3342
Comments (265)
sorted by:
249
deleted 249 points ago +250 / -1
169
PureBloodedSuperStr8 169 points ago +169 / -0

Would like to know this as well. The premise is believable, the source is unknown

86
Ifeargovtmorethan 86 points ago +89 / -3

The premise is so believable I can't even imagine any other scenario

49
daty_dato 49 points ago +50 / -1

They asked for to see the videos. They are still deliberating something. Someone on the jury is either trying to prove something or disprove something.

47
SomeRandomGuy77 47 points ago +48 / -1

No, that's what you do to stall when you want to resist reaching a not guilty verdict.

19
Jackhererer 19 points ago +19 / -0

Reminds me of Jury Duty with polly shore. Sob was right though lol.

12
RegularAmerican 12 points ago +13 / -1

I remember that one. Doesn't he like hang the jury or keep them deliberating for days and days because he was a loser with no place to stay and he liked the free hotel. also he was after that hot chick who was on the jury with him.

13
Cairn 13 points ago +13 / -0

Yes, and then he ends up solving the crime…classic Weasel movie!

8
vongregormench 8 points ago +8 / -0

He was jobless I think and he liked the paycheck from jury duty, plus hot chick on the jury. The defendant seemed guilty as hell and he should have voted to convict, but to drag it out he insisted he was innocent and started digging around to help prove it, and it turned out the defendant was in fact innocent. It's been a long time so I could be wrong but that's what I remember. I saw it in the theater and that's the only time I saw it.

5
BudBurner 5 points ago +5 / -0

Damn fren!!! how about a spoiler alert...

3
alicelookingglass 3 points ago +3 / -0

Didn't Edith Bunker do that one episode?

3
Shamb3 3 points ago +3 / -0

Damn I was trying to remember where I saw this premise. I think this was it :D

Thanks

3
DuzzentMatta 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, and Fatlock manipulating, or having the video manipulated is just like Pauly eating the taco in the evidence.

2
Hank_Baxter 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wow, just looked that up. Guess there was a time when the tomatometer and the public agreed...

1
Paradyme 1 point ago +1 / -0

Man thought I was one of the only people to see this. Amazing!

1
snoopy3210 1 point ago +1 / -0

They wanted to get the unedited HD video that shows Kyle didn't provoke the crowd at all (gun down). The edited video was made up by the prosecutors to make him look provocative. That changes everything.

22
foxhound 22 points ago +31 / -9

If it was known that a juror was intentionally withholding a verdict because they were afraid of backlash or were activists, I'm pretty sure they would be replaced by the alternates. Doubt this story is true.

43
sickofaltspin 43 points ago +48 / -5

Tell us you didn't attend law school without telling us.

Literally the ONLY reason at this point a juror would be replaced with an alternate is due to physical inability to continue on the jury of one of the 12 or being caught in illegal communications outside the jury.

The latter would have to be requested by the Foreman.

According to Barnes - who DID THE RESEARCH ON THE POTENTIAL JURORS before shithead, lazy as fuck Richards had him fired for his own ego, believes one of the four jurors his experts said should be excluded but made it into the pool is the forman.

7
alicelookingglass 7 points ago +7 / -0

"The latter would have to be requested by the Foreman"

She is the foreman.

4
lonestarnuts 4 points ago +4 / -0

Somalian pirate meme intensifies

5
sobriquet 5 points ago +5 / -0

WHO'S THE FOREMAN NOW? LOOK AT ME. I AM THE FOREMAN NOW.

3
JLCan 3 points ago +5 / -2

I went to law school (big law now) and didn't know that.

1
malkontent2024 1 point ago +5 / -4

The fact that you didnt know that and still got hired into "big law" should raise some eyebrows about why you got hired. While your contemplating that conundrum if you wouldnt mind finding your way back to reddit where you belong we would appreciate it handshake.

8
yuge_covfefe 8 points ago +8 / -0

That escalated quickly.

2
Strings_Pulled 2 points ago +2 / -0

Imagine using big words to try and sound smart, while at the same time making basic errors a 10 year old should have mastered…

1
JLCan 1 point ago +1 / -0

I got in because I aced law school with multiple class awards (in the "hard" subjects) and scholarships then clerked at a federal appeals court.

