Just another instance of, when you have nothing else, lash out with some BS statement to someone that does not share your own particular political ideology.
On all counts no less! Justice was served. Only sad part is KR will most likely have to live in hiding under a assumed name for a undetermined amount of time in case some members of the far loony left think he he now has a target on his back and try to serve their own brand of justice! Either way, this is over and done with hopefully and folks can go on.
Ed...if the butt fugly little weasel had stayed out of Kenosha that night he wouldn't have to go into hiding. He has to start taking some responsibility for what happened
Right, which is the reason the National Guard is out in force to ensure BLM and Antifa don't follow through on their promises "to burn everything down" if he was acquitted.
As far as KR's having stayed out of Kenosha that night, I agree with you. He should not have been there. But at the same time, whether some like it or not, he had every legal and constitutional right to be there.
And if the Governor had been doing his job in August 2020 and not turned the city over to violent left wing radicals, none of this would have happened.
It would be great if political leaders take this as a lesson of why you don't give your city over to mobs and anarchy.
As far as KR's having stayed out of Kenosha that night, I agree with you. He should not have been there. But at the same time, whether some like it or not, he had every legal and constitutional right to be there.
This. Very much this.
Like it or not, we are living in a time where people seem to be struggling with the difference between something being allowed and something being a remotely intelligent decision.
We don't serve justice that way. That's how republicans do it.
The lesson learned is don't try to be a hero and take down an active shooter, at least not if they're a white right wing conservative. Hide and call the police. Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was self defense. Now if it was a Muslim or a black American with an AR-15 running from a fatal shooting then feel free to chase him and shoot at him because they'd never get a white conservative judge or jury to buy the self defense claim.
For Rittenhouse to fit the description of active shooter he would have simply started shooting people indiscriminately, randomly and without provocation. He would have almost certainly been more heavily armed as well.
at least if they're a white right wing conservative.
Meaningless, since had Rittenhouse been an active shooter, no one is likely going to take the time to question him on his political views.
Hide and call the police. Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was self defense.
Had Rittenhouse been an actual active shooter it isn't likely he would claim self defense and his actions would easily argue against him. Further, there's a degree of likelihood that he simply would have been shot by police or would shoot himself so he wouldn't be around to attempt claiming self defense.
Now if it was a Muslim or a black American with an AR-15 running from a fatal shooting then feel free to chase him and shoot at him because they'd never get a white conservative judge or jury to buy the self defense claim.
Of course, because no black person ever has gotten justice from the legal system. Good luck selling that one.
d is don't try to be a hero and take down an active shooter, at least not if they're a white right wing conservativ
Lol.. I don't think you get the concept of self defense. If someone shot Rittenhouse, they could have made the same self defense argument.
Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was
Maybe don't let an active shooter shoot you first? Isn't the whole point of self defense to defend yourself? I mean once you get shot somebody else's legal claims are probably the least of your worries.
You notice no one who attacked Rittenhouse was charged with a crime, right?
self defense.
Let's make this really clear. An active shooter in the way you mean it will never have the right of self-defense. Is that so hard to understand? You can't target innocent people and claim self defense. It's really not that complicated.
Well EG neither of those things fill the things I require for use of deadly force in self defense , and i have stated what i require is far more stringent than the law allows , things you posit are either innoculous and an inconvienience absent other actions in conjunction .
things you posit are either innoculous and an inconvienience absent other actions in conjunction .
Blocking traffic during a protest is enough in two conservative states to absolve the driver of charges.
Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets.
Did you forget the part that the driver must fear for their lives. Little things like far left domestic terrorists surrounding and banging on their vehicles, damaging them, and making threats.
Why does the left have a hard time protesting peacefully?
neither of which states i reside in, so what laws they pass have no effect on me , AND it is still up to me to decide if and when the use of deadly force , is nessisary for the protection of MY life , could be why i have chosen to be more strict than the laws of the state allow me to be in that choice .
They shouldn't be in the street blocking traffic...that's against the law
So is speeding. It's a one way on my street and delivery drivers go the wrong way all the time. How about spitting on the sidewalk or throwing a cigarette out a car window?
I don't think any of that raises to the level of injury or death. I'm all for giving them misdemeanor tickets for blocking traffic, not letting drivers get away with harming people that are ONLY blocking traffic.
Did you forget the part that the driver must fear for their lives.
And how is that to be proven?
Prosecutor: Did you fear for your life when you ran over those 15 people in the street?
Suspect: <Hmmm, if I say no I go to jail, if I say yes I go free...> "Yes, I was absolutely afraid for my life from those paraplegics protesting about the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Judge: NOT GUILTY!
Prosecutor: They weren't blocking the street, they were crossing the street.
Judge: Doesn't matter, he was in fear of his life, those scooters could be a deadly weapon. NOT GUILTY!!!
I don't think any of that raises to the level of injury or death. I'm all for giving them misdemeanor tickets for blocking traffic, not letting drivers get away with harming people that are ONLY blocking traffic.
Why are you intentionally portraying this as something it is not? If protesters are blocking the street there is no provision that sanctions just running them over for that reason alone. Nor is anyone here claiming such, as far as I can tell.
