“Some jurors in Rittenhouse’s case might do the same, except they will find him guilty because they are afraid of more violence if they don’t.”

If history teaches anything, it teaches that appeasement leads to worse outcomes.

“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke

But those who vote guilty will not have done nothing. They will have assisted evil.

None are without sin, which by the way includes you.

God doesn’t expect sinlessness from us. What he expects is admission of our sins, regret of our fallibility and trust in his mercy.

Fear, constant. Roy Batty explains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU

“One thing from the Zimmerman/Martin case that struck me at the time was how often commenters on the case would say that he (Zimmerman) should have “…just taken his beating” and that he was a coward for not allowing Martin to hammer his head into a concrete sidewalk. Now we have a prosecutor in the Rittenhouse advancing the same idea: “Everyone takes a beating sometime.” I would really like to know when that lawyer last took a beating. And as someone in an earlier thread pointed out taking a beating from an enraged mob means that you will mostly likely end up dead or crippled.” Yep! What I don’t understand is whether this is all about an attack on gun rights or an even broader attack on the use of force to defend yourself generally. Why attack the right to self-defense, one of the most basic laws of nature? If you listen to enough anti-gun arguments you hear a lot of absurd things, like that it’s cowardly to fight someone with a gun and not your fist, that you should urinate on a potential rapist rather than shoot them, or that you should just keep a taser on your nightstand – anything to avoid conceding that there are situations where you might be justified in shooting someone. But in Europe, governments undermine their people’s rights to even use knives or pepperspray to defend themselves. Why? What’s the endgame? To make people totally dependent on the state for their safety?

As for the jury voting based upon the fear of violence, maybe not even themselves, but for the community; well, my memory might be faulty as it seems to me that despite video evidence taken by the news helicopter of Reginald Denny’s attacker hitting him in the head with a brick the jury voted not guilty because, as one juror said afterwards “we didn’t want more violence in LA.” I believe the judge overruled the jury in that case.

Some jurors in Rittenhouse’s case might do the same, except they will find him guilty because they are afraid of more violence if they don’t.

The fear of violence will cause some to offer up someone else as a “sacrifice” for the better good. (mind you, we all know most won’t offer up themselves; but, will offer up others)

A mob can actually rip you limb from limb.

Some people live such protected lives they don’t realize things like that. Fortunately, I’ve lived a relatively protected life, but my head’s not stuck in the sand.

They have to say something. Everything else has been taken away by evidence.
I’d suspect most know better but I have acquaintances who would actually believe it, if it were said to them.