Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty

Out of curiosity, how does Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defense plea compare to that of the Capitol officer who shot Ashli Babbitt?

Ashli Babbitt was advancing through a smashed window, while trespassing, in the middle of a high-pressure situation. IIRC the agent who shot her shouted a warning and then fired when she continued advancing. I think he could have reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger, especially given that there was a mob likely to advance behind her. Despite the fact that there were people behind her, I think the angle she was shot at (more or less from the side) precludes reckless endangerment.

So about the same, I guess.

I read in 90% of murder trials where deliberations enter 3rd day it will result in hung jury,also the delay is 2 jury members including fore person who are pushing for conviction on a lesser charge.

A hung jury is a better outcome than a negotiated guilty on some lesser charge for the sake of pleasing the one ideologue on the jury, anyway. That's a mistrial and Rittenhouse gets another shake at it, probably with a much better defence team funded by donations from people who will be outraged that he wasn't acquitted.

The judge has yet to rule on the defence's motion for a mistrial though. I'm not actually clear on whether or not they have included a request for prejudice (meaning he cannot be tried again), nor on whether that request has to be placed prior to the end of the trial or if the defence can cite all the prosecutorial misconduct at the end and ask for a mistrial with prejudice. I saw some lawyers on YouTube speculating that it may have been Rittenhouse's request that his lawyers go for mistrial without prejudice as the jury deliberations drew on and he became nervous about conviction, which suggests to me that if you ask for a mistrial with prejudice then the judge will consider that and that alone, rather than coming back and saying "I have considered your motion for mistrial with prejudice but I'm granting it without prejudice" kinda thing.

And then you have to wonder, if it is a mistrial on a hung jury, are the prosecution even going to want to try this case again given what a disaster it has been. I know that Robert Barnes is already chomping at the bit to refer the prosecution to the bar because he has a bee in his bonnet about how often small-time defence attorneys are punished for misconduct as compared to prosecutors. And Andrew Branca, a lawyer who specialises exclusively in self defence cases, has taken an interest in this case. No idea if he has a license in Winsconsin but he'd probably be willing to consult on it.

It's all very dramatic and interesting, really. So much so, it's easy to forget that an 18-year-old's life is hanging in the balance of it all.

I was of the opinion that it would have been a speedy acquittal but the longer it goes on, the more likely it will be that Rittenhouse will be found guilty of something.

It's such a clear cut case of self-defence in my mind, I think something else is at play here. One/some of the jurors may be influenced by other things than the evidence. Have I proof of that, no.

Whether or not you like Rittenhouse or agree with his actions on the night, the prosecution do seem to have infringed on his rights to a fair trial so even if Rittenhouse is convicted of something, there'll still be a long way to run. The judge still has to rule on the two mistrial requests. And if they don't go Rittenhouse's way, then I'd fully expect Rittenhouse to be granted an appeal.

Take your bets...

The length of time to reach a verdict suggests it might be that simple. We'll see.

Live here

Not Guilty on all counts.

The jury has just said its OK to carry a gun and shoot people.

There's going to be riots tonight all over.

Time to get out the marshmallows

Just out of curiosity, who picks the foreperson in a jury?