Here's a possible scenario the law is designed for. Imagine protesters blocking the street notice an occupied car that had a Trump 2024 sticker on it. They begin to surround the car and beat on it. Some of them have clubs and are using them. One individual with a metal bar smashes the driver's door window while shouting "I'm going to put you in the hospital!" at the top of his lungs. An individual on the other side has the passenger door open and is about to climb in.
That is the sort of scenario the law is intended for. It is not a license to run people over simply for standing around in the street for the purpose of illegally blocking it. Stop with the hyperbole because the purpose of hyperbole is to illustrate a point, not substitute as an actual argument. Or don't stop and keep trying to argue something everyone knows isn't true.
So if I dance around in traffic and get hit by a car, it’s the driver’s fault? Isn’t there a reason we teach our kids to be careful crossing the street?
And if a group of angry strangers surrounds and blocks me in my car, am I just supposed to sit there and let them break open the car, pull me out, and beat me to death? Or can I try to drive away?
If protesters are blocking the street there is no provision that sanctions just running them over for that reason alone. Nor is anyone here claiming such, as far as I can tell.
Sure it is... car damage during street blocking protests is a huuuggge problem it needed to be addressed in multiple states. /s
Insignificant. Once again, Rittenhouse shot at him but what happened prior to that? The guy kicked him in the head when he fell down.
"Sources indicate that he contacted prosecutors and offered to testify, but in exchange requested immunity from an ongoing drunk driving and domestic abuse case with which he was charged in June,"
Drunk driving and domestic violence. Fine upstanding man.
Okay I'll give you your "shot AT" and will forever stand corrected on the subject.
Maybe the far left domestic terrorists shouldn't have assaulted him to start with? None of this happens without them starting it.
Good thing Rittenhouse was armed and able to defend himself. Otherwise we would be talking about his death. Listening to left bitch about how he wouldn't be dead if he wasn't there; it is not his attackers' fault if he couldn't defend himself; and that he was a far right white supremacist that got what he deserved. Of course his assailants would be innocent victims then.
Drunk driving and domestic violence. Fine upstanding man.
The left really, really, love their criminals. Not one of the assailants of Rittenhouse is clean. Guess the criminals thought is was open season; and quickly found out different.
i read something that fits that statement yesterday , if it had been him that died , those that attacked him , would have been able to use the exact same plea he did . and for the same exact reasons .
Good thing Rittenhouse was armed and able to defend himself. Otherwise we would be talking about his death. Listening to left bitch about how he wouldn't be dead if he wasn't there; it is not his attackers' fault if he couldn't defend himself; and that he was a far right white supremacist that got what he deserved. Of course his assailants would be innocent victims then.
Now that the criminal trial has ended, will any of the families come forth with a civil suit? I've not heard any rumblings that any such action is being thought of, but you never know. Of course I don't know what this kid has in the way of assets so a civil suit may not provide much for the families but you never know the mind set of a person bent on revenge.
With a full acquittal they will have far less of a case. They will also have to prove their find upstanding criminals that assaulted Rittenhouse didn't intend him any harm. Good luck with that.
However, Rittenhouse may be in for a huge payday from the incestuous pedophile in the White House; several Democrats; and the MSM that painted him as a White Supremacist, far right terrorist, and murderer. Wonder if Joe shit his Depends when the verdict was announced?
The family of Anthony Huber (guy who attacked Rittenhouse with the skateboard) already put out a statement where they stated their son was shot while trying to disarm Rittenhouse and stop his shooting spree. So in their eyes their son was a hero... Afraid it's only gonna get worse.
How lawyers for 2 of the men Rittenhouse shot are responding to the acquittal
From CNN's Sara Sidner
Kimberley Motley and Milo Schwab, attorneys for Gaige Grosskreutz and the estate of Joseph Rosenbaum, asked for "peace from everyone hurting" following the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Rosenbaum was killed and Grosskreutz was injured in the August 2020 shooting.
"Today we grieve for the families of those slain by Kyle Rittenhouse," Motley and Schwab said in a statement.
Here's the full statement:
"Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum did not deserve to die that night. For now, we ask for peace from everyone hurting and that the public respect the privacy of the victims and their families. That night in Kenosha, Gaige Grosskreutz, Anthony Huber, and many others acted heroically. They did not seek violence, but to end violence. What we need right now is justice, not more violence. While today's verdict may mean justice delayed, it will not mean justice denied. We are committed to uncovering the truth of that night and holding those responsible to account."
So it would seem that they are looking at civil suits to move forward.
With the national news and so many "leaders" condemning Rittenhouse from day 1, will there be any apologies coming forth or will Rittenhouse have to take them to court for slander?
Civil suits will be forthcoming especially with a not guilty for criminal charges. He will have plenty of money to pay his lawyers. Rittenhouse was a minor during the media slander blitz. That is the reason the MAGA hat kid won.
No, not kidding. Or did you miss where national news was calling him a murderer long before the trial and before any verdicts were made. Even Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof.
He's not a murderer, the verdicts are in and he was found not guilty. As for the white supremacist, prove it. (yeah, I know you wont as you never do.) Republican? He just turned 18 and I don't know if he's registered with any political party, fairly sure he didn't vote in the last election.
