Most everything you brought up was discussed in the thread. But let's go to the points I was making towards the end. Much of Rittenhouses activities and words that happened before the incident were not allowed in court. His attack of two girls in that fight. The fact he was hanging with either white supemacists or white supremacist sympothizers in a bar. The fact he said that he wish he had a gun and would shoot shoplifters.
And as far as juries go, it certainly didn't take but a fraction of time for the jury to come to a verdict in the Arbury case and they had multiple charges on three different defendants. So my point all along is that the jury didn't see this as an open and shut case as some suggested.
I certainly do not doubt the jury came to the right conclusion based on the evidence that was allowed in court.
A lot of that stuff was not allowed in court because it was not factually relevant to the events that happened that night. And his actions and associations weren't the only one's not allowed in. The fact that Rosenbaum was a convicted child rapist was not allowed to be brought in front of the jury. What's funny is that the Defense wanted to bring it that he had just gotten out of the mental hospital and the judge denied it because the State had not opened the door to that. Then the State screwed up and mentioned he was on medications which then allowed the Defense to explore that. The criminal conduct that led to invalidation of the concealed handgun permit held by Gage (the guy who got his bicep blown out) was not allowed in either.
This judge was known for wanting to put as much factual evidence in front of juries to allow them to make the decisions in cases brought before him. If his defense lawyers were more aggressive they could have successfully gotten the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice due to the prosecutions blatant Civil Rights violation during the trial.
But on to the next!
