Terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted on all counts

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

He doesn't have to be invited, but an argument could be made that he knowingly, willfully went to an area where he knew there was a high probability of a physical confrontation, and he went armed while the people he shot were not. I'd say it's almost impossible to charge him with 1st degree murder in that situation (though that is one of his charges), since the prosecution would have to prove that he specifically had intent to kill. Reckless murder, however, does not have such strict requirements. Just the fact that he purposefully went to a hostile environment while armed, knowing that it was a hostile environment, and killed 2 people, could be enough to convict him of reckless homicide. He may not have intended to kill, but he was.. well, acting recklessly, and shot 3 people.

 

Again, it boils down to intent, and that's always tricky to prove unless there's like literally text messages of him saying "going to kenosha with my AR, I hope someone tries something!"

It’s fundamentally not reckless in an open carry state to openly carry. The entire purpose of open carry is to be armed in the event you need to defend yourself. This would be different in a state that didn’t have such lax notions about where it’s totes cool to have loaded weapons.

 

They overcharged because this situation is about more than Kyle Rittenhouse and the men he killed.

[Jason]

5 hours ago, sblfilms said:

1. This is legally untrue that you can’t use self defense in a fight you started. But importantly here, Rittenhouse didn’t start a fight. We was retreating from a group of people who were threatening him and then physically attacked him.

 

2. Even reckless homicide is a stretch because Rittenhouse had done nothing prior to being attacked by the group that began following him which could reasonably be considered reckless in a state with open carry protections.

 

Crossing state lines with a gun doe.

[Fizzzzle]

20 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It’s fundamentally not reckless in an open carry state to openly carry. The entire purpose of open carry is to be armed in the event you need to defend yourself. This would be different in a state that didn’t have such lax notions about where it’s totes cool to have loaded weapons.

 

They overcharged because this situation is about more than Kyle Rittenhouse and the men he killed.

Even if it's legal to carry the gun, it's a different story if they can prove he intended to use it. He wasn't out for a casual stroll and just happened to get assaulted.

[thewhyteboar]

If this wannabe Rambo had stayed at home, or if at least hadn't brought guns with him, people who are dead would be alive. Fuck guns and our culture's obsession with them.

[Anathema-]

He went out to kill people and sought out an excuse. We don't have to pretend that didn't happen. 

[Fizzzzle]

Imagine this scenario: I find out my wife is cheating on me with some guy. He knows I know. I find out he's hanging out at a bar with 10 of his friends. I show up to that bar, gun in hand, and things go south, and I shoot someone.

 

Find me a court where I wouldn't go to prison for that. Even if I didn't throw a first punch or someone else started it, I clearly went there with certain intentions, and the means to kill. It wouldn't be 1st degree murder, but it would be something. Hell, I know of someone who went to prison for 4 years for stabbing someone who came to their home looking for a fight, simply because the other person was unarmed. And the other person didn't even die.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse walked into a situation, traveled out of state to go there (meaning he wasn't just protecting his property/loved ones/whatever), fully armed, where he knew he was a target. He was armed, they weren't. To me, that's a pretty clear case for reckless homicide. He showed up like he was looking for a fight, he got one, and things went south. That's not self defense, that's reckless behavior, and 2 people died as a result.

 

But, again, proving intent is tricky.

 

Also, I can't even imagine how the hell they're going to find an impartial jury for this shit.

[BloodyHell]

2 hours ago, Anathema- said:

He went out to kill people and sought out an excuse. We don't have to pretend that didn't happen. 

 

Sure, we see it that way, but a court won't. People's personal bias is preventing them from acknowledging how the shooting happened.

 

2 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Imagine this scenario: I find out my wife is cheating on me with some guy. He knows I know. I find out he's hanging out at a bar with 10 of his friends. I show up to that bar, gun in hand, and things go south, and I shoot someone.

