The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is a hero

MSNBC banned from Rittenhouse courtroom. Reporter (James Morrison) following jury bus and attempting to take pictures claimed to be working under orders of one of MSNBC's New York producers (Irene Byon).

Ms. Byon has now scrubbed her LinkedIn and Twitter accounts.

If true, that's unethical as hell and both those people should be shitcanned.

New York TV producer being unethical? I"m shocked! Shocked!!

Huber didn't witness any shooting. And he was assaulting someone who was already down, probably because he believed Rittenhouse wouldn't shoot.

I'd be interested to hear their justification for this.

And, also, yeah, seeing them promptly shitcanned.

Someone's taking lessons from Trump.

Anti-Rittenhouse protestor body-slams reporter outside Kenosha courthouse, arrested for battery

New York assholes...how much more motivation do you need?

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rit...sha-homicide-a5ee515a50f77ea4993bf7176859ef57

It's twue.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/us/k...Oel67L8a7zjUO-uSF6S1BdnnPgsqt7gmgfLbzoXd27i-E

national review has thinks he is a hero.
https://www.nationalreview.com/tag/...ign=header&utm_content=popular&utm_term=fifth

From a Facebook journalist group:

As The Great One, Mark Levin likes to say, the MSM are no longer concerned about being objective journalists, they’re just an extension of the DNC.

The guy who backed Cruz in the 2016 primaries and said he was a Never-Trumper, but has since become strongly pro-Trump?

Well, there's a towering fucking intellect worth listening to.

Something around 80-85% of journalists self-identify as democrats, if I recall correctly. So yeah, don't look for too much objectivity in the press.

But even that doesn't really mean much. The press's main game is "Gotcha!" and they don't care too much who gets got. Ever since the 24-hour news cycle ramped up with cable news channels, "if it bleeds it leads" has been more true than ever. And half of their content is op-ed rather than actual news. Celebrity fluff garbage. All aimed at capturing those all-important ratings and therefore advertising dollars. That's all they care about these days, with the possible exception of NPR.

Referring mostly to American media here.

If actual news was their business, the coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial would consist of little more than "The trial has started. The charges against Rittenhouse are X, Y, Z." "The trial is underway." "The trial has ended and the verdicts are . . . "

Because it’s the media and the Democrats that have pushed this narrative about how evil Rittenhouse is before any of the facts came out. It’s the same thing they did with Nick Sandman. The fact that this guy used to work for CNN is quite telling as well.

If journalists being predominantly Democrats means that the press can't be objective, does that also follow that lawmakers overwhelmingly being straight white men means the law should be expected to have a bias towards straight white men?

How dare you use a hypocrite's logic against them. That is cancel culture. You are a fascist who is taking away @Lanzman 's right to speak.

Is there a limit to how long the jury can go on deliberating before the judge tells them to either return a verdict or the case gets dismissed (or whatever happens)?

At some point, if the jury does not appear to be converging on a verdict--everyone's mind is firmly made up--the judge declares a mistrial, and the process begins all over again.

It's usually along these lines: the jury says they're deadlocked, the judge tells them to keep trying. They come back and say they are still deadlocked and the judge issues an "Allen Charge". The jurors are told to go back and individually state their beliefs about the case without interruption then try again. If they're still deadlocked the judge can declare a mistrial. Mistrial's cut both ways: defense can emphasize what worked and what didn't, but so can prosecutors. It could be an impetus to a plea bargain. No predictions. We'll see.

I looked up this Allen Charge thing. Very interesting. Apparently Wisconsin's judicial system has rejected the Allen Charge. Re: Kelley v. State, 187 N.W.2d 810 (Wis. 1971).

I didn't know that. In any case, I would expect the judge to tell them to go back and try again. Jury deliberations being private there's nothing saying they wouldn't come up with something like that on their own. "Twelve Angry Men" is a compelling portrayal of the process. Well worth a watch. Great cast.

Twelve Angry Men is a great film. However, several events in the film would be grounds for an immediate mistrial.

I haven't seen the entire film in years (if ever). We read the play in high school English. Just out of curiosity which events are you referring to?

Almost everything Henry Fonda does is juror misconduct.

He researches the knife.
He does the experiment with the timing of the old man's walk to the door.
He makes conclusions about facts that are not in evidence (the length of time the train takes to pass, a witness's eyesight).

Basically, he's acting as the defense should have. The movie justifies this by suggesting the defense attorney--a public defender--is inadequate.

This is all no bueno. The jury can only consider what was presented, not experiment or research on their own, or use their own speculation as fact.

It may be, for instance, that the witness with the eyeglass dimples had perfectly adequate vision at a distance. If it wasn't brought up in the testimony, the jurors must assume it's not relevant. They can't assume it was missed and therefore that they can dismiss her testimony.

But it is a great film, one of Henry Fonda's best and the greatest film director Sydney Lumet made.

Soooo ... a group of people whose job involves paying very close attention to what's going on ... mostly votes Democratic?

Interesting.

Think there might be some significance to that fact?

Nah.