Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

SeaBreeze said:
That's unfortunate, but not unexpected. He's one step closer to being an official violent Proud Boy.
Click to expand...

I worry about where he'll go from here. He was already grandiose before the killings...can't imagine the impact the adulation so many foolish people have given him at his age have had in strengthening that. That'll further increase with the not guilty verdicts. And I don't think he'll grasp that a jury finding him not guilty doesn't mean there's not a moral stain on his soul.
 

Last edited:
HarryHawk said:
IMHO, justice was served --

In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial.
Click to expand...
Two words: Jury nullification.
 
SeaBreeze said:
It is a bad day for America, and a good day for violent armed vigilantes. With the direction this country is going, I'm glad I'm old and have no kids.
Click to expand...


How many people do "violent armed vigilantes" kill each year? A hundred? Meanwhile black teens slay each other by the thousands, and nobody really cares. In my city, a nine year old boy and a 14 year old boy were just killed because they got caught between some black teen gangs engaged in "dispute resolution."

https://richmond.com/news/local/boy...cle_a2281268-2a44-565b-8141-92d42d254235.html
 

SeaBreeze said:
Rittenhouse was the killer with the semi-auto. Rittenhouse was the murderer. Rittenhouse had no business being there but to start trouble and try out his new toy. Rittenhouse caused the interaction which left two people dead. Rittenhouse is a friend and follower of the Proud Boys, another violent mob of vigilantes who prey on those participating in BLM protests.
Click to expand...
@SeaBreeze , Nicely stated summary of the components of the case.
 
JimBob1952 said:
If Rittenhouse was a "violent armed vigilante," who were Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz? Grosskreutz was armed. Rosenbaum and Huber were violent felons. All three were in Kenosha for purposes of riot and destruction. I sympathize with no one in this case.
Click to expand...
All along they kept saying he was there to protect a business he worked at. The others were there to do damage or riot & loot businesses.
If I would have been in his shoes I would have done the exact same thing. We need more people like Rittenhouse to stand up & take America back like it use to be. Where there were NO riots or destructions.
 
Nathan said:
Wow, I haven't seen such a miscarriage of justice since the OJ Simpson trial. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Don't remember much about the trial specifics. Can't remember in OJ's case if there was competent prosecution.

In this trial, Prosecutor Binger had a lot of incompetent moments and has in past ones as well. He was so bad in a 2018 child sexual assault case that his actions resulted a mistrial in what should've been a slam dunk conviction. The day that the day Binger was assigned prosecutor in this trial was a very lucky day for Kyle Rittenhouse.

.
 
Part of the issue are these violent protests. It started a year or two before the 2016 election season(NO politics! just the nature of a physical protest).

When I see people going to protests with masks, trash can lids, protective gear instead of signs you knew that would escalate to other gear, equipment and tactics. But many in law enforcement in areas prone to frequent and violent protests started declaring battling protestors 'mutual combatants'. Also with huge crowds it's probably best to try and manage not control the crowds/protestors with designated areas and prioritize criteria for the pursuit and arrest of individuals.

If one is bringing more than signs and literature to a protest they want more than speeches and debate.

Should add if one gets hit by a flying object, punched, pushed etc don't expect to file charges without absolute proof like video now a days. Testimony might not cut it.
 
AnnieA said:
I worry about where he'll go from here. He was already grandiose before the killings...can't imagine the impact the adulation so many foolish people have given him at his age have had in strengthening that. That'll further increase with the not guilty. And I don't think he'll grasp that a jury finding him not guilty doesn't mean there's not a moral stain on his soul.
Click to expand...
SeaBreeze said:
Rittenhouse was the killer with the semi-auto. Rittenhouse was the murderer. Rittenhouse had no business being there but to start trouble and try out his new toy. Rittenhouse caused the interaction which left two people dead. Rittenhouse is a friend and follower of the Proud Boys, another violent mob of vigilantes who prey on those participating in BLM protests.
Click to expand...


Wow. Weren't you a moderator here once? Glad you are so objective.

What "business" did the others have there? Were they trying to put out fires? Was Rosenbaum looking for some children to rape? Was Huber looking for some good spots for skateboarding? This was a violent riot, not a "protest." Grosskreutz had a semi-automatic pistol (expired permit) and by his own testimony pointed it at Rittenhouse before he was shot. Standing around with a rifle, ostensibly to protect property, as Rittenhouse was doing is as legitimate "business" as setting dumpster fires. And the rioters initiated violent contact. Even the prosecution didn't claim Rittenhouse was there to "hunt" anybody.

BTW as far as anybody knows, Rittenhouse had no contact with Proud Boys until four months AFTER the shooting. That's when he allowed them to take his picture in a bar where he was having a beer with his mother. So that is basically a full of s___ argument.
 
When chaos is allowed to run rampant, you end up with - chaos

kenosha-riot-1.png
 
mrstime said:
Agreed, he went there deliberately with a gun (that he was not legally allowed to have) looking for trouble. Wonder if he will get away with it the next time he kills someone.
Click to expand...
Tom 86 said:
All along they kept saying he was there to protect a business he worked at. The others were there to do damage or riot & loot businesses.
If I would have been in his shoes I would have done the exact same thing. We need more people like Rittenhouse to stand up & take America back like it use to be. Where there were NO riots or destructions.
Click to expand...


