NIKV69 wrote:

I was just watching some footage from outside the courthouse and people are flying BLM flags and saying something about Racism. I am little confused wasn't this white on white crime?

Stupid people are amongst us. On both sides and also in the center.

Out of interest to a non-American - what is the appeal pathway for this case? From what is being reported here, an aquittal would lead to an appeal on myriad grounds.

I have a couple of other thoughts:

Why did he have to bring a gun? He could have simply hurled racist slurs at the protesters and made racist signs and even maybe threw a few punches. Why did he need to bring a gun across state lines?

Why is everyone arguing Wisconsin gun laws? He is a citizen of Illinois. The murders were committed in Wisconsin, sure. But, let's take this out further. People get all upset over Chicago and how can Chicago have murders when Chicago laws are strict. Even when it is pointed out that anyone can go across the Indiana state line to Gary and buy guns. What is the difference? Buy a gun in one state, commit a crime in another. No one is up in arms about this white man doing it.

Why was he not crying and traumatized when he gunned down those protesters but, oh the humanity! when he got on the stand? He even went drinking and celebrating after. For the Q crowd, a group of adult males buying a minor alcohol but zero press on that.

Why did he need a gun, though? His property was not in danger. He inserted himself in a situation. HE made it violent. HE pulled the trigger. NOT BLM protesters. Why is he the victim when his actions led to two deaths?

seb146 wrote:

I have a couple of other thoughts:

Why did he have to bring a gun? He could have simply hurled racist slurs at the protesters and made racist signs and even maybe threw a few punches. Why did he need to bring a gun across state lines?

Why is everyone arguing Wisconsin gun laws? He is a citizen of Illinois. The murders were committed in Wisconsin, sure. But, let's take this out further. People get all upset over Chicago and how can Chicago have murders when Chicago laws are strict. Even when it is pointed out that anyone can go across the Indiana state line to Gary and buy guns. What is the difference? Buy a gun in one state, commit a crime in another. No one is up in arms about this white man doing it.

Why would he "hurl racist slurs"? The men he shot were white. This had nothing to do with race. It's Wisconsin gun laws because this happened in Wisconsin. Try to follow along. Most murders are committed with handguns. You cannot buy a handgun in a state other than your own.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I have a couple of other thoughts:

Why did he have to bring a gun? He could have simply hurled racist slurs at the protesters and made racist signs and even maybe threw a few punches. Why did he need to bring a gun across state lines?

Why is everyone arguing Wisconsin gun laws? He is a citizen of Illinois. The murders were committed in Wisconsin, sure. But, let's take this out further. People get all upset over Chicago and how can Chicago have murders when Chicago laws are strict. Even when it is pointed out that anyone can go across the Indiana state line to Gary and buy guns. What is the difference? Buy a gun in one state, commit a crime in another. No one is up in arms about this white man doing it.

Why would he "hurl racist slurs"? The men he shot were white. This had nothing to do with race. It's Wisconsin gun laws because this happened in Wisconsin. Try to follow along. Most murders are committed with handguns. You cannot buy a handgun in a state other than your own.

He was threatened by BLM protesters. Who are all races. Even white.

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws. I know I have seen other social media posts arguing about "Wisconsin gun laws" even though he lives in Illinois and the guns were (allegedly) bought in Illinois. I know gun laws in SFO are more strict than, say, Modoc County in northeast California. The whole "but... but... but... CHICAGO!!!!!" argument people have is completely invalid ESPECIALLY when people can go anywhere in Illinois and buy a gun.

And there is still the private sale loophole. But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines. But, again HE WAS A MINOR when he fired a weapon into a crowd and killed, so....

seb146 wrote:

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws.....

Aren't you supposed to quote someone when you make a charge like this? I didn't go on about anything I merely pointed out that you were wrong when you said he was in possession of the gun illegally.

seb146 wrote:

But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines

Reporting I've seen says the gun was in Kenosha and not taken across state lines. Not sure why this fact keeps getting missed in reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/r ... rifle.html


I'll leave the law to the lawyers but, no matter the verdict I still think he displayed poor judgement in putting where he was.