Something tells me you didn't get into Big Law. That's ok!! It's not for everyone.

1
superbasedpedeman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Big law doesn't mean shit. I'm small law and have done like 50 jury trials. They don't teach you how to litigate your way out of a paper bag in law school.

0
Truman_Show 0 points ago +1 / -1

I’ve spent millions on litigation suing people… various times. And I’ll tell you the big law guys always subcontract out to tiny firms… just my experience paying for litigation. They usually don’t know shit

6
kennedyc5217 6 points ago +6 / -0

The prosecution likely picked her as a juror for this exact reason to hold up a not guilty verdict and to either lead to a guaranteed hung jury, or mistrial so they can have another go at Kyle. There’s no way 12 people convict on lesser included, this is purely someone stopping the NG verdict. This is what you’d call Chamberlain Syndrome, trying to appease the left will work as well as it did for ol’ Neville during WW2

1
imnotdeadyet 1 point ago +1 / -0

One would think, but this has been a clown show!

82
Cesare_Borgia 82 points ago +91 / -9

He's got no idea. This guy makes up shit with alleged unnamed sources all the time. Every once in a while it is true. Mostly it's bullshit.

Edit: I'd still take this guy with a grain of salt after some of his prior claims from sources but perhaps he does have someone here.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461441805799632901

Edit: or this was common knowledge. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1461382737101733889

45
CisSiberianOrchestra 45 points ago +46 / -1

Yeah, his "White House Sources" have been wrong multiple times. I take anything Posobiac says with a big grain of salt.

8
skeletorcares 8 points ago +11 / -3

https://i.imgur.com/MN1eHs9.gif

He really is compromising any credibility here though.

7
vongregormench 7 points ago +7 / -0

I don't get why you posted a GIF of slug being chased away with salt.

-1
AnEndgamePawn -1 points ago +1 / -2

He just tweeted pictures of the jurors notes. Tell me you distrust our own side without telling me you distrust our own side

8
CisSiberianOrchestra 8 points ago +9 / -1

What is it with people in this thread getting bent out of shape whenever somebody points out (correctly) that Posobiec has been wrong plenty of times before in the past?

5
yuge_covfefe 5 points ago +5 / -0

I love this site but there is definitely a hive-mind mentality at times. I remember when Lin Wood could do no wrong, and you'd be lambasted for saying otherwise. Now you're lambasted if you support him. Same for Sidney Powell, and a host of others.

I don't know who Prosobiec is or what his claim to fame is. His name pops up here a lot and a lot of people seem to like to quote him, but I mostly just take a watch-and-see approach. Maybe he's legit, but I'm skeptical of anyone with anonymous sources these days.

The human mind is interesting. You can make a series of wild speculations, and if just 10% or so of those prove even vaguely accurate, you'll be proclaimed a prophet. People just don't register the other 90%, or if they do, they quickly forget. I don't think I'm different. I can't sit here and spit out all the examples of him being right or wrong. I simply haven't kept score, and I doubt most other people do either.

I do know that virtually everyone on our side has turned out in the long run to be unreliable at best and a grifter at worst, with a few notable exceptions, like Lindell who has been pretty stalwart. Maybe Jack is an exception, but I'm slow to trust these guys nowadays and the hive-mind echo chamber won't be enough to convince me. Results will, though. Lots of results, slowly, over time.

1
sobriquet 1 point ago +1 / -0

So much this. I like Jack, and he has gotten some good scoops. However, the best course of action is definitely, "trust but verify.".

-8
sickofaltspin -8 points ago +9 / -17

You claiming they are wrong: X didn't happen.

What was actually claimed: There is talks of doing X.

STFU faggot.

5
CisSiberianOrchestra 5 points ago +15 / -10

Looks like I found Jack's .win account.

-9
deleted -9 points ago +6 / -15
16
CisSiberianOrchestra 16 points ago +20 / -4

You're taking it strangely personally that some people here don't take Posobiac's word as gospel.

12
lawlady1776 12 points ago +12 / -0

👆👀😫

-14
sickofaltspin -14 points ago +3 / -17

I do take it personally that asshats like you give the paintbrush to our enemies to paint us with.

