Rittenhouse verdict poll

[Greenman]

When is the verdict due?

Right after the jury finishes deliberating.

 

[dawp]

When is the verdict due?

there is no 'due' time, it's whenever the jury reaches a verdict or is ruled they are deadlocked.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Wonder why someone else had to buy it for him then, lol. Guess Dominick Black will walk too.

Possession and purchase are 2 different things.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

there is no 'due' time, it's whenever the jury reaches a verdict or is ruled they are deadlocked.

In which case they can replace locked jurors with the alternates.

 

[kage69]

The irony of a traitor like you complaining about lefties not liking the constitution is just too much!

It's a classic for sure.

I like this new one too, where violent "rioters" should be able to be shot like Kyle Rittenhouse did, but a "rioter" like Ashi Babbit? Well that's murder, she's a martyr.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's a classic for sure.

I like this new one too, where violent "rioters" should be able to be shot like Kyle Rittenhouse did, but a "rioter" like Ashi Babbit? Well that's murder, she's a martyr.

You mean the woman that was on the opposite side of a blocked door? Yeah, that one.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Possession and purchase are 2 different things.

Sure champ.

 

[DaaQ]

My guess is that very few from wall street are peddling drugs on the street corner, something that would trigger a search. The first rule of crime is "Don't be seen".

This right here is why I think that all elected officials should be required to pass drug screenings just like all the regular schmoes that have to for employment.

 

[kage69]

You mean the woman that was on the opposite side of a blocked door? Yeah, that one.

Part of 'the rioters' according to people like you; someone who crossed a line and had to be "stopped." Yeah, that one. Definitely not a magat Karen in the same mob attacking police and parading Confederate battle flags through the Capital building while politicians hid for their lives. Nah.

 

[soundforbjt]

Jury going home for the night and will continue tomorrow. No acquittal after nine hours today.

 

[Greenman]

This right here is why I think that all elected officials should be required to pass drug screenings just like all the regular schmoes that have to for employment.

I wouldn't have any issue with that at all. A yearly audit would be fine as well.

 

[HurleyBird]

In which case they can replace locked jurors with the alternates.

No, you can't replace jurors in the event of a deadlock. You just end up with a hung jury.

 

[soundforbjt]

No, you can't replace jurors in the event of a deadlock. You just end up with a hung jury.

They’d have to be hung on all five (?) charges. They have the ability to be hung on one charge and not the others.

 

[HurleyBird]

They have the ability to be hung on one charge and not the others.

That's right, but the point is you can't replace jurors with alternates to get a verdict on a charge when the jury can't agree. That's what taj is arguing.

 

[soundforbjt]

That's right, but the point is you can't replace jurors with alternates to get a verdict on a charge when the jury can't agree. That's what taj is arguing.

Of course taj is wrong...par for the course.

 

[Vic]

Dreaming of no Constitution........ par for the leftist course.

This from the poster who openly hates the 14a and believes the 1a doesn't apply to any speech disagrees with... lol.

 

[Vic]

My guess is that very few from wall street are peddling drugs on the street corner, something that would trigger a search. The first rule of crime is "Don't be seen".

Just an FYI... a high percentage on Wall Street are doing drugs. They might not be peddling them on the street corner (that's where the NASDAQ got its start), but they're doing them just the same. And that's illegal too, despite its politically-selective enforcement.

But hey, I am glad that to see a 'conservative' argue against the 4a in a thread where other 'conservatives' are chanting that anyone who doesn't support their particular interpretation of the 2a must hate the Constitution. Just par for the hypocritical course.

 

[Vic]

This right here is why I think that all elected officials should be required to pass drug screenings just like all the regular schmoes that have to for employment.

Uniform and universal enforcement of bad laws would be the quickest way to get those laws repealed.

 

[soundforbjt]

Exactly as expected, Cucker is claiming jurors are scared to find Rittenhouse not guilty.

I’m sure Insannity will echo this, along with Laura Ingrate.
Edit...looks like Cucker is devoting his entire show to this.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Exactly as expected, Cucker is claiming jurors are scared to find Rittenhouse not guilty.

I’m sure Insannity will echo this, along with Laura Ingrate.
Edit...looks like Cucker is devoting his entire show to this.

didn't he say the something similar with Chauvin, or am I imagining that?

 

[soundforbjt]

didn't he say the something similar with Chauvin, or am I imagining that?

Wouldn’t surprise me.

 

[kt]

You mean the woman that was on the opposite side of a blocked door? Yeah, that one.

Remind us where in the Capitol building she was shot again?

I'll save you the trouble. She was not on the opposite side of a blocked door. She was shot while climbing through the broken glass part of the door to the Speaker's Lobby. Any ideas how many barricades she had to cross to even get there?

 

[VRAMdemon]

yes sounds like a logical plan, have a gun and if someone trys to rip it from your hands assume they are going to kill you with it and they are crazy.

Merely pointing a gun at someone IS a threat of lethal force. It is, for all the person down-barrel knows, the last step before pulling the trigger. If you have to wait for a trigger to be pulled before you can finally call someone with a firearm an imminent lethal threat, then you basically have to wait to be dead.

Say the situation was Grosskreutz witnessed Mr Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum and moved toward him with weapon drawn - Rittenhouse fires as he did and missed - And then Grosskreutz fires back and kills Rittenhouse. Or ... skateboard guy witnessed Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum - he moves toward him with his skateboard - Rittenhouse fires as he did and misses - Skateboard guy bashes Rittenhouse head in with his skateboard and kills him. Both cases are grounds for acquittal on self defense claims, Correct?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This is pretty damn good

Kyle Rittenhouse Is A Little Bitch, by Skabel

from the album What Do You Know About Ska Punk? Vol. 5

whatdoyouknowaboutskapunk.bandcamp.com

 

[rommelrommel]

Merely pointing a gun at someone IS a threat of lethal force. It is, for all the person down-barrel knows, the last step before pulling the trigger. If you have to wait for a trigger to be pulled before you can finally call someone with a firearm an imminent lethal threat, then you basically have to wait to be dead.

Say the situation was Grosskreutz witnessed Mr Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum and moved toward him with weapon drawn - Rittenhouse fires as he did and missed - And then Grosskreutz fires back and kills Rittenhouse. Or ... skateboard guy witnessed Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum - he moves toward him with his skateboard - Rittenhouse fires as he did and misses - Skateboard guy bashes Rittenhouse head in with his skateboard and kills him. Both cases are grounds for acquittal on self defense claims, Correct?

Yes, both parties to an incident could have valid self defence claims.