schwack schwack said:

---

Chat reporting it. Apparently Law & Crime is reporting it.

Yes, Rekieta reporting it too.

---

So is Court TV. I say he walks.

This is the feeling I have.

I don't think he walks free. May not be murder one but could be either reckless or negligent homicide. They had 5 of the 6 possible murder charges under Wisconsin law as possible verdicts.

Judge is back

Damn! Two hours of total deliberation time?

First degree reckless. Called it.

What's the sentence for that, 10-15?

Edit- reading/hearing up to 60 years? Holy *****

Really quick for a compromise verdict. I guess they were all pretty much on the same page.

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

What's the sentence for that, 10-15?

---

Could be life without parole with the aggravating factor of using the gun.

ETA: Belay that. The aggravating factor only adds five years. But he also has bail jumping convictions to be added. So max 65 years?

So they didn't buy the self-defense, but also didn't buy that he was intending to kill him.

aggiehawg said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

What's the sentence for that, 10-15?

---

Could be life without parole with the aggravating factor of using the gun.

---

Whoa. Didn't know that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

What's the sentence for that, 10-15?

---

Could be life without parole with the aggravating factor of using the gun.

---

Rekeita says it's a 5 year add-on.

60 year max on the reckless. Judge will have a lot of discretion. The other stuff is not going to help.

Captain Positivity said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

What's the sentence for that, 10-15?

---

Could be life without parole with the aggravating factor of using the gun.

---

Rekeita says it's a 5 year add-on.

---

Yeah, I edited. Was misreading.

So, if the jury went by the law and didn't just compromise, then the first degree reckless leads me to think they believed the inadvertent discharge version of the events?

If they believed he intended to shoot but did do while unreasonably thinking he was justified or provoked, then that's 2nd degree intentional, right?

I mean, he's in jail for essentially the rest of his life, so it's all pedantic. I'm just trying to understand the logic.

Another killing, and another conviction. Rittenhouse is damn lucky he was acquitted.

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

So, if the jury went by the law and didn't just compromise, then the first degree reckless leads me to think they believed the inadvertent discharge version of the events?

If they believed he intended to shoot but did do while unreasonably thinking he was justified or provoked, then that's 2nd degree intentional, right?

I mean, he's in jail for essentially the rest of his life, so it's all pedantic. I'm just trying to understand the logic.

---

Juries often don't have much logic, first off.

But here, they clearly did not buy any self defense claim at all. That was off of the table early on.

The video clip they chose was to see if Edgecomb had raised the gun and pointed it at Cleereman's head. That tells me they were still on the first degree intentional murder charge with some saying he raised his hand and others saying they couldn't see that*. Ironically, although it completely wrecked his self defense argument, Edgecomb's testimony that Cleereman's lunge and Edgecomb's step back "and the gun just went off," testimony was likely the basis for this verdict.

*Judge said before the jury was shown in to announce the verdict, that 30 minutes after the jury viewed the video, they sent word they had a verdict. The rest of the time was just waiting for the families and attorneys to get to the courtroom. Including their lunch, that was a deliberation time of slightly over or under, two hours. They had been directed to consider the first degree intentional murder charge first before proceeding to the lesser charges and if guilty on the first degree murder charge to stop as they were done.

Does that make sense?

VaultingChemist said:

---

Another killing, and another conviction. Rittenhouse is damn lucky he was acquitted.

---

Jury had a lot of hunters and gun owners on it. They saw trigger control, and selective shooting on Kyle's part. Ironically when Kyle chose who would be the alternates in the tumbler deal, he chose six, three of whom were the biggest gun enthusiasts. Natalie Wisco of Kyle's defense team confirmed that later.

LOL. During this trial I repeatedly referred to defense counsel B'Ivory LaMarr as a Johnnie Cochran wannabe. Turns out he plagiarized Cochran.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison video showing that Edgecomb defense attorney basically copied verbatim Johnnie Cochran’s opening in the defense of O.J. Simpson. Imitation is the greatest flattery, they say. 1/3 https://t.co/iK9dhMxhlg pic.twitter.com/BNHLRCr4Pe

— Scottie Lee Meyers (@ScottieMeyers) January 28, 2022

For my fellow trial watchers, the Nashville Waffle House killer trial defense is up, arguing a positive defense of insanity. The prosecution was boring, he obviously did the shooting.

I'm real exited to see defense try to prove he's crazy, I feel like he has to take the stand to testify to that.

I'm still considering the possibility the foreperson filled out the wrong form and meant to fill out 1st degree intentional. In Wisconsin each form is on a different sheet of paper. I just don't see a real discussion of any law taking place in that short of a time period nor was there time to debate/negotiate a compromise verdict.

Maybe they overfocused on the video and, because they couldn't see anything clearly, determined there wasn't enough proof of intent. This is a problem with video evidence that the judge alluded to. It tends to hold more weight even if it is fuzzy and there are eyewitnesses telling you what they saw.

I think they saw a man running after him after chasing him down on his bike.

I think it was probably intentional murder as he felt in that moment he needed to "show them" for disrespecting him, but it's hard to get past the fact that Theo was trying to ride away from the car. If they hadn't of chased him the lawyer would be alive.

Not excusing it, just trying to provide some perspective on why they may not have been able to get to Murder 1.

AggiePetro07 said:

---

I think they saw a man running after him after chasing him down on his bike.

I think it was probably intentional murder as he felt in that moment he needed to "show them" for disrespecting him, but it's hard to get past the fact that Theo was trying to ride away from the car. If they hadn't of chased him the lawyer would be alive.

Not excusing it, just trying to provide some perspective on why they may not have been able to get to Murder 1.

---

Did you see his testimony on the stand? He was awful. They didn't believe him.

Here's a mashup of Edgecomb on cross.