I bet you guys have answered this a dozen times already so SIAP:

If they reach a verdict on a given charge but are hung on others, the unanimous votes stand, correct?

hbtheduce said:

---

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.

---

This. I mean, the FBI instigators, I mean Zalinskis, just casually walked off after Kyle popped the first guy who had him cornered.

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

I'm pretty sure this was discussed last night. Nothing new out ofnthe courtroom today though correct? Haven't been able to watch.

hbtheduce said:

---

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.

---

I'm just curious, does anyone know roughly how far it was between where Kyle shot skateboard dude and no-bicep to the police line?

Marvin said:

---

I bet you guys have answered this a dozen times already so SIAP:

If they reach a verdict on a given charge but are hung on others, the unanimous votes stand, correct?

---

Yes. They can convict or acquit on some counts and be hung on others. The counts on which they are hung can then be retried unless the Judge intervenes declaring a mistrial with prejudice.

frorge said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

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.

---

I'm just curious, does anyone know roughly how far it was between where Kyle shot skateboard dude and no-bicep to the police line?

---

Couple blocks maybe.

Right around a block if I'm not mistaken. I'm thinking <100 yards

frorge said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

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.

---

I'm just curious, does anyone know roughly how far it was between where Kyle shot skateboard dude and no-bicep to the police line?

---

Quarter to half a mile? I wouldn't be surprised if the true motive of the mob was to assault Kyle and exert justice before he could turn himself into police. It had nothing to do with stopping a "mass shooter" or "active shooter".

frorge said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

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.

---

I'm just curious, does anyone know roughly how far it was between where Kyle shot skateboard dude and no-bicep to the police line?

---

My perception is that it was a little over a block and a half to the corner where the police line was.

gotsand said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Hopefully today is the day. As antsy I am, I can't imagine how Kyle is feeling.

---

With an appeal queued up already, and the possibility of a hung jury, these deliberations may well not result in "finality." Even a full acquittal still sees him hiding from domestic terrorists for years.

---

Years? Nah. These people aren't truly emotionally invested. They'll move on as soon as their masters tell them to.

---

This. They will move on to the next shiny object that gets everybody's attention, it's inevitable.

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."

---

I have no doubt that there is some of that, which is why the defense needed to address that much better and more clearly in the closing.

Take that head on, acknowledge that some may feel that way, but then bold face underline for the jury that legally, it doesn't matter, that legally you cannot find provocation on the basis of him being there or carrying a scary looking rifle.

And then finish it off by pointing out how the prosecution's own description of the supoosed provocation and the evidence itself, even aside from Kyle's own testimony, is by definition reasonable doubt.

frorge said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

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.

---

I'm just curious, does anyone know roughly how far it was between where Kyle shot skateboard dude and no-bicep to the police line?

---

Kyle was in the same spot.

He shot skateboard guy as he tried to wrestle the gun from Kyle. GG was running up as skateboard guy was shot, and holds his hands up as Kyle raises his rifle. When Kyle lowered his rifle GG went in for the kill shot on kyle

Kyle was about 150 -200 yards to police line

NASAg03 said:

---

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.

---

Provoke is pretty well defined, legally speaking. I think the issue is that the judge didn't do a good enough job of explaining it and the defense didn't do a good enough job of countering it. What they should have said and never touched on is that the police witnesses testified there were more armed than unarmed people that night and Rosenbaum was undeniably around dozens of other armed individuals, yet their being armed was never provocation enough for him to attack them prior to his attack on Rittenhouse. Logically, the mere act of being armed was thus not provocative to him.

Rittenhouse raising his gun could be the only distinguishable provocative act, but whether he even did so is a matter of debate, and thus in reasonable doubt. The defense should have said, unless every juror sees it, unquestionably, then the doubt that it even happened is reasonable and every juror must act and vote as if it did not because the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

IMO, Richards did a bad job of spelling out his arguments in unequivocal terms that addressed the state's arguments and positions. He should have put himself in the jury's shoes and thought, "What sentence do I need to hear to conclude or be persuaded of _____?" or come up with statements that force the jury's hand on logic (If the glove does not fit, you must acquit).