You're a fucking idiot. You've made it clear to the rest of us. You should be enterally banished.

John Adams had a good quote about your type:

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

15
LogicalPatriot 15 points ago +24 / -9

Got that backwards. Most of the time it has some truth to it.

Journo types are not going to reveal their sources. By your own definition, you'd hate Porject Veritas as well.

All it is, is rumor. Take with some salt. You don't have to fucking worship it.

5
atoftw 5 points ago +5 / -0

When is the last time PV used an unnamed source or just pushed speculation?

2
President_Elect_Pepe 2 points ago +8 / -6

By your own definition, you'd hate Porject Veritas as well.

Wow. Way to make this a black and white issue.

I have my doubts with this tweet but that is not even close to the same thing.

8
lawlady1776 8 points ago +8 / -0

This is so true. He has said many things would or will happened that never happened.

7
befehlistbefehl 7 points ago +8 / -1

Like the August 11th national lockdown.

-3
sickofaltspin -3 points ago +4 / -7

Yes, he said that there WERE DISCUSSION OF DOING IT. OH MY - it's almost as if it polled badly and they changed course.

2
vongregormench 2 points ago +3 / -1

That's kind of like predicting that it will rain somewhere on earth tomorrow. Someone somewhere discussed something. MMMM, ok.

4
AnEndgamePawn 4 points ago +4 / -0

He just tweeted out pictures of the jurors notes, presumably before anyone else in the media published them.

Is that enough for you to admit he has sources and knows more than you? Or will your ego not allow it?

3
GrumpyGrumpus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't these become a matter of court record and any paralegal could obtain them. Probably a short delay for processing.

3
tluther01 3 points ago +3 / -0

abcnews twitter tweed them before him at 12 pm today

1
V2021 1 point ago +2 / -1

Holy fuck, now we're back to Q level larping.

1
Cesare_Borgia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure, that would be interesting. I don't have a Twitter, can you link it here?

1
1
Cesare_Borgia 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is interesting, thanks.

2
tluther01 2 points ago +2 / -0

ABC News @ABC Images show notes sent from Rittenhouse jurors to the judge this week, asking for jury instructions and to view video material from the case.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1461382737101733889

he literally took them for abc news twitter LOL

2
Cesare_Borgia 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh good lord.

1
Fandigo 1 point ago +1 / -0

This. Why would the jurors leak to him, of all people?

1
GBA4ever 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m guessing he is talking to someone in law enforcement with access to the jury deliberations.

30
nozonozo 30 points ago +31 / -1

Probably an educated guess. This is taking waaaaay too long for an obvious not guilty verdict.

I'm pretty sure there must be a couple of snowflakes who have no virtue and want some sort of conviction. Keep in mind that in Clown World facts don't matter.

We may be past the point where a jury system can work in this country. How could you get 12 people with standard moral values on any jury anymore?

27
Steven_IDGAF_Miller 27 points ago +28 / -1

How could you get 12 people with standard moral values on any jury anymore?

Make it so that only employed, property owning, taxpaying, citizens are eligible to sit on juries. You know, the vast majority of people that actually make this country great and just want to be left alone to raise their kids and live a happy and decent life.

People who should never be allowed on another jury: Any of the whiny, cry bullying, pink and purple haired, professional victim welfare class that makes up 2-4% of the population, demands absolute compliance to their demands in all things and forcibly uses the power of the state to suppress all dissent, yet call us the fascists.

8
PMC3058761 8 points ago +8 / -0

Libs own houses and are married too. Sometimes they own those houses their ex husbands are still paying for.

Never stick your dick in crazy, or fuck a soy boy weak chin.

7
FreddyThePatriot 7 points ago +8 / -1

Make it so that only employed, property owning, taxpaying, citizens are eligible to sit on juries.

And then fired all the unvaccinated and now juries are 95% liberals

good work

2
mulejuicemcquaid 2 points ago +2 / -0

You have the right to a jury of your peers. If there's someone with pink hair on the jury right now, it's the defense's fault for not dismissing them during the selection process.

2
Shamb3 2 points ago +2 / -0

I live in a middle class to high middle class suburb.