This is a pretty open and shut self defense case. The jury shouldn’t be taking anywhere this long. I’d say it’s 95-5 they’re like 9-3 or 10-2 in favor of acquittal right now. Ultimately if you’re Rittenhouse you gladly take a hung jury because rarely do hung jury mistrials get convictions on 2nd or 3rd attempts and many cases never get retried at all

I keep hearing friends in the US bringing this up but couldn't grasp its significance.

c933103 wrote:

I keep hearing friends in the US bringing this up but couldn't grasp its significance.

Just another data point in the ‘crazy’ that passes for ‘normal life’ in the US

I've did Jury service when I was living in the UK. Was a drug smuggling case and the person got 8 years. I have to say in comparison, the Judge in this case - the way he has delt with the seriousness of it is just beyond ridiculous. His personal phone ringing during testimony, singing yesterday, laughing and joking around - it's a serious case where the defendant could end up in jail for the rest of his life and 2 people are dead.
The prosecution are appalling and seem to have made procedural mistake after mistake. The judge was clearly right to admonish them on trying to sidestep clearly known US rights. Not providing the defence with all the evidence is just inexcusable. I wouldn't be at all surprised if any guilty verdict is given that a miss-trial is confirmed.

Since I'm European I don't remotely understand / agree with gun laws there so my immediate view is why the hell do you have effective vigilantes guarding business during a riot (where are the Police?). Seeing dozens of people wondering round with military gear, AR-15's is just like something out of a movie to me. i'm not remotely surprised you ended up with people dead - actually considering the types of people present I'm amazed the body count wasn't higher.

Despite my problem with guns (and certainly I have nothing in common with those on the political right in the US) I really am leaning to the self defence side of the argument. I think there is reasonable doubt here based on what Rittenhouse's actions were before the event (asking anyone if they needed medical attention, not shooting people when clearly provoked, was verbally threatened, put out a rubbish bin fire etc). Even during the shooting he didn't shoot when one of the attackers held his hands up (despite having a loaded gun, with no valid carry license). He only shot when he was physically assaulted and had a hand gun aimed directly at him. Also after listening to witness testimony, the fact one of those involved seems to have not been on medication (he is bi-polar), all three have incredibly dubious pasts and were almost certainly not there for BLM, but for violent other reasons. I don't think I could find him guilty of the charges. There's no way he should have gone there, nor with a gun, but he was, like many others.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws.....

Aren't you supposed to quote someone when you make a charge like this? I didn't go on about anything I merely pointed out that you were wrong when you said he was in possession of the gun illegally.

He is a resident of Illinois. What is Illinois law with regard to minors in possession of firearms?

T18 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines

Reporting I've seen says the gun was in Kenosha and not taken across state lines. Not sure why this fact keeps getting missed in reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/r ... rifle.html


I'll leave the law to the lawyers but, no matter the verdict I still think he displayed poor judgement in putting where he was.

So how did he know the gun was there and why was there a gun there in the first place?

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws.....

Aren't you supposed to quote someone when you make a charge like this? I didn't go on about anything I merely pointed out that you were wrong when you said he was in possession of the gun illegally.

He is a resident of Illinois. What is Illinois law with regard to minors in possession of firearms?

He wasn't in Illinois. Illinois law doesn't apply in Wisconsin. Where were you in HS Government class? It's just like when different states had different legal drinking ages. An 18 year old might not be able to drink in his home state but could go to a neighboring state and drink if the age was lower.

We have gotten into real crazy, scary territory now.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rittenhouse- ... g-jury-bus

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I have a couple of other thoughts:

Why did he have to bring a gun? He could have simply hurled racist slurs at the protesters and made racist signs and even maybe threw a few punches. Why did he need to bring a gun across state lines?