That is a matter of opinion. There are people who have been convicted of murder and then 40 years later DNA proved them innocent. Were they murderers for those 40 years?
Nope, that's a legal term. By your own example, they were CONVICTED of murder therefor they are a murderer. Now 40 years later DNA testing comes up and shows they were innocent, so their conviction is overturned and they are NO LONGER a murderer. If they had never been convicted of murder in the first place then they would have been innocent all along and could never have the tag of murderer assigned to them.
Let him sue anyone he wants. Unless someone lied about the facts he's going to lose. I dont think "I wasnt convicted" will win him the case, but who knows. There are a lot of idiots in this country.
There's just no talking with some people. All they care to do is argue out of their partisan mindset and completely ignore laws and precedence.
The really bad part IMO is that so long as people continue to blame the other political party in every discussion they have the longer it will take to actually heal this country. But perhaps some people just don't care.
Suing for slander... yeah I think he stands a good chance of winning those. The news media was all over this from the beginning, even President Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof of such. If you want precedence for such suits all you have to do is look up the Covington Kid slander trials for a preview.
I'm also gonna say one other thing. Now that the criminal trial is over I hope Rittenhouse can learn grace and learn how to forgive himself. His actions caused the death of two people. It was self-defense but it was still him pulling the trigger in both of them and he's gonna have to live with his actions for the rest of his life. He was very young when he did this so he has many years to deal with this. How the rest of his life goes is entirely up to him and IMO it can be a better life for him if he learns and properly moves forward on this.
It does no good to discuss this with you as your mind is made up.
The jury found him not guilty on all charges. They did not go to lesser charges, it was unanimous not guilty on all counts. So that tells me that the jury believed the evidence was a clear case of self-defense.
Now the act of murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another. As the jury results show they believed the self-defense claims the killing of the two was not unlawful. There was no evidence submitted that I'm aware of that Rittenhouse knew any of the 4 individuals he shot at so it cannot be premediated. Also if it was premediated, why would he stop after shooting at 4 people? He still had 13 rounds in his gun so there's a lot more he could have done. You just cannot convince me that this was premediated.
Therefor in my mind this was not murder and he is not a murderer. You want to prove I'm wrong? Show me your logic then.
There is no video that does not show Rittenhouse shooting three people.
Any slander trials won't be over the shootings, it will be for the over-the-top emotional reporting and actual slander given by the news media. As i said even Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof.
A real court of law with a judge jury said otherwise, and not the leftist kangaroo court of public opinion prevalent on NT right now . Not guilty, so deal with it and go on!
1. a. The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. b. An instance of such killing.
Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder.
So you are once again down to the legal conclusion. Is OJ Simpson a murderer?
Rittenhouse could be sued for wrongful death, which is a civil matter
That will entirely depend on what the law is in wisconsin , some jurisdictions dont allow that if it was found in the criminal trial that the individual acted within the laws of self defense , usually a self defense plea turns the killings into justifiable homicide which if the action was justified , even civilly there are no grounds for wrongful death .
I can say here where i live , a civil suit for wrongful death can not be brought if someone who is killed was in the act of committing a crime themselves and the person being sued was acting within what the law allows .
but what do i know? i was supposedly wrong throughout the entire trial .....
A not guilty verdict does not mean he didn't murder those people.
Actually the acquittal means it was legally Self Defense not Murder. The claim of Self Defense has been proven in a Court of Law and given the stamp of approval by a Jury of his Peers. No Murders were Committed by Rittenhouse his actions were Justified and he has been Vindicated.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
But none of this matters as he was found NOT FUCKING GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES. Give it a rest, you just want to argue. And I'm not chasing down that rabbit hole you want me to with OJ, find someone else who might care what you want.
Basically stated, the criminal trial is done. You can have your opinions on if the results are correct or not but it is only your opinion and meaningless anywhere outside of your mind (same as any other opinion on this case from any of the other legal scholars on NT). The next two possible legal steps are for the families to file civil suits against Rittenhouse and/or Rittenhouse to file slander cases against various people / organizations. Will any of these steps happen? Time will tell.
Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder.
Who cares what he was charged with. The prosecutor that brought the charges was full of shit. This was a politically motivated charge that had no basis in reality. Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges. He has a right to defend himself according to the law; and did so.
You are far kinder than I am. Being bullied growing up taught me one thing; there is no appeasing bullies. Just taking it is not an option. They don't get tired, they don't get bored, and they never go away. These criminals thought they had an easy target- one lone kid. They attacked as a group and chased him as a group. If they didn't attack him they would not be dead. I will never feel sorry for them; because if they had their way Rittenhouse would be dead. Luckily he knew how to defend himself and wouldn't be their victim.
"Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder."
Charged yes, convicted NO! He was found not guilty on all counts. That is the point you and others here just cannot seem to grasp. Some people just will not/cannot accept that a genuine court of law said otherwise. Said court of law and jury said not guilty. End of story...
Some people just will not/cannot accept that a genuine court of law said otherwise. Said court of law and jury said not guilty. End of story...