There are plenty of leftists of all categories with stupid virtue signaling signs and Obama/Hillary or Biden stickers on their vehicle.

2
MrQuacker2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know plenty of employed property owning clown world lunatics that live in a completely alternate universe from reality lol

15
BidensPrisonWallet 15 points ago +15 / -0

Been called for jury duty several times. Went to selection the first two times and was never as so much asked one question but had to sit through selection. Had to listen to the selected jurors be questioned. They want easily manipulated morons to sit in the box. I have for years tossed the notices in the trash when walking back from the mail box.

9
President_Elect_Pepe 9 points ago +10 / -1

They want easily manipulated morons to sit in the box.

This is 100% true. They egotistically think they can affect the minds of people and they want those they see as easy targets.

3
lawlady1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe these court people just want more money lol

3
mugatucrazypills 3 points ago +4 / -1

The reality is a jury box might as well be a code black box at this point there's not insight into what's inside or what the world looks like to the people.

The people who have to make the most important decision are the most mushroomed by our whore of a justice system.

1
Shamb3 1 point ago +1 / -0

I guess that means if you indicate you trust physical evidence more than narrative bullshit the prosecution or defense will strike you

I have never had to actually go in but have been on call if they didn't have enough jurors. The court is in Detroit, a place I think is unsafe for me to go, so I wasn't disappointed.

4
user20461 4 points ago +4 / -0

I have for years tossed the notices in the trash when walking back from the mail box.

Damn. I haven't been called for jury duty in a long time but now that I think about it, I can't remember if I even checked in or if they recorded that I was there. Actually, now that I think about it, I do remember filling out something. Not sure what it was exactly. They do pay you for your time, so it might've been for that.

Either way, just like you, I've never been selected. I just show up and wait; my name has never been called.

3
HurdyGurdyHer 3 points ago +3 / -0

The county in which I used to live issues warrants if you don't respond.

8
BidensPrisonWallet 8 points ago +8 / -0

I worried about that for a few seconds but then got over it. If they send it unregistered and no signature required, my plan was to deny ever receiving it.

3
mulejuicemcquaid 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, I got a notice in the mail and ignored it. I was living in another county at the time so I had a good reason not to go, but if I responded to their notice explaining that then I was admitting that I had been notified which would have given them the power to drag my ass in on threat of arrest if they wanted to.

Much easier to put in the trash and pretend you've never received it, like I imagine 90% of people already do. But at this point in my life, I'd love to sit on a jury and nullify any unconstitutional laws.

1
yuge_covfefe 1 point ago +1 / -0

But at this point in my life, I'd love to sit on a jury and nullify any unconstitutional laws.

This. I understand that some people don't want to mess with jury duty but it's dismaying to read accounts of people casually ignoring the summons (this is not what you said in your comment, I mean the people above you), while simultaneously complaining about too many purple-hairs on the juries.

If smart people are skipping out and creating vaccums for morons to fill, then they shouldn't be surprised when we get moronic jurors and moronic verdicts.

6
fskfsk 6 points ago +6 / -0

There also could be some Antifa members who made it on the jury. They're not going to vote "not guilty" no matter what.

3
mugatucrazypills 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm pretty sure there must be a couple of snowflakes who have no virtue and want some sort of conviction. Keep in mind that in Clown World facts don't matter. ....

at this point the goal is to reduce civil liabilities for the left mob, left press and out left government that targeted this kid for imprisonment and death and then slandered him online with known intent to incite.

A long verdict and/or conviction on any charge is to serve to reduce damages by MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the establishment. They'll argue a civil conclusion based on crappier more f'd justice.

Whore jurors are working for soros every moment they fail to acquit on all.

My 2 doomer cents.

2
Make1984FictionAgain 2 points ago +2 / -0

With apologies to ladypedes, under current circumstances, I would only consider a "jury of my peers" to consist of 12 based males.

13
Long_time_lurker 13 points ago +13 / -0

They claim to have seen two stern women with masks the whole time, but it's a bit of a leap to say they're the holdouts.

Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means there's no way to prove it, we don't know what's going on in the jury room, though someone was detained for trying to film the jury again.

