Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[Leigha]

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/kyle-ritt...t/38304132#


I concur with the jury that he was acting in self-defense, but I'm wondering if the jurors struggled to reconcile why he was there in the first place, carrying an assault rifle. Didn't follow this case too closely, but that is still a point of contention for many.

What are your thoughts? Was justice served?

[C C]

Well, it wasn't "first-degree intentional homicide" is all I can say. If that's the only slot on the degree spectrum that prosecutors have these days for "deaths resulting from ambiguous reciprocal circumstances", then they'll receive the common results of such "we only throw Hail Marys" myopia.

EDIT: The actual number of charges below. (My bad, not having paid much attention to this trial beforehand, either, I went by an initial report after the verdict that only mentioned the one.)

first-degree intentional homicide

first-degree reckless homicide

first-degree attempted intentional homicide

two counts of reckless endangerment

[Leigha]

Well, it wasn't "first-degree intentional homicide" is all I can say. If that's the only slot on the degree spectrum that prosecutors have these days for "deaths resulting from ambiguous reciprocal circumstances", then they'll receive the common results of such "we only throw Hail Marys" myopia.

Well, that’s our justice system. Do you think he may have been convicted on a lesser charge?

I think the prosecution thought they had it in the bag before the trial even started and yep, should have probably tossed in other charges but I believe it has been rumored that the the lead prosecutor has (had?) political aspirations.

[Yazata]

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/kyle-ritt...t/38304132#

I concur with the jury that he was acting in self-defense, but I'm wondering if the jurors struggled to reconcile why he was there in the first place, carrying an assault rifle. Didn't follow this case too closely, but that is still a point of contention for many.

What are your thoughts? Was justice served?

Yes, I agree with the verdict, it was pretty clearly self-defense. The fact that he was armed was intended to be a deterrent to criminal activity. It wasn't his fault that some of the rioters took that as a challenge and chose to attack him.

Part of the reason that Rittenhouse won today is that this was a political case from the very beginning. The prosecutors never took the time to carefully examine the evidence but instead rushed their charges due to political pressure. So they found themselves in the position of learning what their own evidence was along with the jury. Putting the guy who was shot in the arm on the stand as a prosecution witness who testified that he had a pistol and pointed it at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse opened fire pretty much sealed the death of the prosecution's case. I think that was the moment the whole thing turned.

My thoughts? Basically, that if the police aren't able to protect the people, then the people will have no choice but to protect themselves. If the police had been allowed to do their jobs, then this wouldn't have happened. Hundreds of stores wouldn't have been looted and burned, a whole neighborhood wouldn't have been devastated, and these rioters wouldn't have been shot. A great deal of the fault lies squarely with a collection of state and local Wisconsin officials that not only allowed this to happen, but seemed to be cheering it on.

[C C]

Well, that’s our justice system. Do you think he may have been convicted on a lesser charge?

No, since he did have other charges grounded in reckless behavior on his part resulting in the deaths (media initially just wanted to highlight the uppermost of the package).

With respect to "why he was there" potentially yielding lesser criminal allegations... I don't know what the finer regulations and violations are (if any) in that area or any other for ordinary citizens assembling and protecting property from a mix of activists and rioters, and how they distinguish that from vigilante classification, and what the penalties are for the latter.


According to prosecutors:

Rittenhouse was a wannabe police officer, an untrained vigilante trying to live out a hero fantasy. He went looking for trouble among protesters he knew were hostile to him and his group, by offering medical attention. Rittenhouse claimed he was a trained EMT; he was not.

He had only fired his Smith & Wesson M&P 15 assault-style rifle during a single weekend up north in May before taking it downtown, loaded with 30 rounds of .223 caliber rounds.

He provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his rifle at a couple who had been hanging out with Rosenbaum that night. Prosecutors relied on videos from a drone, an FBI surveillance plane and a bystander on the ground.


Defense's version of events:

Rosenbaum earlier in the night had threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he caught him alone, and then "ambushed" him as Rittenhouse arrived at the car lot carrying a fire extinguisher.

Rittenhouse ran to a "box canyon" of cars and other protesters, and had no choice but to shoot Rosenbaum because he believed Rosenbaum meant to disarm him, kill him and shoot others.