 

Find me a court where I wouldn't go to prison for that. Even if I didn't throw a first punch or someone else started it, I clearly went there with certain intentions, and the means to kill. It wouldn't be 1st degree murder, but it would be something. Hell, I know of someone who went to prison for 4 years for stabbing someone who came to their home looking for a fight, simply because the other person was unarmed. And the other person didn't even die.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse walked into a situation, traveled out of state to go there (meaning he wasn't just protecting his property/loved ones/whatever), fully armed, where he knew he was a target. He was armed, they weren't. To me, that's a pretty clear case for reckless homicide. He showed up like he was looking for a fight, he got one, and things went south. That's not self defense, that's reckless behavior, and 2 people died as a result.

 

But, again, proving intent is tricky.

 

Also, I can't even imagine how the hell they're going to find an impartial jury for this shit.

That wouldn't be even close to the same scenario. It became personal when you found out out your wifes lover was at a bar and went there with a gun. There was nothing personal about this, three men violently attacked him BECAUSE he was there with a gun. Also, mixing alcohol and guns is a crime, and most states make it illegal to enter a bar with one.

[BloodyHell]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

 

Crossing state lines with a gun doe.

Im not sure why you think this is illegal. A ccw is usually not valid in other states, but you can still transport a gun across state lines. I've flown with firearms (checked, obviously), as well as drove across state lines. It happens thousands of times a day.

 

Also, I believe thats untrue to begin with, the gun belonged to an in state friend.

 

Look, I really hope there is more evidence than just the video, but if not, he's getting off.

[BloodyHell]

2 hours ago, Anathema- said:

He went out to kill people and sought out an excuse. We don't have to pretend that didn't happen. 

What you "know" and what can be proven in a court of law are far different.

[Anathema-]

1 hour ago, BloodyHell said:

What you "know" and what can be proven in a court of law are far different.

 

The fact that he went so far out of his way to engage people while armed is evidence of that intent. Will a jury properly infer that? We'll see. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Anathema- said:

He went out to kill people and sought out an excuse. We don't have to pretend that didn't happen. 

The video evidence disagrees.

 

1 hour ago, Anathema- said:

 

The fact that he went so far out of his way to engage people while armed is evidence of that intent. Will a jury properly infer that? We'll see. 

He was 30 minutes from his house. Or do you mean in some other sense?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Imagine this scenario: I find out my wife is cheating on me with some guy. He knows I know. I find out he's hanging out at a bar with 10 of his friends. I show up to that bar, gun in hand, and things go south, and I shoot someone.

 

Find me a court where I wouldn't go to prison for that. Even if I didn't throw a first punch or someone else started it, I clearly went there with certain intentions, and the means to kill. It wouldn't be 1st degree murder, but it would be something. Hell, I know of someone who went to prison for 4 years for stabbing someone who came to their home looking for a fight, simply because the other person was unarmed. And the other person didn't even die.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse walked into a situation, traveled out of state to go there (meaning he wasn't just protecting his property/loved ones/whatever), fully armed, where he knew he was a target. He was armed, they weren't. To me, that's a pretty clear case for reckless homicide. He showed up like he was looking for a fight, he got one, and things went south. That's not self defense, that's reckless behavior, and 2 people died as a result.

 

But, again, proving intent is tricky.

 

Also, I can't even imagine how the hell they're going to find an impartial jury for this shit.

None of this is how legal intent works in homicide. The question is intent at the moment the trigger is pulled, end of story.

[Anathema-]

30 minutes from your house is not nearby. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

30 minutes from your house is not nearby. 

30 minutes is one side to the other of the suburb I live in. 30 minutes is like 5 miles in LA all day long.

 

*shrug*

[SuperSpreader]

30 minutes isn't far, far is 2 hours. 

[Joe]

22 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

30 minutes from your house is not nearby. 

 

To a European, it's far. To a dude from Houston, that's practically down the block lol.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I used to drive 30 mins to get some wendy's back when I lived in rural ohio. 30 mins ain't shit

[Greatoneshere]

The question the prosecutor should put to the court is why was Kyle Rittenhouse even there? And why did he have a loaded, ready to go assault weapon when he was there? Why did he go to the event 30 minutes away when he had no discernible reason, as a 17-year old, to be there (he's not even of voting age)? 