10
user20461 10 points ago +12 / -2

but it's a bit of a leap to say they're the holdouts.

They're the holdouts. :P

10
Long_time_lurker 10 points ago +11 / -1

It's one of those things you know but can't prove.

4
Shamb3 4 points ago +4 / -0

If one was a "Vote" mask we would know for sure.

4
anticlown 4 points ago +4 / -0

he's a guild navigator

2
SPEDMan64 2 points ago +2 / -0

lol x2

62
RentedMule 62 points ago +62 / -0

How would he know this? Until a verdict is reached, communication between the jury and the outside world is extremely limited. And whatever communications that are allowed are tightly limited in scope. So unless jurors are tweeting or texting out messages, I'm quite skeptical about this.

21
sickofaltspin 21 points ago +26 / -5

Because he had Robert Barnes as his guest... Barnes was in charge of planning jury selection and research. Richards disagreed with his recommendations. Everything Barnes said would happen has.

He tweeted about the information that Barnes shared in their discussion, some people, like you, assumed he was stating secret jury information and he clarified what he, Barnes, and hundreds of other experts think is happening.

You choose to fucking attack that as disinformation?

1
Shamb3 1 point ago +1 / -0

According to Barnes he knew this would all happen. I take half of what he says after the fact with a grain of salt. He probably had lots of concerns and advised against certain things, but none of that is public so we are taking his word for it.

5
sickofaltspin 5 points ago +5 / -0

He was saying this would happen before the end of the first day.

4
Brucesky420 4 points ago +5 / -1

He wouldn't

But if this were true, there's a REALLY simple solution. Ask them if they were on trial for murder, would they want the jury to convict them because they're scared of being harassed?

It's absolutely absurd you would even consider getting a bad conviction because of backlash. But I'm gonna hold my breath since it's Jack "Misinformation" Posobiec

If he knows what the jury is up to, he's doing shit he shouldn't be doing and it makes him no better than the MSNBC journalist. It's frustrating that this guy is often at the forefront of conservative news on twitter because the dude is so full of shit. He spread so much bullshit right after the election that it actually hurt the movement to get the election investigated. When they can point to all the misinformation being spread you're giving the enemy a leg up, and he's really fucking good at giving them misinformation to use against us. To the point there is no doubt he has hurt conservatives more than he has helped them

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
41
HyperCarbs 41 points ago +49 / -8

Stop posting the fake bullshit.

5
deleted 5 points ago +18 / -13
-4
sickofaltspin -4 points ago +11 / -15

With scum like you in our foxholes we don't even need enemies.

4
deleted 4 points ago +13 / -9
-9
sickofaltspin -9 points ago +7 / -16

LOL. A worthless cuck. Get back to fucking your sister stormfag.

2
deleted 2 points ago +9 / -7
-1
sickofaltspin -1 points ago +6 / -7

OH MY! A reporter reported on something that numerous news outlets did based on preliminary reports!!!! CLEARLY SHILLING!

Clearly every mass shooting in history was conducted by numerous people because all initial reports from numerous locations imply numerous shooters.

2
Brucesky420 2 points ago +3 / -1

The problem is it wasn't just a one off thing with him. It's a pattern of posting bullshit fake news. But please continue to let him lie to you. It makes you no different than the idiots who believe CNN because they say shit they want to hear

0
deleted 0 points ago +3 / -3
27
NecessaryOcelot 27 points ago +29 / -2

There is no way anyone that isn't on the jury can know this.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +2 / -4
-3
jdog -3 points ago +3 / -6

Might have a source on the jury. I doubt it.

-7
sickofaltspin -7 points ago +3 / -10

Go look at the context smoothbrain.

He's clarifying an opinion shared by numerous defense attorneys following the case.

24
OrangeElvis 24 points ago +24 / -0

For the first time in my life, I wish I was a juror. I would rain righteous wrath down on anyone putting that into the discussion as a reason to not acquit.

15
thekindlyman555 15 points ago +16 / -1

And for exactly that reason the prosecutors would dismiss you as a juror.

10
OrangeElvis 10 points ago +11 / -1

Not before I planted seeds and watered them.