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.

---

Seeing stupid people walk into polling places and vote is quite provoking to me. Hearing the morons in blm and antifa spew their constant BS is provoking to many people. It doesn't mean I get to attack them for exercising their rights. People that get nervous around guns are ruled by their feelings and not logic. If they are uncomfortable, they can leave. ALL of the people that Kyle defended himself against were around people with guns all that night. If the guns made them feel uncomfortable they could have left, they didn't. Sounds like these so called conservatives are closer to CMs and RINOs.

Mr President Elect said:

---

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 bolded part has been discussed quite a bit. It is not lost on most of us that the guys that attacked Kyle in the street (not Rosenbaum) might have been acting in a manner of good intent. It's just that Kyle still has a right to defend himself against their attacks.

---

The journalist, at least, was an idiot.

He asked Kyle where he was going. Kyle said he was running to the police to turn himself in. He pursued, pulled out a weapon "to disarm" Kyle, and was shot.

Along those lines, a mask provokes me. It really does.

I agree 100%. That fact that they charged the jury prior to closing arguments gave the defense a chance to pivot and focus on that, but I think it caught them by surprise. They stuck to their story, which started strong but wandered and focused on the wrong thing: discrediting witnesses.

They should have focused on self-defense and defining being provoked, and how provoking varies with the situation and person.

DTP02 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."

---

I have no doubt that there is some of that, which is why the defense needed to address that much better and more clearly in the closing.

Take that head on, acknowledge that some may feel that way, but then bold face underline for the jury that legally, it doesn't matter, that legally you cannot find provocation on the basis of him being there or carrying a scary looking rifle.

---

Yep. They're idiots if they didn't think this would come up. This has been the argument from everyone but the prosecution (because they can't make it) since day 1. Any prejudicial juror is going to come in with this mindset and would need to either be persuaded away from it or be beaten down by everyone else on the jury who was persuaded away from it.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

DTP02 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."

---

I have no doubt that there is some of that, which is why the defense needed to address that much better and more clearly in the closing.

Take that head on, acknowledge that some may feel that way, but then bold face underline for the jury that legally, it doesn't matter, that legally you cannot find provocation on the basis of him being there or carrying a scary looking rifle.

---

Yep. They're idiots if they didn't think this would come up. This has been the argument from everyone but the prosecution (because they can't make it) since day 1. Any prejudicial juror is going to come in with this mindset and would need to either be persuaded away from it or be beaten down by everyone else on the jury who was persuaded away from it.

---

So what you are saying is "**** your feelings"?

DTP02 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."

---

I have no doubt that there is some of that, which is why the defense needed to address that much better and more clearly in the closing.

Take that head on, acknowledge that some may feel that way, but then bold face underline for the jury that legally, it doesn't matter, that legally you cannot find provocation on the basis of him being there or carrying a scary looking rifle.

And then finish it off by pointing out how the prosecution's own description of the supoosed provocation and the evidence itself, even aside from Kyle's own testimony, is by definition reasonable doubt.

---

None of us are immune to this, but if justice is going to be served, you have to delineate.

For example, with regard to Arbrey case, my feeling is that he caused all of it. He shouldn't have been sneaking around under the color of night, trespassing in houses and doing things he knows were wrong. But for him initially choosing to do those things, he wouldn't be dead today.

BUT, that doesn't give the defendants the right to kill him. So if I were on that jury, I would have to convict them.

This is part of what makes Kyle's whole situation even worse. The cops decided the best thing to do was back off, form a perimeter and let the riots run their course. I assume because they considered it too dangerous for police to get involved. If there had been a dozen or so cops patrolling that main street this might not have happened. Why let things get so out of hand? Instead they did nothing but roll in afterwards to make reports and haul away the bodies.

