iF you were on the jury, would you let Rittenhouse walk?

[dutch508]

Star Member Stuart G (31,899 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216057423

iF you were on the jury, would you let Rittenhouse walk? No matter what judge says?
..."F**k the Judge!

... and this is why this country is ****ed.

Star Member wryter2000 (42,366 posts)

1. I'd follow the law

But I'm pretty sure I'd find him guilty of something.

Star Member doc03 (28,837 posts)

13. It is pretty much life in a prison. If he doesn't

go to prison he will be the poster child for the Trumpers.

Star Member doc03 (28,837 posts)

28. He took a gun obtained illegally and put himself there.

I wouldn't call it first degree murder but he shouldn't walk.
If he does he will probably end up a Republican Congressman.

They threw out the gun charge because it was bullshit... of course... the DUmpmonkiez know better.

fescuerescue (3,747 posts)

5. I've resolved that if I'm ever on a jury, I'll do what my conscience dictates

regardless of what the legal system instructions say to do.

Which probably means more people would walk, than would be convicted.

But it all depends on the facts.

 

Star Member Ocelot II (96,821 posts)

11. Your conscience isn't the law. Your obligation is to follow the law

and apply the facts presented as evidence. You shouldn't be on a jury if you can't or won't do that.

fescuerescue (3,747 posts)

14. My obligation is to my conscious.

In the end, that's all we have.

But I understand how others would disagree and I wouldn't try to persuade them otherwise.

Our legal system has WAY to many injustices in it to blindly follow.

Star Member Ocelot II (96,821 posts)

20. It's not up to you to make those decisions. As a juror your duty

is to follow the court's instructions and evaluate the evidence in light of the law. Applying your personal beliefs and standards instead of the law and the facts is what results in jury nullification, and people like O.J. Simpson being acquitted in spite of overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Fortunately, most of the time lawyers are able to weed out potential jurors who are arrogant enough to think their own opinions, which might not be anyone else's, carry more weight than the law.

forthemiddle (1,129 posts)

15. Then you should NEVER be seated on a jury

I just hope you are moral enough to tell the truth during jury selection.

fescuerescue (3,747 posts)

17. And that's ok too.

I'm not going to be a mindless cog in the system.

It's not like I'm trying to get a on a jury.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't do something grossly unfair to another human being simply because the law says I have to.

Star Member PTWB (2,761 posts)

22. I disagree.

We need more independent thinkers to serve as jurors, not fewer. Many laws as written are unjust.

What would you have said to the jury deciding if a young black man had violated one of the Jim Crow era laws? Would you tell them to follow the law and the court’s instruction, or to follow their conscience?

Jury nullification is the last line of defense against tyranny.

Star Member Hav (5,385 posts)

32. Your example also works the other way around

What if there's no evidence that a young black man did the murder he's accused of. But you just feel he did it because he's already guilty on one count of being black and he gets the death penalty. It's certainly not a perfect system and was without a doubt atrocious in the past. But there are reasons why juries get very strict guidelines and that they have to make their decisions based on what the prosecution and defense presented and not their gut.

Star Member PTWB (2,761 posts)

34. It doesn't work that way at all.

I’m advocating for jurors acquitting people guilty of violating unjust laws, not for jurors convicting people who broke no law at all.

One is noble and one is reprehensible.

Can you truly not tell the difference between acquitting someone who legally violated a Jim Crow law, and convicting someone just because they’re black?

Star Member Ocelot II (96,821 posts)

42. Who decides whether a law is unjust? That's a very slippery slope.

Star Member PTWB (2,761 posts)

73. Many drug laws, mandatory minimums, etc.

It is unconscionable to convict someone of violating an unjust law, or a law with a mandatory minimum sentence that is excessive.

All jurors should educate themselves on jury nullification. The first question that a juror asks himself or herself should be whether the law and sentencing range are just. If they are not, vote to acquit no matter the evidence. If the law is just and the sentence range reasonable, only then should the juror consider guilt or innocence.

marie999 (2,231 posts)

24. What if the evidence isn't quite enough to convict but your conscience says the person is guilty?

Star Member brush (38,326 posts)

26. That killer killed two white men and severely wounded another.

IMO he'll be convicted of a lesser charge. The judge has set that up with his outrageous conduct.

If the three "victims" were black that might change things.

And if Rittenhouse was black, there probably wouldn't even be a trial as the cops would've shot an armed black man on sight during that disturbance.

Star Member LakeArenal (19,895 posts)

37. I heard on some news that judge threw out lessor charge.

If he’s guilty of any of the others it’s a BFD.

Just what I heard a couple lawyers say.

xmas74 (28,576 posts)

35. Sink him

All I needed to hear was that he went into a volatile area with a gun. He wasn't from Kenosha or even Wisconsin. He knew what was happening and instead of following curfew he stayed out.

Decoy of Fenris (1,874 posts)

46. I'd do my job and hand down a verdict as fair as possible given the law.

In this case, reasonable doubt has been established, so I'd insist that Rittenhouse walk, and that's completely independent of the judge or how "F**K"worthy he may be.