 

That's a better approach in terms of proving intent. Then the prosecutor should show those pictures of him strutting around with his weapon looking like he doesn't give a fuck that he just killed two people. The optics are real bad for Kyle Rittenhouse at that point. And yes, optics matter in a court of law.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

The question the prosecutor should put to the court is why was Kyle Rittenhouse even there? And why did he have a loaded, ready to go assault weapon when he was there? Why did he go to the event 30 minutes away when he had no discernible reason, as a 17-year old, to be there (he's not even of voting age)? 

 

That's a better approach in terms of proving intent. Then the prosecutor should show those pictures of him strutting around with his weapon looking like he doesn't give a fuck that he just killed two people. The optics are real bad for Kyle Rittenhouse at that point. And yes, optics matter in a court of law.

His mom took him there with her weapons. Probably NOT the best strategy in a country where people see children as things they own and control.

 

And the second thing did not happen. He tried to turn himself into police, and they ignored him, so his mom drove him back home.

[Greatoneshere]

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

His mom took him there with her weapons. Probably NOT the best strategy in a country where people see children as things they own and control.

 

And the second thing did not happen. He tried to turn himself into police, and they ignored him, so his mom drove him back home.

 

Oh, I know, I agree with you that he tried (half-heartedly, imo) to turn himself into police, I only meant that he looked like he didn't care, regarding optics. Whether his mom drove him there or not will not be a good look for any explanation as to why he was there with a fully loaded assault weapon with the safety turned off for use, however. "My mom" is not a defense, it's barely an explanation. But it may provide him some cover. Showing a jury this: 

 

 

 

And then Kyle's defense attorney's going: "his mom, blah blah blah" won't matter to a jury if you play the story right. The fact that he's shown no remorse (as far as I know) on what he did should also be brought up, showing images like this after he was released. Smiling like an idiot after what you did for public media, is, again, really bad optics for court. Even if he was incorrectly charged/overcharged according to what's in the law books won't matter at all if you play the facts of the story in the right way. What's in the books is often wrong/incorrectly defined anyway, so those are more used to outline cases than followed to the letter, in my experience. Though if I was Kyle's defense attorney I'd certainly play that angle.

 

 

Even if they argue self-defense against both protestors and it was a stand your ground state, his response was so disproportionate to the attack that such a defense wouldn't hold, especially if there's a jury involved. 

[Guest]

“His mom” is the answer to the question of why he was there and with loaded weapons he couldn’t legally own himself. She brought him and privileged in the counter protest with him.

 

The Wisconsin self defense statute reads that you can use lethal force if you reasonably believe great bodily harm will be done to you by your attacker. This is a pretty easy self defense win for Rittenhouse because he was obviously in reasonable fear of great bodily harm when one of the people in the group following him shot his gun feet away from Rittenhouse, and then another member of the group physically attacked him. Shortly after as he was still in retreat we was knocked down and the attacked with a skateboard-turned-weapon.

 

The facts around what actually happened are simply not in favor of the state, no matter what kind of goon Rittenhouse is. Good luck to the prosecutors.

[Guest]

Also for me, if there is anyone in need of being held seriously accountable, it is Rittenhouse’s mother. Inexcusable from start to finish regardless of the legal issues.

[BloodyHell]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Oh, I know, I agree with you that he tried (half-heartedly, imo) to turn himself into police, I only meant that he looked like he didn't care, regarding optics. Whether his mom drove him there or not will not be a good look for any explanation as to why he was there with a fully loaded assault weapon with the safety turned off for use, however. "My mom" is not a defense, it's barely an explanation. But it may provide him some cover. Showing a jury this: 

 

 

 

And then Kyle's defense attorney's going: "his mom, blah blah blah" won't matter to a jury if you play the story right. The fact that he's shown no remorse (as far as I know) on what he did should also be brought up, showing images like this after he was released. Smiling like an idiot after what you did for public media, is, again, really bad optics for court. Even if he was incorrectly charged/overcharged according to what's in the law books won't matter at all if you play the facts of the story in the right way. What's in the books is often wrong/incorrectly defined anyway, so those are more used to outline cases than followed to the letter, in my experience. Though if I was Kyle's defense attorney I'd certainly play that angle.