Indeed. What it boils down to is the prosecution did not make a strong enough case. Of course some will not be happy with the verdict no matter what it is. But, that's how the system works.
Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time of the shooting, so he was too young to vote or have political affiliation. That being said, how do you come up with him being a Republican, other than it fits your narrative?
Don't worry about this verdict. The butt fugly weasel will eventually do something equally as criminal and actually get a conviction. That boy is a bad seed
What does unity have to do with me calling him a butt fugly weasel? Will you ever write a comment that makes any sense?
Ah...saw your comment down below. I'm past moving on. I just have a sneaking suspicion that this is not the last thing you will ever hear about Kyle Rittenhouse
What does unity have to do with me calling him a butt fugly weasel?
Sorry. Don't have the desire or time to explain it to you. Maybe you should re-evaluate your statement and how it works with the definition of unity. I'll give you some help:
Unity definition: the state of being united or joined as a whole.
It’s Been amazing to see people here offer all sorts of insane predictions about what this verdiCt supposedly means, but then I remember the law is premised on a reasonable person standard and I realize why they have so much Trouble.
"The jury got it right—finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. The fact that charges were brought before any serious investigation is evidence that the government was motivated by politics, which itself should be considered criminal."
The jury got it right—finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. The fact that charges were brought before any serious investigation is evidence that the government was motivated by politics, which itself should be considered criminal.
Not the judge. Not the attorneys. Not FoxNews or CNN anyone else. Just the jury.
And now the rest of us need to get over it.
This is the system. 12 people with no particular axe to grind, considered all the evidence with far more attention and scrutiny than any of us out here in the world. If anybody thought that judging these cases from afar via TV or internet was fair and just, we’d be doing it that way.
Bari Weiss explains the problem with our media nicely:
"Unless you’re a regular reader of independent reporting — Jacob Siegel of Tablet Magazine and Jesse Singal stand out for being ahead of the pack (and pilloried, like clockwork, for not going along with the herd) — you would have been served a pack of lies about what happened during those terrible days in Kenosha. And you would have been shocked over the past two weeks as the trial unfolded in Wisconsin as every core claim was undermined by the evidence of what actually happened that night.
This wasn’t a disinformation campaign waged by Reddit trolls or anonymous Twitter accounts. It was one pushed by the mainstream media and sitting members of Congress for the sake of an expedient political narrative…
To acknowledge the facts of what happened that night is not political. It is simply to acknowledge reality. It is to say that facts are still facts and that lies are lies. It is to insist that mob justice is not justice. It is to say that media consensus is not the equivalent of due process. And that pretending otherwise for the sake of political expediency is why the National Guard is now standing watch in Kenosha, bracing for violence once again in the anticipation of a verdict that for many, has already been decided."
It never figured that the jury would want to go to a second week of deliberations.
They called you and said, “That’s it, no way, it’s cheese-time and he goes.”?
NBC News is reporting the families of the deceased have been told to gather in the courtroom.
-
Wisconsin Right Now, a conservative Wisconsin blog, says a verdict has been reached and they are waiting for law enforcement to be put in place.
Rittenhouse is back in and they are waiting for the jury right now. Watching on CNN
LE in place is probably a good idea. Lord knows what will happen when the verdict is read
The kid looks scared to death. He got in way over his 17 year old head.
How dare he defend himself.
Not Guilty!
He walks!!
Justice was served. The leftist lynch mobs did not prevail..
They could well start all over again.
Another anti-Semitic trope typical of fascist propaganda.
One can only be amazed at the total ignorance demonstrated by your completely idiotic comment.
My comments are verifiable and true. Comment 3.2.7 is a demonstrable lie and a further display of total ignorance.
No one is interested in your bathroom habits.
Just another instance of, when you have nothing else, lash out with some BS statement to someone that does not share your own particular political ideology.
If you and your cohort aren't aware that "Soros DA's" is an anti-Semitic trope then you need some serious enlightenment.
Some people who harbor anti-Semitic sentiments feign ignorance. Which side are you on? Maybe it's time to look into your soul?
I'm not accusing you of anything and I'm not interested in a response. Good bye.
On all counts no less! Justice was served. Only sad part is KR will most likely have to live in hiding under a assumed name for a undetermined amount of time in case some members of the far loony left think he he now has a target on his back and try to serve their own brand of justice! Either way, this is over and done with hopefully and folks can go on.
Ed...if the butt fugly little weasel had stayed out of Kenosha that night he wouldn't have to go into hiding. He has to start taking some responsibility for what happened
He lived only about 20 miles away
Right, which is the reason the National Guard is out in force to ensure BLM and Antifa don't follow through on their promises "to burn everything down" if he was acquitted.
As far as KR's having stayed out of Kenosha that night, I agree with you. He should not have been there. But at the same time, whether some like it or not, he had every legal and constitutional right to be there.
Sadly, you are mistaken.
The impartial jury disagrees with you
And if the Governor had been doing his job in August 2020 and not turned the city over to violent left wing radicals, none of this would have happened.
It would be great if political leaders take this as a lesson of why you don't give your city over to mobs and anarchy.