Why four times? "He shoots until the threat was immobilized," defense attorney Mark Richards said in closing. "Others in this community shot someone seven times and it was found to be OK," he said, referring to Officer Sheskey,  who was cleared by prosecutors for shooting Blake and didn't face any internal discipline.

"I'm glad he shot him, because if Joseph Rosenbaum had gotten the gun, I don't believe for a minute he wouldn't have shot others. He was irrational," Richards said.

Photos that supposedly show Rittenhouse raising his rifle are the result of digital "hocus pocus" that produced "out of focus" images.

- - - - -

[...] A sixth criminal count, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under age 18, was dismissed by the trial judge on several grounds Monday before jurors got the case.

[...] Rittenhouse testified that Huber had hit him with a skateboard and grabbed his rifle.

"Mr. Huber runs up, as I'm getting up, he strikes me in the neck with his skateboard a second time," Rittenhouse said. "He grabs my gun, and I can feel it pulling away from me, and I can feel the straps coming off my body. I fire one shot."

During closing statements Monday, prosecutor Thomas Binger dismissed Rittenhouse's defense.

"You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create," Binger told jurors, arguing that Rittenhouse had "brought a gun to a fistfight."

"So consider, for example, whether or not it's heroic or honorable to provoke and shoot unarmed people," Binger said.

[Leigha]

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/kyle-ritt...t/38304132#

I concur with the jury that he was acting in self-defense, but I'm wondering if the jurors struggled to reconcile why he was there in the first place, carrying an assault rifle. Didn't follow this case too closely, but that is still a point of contention for many.

What are your thoughts? Was justice served?

Yes, I agree with the verdict, it was pretty clearly self-defense. The fact that he was armed was intended to be a deterrent to criminal activity. It wasn't his fault that some of the rioters took that as a challenge and chose to attack him.

Part of the reason that Rittenhouse won today is that this was a political case from the very beginning. The prosecutors never took the time to carefully examine the evidence but instead rushed their charges due to political pressure. So they found themselves in the position of learning what their own evidence was along with the jury. Putting the guy who was shot in the arm on the stand as a prosecution witness who testified that he had a pistol and pointed it at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse opened fire pretty much sealed the death of the prosecution's case. I think that was the moment the whole thing turned.

My thoughts? Basically, that if the police aren't able to protect the people, then the people will have no choice but to protect themselves. If the police had been allowed to do their jobs, then this wouldn't have happened. Hundreds of stores wouldn't have been looted and burned, a whole neighborhood wouldn't have been devastated, and these rioters wouldn't have been shot. A great deal of the fault lies squarely with a collection of state and local Wisconsin officials that not only allowed this to happen, but seemed to be cheering it on.

Agree. The prosecution clearly was in over its head, bringing charges that didn't have evidence. It makes me wonder if the state intentionally lost this case. Who honestly thought that going with intentional homicide was a good idea?

I'm hopeful this doesn't usher in Kyle copycats, though...I mean, it seems a little sketchy that we can provoke violence (like George Zimmerman did) and then defend ourselves with a weapon against unarmed people, when our provocation risks our safety. Hmm.

By provoke, I mean that Rittenhouse came armed to a highly charged emotional protest, which could be viewed as aggressive. I realize that he wasn't outright provoking violence, but just in the action of showing up with an assault rifle in the middle of such chaos, everyone around him doesn't know if he'll use it or not.

I agree with the verdict, but it doesn't mean that I agree with all of Rittenhouse's actions that day. That's just me. Cut and dry case because of the charges, but not cut and dry in terms of what led up to him defending himself. But, this trial isn’t about that.

[Yazata]

I'm not prepared to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse. In fact I'm more inclined to perceive him as a hero.

When the police (or rather their political commanders) abandon the responsibility to protect the public, then the public has not only the natural right, but also the civic responsibility, to defend itself.

Otherwise anarchy prevails.

The provocation that evening didn't come from Rittenhouse. It came from the rioters, arsonists and looters who were pillaging through that neighborhood. Anyone who wanted to avoid any danger of being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse always had the choice to move away from him and not confront and assault him. He was behaving as a deterrent against looting and arson, not as a provocation or as a vigilante.