 

 

Even if they argue self-defense against both protestors and it was a stand your ground state, his response was so disproportionate to the attack that such a defense wouldn't hold, especially if there's a jury involved. 

How was it disproportionate? He was attacked with weapons before he fired. 

 

This whole idea of "he shouldn't have been there" just doesn't hold up. This is America, and he doesn't need a reason to be anywhere on public property. Why were the rioters there? Because they wanted to be. That their cause is justified did not give them the right to physically assault those who disagreed. 

 

You're correct, optics matter. And the optics are that he was violently assaulted with a weapon and shot at. If there is no evidence he started the confrontation, its an obvious case of self defense. And being there with a rifle is in no way him starting it. 

 

I mean, I wouldn't have been there with a rifle (or at all), but I do carry, and if put in that situation, I would have shot them as well.

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, BloodyHell said:

How was it disproportionate? He was attacked with weapons before he fired. 

 

Let’s not give credit to the arsonist that puts out the fires they start.

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

“His mom” is the answer to the question of why he was there and with loaded weapons he couldn’t legally own himself. She brought him and privileged in the counter protest with him.

 

The Wisconsin self defense statute reads that you can use lethal force if you reasonably believe great bodily harm will be done to you by your attacker. This is a pretty easy self defense win for Rittenhouse because he was obviously in reasonable fear of great bodily harm when one of the people in the group following him shot his gun feet away from Rittenhouse, and then another member of the group physically attacked him. Shortly after as he was still in retreat we was knocked down and the attacked with a skateboard-turned-weapon.

 

The facts around what actually happened are simply not in favor of the state, no matter what kind of goon Rittenhouse is. Good luck to the prosecutors.

 

1 hour ago, BloodyHell said:

How was it disproportionate? He was attacked with weapons before he fired. 

 

This whole idea of "he shouldn't have been there" just doesn't hold up. This is America, and he doesn't need a reason to be anywhere on public property. Why were the rioters there? Because they wanted to be. That their cause is justified did not give them the right to physically assault those who disagreed. 

 

You're correct, optics matter. And the optics are that he was violently assaulted with a weapon and shot at. If there is no evidence he started the confrontation, its an obvious case of self defense. And being there with a rifle is in no way him starting it. 

 

I mean, I wouldn't have been there with a rifle (or at all), but I do carry, and if put in that situation, I would have shot them as well.

 

 

I'm with you guys, I think you misunderstand me. The law is on Rittenhouse's side (unfortunately) but the prosecutor's, due to optics (and they should, since the law is failing us here) can make an easy case anyway to win the case. The law in Wisconsin says what @sblfilms says it says, but that very rarely matters in actual court if you have a jury. The presentation of the case is all that matters. 

 

The reason the response was disproportionate is that even if someone fires a weapon at you, that doesn't give you carte blanche to kill someone, in an optics sense, not in a law sense, is the argument I'd make if I was a prosecutor on the case, is my argument. It's very easy to win cases even if the law isn't on your side. And you could easily make the argument that openly carrying a loaded assault weapon is provocation, so you could make an argument "he started it" if you argue that the person who attacked first felt their life was threatened first. That's what I'd argue anyway. Also, the argument shouldn't be "why was he there" but that "why was he there with a loaded assault weapon" which is a different sort of question. That's the sort of line of questioning I'd go down anyway, because I think we all agree this dude is a POS. Attacking his character would do good to win the jurt over. I honestly think that this is a slam dunk for the prosecutors, but I'm sure they'll fuck it up.   

 

And yes, the mom should be held accountable as well, no doubt.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Let’s not give credit to the arsonist that puts out the fires they start.

 

This.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

 

 

I'm with you guys, I think you misunderstand me. The law is on Rittenhouse's side (unfortunately) but the prosecutor's, due to optics (and they should, since the law is failing us here) can make an easy case anyway to win the case. The law in Wisconsin says what @sblfilms says it says, but that very rarely matters in actual court if you have a jury. The presentation of the case is all that matters. 