Same for the other people running around that night.
You are absolutely right. I think some of us have forgotten that. I know I did.
This. Very much this.
Like it or not, we are living in a time where people seem to be struggling with the difference between something being allowed and something being a remotely intelligent decision.
The lesson learned is don't try to be a hero and take down an active shooter, at least not if they're a white right wing conservative. Hide and call the police. Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was self defense. Now if it was a Muslim or a black American with an AR-15 running from a fatal shooting then feel free to chase him and shoot at him because they'd never get a white conservative judge or jury to buy the self defense claim.
Rittenhouse doesn't meet the definition law enforcement uses for 'active shooter.'
For Rittenhouse to fit the description of active shooter he would have simply started shooting people indiscriminately, randomly and without provocation. He would have almost certainly been more heavily armed as well.
Meaningless, since had Rittenhouse been an active shooter, no one is likely going to take the time to question him on his political views.
Had Rittenhouse been an actual active shooter it isn't likely he would claim self defense and his actions would easily argue against him. Further, there's a degree of likelihood that he simply would have been shot by police or would shoot himself so he wouldn't be around to attempt claiming self defense.
Of course, because no black person ever has gotten justice from the legal system. Good luck selling that one.
Lol.. I don't think you get the concept of self defense. If someone shot Rittenhouse, they could have made the same self defense argument.
Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was
Maybe don't let an active shooter shoot you first? Isn't the whole point of self defense to defend yourself? I mean once you get shot somebody else's legal claims are probably the least of your worries.
You notice no one who attacked Rittenhouse was charged with a crime, right?
self defense.
Let's make this really clear. An active shooter in the way you mean it will never have the right of self-defense. Is that so hard to understand? You can't target innocent people and claim self defense. It's really not that complicated.
The level of stupidity of Comment 3.3.16 is pathetic.
So you think random killing is righteous.
Good to know.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat, so your comment is irrelevant.
Justice has never been better served!
It's open season on protesters! You can run over them in at least two states and shoot 'em in Wisconsin.
but don't give them any ideas
Rittenhouse's lawyer started crying, lol. I dont think I've ever seen that before.
Now, who’s making up shit?
Or feed them!
never has been or ever will be in my book as long as protesters are peaceful.
now if they cross the line and become criminal rioters , and assault people , well thats a horse of a different color now isnt it ?
Or if they block traffic or hold up skateboard or...
Well EG neither of those things fill the things I require for use of deadly force in self defense , and i have stated what i require is far more stringent than the law allows , things you posit are either innoculous and an inconvienience absent other actions in conjunction .
Blocking traffic during a protest is enough in two conservative states to absolve the driver of charges.
Did you forget the part that the driver must fear for their lives. Little things like far left domestic terrorists surrounding and banging on their vehicles, damaging them, and making threats.
Why does the left have a hard time protesting peacefully?
neither of which states i reside in, so what laws they pass have no effect on me , AND it is still up to me to decide if and when the use of deadly force , is nessisary for the protection of MY life , could be why i have chosen to be more strict than the laws of the state allow me to be in that choice .
Nope. That's a personal judgement call.
I don't think you are looking all that closely at that, but you do you.
They shouldn't be in the street blocking traffic...that's against the law
So is speeding. It's a one way on my street and delivery drivers go the wrong way all the time. How about spitting on the sidewalk or throwing a cigarette out a car window?
I don't think any of that raises to the level of injury or death. I'm all for giving them misdemeanor tickets for blocking traffic, not letting drivers get away with harming people that are ONLY blocking traffic.
And how is that to be proven?
Prosecutor: Did you fear for your life when you ran over those 15 people in the street?
Suspect: <Hmmm, if I say no I go to jail, if I say yes I go free...> "Yes, I was absolutely afraid for my life from those paraplegics protesting about the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Judge: NOT GUILTY!
Prosecutor: They weren't blocking the street, they were crossing the street.
Judge: Doesn't matter, he was in fear of his life, those scooters could be a deadly weapon. NOT GUILTY!!!
See Post 15.2.2
Has nothing to do with anything I said. Or are you just trolling that comment?
Do you not understand your own comment?
Or do you not understand what the reasonable person standard is?
Why are you intentionally portraying this as something it is not? If protesters are blocking the street there is no provision that sanctions just running them over for that reason alone. Nor is anyone here claiming such, as far as I can tell.
Here's a possible scenario the law is designed for. Imagine protesters blocking the street notice an occupied car that had a Trump 2024 sticker on it. They begin to surround the car and beat on it. Some of them have clubs and are using them. One individual with a metal bar smashes the driver's door window while shouting "I'm going to put you in the hospital!" at the top of his lungs. An individual on the other side has the passenger door open and is about to climb in.
That is the sort of scenario the law is intended for. It is not a license to run people over simply for standing around in the street for the purpose of illegally blocking it. Stop with the hyperbole because the purpose of hyperbole is to illustrate a point, not substitute as an actual argument. Or don't stop and keep trying to argue something everyone knows isn't true.
I understand. I will use smaller words next time.
So if I dance around in traffic and get hit by a car, it’s the driver’s fault? Isn’t there a reason we teach our kids to be careful crossing the street?