1
603win 1 point ago +1 / -0

Puts on NPC mask: “I can be convinced of basically anything if you say it convincingly enough”

Boom! Empaneled.

12
RalphWiggum 12 points ago +12 / -0

How would anybody know this

-9
sickofaltspin -9 points ago +4 / -13

Because he is clarifying a tweet sharing the opinion of numerous defense attorneys on why a jury would be requesting the specific exhibits they did etc.

But hey, when something starts with "Let me clear up this tweet" - truly the intelligent thing to do is assume it exists in a vaccum.

Jesus Christ on a Cracker when I question why the left was able to take over this country, some of you make the root cause so clear.

THINK.

EVOLVE.

ADAPT.

OVERCOME.

Don't be a fucking idiot.

1
RalphWiggum 1 point ago +5 / -4

Then he should not state it as a fact, go meditate / lift weights / binge eat whatever it is you do to relax

-2
sickofaltspin -2 points ago +6 / -8

You pissed that you got a real answer to your fucking question?

Have another donut you fat yellow bastard.

He posted a comment based on his discussion with Robert Barnes, and he clarified it later. That is so far from "posting it as a fact" that the Grand Fucking Canyon is jealous.

10
stick_in_the_eye 10 points ago +10 / -0

absolute unforgivable cowardice.

2
neokulak 2 points ago +2 / -0

Straight white guys don't have this problem.

9
mintscape 9 points ago +9 / -0

Even the lesser charges will mean minimum of 15 years.

So these cunts want to lock up an innocent kids who already is traumatized for their "reputation".

8
Keiichi81 8 points ago +8 / -0

On Tuesday, Posobiec said it was two holdouts on the jury holding things up. Wednesday, he said the jury was now prepared to acquit but it was the judge holding things up because he was afraid of the media backlash. Now on Thursday we're back to two holdouts on the jury...

Why do people trust him?

8
LogicalPatriot 8 points ago +8 / -0

Robert Barnes is independently being informed it maybe 3 to 4. Though he said a report to him said that two jurors who were not seated next to eachotber at any time during trial, are now constantly side by side during deliberations.

There's more than just 'fear'. There may very well be a Karen who doesn't like Kyle.

3
Ricky_CIA 3 points ago +3 / -0

Current belief is that the jury foreman is a huuuuuge Karen. Which means she can hold up the proceedings for days on end, way worse than if she was just a juror.

0
V2021 0 points ago +1 / -1

Informed by who?

This is Q level stupidity.

8
militantnationalist6 8 points ago +9 / -1

There's a reason women were originally not allowed on juries.

7
ExileOnRedditStreet 7 points ago +10 / -3

This guy is starting to come across as a professional LARPer

6
ObongoForPrison2020 6 points ago +9 / -3

Posobiec is a grifter.

5
semblanceofsanity 5 points ago +5 / -0

If they didn't want the backlash, they should have tried harder to get off the jury.

Unless they went in with a bias AGAINST Kyle, with full intention to convict, and have now been convinced by the trial that they were wrong, and are NOW concerned about being forced to do the RIGHT thing.

Think on that. A jury member afraid to do what's RIGHT because of the social pressure to do the WRONG thing. Disgusting.

5
AtheistTrumper 5 points ago +5 / -0

Women shouldn't be jurors.

5
WearsNightcap 5 points ago +5 / -0

Liberal women shouldn't be jurors.

Correction: Liberals, period, shouldn't be jurors. They almost all use emotions over facts.

5
Badfinz_FL 5 points ago +5 / -0

No, hold fast

Only outcome is absolute acquittal

4
Cyer6 4 points ago +4 / -0

There also could be a strategy in place by the jury panel to wear down the rioters outside and the media. Let the hype wear down and let the media move on to other things, which they're doing.

2
memechallenger33 2 points ago +2 / -0

This would be my strategy if I were on the jury.

1
President_Elect_Pepe 1 point ago +2 / -1

I agree.

4
ChyNahAzzWhole1 4 points ago +4 / -0

they are too stupid to know... there will be violence NO MATTER what the verdict...

4
PMC3058761 4 points ago +4 / -0

The defense fucked up so bad by not vetting jurors.