Why is everyone arguing Wisconsin gun laws? He is a citizen of Illinois. The murders were committed in Wisconsin, sure. But, let's take this out further. People get all upset over Chicago and how can Chicago have murders when Chicago laws are strict. Even when it is pointed out that anyone can go across the Indiana state line to Gary and buy guns. What is the difference? Buy a gun in one state, commit a crime in another. No one is up in arms about this white man doing it.

Why would he "hurl racist slurs"? The men he shot were white. This had nothing to do with race. It's Wisconsin gun laws because this happened in Wisconsin. Try to follow along. Most murders are committed with handguns. You cannot buy a handgun in a state other than your own.

He was threatened by BLM protesters. Who are all races. Even white.

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws. I know I have seen other social media posts arguing about "Wisconsin gun laws" even though he lives in Illinois and the guns were (allegedly) bought in Illinois. I know gun laws in SFO are more strict than, say, Modoc County in northeast California. The whole "but... but... but... CHICAGO!!!!!" argument people have is completely invalid ESPECIALLY when people can go anywhere in Illinois and buy a gun.

And there is still the private sale loophole. But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines. But, again HE WAS A MINOR when he fired a weapon into a crowd and killed, so....

A minor in possession of a gun is a misdemeanor. The survivor of the Rittenhouse shooting was a convicted felon in possession of a gun and pointed it Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting him looks justified to me. The second one shot and died was Rosenbaum a convicted child rapist traveled to Kenosha to start trouble and was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and came after him and was shot for his trouble. Huber also had an extensive criminal record and tried to bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and got shot for his trouble. But you know the media totally sanitized the criminality of these anarchists. Now if Rittenhouse had stayed home it's true he would not be in this situation. If you take a gun to a place where you know trouble might be happening chances are you will find trouble. But the prosecution has made plenty of mistakes enough to possibly cause a mistrial . Someone from MSNBC just got caught following the jury bus so the judge has barred them from the courthouse for the duration of the trial. The left wing protesters are trying to invoke mob justice thru intimidation. So I hope it is a mistrial with prejudice or acquittal.

One quick comment. There is some ambiguity on Grosskreutz's criminal status. He was charged with a felony but the disposition can't be found. Nonetheless, he admitted that his CCW license was expired and he hadn't gotten it renewed. That in itself is a crime. In fact, that is the reason many people open carry. You normally don't need a license to open carry.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws.....

Aren't you supposed to quote someone when you make a charge like this? I didn't go on about anything I merely pointed out that you were wrong when you said he was in possession of the gun illegally.

He is a resident of Illinois. What is Illinois law with regard to minors in possession of firearms?

I believe this charge was dropped.

However, his home state of residence doesn't matter, only the laws of the jurisdiction where the events transpired.

johns624 wrote:

One quick comment. There is some ambiguity on Grosskreutz's criminal status. He was charged with a felony but the disposition can't be found. Nonetheless, he admitted that his CCW license was expired and he hadn't gotten it renewed. That in itself is a crime. In fact, that is the reason many people open carry. You normally don't need a license to open carry.

My understanding is that Grosskreutz has been charged with multiple criminal cases, including a domestic violence charge, which if he was convicted of, makes Grosskreutz a federal felon under the Lautenberg Law.

FlapOperator wrote:

johns624 wrote:

One quick comment. There is some ambiguity on Grosskreutz's criminal status. He was charged with a felony but the disposition can't be found. Nonetheless, he admitted that his CCW license was expired and he hadn't gotten it renewed. That in itself is a crime. In fact, that is the reason many people open carry. You normally don't need a license to open carry.

My understanding is that Grosskreutz has been charged with multiple criminal cases, including a domestic violence charge, which if he was convicted of, makes Grosskreutz a federal felon under the Lautenberg Law.

Incorrect. DV is the one misdemeanor that precludes firearms ownership. The felony that he was charged with was burglary/larceny.
See Question 21.i below.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

johns624 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

johns624 wrote:

One quick comment. There is some ambiguity on Grosskreutz's criminal status. He was charged with a felony but the disposition can't be found. Nonetheless, he admitted that his CCW license was expired and he hadn't gotten it renewed. That in itself is a crime. In fact, that is the reason many people open carry. You normally don't need a license to open carry.