And if a group of angry strangers surrounds and blocks me in my car, am I just supposed to sit there and let them break open the car, pull me out, and beat me to death? Or can I try to drive away?
They don't. They think all are peaceful protesters, even when they are in fact violently looting, burning, and pillaging!/sarc
I understand.
No you obviously don't. I tried to dumb it down for you and you still are just lashing out. Ask nicely and I will help you.
Sure it is... car damage during street blocking protests is a huuuggge problem it needed to be addressed in multiple states. /s
I see. You've decided to go with the second option. Good luck.
You mean left wing thugs and rioters
They call them "protesters!"
This was a political prosecution from day 1. Charges were filed as a sop to left wing activists.
Despite all of the pressure to convict, justice prevailed.
Your point of view is ridiculous. However, we live in a ridiculous country so such views are in bloom.
Rittenhouse shot at 3 unarmed people, killing 2 of them. The prosecutor had no choice but to try the case.
Now our INSANE political right will make a hero out of a thoroughly reckless boy who shot first and asked questions later.
America is a degraded nation at this point and there is no doubt whatsoever it is going to get worse.
Two
He shot at 4 people. The only one that was armed was the one that was shot in the arm.
WTF are you talking about?
" The 12 jurors found him not guilty for the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, "
You mean that same one that pointed a handgun at KR's head beforehand?
Rittenhouse shot at a fourth person, who became known as Jump Kick Man. Maybe you werent following the case as closely as you thought you were.
Insignificant. Once again, Rittenhouse shot at him but what happened prior to that? The guy kicked him in the head when he fell down.
Drunk driving and domestic violence. Fine upstanding man.
Okay I'll give you your "shot AT" and will forever stand corrected on the subject.
Maybe the far left domestic terrorists shouldn't have assaulted him to start with? None of this happens without them starting it.
Good thing Rittenhouse was armed and able to defend himself. Otherwise we would be talking about his death. Listening to left bitch about how he wouldn't be dead if he wasn't there; it is not his attackers' fault if he couldn't defend himself; and that he was a far right white supremacist that got what he deserved. Of course his assailants would be innocent victims then.
The left really do love their criminals!
The left really, really, love their criminals. Not one of the assailants of Rittenhouse is clean. Guess the criminals thought is was open season; and quickly found out different.
There isnt a person on earth that can prove that Rittenhouse would be dead if he didnt shoot anyone that night.
i read something that fits that statement yesterday , if it had been him that died , those that attacked him , would have been able to use the exact same plea he did . and for the same exact reasons .
That is sadly very true.
So leave if it's so ridiculous.
Gee...imagine that. No coherent rebuttal, so we go to insults.
I'm so surprised...
Said no one..ever.
[Deleted]
Standard MO.
Now that the criminal trial has ended, will any of the families come forth with a civil suit? I've not heard any rumblings that any such action is being thought of, but you never know. Of course I don't know what this kid has in the way of assets so a civil suit may not provide much for the families but you never know the mind set of a person bent on revenge.
With a full acquittal they will have far less of a case. They will also have to prove their find upstanding criminals that assaulted Rittenhouse didn't intend him any harm. Good luck with that.
However, Rittenhouse may be in for a huge payday from the incestuous pedophile in the White House; several Democrats; and the MSM that painted him as a White Supremacist, far right terrorist, and murderer. Wonder if Joe shit his Depends when the verdict was announced?
And what would they claim. "Our family member attacked Rittenhouse and got shot"?
I think the wife beater is already suing the City of Kenosha for millions. I'm sure he'll try his luck with Rittenhouse.
The family of Anthony Huber (guy who attacked Rittenhouse with the skateboard) already put out a statement where they stated their son was shot while trying to disarm Rittenhouse and stop his shooting spree. So in their eyes their son was a hero... Afraid it's only gonna get worse.
And I just came across this...
And THAT's why Grosskreutz put a pistol to Rittenhouse's head.
Even Jeffrey Dahmer's family said "he was a good person".
My question is, why was he trying to disarm Rittenhouse? People carry firearms all the time. There were several others who were armed in the area.
That's the part that many people won't ever understand.
Prosecution, persecution, or both?
With the national news and so many "leaders" condemning Rittenhouse from day 1, will there be any apologies coming forth or will Rittenhouse have to take them to court for slander?
Civil suits will be forthcoming especially with a not guilty for criminal charges. He will have plenty of money to pay his lawyers. Rittenhouse was a minor during the media slander blitz. That is the reason the MAGA hat kid won.
You're fucking kidding, right?
No, not kidding. Or did you miss where national news was calling him a murderer long before the trial and before any verdicts were made. Even Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof.
Lets say that I go out today and yell "the murderer Rittenhouse got away with it". Do you think I could be sued for slander? lol.
He was indicted for murder. MAGA hat boy wasnt indicted for anything.
He's not a murderer, the verdicts are in and he was found not guilty. As for the white supremacist, prove it. (yeah, I know you wont as you never do.) Republican? He just turned 18 and I don't know if he's registered with any political party, fairly sure he didn't vote in the last election.