3
TyrannyBuster 3 points ago +3 / -0

It was guaranteed to be a jury of stupid people. At least half of them.

2
27Sandino 2 points ago +2 / -0

poso is able to read minds using superpowers

2
Azarak 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sounds like a hung jury incoming.

2
vongregormench 2 points ago +2 / -0

I doubt anyone actually knows this and Jack isn't the guy I would trust to know this over him just making shit up. If this is true and that's a big if, they should be removed. If they're making decisions based on anything other than the law then they're not being jurors.

2
Truglow 2 points ago +3 / -1

Sauce or no meal.

2
patiohimself 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is speculation. No way anyone outside of the jury would know this.

2
TheNightJanitor 2 points ago +3 / -1

According to actual glowie "journalist"

2
Friend_of_John_Galt 2 points ago +2 / -0

So there should be reputational backlash for their cowardice then.

2
Underpants 2 points ago +2 / -0

If that were true, and I have no trust in the fact that he or anyone knows, there needs to be a way for the rest of the jurors to take this to the judge and get them kicked out for not doing their civic duty.

2
RIP_NWO 2 points ago +2 / -0

Isn't this illegal? Shouldn't these people be sued for obstruction of justice? The fuck is this clown world bullshit

2
PEPEpeepee 2 points ago +2 / -0

The only way this stops going forward of they are as equally scared of the right side.

2
AnIdahoan 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yep, heard that they are textbook AWFLs. No wonder they're Juror 3s that refuse to listen to reason even while it's clear they're losing everyone.

2
keeptherepublic100 2 points ago +2 / -0

If true how in there fuck could you convict some one because you are scared.

1
hunterforprison 1 point ago +1 / -0

If true this is so fucked.

Commie media is to blame for this.

Commie media indoctrinated them.

Commie media put them and others in the place that doing the right thing threatens their lives.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
MrM4590 1 point ago +1 / -0

God we really do live in a world full of pussies. Put me on that god damn jury. Not guilty end of discussion.

1
HeavyVetting 1 point ago +1 / -0

There needs to be harsher "reputational backlash" for people that intentionally convict an innocent kid.

1
V2021 1 point ago +2 / -1

Posobeic is a professional larper.

It shows how much this site has gone downhill that his stupid tweets get upvoted to the moon.

PW has become overrun with hopium addicts.

1
CMNDRCarter 1 point ago +1 / -0

How would this be allowable if they know they're just ruling based on public backlash and not following the evidence? That can't possibly be legal can it? I mean if they're straight up admitting it?

1
Data 1 point ago +1 / -0

Tough shit. READ THE FUCKING VERDICT. LET'S GO!

1
Palazzolo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

You mean holding out for their price, right?

1
Kilroy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Or the bullet to the head. Instead of bashing the two not up to the challenge, why not celebrate 10 badass patriots?

1
Controlgroup 1 point ago +1 / -0

Isn’t that a crime??

1
SquidThrowFaux 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. Same way "jury nullification" is not.

1
johnqpublic864 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck those two for even considering sending this brave boy to jail because they're being selfish. [if true]

1
Billbuttlickerr 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dismiss them. Bring in 2 alternates.

1
xBigCoffinHunter 1 point ago +1 / -0

Plausible, but he doesn’t know jack shit.

1
DeplorableWeWin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sometimes poso just throws straight shit at the wall. Sometimes he’s right and the shit sticks, He doesn’t know any more than anyone else.

1
biginjapan6969 1 point ago +1 / -0

They should all be nice to the lesser of the two karens so that she cleaves from the chad karen.

Give her pizza, and joke with her and include her. Omega karen trying to dangle thanksgiving as a carrot.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

To me, that is jury misconduct. If this guy knows, so does the judge. This is why we have alternates. Those jurors should be excused and replaced.

2
Ricky_CIA 2 points ago +2 / -0

The problem is the foreman is rumored to be the biggest Karen of them all. That makes it a lot harder to fix.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Entire jury has to be cucked to name a karen the foreman...

1
OhLollyLollyPop 1 point ago +1 / -0

If that is their game, they should be replaced. This is not about the jurors.

OTOH, they could convict him of the least charge, and the judge could sentence him to time served.