The faux outrage here is hilarious. You know damn well that if Rittenhouse is found guilty the first thing those same people will want to know is how many BLM people were on the jury. During OJ I remember the Jury being like celebrities after it was all said and done. It was obvious that they weren't nearly as sequestered as they should have been. Following a jury in order to figure things out like when a verdict is coming, and to get insight on who is on it... bad but probably not uncommon. I don't think it'll illegal either. However if you publish names and photos of who is on the jury that is sequestered in a high profile case... yeah it's bad, and unethical. However I'm still not even sure if that's illegal. MSNBC was just sloppy and stupid here... I GUARANTEE Fox News is doing the same damn thing, and heaven forbid someone on the jury looks like BLM or Antifa.... holy hell will that be news then.
Name a time someone on this board has asked for a jury to be doxed. Name a time fox news has doxed a jury.
Oh stop. You are just mad now that if he's found guilty that you aren't going to be able to use the whole questioning the motives of the jury defense cause I called you out for faux outrage. You know why you are outraged???... Because it's MSNBC. Which we all don't care about because nobody on the left has affection for corporate billionaire owned media like you guys do with FoxNews. If it was FoxNews (who I guarantee you is doing the same damn thing) I would bet almost anything you would be dead silent, or make excuses. I'm not making excuses... I'm just calling out your faux outrage.
I'm not going to dig through every previous trial thread where someone might or might not have suggested there was a bias jury. You aren't my 6th grade teacher giving me a homework assignment dude.
you are saying its unreasonable to think a jury should not be doxxed? especially when the national guard has been called in due to expected riots? the trials have been public and that's been great. I'm all for that. Im not for doxxing jurors. those statements dont contradict each other.....
On the long-established right to access the names of people on a jury: https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-summer-2016/right-access-juror-names-an/ I do think for politically-polarized cases, in this case violently polarized, there is a strong case to grant anonymity to the jury if they so request it.
100% of the time a newsworthy case happens, the media attempts to interview them after the case. Certainly possible it is just part of them preparing to do that when the time comes. I don't agree with it, but I don't assume that it was with the intent to publicize jurors to the world.
I think in a trial as messed up as this one from the very start this is simply more of the same. And after all the right wing outrage rittenhouse will still walk, and the right wingers will be celebrating he got off and posting their "told ya so's" because more than anything else this has been a political game. Didn't matter that people died. Won't matters that others will copy him. The young trump supporter won! Pretty sure he shows up on hannity or carlson to an adoring right wing audience.
btw... since I am probably the only one here that has actually sat on a high profile jury (in this case, a capital murder case) the press certainly tried to interview me after the trial... and successfully interviewed two other jurors.
RWNJ's are claiming two "Karen" jurors are holding out for a conviction. Do media outlets know the identities of the jurors?