That is a matter of opinion.
There are people who have been convicted of murder and then 40 years later DNA proved them innocent. Were they murderers for those 40 years?
Nope, that's a legal term. By your own example, they were CONVICTED of murder therefor they are a murderer. Now 40 years later DNA testing comes up and shows they were innocent, so their conviction is overturned and they are NO LONGER a murderer. If they had never been convicted of murder in the first place then they would have been innocent all along and could never have the tag of murderer assigned to them.
Let him sue anyone he wants. Unless someone lied about the facts he's going to lose. I dont think "I wasnt convicted" will win him the case, but who knows. There are a lot of idiots in this country.
There's just no talking with some people. All they care to do is argue out of their partisan mindset and completely ignore laws and precedence.
The really bad part IMO is that so long as people continue to blame the other political party in every discussion they have the longer it will take to actually heal this country. But perhaps some people just don't care.
Rittenhouse could be sued for wrongful death, which is a civil matter
Suing for slander... yeah I think he stands a good chance of winning those. The news media was all over this from the beginning, even President Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof of such. If you want precedence for such suits all you have to do is look up the Covington Kid slander trials for a preview.
I'm also gonna say one other thing. Now that the criminal trial is over I hope Rittenhouse can learn grace and learn how to forgive himself. His actions caused the death of two people. It was self-defense but it was still him pulling the trigger in both of them and he's gonna have to live with his actions for the rest of his life. He was very young when he did this so he has many years to deal with this. How the rest of his life goes is entirely up to him and IMO it can be a better life for him if he learns and properly moves forward on this.
Your basic premise, that a "not guilty" verdict proves someone is not a murderer (or vice versa) is faulty.
Calling someone a murderer is not a legal conclusion.
Is OJ Simpson a murderer?
It does no good to discuss this with you as your mind is made up.
The jury found him not guilty on all charges. They did not go to lesser charges, it was unanimous not guilty on all counts. So that tells me that the jury believed the evidence was a clear case of self-defense.
Now the act of murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another. As the jury results show they believed the self-defense claims the killing of the two was not unlawful. There was no evidence submitted that I'm aware of that Rittenhouse knew any of the 4 individuals he shot at so it cannot be premediated. Also if it was premediated, why would he stop after shooting at 4 people? He still had 13 rounds in his gun so there's a lot more he could have done. You just cannot convince me that this was premediated.
Therefor in my mind this was not murder and he is not a murderer. You want to prove I'm wrong? Show me your logic then.
Totally disagree. A video showed that the Covington kid did not taunt the American Indian he was accused of taunting.
There is no video that does not show Rittenhouse shooting three people.
Any slander trials won't be over the shootings, it will be for the over-the-top emotional reporting and actual slander given by the news media. As i said even Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof.
A real court of law with a judge jury said otherwise, and not the leftist kangaroo court of public opinion prevalent on NT right now . Not guilty, so deal with it and go on!
Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder.
So you are once again down to the legal conclusion. Is OJ Simpson a murderer?
That will entirely depend on what the law is in wisconsin , some jurisdictions dont allow that if it was found in the criminal trial that the individual acted within the laws of self defense , usually a self defense plea turns the killings into justifiable homicide which if the action was justified , even civilly there are no grounds for wrongful death .
I can say here where i live , a civil suit for wrongful death can not be brought if someone who is killed was in the act of committing a crime themselves and the person being sued was acting within what the law allows .
but what do i know? i was supposedly wrong throughout the entire trial .....
Actually the acquittal means it was legally Self Defense not Murder. The claim of Self Defense has been proven in a Court of Law and given the stamp of approval by a Jury of his Peers. No Murders were Committed by Rittenhouse his actions were Justified and he has been Vindicated.
But none of this matters as he was found NOT FUCKING GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES. Give it a rest, you just want to argue. And I'm not chasing down that rabbit hole you want me to with OJ, find someone else who might care what you want.
Basically stated, the criminal trial is done. You can have your opinions on if the results are correct or not but it is only your opinion and meaningless anywhere outside of your mind (same as any other opinion on this case from any of the other legal scholars on NT). The next two possible legal steps are for the families to file civil suits against Rittenhouse and/or Rittenhouse to file slander cases against various people / organizations. Will any of these steps happen? Time will tell.
leftist kangaroo court?
Let's remember that phrase when a "lefty" is brought up on trial and the right wing kangaroo court convicts in the court of public opinion.
It has happened
[Deleted]
For the record, I am only referring to this particular trial only. Many of the comments given, despite the jury's decision, do speak for themselves.
Who cares what he was charged with. The prosecutor that brought the charges was full of shit. This was a politically motivated charge that had no basis in reality. Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges. He has a right to defend himself according to the law; and did so.
It kind of is. Murder is defined as an “unlawful killing.” That definition of the concept goes back millennia. It’s even in the Bible.
Now, if you want to make the argument that a killing was morally wrong, that’s a valid opinion to have, but “murder” has a definition.
Not according to Wisconsin law and a jury that said otherwise by acquitting. You are still mistaken no matter what!