My understanding is that Grosskreutz has been charged with multiple criminal cases, including a domestic violence charge, which if he was convicted of, makes Grosskreutz a federal felon under the Lautenberg Law.

Incorrect. DV is the one misdemeanor that precludes firearms ownership. The felony that he was charged with was burglary/larceny.
See Question 21.i below.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Either way, there is reason to believe he was a prohibited person, or at the very least, a person familiar to law enforcement since he was 17.

Jimmy Dore breaks down why TYT (The Young Turks) sides w/Rittenhouse! And Agrees It Was Self-Defense!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SKkvH_AUc

Why is the Jury taking so long? Is this "12 Angry Men" all over again?

Dieuwer wrote:

Why is the Jury taking so long? Is this "12 Angry Men" all over again?

They are trying to work through the charges to hold Rittenhouse accountable or unaccountable beyond a reasonable doubt. . There are 36 pages of jury instructions, and 2 weeks of testimony to hash out. They have 2 dead ( no guns) and 1 alive ( with a gun), and a lot of conflicting information. How did 3 people wind up shot in separate places if Rittenhouse was acting in self defense all three times? What level of self defense is there, if he is actively running in a crowd with a gun? If I was on the Jury, I would want a manslaughter charge at the very least to nail Rittenhouse on, and possibly work towards 2nd degree for running with the gun after the initial incident and creating panic in the crowd.

Verdict incoming…

Not guilty on all charges.

Not too surprising that he is acquitted. The entire trial was a complete circus show

The Civil lawsuits against Kenosha and Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

As for this ruling, it comes down to bad police work, and over charging by the prosecutor.

The wrongful death suits will probably be forthcoming.

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against ... Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

Can't get blood from a rock.

EA CO AS wrote:

Not guilty on all charges.

A just verdict.

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against Kenosha and Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

As for this ruling, it comes down to bad police work, and over charging by the prosecutor.

The wrongful death suits will probably be forthcoming.

It was not wrongful death he was lawfully defending himself. Bring the suits. As for the police I blame the elected officials. Any protest that gets hijacked by BLM and Antifa should be shut down and the streets cleared immediately once violence starts. Once things escalate this will only happen again. To be honest you are asking for trouble anyway since the more people watch their businesses attacked and their persons attacked they are going to fight back. Then there will be heavy bloodshed. These bad actors need to be dealt with not just explained away by calling them "outside agitators"

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Why would he "hurl racist slurs"? The men he shot were white. This had nothing to do with race. It's Wisconsin gun laws because this happened in Wisconsin. Try to follow along. Most murders are committed with handguns. You cannot buy a handgun in a state other than your own.

He was threatened by BLM protesters. Who are all races. Even white.

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws. I know I have seen other social media posts arguing about "Wisconsin gun laws" even though he lives in Illinois and the guns were (allegedly) bought in Illinois. I know gun laws in SFO are more strict than, say, Modoc County in northeast California. The whole "but... but... but... CHICAGO!!!!!" argument people have is completely invalid ESPECIALLY when people can go anywhere in Illinois and buy a gun.

And there is still the private sale loophole. But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines. But, again HE WAS A MINOR when he fired a weapon into a crowd and killed, so....

A minor in possession of a gun is a misdemeanor. The survivor of the Rittenhouse shooting was a convicted felon in possession of a gun and pointed it Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting him looks justified to me. The second one shot and died was Rosenbaum a convicted child rapist traveled to Kenosha to start trouble and was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and came after him and was shot for his trouble. Huber also had an extensive criminal record and tried to bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and got shot for his trouble. But you know the media totally sanitized the criminality of these anarchists. Now if Rittenhouse had stayed home it's true he would not be in this situation. If you take a gun to a place where you know trouble might be happening chances are you will find trouble. But the prosecution has made plenty of mistakes enough to possibly cause a mistrial . Someone from MSNBC just got caught following the jury bus so the judge has barred them from the courthouse for the duration of the trial. The left wing protesters are trying to invoke mob justice thru intimidation. So I hope it is a mistrial with prejudice or acquittal.