 

The reason the response was disproportionate is that even if someone fires a weapon at you, that doesn't give you carte blanche to kill someone, in an optics sense, not in a law sense, is the argument I'd make if I was a prosecutor on the case, is my argument. It's very easy to win cases even if the law isn't on your side. And you could easily make the argument that openly carrying a loaded assault weapon is provocation, so you could make an argument "he started it" if you argue that the person who attacked first felt their life was threatened first. That's what I'd argue anyway. Also, the argument shouldn't be "why was he there" but that "why was he there with a loaded assault weapon" which is a different sort of question. That's the sort of line of questioning I'd go down anyway, because I think we all agree this dude is a POS. Attacking his character would do good to win the jurt over. I honestly think that this is a slam dunk for the prosecutors, but I'm sure they'll fuck it up.   

 

And yes, the mom should be held accountable as well, no doubt.

IMO the defense has a much easier case to make: none of the other members of the posse used their weapons because the angry mob only attacked Rittenhouse once he was inadvertently separated from his group by the police. Rittenhouse was unquestionably targeted by the protestors once he was alone. It’s very easy to just play a timeline of video clips and show that Rittenhouse was followed, threatened, and finally attacked and never even pointed his weapon at a person until he was attacked. He was also a child at the time, dragged into a dangerous situation by his mother, and then attacked by a group of adults, one of which fired a gun within 20 feet of him. 

You would need to have a perfect voir dire session to get a jury that’s going to watch the sequence on video and think Rittenhouse didn’t meet the state statute for self defense. The best you could hope for is a situation where the jury thinks the kid sucks and deserves some punishment and can find a lesser offense to compromise on, otherwise kid is walking on the whole thing.

 

And I want to make it plainly clear because there are lots of these discussions where people do the “so what you’re saying is...” routine: I don’t think Rittenhouse broke the law when he pulled the trigger based on the plain reading of Wisconsin self defense statutes, I don’t think he will get convicted precisely because the law is largely on his side, and I think private gun ownership is a failed policy and wish Dems actually were trying to confiscate America’s guns  

[Greatoneshere]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

IMO the defense has a much easier case to make: none of the other members of the posse used their weapons because the angry mob only attacked Rittenhouse once he was inadvertently separated from his group by the police. Rittenhouse was unquestionably targeted by the protestors once he was alone. It’s very easy to just play a timeline of video clips and show that Rittenhouse was followed, threatened, and finally attacked and never even pointed his weapon at a person until he was attacked. He was also a child at the time, dragged into a dangerous situation by his mother, and then attacked by a group of adults, one of which fired a gun within 20 feet of him. 

You would need to have a perfect voir dire session to get a jury that’s going to watch the sequence on video and think Rittenhouse didn’t meet the state statute for self defense. The best you could hope for is a situation where the jury thinks the kid sucks and deserves some punishment and can find a lesser offense to compromise on, otherwise kid is walking on the whole thing.

 

And I want to make it plainly clear because there are lots of these discussions where people do the “so what you’re saying is...” routine: I don’t think Rittenhouse broke the law when he pulled the trigger based on the plain reading of Wisconsin self defense statutes, I don’t think he will get convicted precisely because the law is largely on his side, and I think private gun ownership is a failed policy and wish Dems actually were trying to confiscate America’s guns  

 

I get your meaning but you're relying too much on the law to protect him - the law is a farce for whatever show each side puts on in court - whoever puts on the better show wins. Unless Wisconsonians believe deeply in self defense at any cost (and they may, admittedly) I actually have seen a lot of these cases lose for the defense (rightfully so). Often court cases are making up for the lack of proper law on the books (the term is "cultural lag") (as you suggest with private gun ownership being a failed policy) and so I don't think it's as much of a given as you think. Your argument is sound only if you believe the system works as the law is written, which isn't the case in controversial cases like this. Lack of remorse is also something very seriously weighed as well, even though it's an intangible factor.

 

But, I do think he could easily be let off too, no doubt.  

[Fizzzzle]

Like I said earlier, he is getting charged for breaking curfew, so at least there's that!

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, Fizzzzle said:

Like I said earlier, he is getting charged for breaking curfew, so at least there's that!