You are far kinder than I am. Being bullied growing up taught me one thing; there is no appeasing bullies. Just taking it is not an option. They don't get tired, they don't get bored, and they never go away. These criminals thought they had an easy target- one lone kid. They attacked as a group and chased him as a group. If they didn't attack him they would not be dead. I will never feel sorry for them; because if they had their way Rittenhouse would be dead. Luckily he knew how to defend himself and wouldn't be their victim.
Shooting is not murder.
Thankfully a legitimate court of law, judge, and a jury said otherwise! Deal with it.
BUT>>>BUT>>> BUT >>> they won in the court of public opinion ( they think) so the court it counted in doesnt count .....
"Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder."
Charged yes, convicted NO! He was found not guilty on all counts. That is the point you and others here just cannot seem to grasp. Some people just will not/cannot accept that a genuine court of law said otherwise. Said court of law and jury said not guilty. End of story...
Indeed. What it boils down to is the prosecution did not make a strong enough case. Of course some will not be happy with the verdict no matter what it is. But, that's how the system works.
Very true.
Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time of the shooting, so he was too young to vote or have political affiliation. That being said, how do you come up with him being a Republican, other than it fits your narrative?
Too late for apologies. Time for them to pay up.
So does this mean I can shoot anti-vaxxers because I fear for my life???
Are they brown?
No, but then neither am I.
Then, probably not. You might get away with it if they are really, really ugly and poor.
only if they get within 6 feet or try to touch you... ...self defense.
I preferred distance & not being touched by strangers before Covid - that just re-enforced my dedication to avoiding things like that.
Sure if they physically assault you w/o provocation and you need to defend yourself to save your life.
Otherwise you are SOL.
You might be on to something!
Sure would be shooting a lot of blacks.
Don't want to be a white supremacist, do you?
Don't worry about this verdict. The butt fugly weasel will eventually do something equally as criminal and actually get a conviction. That boy is a bad seed
There's that attitude of unity we have come to know from the left.
What does unity have to do with me calling him a butt fugly weasel? Will you ever write a comment that makes any sense?
Ah...saw your comment down below. I'm past moving on. I just have a sneaking suspicion that this is not the last thing you will ever hear about Kyle Rittenhouse
Sorry. Don't have the desire or time to explain it to you. Maybe you should re-evaluate your statement and how it works with the definition of unity. I'll give you some help:
Unity definition: the state of being united or joined as a whole.
[Deleted]
Having read a lot of your comments, I would lose a lot of respect for anyone who wanted to "unify" with you.
I thought I made it clear long ago I could care less what you "think".
[Deleted]
Cool, America will now be policed by vigilantes with acne standing on a stranger's ground ... @!@
cool, dropping armed militia types that are wandering around looks like it'll be a legal slam dunk now...
It’s Been amazing to see people here offer all sorts of insane predictions about what this verdiCt supposedly means, but then I remember the law is premised on a reasonable person standard and I realize why they have so much Trouble.
I like the sarcasm.
But I am sad to say that I think this may prove to be a disastrously accurate prediction.
At least one Democrat gets it:
"The jury got it right—finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. The fact that charges were brought before any serious investigation is evidence that the government was motivated by politics, which itself should be considered criminal."
Tulsi Gabbard
[Deleted]
Typical. The month is almost over, so I guess a short vacation anyways....
I just wish those that KNOW they are on ignore would stop replying to me and cluttering up my notes section. I delete - don't read the prattle.
I think it's time for another HD or Meta article
I'll visit it, won't write it....
already done
Cool.
Damn - another one is cluttering up my notes.
go get 'em Tiger!
The jury has spoken.
Not the judge. Not the attorneys. Not FoxNews or CNN anyone else. Just the jury.
And now the rest of us need to get over it.
This is the system. 12 people with no particular axe to grind, considered all the evidence with far more attention and scrutiny than any of us out here in the world. If anybody thought that judging these cases from afar via TV or internet was fair and just, we’d be doing it that way.
Sadly, some here here are absolutely convinced the court of public opinion completely trumps the legitimate court of law...
Sums up state of the media about as well anything.
As others have said, if you were surprised by the verdict, you need new news sources.
Bari Weiss explains the problem with our media nicely:
"Unless you’re a regular reader of independent reporting — Jacob Siegel of Tablet Magazine and Jesse Singal stand out for being ahead of the pack (and pilloried, like clockwork, for not going along with the herd) — you would have been served a pack of lies about what happened during those terrible days in Kenosha. And you would have been shocked over the past two weeks as the trial unfolded in Wisconsin as every core claim was undermined by the evidence of what actually happened that night.
This wasn’t a disinformation campaign waged by Reddit trolls or anonymous Twitter accounts. It was one pushed by the mainstream media and sitting members of Congress for the sake of an expedient political narrative…
To acknowledge the facts of what happened that night is not political. It is simply to acknowledge reality. It is to say that facts are still facts and that lies are lies. It is to insist that mob justice is not justice. It is to say that media consensus is not the equivalent of due process. And that pretending otherwise for the sake of political expediency is why the National Guard is now standing watch in Kenosha, bracing for violence once again in the anticipation of a verdict that for many, has already been decided."
Article opened