We don't know if that gun was real or loaded, do we?

The other people Rittenhouse gunned down, were they known to him? Like he actually knew they were child rapists and drug dealers and criminals? Or did he simply open fire and bringing up criminal past is a way to justify random murders? Remember this happened with every unarmed Black person murdered by cops. I sense a trend...

Kent350787 wrote:

Out of interest to a non-American - what is the appeal pathway for this case? From what is being reported here, an aquittal would lead to an appeal on myriad grounds.

Well now that Kyle Rittenhouse has been found not guilty on all charges, there is nothing to appeal. He can't be charged for these acts again due to the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.

Justice was served.
Shame on the prosecution AND the judge who brought and allowed this trial to take place.

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He was threatened by BLM protesters. Who are all races. Even white.

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws. I know I have seen other social media posts arguing about "Wisconsin gun laws" even though he lives in Illinois and the guns were (allegedly) bought in Illinois. I know gun laws in SFO are more strict than, say, Modoc County in northeast California. The whole "but... but... but... CHICAGO!!!!!" argument people have is completely invalid ESPECIALLY when people can go anywhere in Illinois and buy a gun.

And there is still the private sale loophole. But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines. But, again HE WAS A MINOR when he fired a weapon into a crowd and killed, so....

A minor in possession of a gun is a misdemeanor. The survivor of the Rittenhouse shooting was a convicted felon in possession of a gun and pointed it Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting him looks justified to me. The second one shot and died was Rosenbaum a convicted child rapist traveled to Kenosha to start trouble and was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and came after him and was shot for his trouble. Huber also had an extensive criminal record and tried to bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and got shot for his trouble. But you know the media totally sanitized the criminality of these anarchists. Now if Rittenhouse had stayed home it's true he would not be in this situation. If you take a gun to a place where you know trouble might be happening chances are you will find trouble. But the prosecution has made plenty of mistakes enough to possibly cause a mistrial . Someone from MSNBC just got caught following the jury bus so the judge has barred them from the courthouse for the duration of the trial. The left wing protesters are trying to invoke mob justice thru intimidation. So I hope it is a mistrial with prejudice or acquittal.

We don't know if that gun was real or loaded, do we?

The other people Rittenhouse gunned down, were they known to him? Like he actually knew they were child rapists and drug dealers and criminals? Or did he simply open fire and bringing up criminal past is a way to justify random murders? Remember this happened with every unarmed Black person murdered by cops. I sense a trend...

It doesn't matter if the gun was loaded or not. You can get charged with armed robbery using a toy gun. It is what the victim perceives. As much as he shouldn't have been there and was in over his head, he felt threatened. Huber and Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there, either. They weren't there to protest, they were there to cause trouble. The heart of the blame should go to city officials and police. If they hadn't let things get out of hand, none of this would've happened.

Not surprising.

The kid took two lives and will need to live with that for the rest of his life, regardless of the circumstances - and ultimately god will be the judge as to whether the intentions in his heart were pure and defensible and, if morally, he is deserving of an eternity of salvation.

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against Kenosha and Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

As for this ruling, it comes down to bad police work, and over charging by the prosecutor.

The wrongful death suits will probably be forthcoming.

What civil lawsuits? Wrongful death? The defendant just successfully used a self-defense plea. Claiming self-defense puts the burden of proof on the defense.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

A minor in possession of a gun is a misdemeanor. The survivor of the Rittenhouse shooting was a convicted felon in possession of a gun and pointed it Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting him looks justified to me. The second one shot and died was Rosenbaum a convicted child rapist traveled to Kenosha to start trouble and was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and came after him and was shot for his trouble. Huber also had an extensive criminal record and tried to bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and got shot for his trouble. But you know the media totally sanitized the criminality of these anarchists. Now if Rittenhouse had stayed home it's true he would not be in this situation. If you take a gun to a place where you know trouble might be happening chances are you will find trouble. But the prosecution has made plenty of mistakes enough to possibly cause a mistrial . Someone from MSNBC just got caught following the jury bus so the judge has barred them from the courthouse for the duration of the trial. The left wing protesters are trying to invoke mob justice thru intimidation. So I hope it is a mistrial with prejudice or acquittal.

