Do you think the people against the Rittenhouse ruling watched the actual court footage?

[Anonymous]

I just spent the last 10+hours over the past 3 days watching the trial footage and it baffles me how people are reacting. I feel nothing but happy for this kid (and sad cause his life will still be fucked in some ways). I wasn't keeping up with the case AT ALL and I became interested in it the day before they ruled not guilty, so I had not been paying attention to what any of the media was saying about it. Do you think any of the people against the ruling actually watched the trial?

[abc3643]

No.


Rittenhouse had 7 charges against him.

>>> He was acquitted on the first 5 charges:

COUNT 1: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This was about the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man Rittenhouse shot.
Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren't alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they're alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum's death in circumstances showing an utter disregard for human life. Video shows Rittenhouse was running away from Rosenbaum and turned around to shoot him.

COUNT 2: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This is complicated to explain but, when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, someone else (the reporter who testified in the trial) was in the way. So, Rittenhouse would be considered reckless here.

COUNT 3: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Again, more random shooting during a stressful situation.

COUNT 4: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Intentional homicide means just that — a person killed someone and meant to do it.
This was charge for the killing of Anthony Huber whose skateboard Huber was about to use to harm Rittenhouse.

COUNT 5: ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol.

>>> These two charges against him were dismissed:
COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18
Defense raised that the gun had a long-enough barrel to be considered a hunting weapon and would be an exception to the relevant law. Judge said the law was sufficiently ambiguous, so dismissed the charge.

Dropped:
COUNT 7: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Judge said there was insufficient evidence to convict, so the judge dismissed the charge.

==========

I'll be honest, I am a liberal and it's not that I wanted to see Rittenhouse convicted, but there should be some justice somewhere. This kid should not have been allowed to carry a firearm across state lines and then left unattended with it and placed into a dangerous situation.

But, the law is the law and the absence of law is the absence of law...

If I was on the jury, I would have voted to acquit too on these charges. The prosecution did a shitty job and was easily dislikeable to anyone on the jury, but, the reality is that the kid got into a pickle he should not have and then was forced to defend himself under chaotic stressful conditions.

(more)

[abc3643]

==========
This isn't over though.
The above cases were all criminal and against a minor.

Now the REAL court cases will start...

This is what may happen:
The Kenosha DA may decide to come after Rittenhouse's mother on a few grounds.
1. She transported a minor across state lines and deliberately and recklessly placed him in a situation in which:
A) There was a strong likelihood he would be harmed.
B) There was a strong likelihood that he could harm or kill others - which is exactly what happened.

2. Conspiracy to commit murder. By her transporting her armed minor child across state lines to put him in a situation in which he would likely kill, what she was really doing (in the eyes of the prosecution) was hope that he would kill protesters and then, as a minor, be acquitted - which is exactly what happened.

Those would be additional criminal charges against the mother.
But those criminal cases may not occur and they'd be difficult to convict.
Worse, under these charges, the state would have Rittenhouse removed from his mother's custody.
But, 1) the only state that could do that is Iowa where they lived and 2) Kyle is now an adult, so it's moot.
So, these additional criminal charges are not likely to occur.

(more)

[abc3643]

HOWEVER, I fully expect that the families of Rosenbaum, Huber, and possibly Grosskreutz will file civil cases.

For the two murdered men, their deaths were unnecessary because Rittenhouse's mother never should have put him in there to begin with.

Try to look at it like this:

A mother takes her boy to the zoo, gives him a gun, and unlocks the lion's cage, and opens the cage door for the boy to go through.

The hungry lions go after the boy. He kills the lions with his gun in self-defense.

The zookeepers are upset. They can't convict the boy of murdering the lions because he did defend himself, but the zookeepers are going to sue the shit out of the mother for reckless endangerment that led to unnecessary deaths of the lions.

So, that's what's going to happen: Kyle or his mom are going to have to defend themselves in civil court for wrongful deaths.

This is the same exact thing that happened in the OJ criminal trial in 1995. OJ was acquitted of 2 counts of murder, the family of the one murder victim sued OJ for the wrongful death of their son. They won and got millions! Why? Because, in criminal cases, conviction usually requires a unanimous jury and with stronger "burden of proof". But, in civil cases, the burden of proof is much less stringent AND the jury only needs to come to a majority.

In civil cases, there is no jail time for "the respondent" (not "defendant" like in criminal cases), but if the court/jury finds for "the petitioner" (the people doing the suing - in this case the families of the men Rittenhouse killed), then the respondent will have to "pay remedy" and that usually involves millions of dollars.

The worst-case for the Rittenhouse family is any civil trials is that they lose and have to pay millions to the families of Kyle's victims, but there will be more than enough conservative sympathizers to donate and cover that bill.

[abc3643]

YEP...

I see it's already started...

denver.cbslocal.com/.../

Denver Attorney Files Civil Action In Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting
By Rick Sallinger
November 19, 2021 at 6:16 pm

DENVER (CBS4)– Fallout from happened on an August 2020 night in Kenosha, Wisconsin is not over. There’s more legal action ahead.

Denver attorney Milo Schwab represents two of those who were shot.

“A criminal case and civil case are different, but we are reaching for larger questions,” he told CBS4’s Rick Sallinger in an interview before testimony in the criminal trial began.