No, he was a lifeguard. He didn't work at the car business and no one asked him to protect it. I would never in a million years let my 17 year old son go anywhere near a riot site, especially with a semi-automatic rifle.

That's the problem with cases like this, people let political spin get in the way of the facts.

Rittenhouse isn't going to kill anybody else. He's a dimwitted, pudgy-faced kid, not a vicious killer. He put himself in an awful situation and the jury believed he was justified in using deadly force to get himself out of it.
 
I was in my car, had just left the bank and heard it live on KGO Newstalk from San Francisco. I was very, very surprised. I'm not sure what to think. I don't know all the details of the events or the trial.
 
AnnieA said:
I worry about where he'll go from here/. He was already grandiose before the killings...can't imagine the impact the adulation so many foolish people have given him at his age have had in strengthening that. That'll further increase with the not guilty verdicts. And I don't think he'll grasp that a jury finding him not guilty doesn't mean there's not a moral stain on his soul.
Click to expand...
He might be going to work in Washington. Gaetz is a member of Congress from Florida.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/18/matt-gaetz-kyle-rittenhouse-congressional-intern/

"Matt Gaetz says he might offer Kyle Rittenhouse a job as a congressional intern as jury debates the teen’s case ........ "​

 
Nathan said:
Nope, sorry. The LAPD's chain of custody documentation for handling evidence was sloppy, as was the case for many agencies. Johnny Cochran knew that and skillfully made that a center piece issue. But, the main factor in OJ's acquittal was Jury nullification.
Click to expand...
Unlike your opinion of "Jury Nullification" being the reason, a police officer named Mark Fuhrman was proven to have lied under oath about never using the "N" word. A recording of this moron officer bragging about how his "Department was so tight they could pull black people over & fabricate evidence to arrest them" is what did it. That clearly demonstrated racism as a possible motive for framing OJ by planting evidence. That is why he was acquitted, even though he was guilty.

"The tapes include many racist slurs and remarks made by Fuhrman, including uses of the word "n----r," descriptions of police brutality perpetrated on black suspects, misogynist slurs and descriptions of the harassment and intimidation of female Los Angeles police officers by male officers. Portions of the tapes were admitted into evidence during the 1995 O. J. Simpson murder trial. In the tapes Fuhrman also made many references to the "planting of evidence" and implied that police brutality and evidence planting were common practice in the Los Angeles Police Department."

Suggested reading (even though it will make you uncomfortable):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapes
 
The verdict is exactly what I thought it would be. Rittenhouse was defending himself in all three instances where he shot someone. It's irrelevant in the eyes of the law that had he not been walking around with an assault-style rifle, he wouldn't have been attacked by Rosenbaum — the first person he killed. That's because walking around with an assault-style rifle is perfectly legal in this day and age. It may be crazy, but it's legal.

It's also irrelevant that the other men who attacked Rittenhouse might have thought that he was an active shooter. He has a right to use deadly force to defend himself. I wonder how that would play out in the trial of a bona fide active shooter. How would the jury rule?
 
win231 said:
Unlike your opinion of "Jury Nullification" being the reason, a police officer named Mark Fuhrman was proven to have lied under oath about never using the "N" word. A recording of this moron officer bragging about how his "Department was so tight they could pull black people over & fabricate evidence to arrest them" is what did it. That clearly demonstrated racism as a possible motive for framing OJ by planting evidence. That is why he was acquitted, even though he was guilty.

"The tapes include many racist slurs and remarks made by Fuhrman, including uses of the word "n----r," descriptions of police brutality perpetrated on black suspects, misogynist slurs and descriptions of the harassment and intimidation of female Los Angeles police officers by male officers. Portions of the tapes were admitted into evidence during the 1995 O. J. Simpson murder trial. In the tapes Fuhrman also made many references to the "planting of evidence" and implied that police brutality and evidence planting were common practice in the Los Angeles Police Department."

Suggested reading (even though it will make you uncomfortable):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapes
Click to expand...
@win231 , I knew that you would go google hoping to come up with a rebuttal, since my post pointed out your erroneous statement. The "suggested reading" that's supposed to make me feel uncomfortable is another example of your thin skinned snarkiness. But I'm not judging, that's just how you are.

So, let's move on: Fuhrman did indeed lie about having used the "N" word in the tape he made for the screenwriter who was wanting to do a screenplay and a novel. But, there is no evidence whatsoever that Fuhrman did anything improper during the investigation. However, defense attorney Johnny Cochran was aware of the tapes, and made maximum use of them to throw doubt on Fuhrman's credibility. In addition, the trial judge(Lance Ito) was politically motivated(much like Judge Schroeder in the Rittenhouse case) and allowed Johnny Cochran to load the jury with sympathetic members. The rest is history...jury nullification.

@win231, just so you know: I watched the OJ trial literally gavel to gavel, from day one to the conclusion on Court TV, as I was working nights and weekends at the time, which enabled me to be at home while the trial was covered live.
If there's anything else about the OJ Simpson trial(or legal matters in general)that you need clarification with, please don't hesitate to reply back. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top