---

any chance they are agreed on not guilty for murder, but hung on the lesser charges?

---

If they are, they are misreadng the jury instructions on some counts. If not guilty by virtue of self defense on the highest charge in that count, the lessers are no longer on the table for them to even consider.

DTP02 said:

---

I've got a feeling Kyle is walking out a free man today.

---

The damn pessimist in me says...no. The best I can hope for is - the Judge would grow a pair.

Tanya James, of Arkansas, crossed state lines to Incite a riot and commit murder. She should be arrested and held without bond.

thanks!

Big Johnson Ag said:

---

For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it's a peach of cake.

---

hear, hear! that right their is amazing.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

any chance they are agreed on not guilty for murder, but hung on the lesser charges?

---

If they are, they are misreadng the jury instructions on some counts. If not guilty by virtue of self defense on the highest charge in that count, the lessers are no longer on the table for them to even consider.

---

Logical!

powerbelly said:

---

Quote:

---

Two thought this case wasn't cut and dry, and one said openly carrying an AR in public in a tense situation is provoking because of where we are in society. Guns have been demonized, and now anyone seeing someone carrying a gun in public gets nervous.

---

The problem is that the legal definition of provoking is different than the common usage.

That is like saying a woman wearing a short dress was asking to be raped.

---

That's where I believe we are with foreman Karen. What she feels and thinks is what matters to her. The law is irrelevant because how she feels is superior to laws she dislikes

NASAg03 said:

---

I had a discussion this morning with the guys I have 6am men's breakfast. All are amazing, conservative men, gun owners (including AR's), fathers, educated, and tough-as-nails.

Two thought this case wasn't cut and dry, and one said openly carrying an AR in public in a tense situation is provoking because of where we are in society. Guns have been demonized, and now anyone seeing someone carrying a gun in public gets nervous.

We all live in Arvada, CO where there was a complex shooting last summer. An active shooter with an AR was shot by a citizen after killing an LEO. The citizen hero picked up the AR to disarm, and was spotted holding it and killed by police as they arrived on scene, as they thought he was the shooter.

As such, one the guys in my group agreed that the other guys in the Kenosha killings could have an argument that they thought Kyle was indeed an active shooter and just tried to disarm him.

Now none of us think Kyle is guilty, but two realize the complexity, and all of us agree this was a horrible situation for everyone to be involved in and should have never happened if the leaders of Kenosha were doing their jobs.

Anywho, I can see why the jury is hung.

EDIT: All that to say, once the judge allowed the vagueness of "provoking" to enter deliberation discussions, we knew this was going to be hung. Provoke is in the eye of the beholder and the law isn't defined well enough. As such, here we are.

---

The fact that kyle peacefully ran by dozens of protestors completely demolishes the idea that this was an active shooter situation.

Anyone in that crowd could clearly see they weren't at risk. Add in the fact he is running toward the flashing police lights weakens that argument further.