Again (it can't be said too often) it wouldn't have been necessary for Rittenhouse to be out there if law enforcement had been allowed to do their jobs. Apart from the inexcusable rioters themselves, the blame for this unfortunate incident clearly lies with those who were commanding the police to stand down and who were refusing to call up the national guard, along with those asinine celebrities and public officials who were stupidly cheering on the rioters. All of them have blood on their hands.

[Leigha]

Again (it can't be said too often) it wouldn't have been necessary for Rittenhouse to be out there if law enforcement had been allowed to do their jobs. Apart from the inexcusable rioters themselves, the blame for this unfortunate incident clearly lies with those who were commanding the police to stand down and who were refusing to call up the national guard, along with those asinine celebrities and public officials who were stupidly cheering on the rioters. All of them have blood on their hands.

You’re right on this point. And it should never have turned into a political circus.

In other news, Biden’s flip flop on this case is so predictable. He goes from calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist (which never made sense) to agreeing with the verdict. lol

[Syne]

Biden hasn't said he agreed with the verdict. He said he stands by it and we have to abide by it, but also that he is "feeling angry and concerned" over it. He has not retracted his unfounded claim that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, which is literally slander.

All the video evidence available within days of the incident proved no charges should have been brought. But the DA of Kenosha is a relative of the major, who was likely seeking some scapegoat for him allowing his city to burn.

The judge allowed the jury to consider lessor charges. They did not find him guilty of even those.

This is America. You have the freedom to be in any public place without requiring any reason, and as the judge ruled, Wisconsin's open carry laws allowed Kyle to be armed.
Leigha, an "assault rifle" is one that can fire fully automatic. Civilian AR-style rifles cannot. Don't fall for the left's ignorant propaganda. The left has also repeatedly lied that Kyle crossed state lines with a gun...as if borders suddenly matter to them.

If the prosecutor ever thought he had a case, he's a bigger moron than he looked during the trial, where his own witnesses repeatedly contradicted the narrative he was pushing, becoming better witnesses for the defense. He broke the cardinal rule of lawyers, by asking questions he obviously had no clue what the answers were going to be. There's also a strong case to be made for his disbarment over a lot of his conduct in this trial.

You're an utter moron if you think Kyle provoked any violence, among all the looters, rioters, arsonists. No, carrying a gun in an open carry state is never, itself, provocation. That's just ignorance of the law and making excuses for the actual criminals who literally attacked him. None of the protesters had any right to act as vigilante when Kyle hadn't broken any laws. The first attacker was videoed earlier yelling "shoot me, n***a" to Kyle and others, tell them he'd kill them if he found them alone. A threat to murder someone is already a crime.

The trial was absolutely about what led up to self-defense. The prosecutions whole case was that Kyle provoked the attack. Just like the Chauvin trial, so many people want to opine out of their pure ignorance of law or even the facts of what happened. That ignorance, and media lies, have contributed to death threats against an 18 year old. Hope you're proud of yourself.

[confused2]

One way to deal with protests about people being shot is to (apparently) join the protest but take it to such an extreme that all sympathy for the cause is lost. Besides, rioting and looting is fun so any sort of free pass - let's go create mayhem.
The three shot by Rittenhouse are a somewhat literal snapshot of those on the streets that night. The first two were probably out (after curfew) to watch the rioting - part sightseers and part anything sensible you ask an American to do - they'll do the opposite.
The third was out there to help, claiming the same motivation as Rittenhouse but found out the hard way that a semi-automatic rifle is more helpful than a hand gun - which I'm sure many could have predicted.

---

I understand there are two 'militia' groups (armed, heavily armed?) in Kenosha - as far as I know they haven't fired a single shot (is this true?) yet one teenager (a hero?) with a semi-automatic rifle kills two people on one night. Are the militia guys a bunch of wimps? I'd kind of expect the 'out-of-control' militia to be gunning down rioters instead of a heroic teenager with a rifle killing people who may well not be connected with any sort of rioting but maybe I've got the wrong impression.