His clients are the family of Joseph Rosenbaum, one of those who died. And Gaige Grosskreutz who was wounded by Rittenhouse’s gun. He has already filed a lawsuit against Kenosha authorities and its police.

Schwab said he will raise questions, “How did the police respond were the police too cozy with vigilantes walking the streets enforcing their own justice?”

Although acquitted, Rittenhouse could face civil action and he could file defamation lawsuits himself.

Mark Richards was Rittenhouse’s criminal trial attorney, “He has to get on with his left as best as he can. I think eventually some anonymity will come back to it.”

What took place on the streets of Kenosha may be seen as part of a much larger picture said Schwab, “Whether that’s the type of society we want where white nationalists show up to protest black lives matter movements or movements for racial justice with AR-15s.”

(more)

[abc3643]

Now the civil lawsuits will proceed.

“It’s going to raise questions if self-appointed militias can roam the streets doling out justice as they see.”

Following the not guilty verdict Schwab and co-counsel Kimberley Motley issued the following statement: “Today we grieve for the families of those slain by Kyle Rittenhouse. 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.”

[Anonymous]

the first time i watched it youtube and other news networks were giving such fucked up footage that was either clips or broken fragments and yesterday i spent majority of the night into early morning rewatching it fighting yt on their sound censorship during certain parts of the trial that i had to keep raising to volume to bypass youtube's sound volume censorship.
that kid had no business being there. he was going around thinking of it as a joke and as an immature kid would and when he was there he didn't think or realize how dangerous the situation could really get or phathom the consequences of shooting people with that ar-15. he was to young and to immature to understand what he was doing he wasn't mature enough to.
what i'm left wondering is if he learned his lesson from all of this or if he'll go out and do it again. the screwed up part his friend dominick seemed more mature then kyle and he was only a year older then him. kyle seemed like an immature kid with possibly a bit of downsyndrome and not mature enough to understand the consequences of his actions

[Opinion Owner]

i watched the surveillence footage he seemed really immature and should never had been allowed to use that gun or been in that dangerous situation in the first place. he wasn't ready maturity wise

[Anonymous]

I think some people can’t get over the fact that he armed himself and traveled to another state for the purpose of confronting protesters. Because he does bear some culpability for the situation, many people can’t see the case as a whole or how the circumstances could lead a jury to reasonable doubt. This case was also complicated by Wisconsin being a “duty to retreat” state, meaning there is a legal requirement to retreat or withdraw from the situation before using deadly force in self-defense. I think that’s why the jury took so long in deliberations. It wasn’t as open and shut as a lot of people thought because of that. Personal politics also colors people’s opinions. Many people supporting Rittenhouse now supported Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd case.

[kyleelyn199723]

I think people just don’t understand that what he did was a reaction of feeling threatened for his life. People carry with a license for a reason. People invest in the license to protect their life and he had a valid reason to protect his life. I hope looters learn for this and stay the hell away from people shit.

[kyleelyn199723]

Peoples*

[MCheetah]

Of course they didn't watch the trial.

Neither did I though, but I looked at all the facts of what happened, and knew what happened last year. I haven't been keeping up with the trial because it's just too damn depressing and I thought for sure he would've been tried "guilty" just to appease the BLM trash who would've committed acts of terrorism. I'm glad the judge and jury let justice prevail this time, unlike the Chauvin case.

So like I said, I didn't weigh in on anything until the verdict was released a couple days ago. I don't need this much depressing news in my life. There were WAY too many damn questions on this site about it, though.

[The_Maphio]

The people against the Rittenhouse ruling are ignoramuses and with all probability racists that would have rather seen a white kid dead rather than a bunch of criminals hell-bent on wreaking havoc in the streets and on the above mentioned kid.
Let's just say, that whoever whines for Rittenhouse being liberated belongs on a cross.

[BCA6010]

If you got the entirety of your information from one of the propaganda outlets (like CNN and MSNBC), then you would have an extremely warped understanding of what actually happened in Kenosha. They actually brought Gaige Grosskreutz on after he had testified under oath to contradict himself on TV just to keep their fake ass narrative going.

[RichSD]

By far the vast majority haven't. Most made up their minds about him based on what "team" they think they're on. The best test to see if someone agrees with the ruling is to ask who they voted for.

Of course this is how most things go in our country these days, unfortunately. Most people just want to be in a tribe, they don't really care about justice.

[Anonymous]

They clearly haven't watched a second of the case.

[jshm2]

Yeah well, you're probably inbred, so what you "feel" is irrelevant.

That was a mistrial, and Kyle will be back in court. Dipshits like that go into a spiral when they get their moment.

[BrosephBrostar]

NOT!
Wait for it.
GUILTY!
Hold...
mmBITCH!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpdIO89c52k

[joeldalton]

They have not. Hell, I’ve heard more than once someone claim that Kyle Rittenouse killed black people.

[Avicenna]

No, but in many cases, I'm not sure it would make a difference to those ideologues.

[Wise4myage]

I bet a lot of people didn't. I watched long enough to know he was innocent, and that prosecuting attorney was a dumb ass. Why aren't people protesting him and office?

[anylolone]

Nope, they know he's innocent.

[Anonymous]

No you didn't watch it all lol

[Asker]

I watched 10+ hours

[BrosephBrostar]

I think not.

[Pterodon]

No they didn’t