 

Star Member GoodRaisin (6,592 posts)

50. Well, the evidence I heard shows me he is guilty of premeditated murder.

I think the murder and the excuse were all premeditated, so no, I would not allow him to get away with it. **** that.

 

Star Member Trueblue1968 (14,577 posts)

64. I would NOT LET HIM WALK. I saw the videos of him murdering people.

HOMICIDE, MURDERER.

Star Member LiberalFighter (42,547 posts)

67. Based on the facts I find him guilty. There was no self defense on his part.

To do otherwise would create chaos.

 

Doodley (8,082 posts)

70. Based on what I have heard and seen, I think he murdered at least the second victim, but

the benchmark is beyond reasonable doubt, so I would have to find him not guilty.

 

[SVPete]

Is finding an innocent (wo)man "Not Guilty" letting them walk?

IMO, R is obviously innocent of all remaining charges. As for, "he will be the poster child for the Trumpers", IRL, if found "Not Guilty" R will be a years- or decades- or life-long target for Progs, even more so than Nick Sandmann.

[Texacon]

The more I see their responses to this trial the more I realize were probably closer to The Purge than I thought.

People won’t put up with this much longer.

KC

[DLR Pyro]

Star Member Trueblue1968 (14,577 posts)

64. I would NOT LET HIM WALK. I saw the videos of him murdering people.

HOMICIDE, MURDERER.

now do abortion

[BannedFromDU]

     So if you get to completely disregard the law and specific instructions to follow the law, then pretty much it's a free for all and the DUmmies shouldn't be shocked when things don't go their way.

     I will be amused to see BLM riot when Rittenhouse is acquitted. Serious irony. And free TVs.

[DefiantSix]

     So if you get to completely disregard the law and specific instructions to follow the law, then pretty much it's a free for all and the DUmmies shouldn't be shocked when things don't go their way.

     I will be amused to see BLM riot when Rittenhouse is acquitted. Serious irony. And free TVs.

Betcha this time the Roof Koreans put in an appearance. KR showed Kenosha the way...

[Aristotelian]

Star Member doc03 (28,837 posts)

13. It is pretty much life in a prison. If he doesn't

go to prison he will be the poster child for the Trumpers.

Even for a DUmmy that's quite an admission. It would send a person to prison, regardless of guilt or innocence, simply because the alternative is that said acquitted person assist their political opponents. We all know that's how their fascist 'brains' work, but to have it laid out so clearly is quite something.

[BannedFromDU]

Even for a DUmmy that's quite an admission. It would send a person to prison, regardless of guilt or innocence, simply because the alternative is that said acquitted person assist their political opponents. We all know that's how their fascist 'brains' work, but to have it laid out so clearly is quite something.

When all trials are political trials, we have entered some dark territory. Fortunately, the people in charge also have to prop up a pants-crapping buffoon and what might be the stupidest woman ever to hold political office in the history of the world, so they're a tad distracted.

[enslaved1]

To all the "he put himself there" folks...

Now do Michael Brown.  Now do Treyvon Martin. Now do Rayshard Brooks.

[FlaGator]

To all the "he put himself there" folks...

Now do Michael Brown.  Now do Treyvon Martin. Now do Rayshard Brooks.

The same "he put himself there" argument can be made about the people who were killed (not murdered) by Rittenhouse. Two of them were there with their girlfriends like it was date night or something.

[Texacon]

To all the "he put himself there" folks...

Now do Michael Brown.  Now do Treyvon Martin. Now do Rayshard Brooks.

Now do all 3 of those he shot.

KC

[Wineslob]

iF you were on the jury, would you let Rittenhouse walk? No matter what judge says?
..."F**k the Judge!

Obviously, you have never been.

I've been on several.......it's a no-brainer......no way he's guilty.

Try again DUmbass.

[SVPete]

To all the "he put himself there" folks...

Now do Michael Brown.  Now do Treyvon Martin. Now do Rayshard Brooks.

As I posted on another thread:

So, since women using the Los Gatos Creek Trail between Los Gatos and Campbell have, in the past, been raped there, any woman using it who raped there is now responsible for being raped? And if they have a German shepherd or pit bull running with them they are criminally and civilly responsible if their dog takes a chunk out of the rapist?

[DLR Pyro]

Star Member Stuart G (31,899 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216057423

iF you were on the jury, would you let Rittenhouse walk? No matter what judge says?
..."F**k the Judge!

next time you are on a jury, you be sure to tell that to the Judge.

Let us know how it works out for you

[DUmpDiver]

iF you were on the jury, would you let Rittenhouse walk?

Mole trap.

[67 Rover]

iF you were on the jury, would you let Rittenhouse walk?

I would not have been selected to be on the jury because I would have stated right up front that I am not vaccinated. 
Judge: Your dismissed!

[landofconfusion80]

I would not have been selected to be on the jury because I would have stated right up front that I am not vaccinated. 
Judge: Your dismissed!

Got alot of flack for announcing that this was another plus for not being vaccinated

[FunkyZero]

Got alot of flack for announcing that this was another plus for not being vaccinated

FYI: I got out of jury duty just a couple months ago by claiming "essential worker" status. soon as I answered that question, they were done with me.