Johnny04 said:

---

This is part of what makes Kyle's whole situation even worse. The cops decided the best thing to do was back off, form a perimeter and let the riots run their course. I assume because they considered it too dangerous for police to get involved. If there had been a dozen or so cops patrolling that main street this might not have happened. Why let things get so out of hand? Instead they did nothing but roll in afterwards to make reports and haul away the bodies.

---

Obviously in this new america we live in, all cops are bast turds and burning other peoples' property is a-okay- that's what insurance is for. If you don't bow down to the anarchists, you're toast.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

NASAg03 said:

---

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.

---

Provoke is pretty well defined, legally speaking. I think the issue is that the judge didn't do a good enough job of explaining it and the defense didn't do a good enough job of countering it. What they should have said and never touched on is that the police witnesses testified there were more armed than unarmed people that night and Rosenbaum was undeniably around dozens of other armed individuals, yet their being armed was never provocation enough for him to attack them prior to his attack on Rittenhouse. Logically, the mere act of being armed was thus not provocative to him.

Rittenhouse raising his gun could be the only distinguishable provocative act, but whether he even did so is a matter of debate, and thus in reasonable doubt. The defense should have said, unless every juror sees it, unquestionably, then the doubt that it even happened is reasonable and every juror must act and vote as if it did not because the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

IMO, Richards did a bad job of spelling out his arguments in unequivocal terms that addressed the state's arguments and positions. He should have put himself in the jury's shoes and thought, "What sentence do I need to hear to conclude or be persuaded of _____?" or come up with statements that force the jury's hand on logic (If the glove does not fit, you must acquit).

---

This is all Monday morning QBing to some extent.

The provoking argument appeared out of thin air over the weekend after the State was getting smashed. The defense was not well prepared to handle it on short notice.

That said, that is part of the process. You need to be able to pivot. What we got was an angry Richards yelling at the prosecution during his close for playing dirty, instead of a methodical destruction of their provocation argument.

Now that this is over, its a lot easier to see the right way forward. But, I'm not a lawyer for a living, either. And no one here has been living this case 24/7 (at least I hope not) for the last year. The defense team should have been able to pivot their case, especially by the time they got to close.

It's a shame that Kyle didn't get a better defense, and that is on both the lying, scummy prosecutors and the defense's inability to change direction. Wisco gets high marks for doing her job as 3rd chair, with a solid command on what and what was not in evidence, and ready to speak up boldly on the fly when it mattered most.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Good Poster said:

---

How is all of this possible with no repercussions? WTF

---

Remember that Nifong (Duke lacrosse prosecutor) got a single day in jail...

---

Short derail.
This prosecutorial malfeasance is not new, however it seems to be escalating.

In 1976 a drifter was convicted of murdering a police officer. DA Henry Wade convicted the wrong man. In 1988 the film "The Thin Blue Line" help get this travesty overturned. No prosecutors were held accountable for railroading this drifter.

and if Rittenhouse gets off and sues them, they can claim qualified immunity because they didn't know lying to the court and hiding documents violated his civil rights.

Did a juror just admit she has been following media coverage of the case? pic.twitter.com/5zIt5eeavw

— Jack Po-So-Bik (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2021

As jurors entered the Kenosha courthouse today, one female juror could be heard saying "media coverage is insane"...

Good Poster said:

---

Did a juror just admit she has been following media coverage of the case? pic.twitter.com/5zIt5eeavw

— Jack Po-So-Bik (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2021

---

Hopefully not someone on the jury that's pro-Kyle.

That's a stretch.

I turned on the TV. Media. I had to turn it off.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

DirectionalDriller said:

---

As jurors entered the Kenosha courthouse today, one female juror could be heard saying "media coverage is insane"...

---

Playing devil's advocate: coul;d it just be on abservation of the number of reporters in and around the courthouse?

---

This was my thought as well.