 

 

BOOM GOT HIM  

[SimpleG]

46 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

It's very easy to win cases even if the law isn't on your side. And you could easily make the argument that openly carrying a loaded assault weapon is provocation, so you could make an argument "he started it" if you argue that the person who attacked first felt their life was threatened first. That's what I'd argue anyway.

If you brought this argument if front of Jury in Middle America, Rittenhouses lawyer would get up and shake your hand. No one there believes that and would likely find that thought mind boggling offensive you wouldnt convict him of Jaywalking.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, SimpleG said:

If you brought this argument if front of Jury in Middle America, Rittenhouses lawyer would get up and shake your hand. No one there believes that and would likely find that thought mind boggling offensive you wouldnt convict him of Jaywalking.

 

Provocation is a strong argument anywhere, but I agree it depends on how you present it. If you argue that the civilian who attacked "first" felt threatened "first" in a way that makes it sound they are standing their ground first against this kid wielding an assault weapon, then it may come off as positive to the jury. Additionally, Wisconsin isn't per se middle America from what I understand, but I'm not from there so others can probably speak better to that state's disposition.

[Fizzzzle]

6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Provocation is a strong argument anywhere, but I agree it depends on how you present it. If you argue that the civilian who attacked "first" felt threatened "first" in a way that makes it sound they are standing their ground first against this kid wielding an assault weapon, then it may come off as positive to the jury. Additionally, Wisconsin isn't per se middle America from what I understand, but I'm not from there so others can probably speak better to that state's disposition.

I would pay to watch the jury selection.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I get your meaning but you're relying too much on the law to protect him - the law is a farce for whatever show each side puts on in court - whoever puts on the better show wins. Unless Wisconsonians believe deeply in self defense at any cost (and they may, admittedly) I actually have seen a lot of these cases lose for the defense (rightfully so). Often court cases are making up for the lack of proper law on the books (the term is "cultural lag") (as you suggest with private gun ownership being a failed policy) and so I don't think it's as much of a given as you think. Your argument is sound only if you believe the system works as the law is written, which isn't the case in controversial cases like this. Lack of remorse is also something very seriously weighed as well, even though it's an intangible factor.

 

But, I do think he could easily be let off too, no doubt.  

Maybe my point is unclear: to boil it down, it’s way easier to win when the low is on your side. It weighs a lot. It isn’t the only thing, but both sides in a court case would always prefer to be on the side with the stronger backing of the text of the law. There are lots of high profile cases in particular where juries get very hung up on what the text of the law actually says and means. Don’t undersell that piece of the equation!

[SimpleG]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Provocation is a strong argument anywhere, but I agree it depends on how you present it. If you argue that the civilian who attacked "first" felt threatened "first" in a way that makes it sound they are standing their ground first against this kid wielding an assault weapon, then it may come off as positive to the jury. Additionally, Wisconsin isn't per se middle America from what I understand, but I'm not from there so others can probably speak better to that state's disposition.

I should have been more clear Mid Western America , I ve been here long enough to know that arguing that open carry was provocation would all but guarantee you would lose the case. Guns in the mid west carry no more stigma for most people then carrying a cell phone does.

[Fizzzzle]

2 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

I should have been more clear Mid Western America , I ve been here long enough to know that arguing that open carry was provocation would all but guarantee you would lose the case. Guns in the mid west carry no more stigma for most people then carrying a cell phone does.

It's not simply that he was open-carrying, it's about where, when, and why he was open carrying, and what his intent was in doing so. Carrying a gun is legal, intent to use it is not, necessarily.

 

Also, in some states (not sure about Wisconsin), a "self-defense" defense actually kind of works like guilty-until-proven-innocent. That's not the case in all states, like Florida is one, for example. But in my state, as far as I am aware, there is no negligent/reckless homicide law, it's just either murder or manslaughter. Murder is intentional, manslaughter is either reckless or negligent. But, if you irrefutably kill someone and want to present a self-defense defense, the onus kind of actually switches to the defendant to prove that they had no recourse other than fatal force. It's really not on the prosecution to prove a negative (i.e. "we can't prove he WASN'T in fear for his life, therefore he's scott free.")

 

If they made the jury selection for his trial pay per view, I'd watch it.