We don't know if that gun was real or loaded, do we?

The other people Rittenhouse gunned down, were they known to him? Like he actually knew they were child rapists and drug dealers and criminals? Or did he simply open fire and bringing up criminal past is a way to justify random murders? Remember this happened with every unarmed Black person murdered by cops. I sense a trend...

It doesn't matter if the gun was loaded or not. You can get charged with armed robbery using a toy gun. It is what the victim perceives. As much as he shouldn't have been there and was in over his head, he felt threatened. Huber and Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there, either. They weren't there to protest, they were there to cause trouble. The heart of the blame should go to city officials and police. If they hadn't let things get out of hand, none of this would've happened.

Well if the governor of Wisconsin had called out the national guard in the first place, people like Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't have been out on the streets to protect their families and property.

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He was threatened by BLM protesters. Who are all races. Even white.

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws. I know I have seen other social media posts arguing about "Wisconsin gun laws" even though he lives in Illinois and the guns were (allegedly) bought in Illinois. I know gun laws in SFO are more strict than, say, Modoc County in northeast California. The whole "but... but... but... CHICAGO!!!!!" argument people have is completely invalid ESPECIALLY when people can go anywhere in Illinois and buy a gun.

And there is still the private sale loophole. But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines. But, again HE WAS A MINOR when he fired a weapon into a crowd and killed, so....

A minor in possession of a gun is a misdemeanor. The survivor of the Rittenhouse shooting was a convicted felon in possession of a gun and pointed it Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting him looks justified to me. The second one shot and died was Rosenbaum a convicted child rapist traveled to Kenosha to start trouble and was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and came after him and was shot for his trouble. Huber also had an extensive criminal record and tried to bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and got shot for his trouble. But you know the media totally sanitized the criminality of these anarchists. Now if Rittenhouse had stayed home it's true he would not be in this situation. If you take a gun to a place where you know trouble might be happening chances are you will find trouble. But the prosecution has made plenty of mistakes enough to possibly cause a mistrial . Someone from MSNBC just got caught following the jury bus so the judge has barred them from the courthouse for the duration of the trial. The left wing protesters are trying to invoke mob justice thru intimidation. So I hope it is a mistrial with prejudice or acquittal.

We don't know if that gun was real or loaded, do we?

The other people Rittenhouse gunned down, were they known to him? Like he actually knew they were child rapists and drug dealers and criminals? Or did he simply open fire and bringing up criminal past is a way to justify random murders? Remember this happened with every unarmed Black person murdered by cops. I sense a trend...

You're correct Rittenhouse did not know their background.. But lets take a look at this.. All three "victims" were outside agitators they were not coming to peacefully protest and all 3 had extensive criminal records so chances are they did not have good intentions.. Now Rittenhouse should have stayed home but he pretty much came from out of town also but his intention was not to protest or riot or tear up the town. he more or less was a wanna be cop knowing how sideways all of these so called peaceful protests have been anything but peaceful.. The video shows Rittenhouse at no time was the aggressor he was attacked by multiple people and Rittenhouse didn't fire on everyone who attacked him only the clear threats. The jury pretty much saw it that way too. But in the end there are no winners in this situation.

johns624 wrote:

It doesn't matter if the gun was loaded or not. You can get charged with armed robbery using a toy gun. It is what the victim perceives. As much as he shouldn't have been there and was in over his head, he felt threatened. Huber and Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there, either. They weren't there to protest, they were there to cause trouble. The heart of the blame should go to city officials and police. If they hadn't let things get out of hand, none of this would've happened.

Depending on the state, you can get charged with armed robbery for telling someone you have a gun when you rob them.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against ... Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

Can't get blood from a rock.

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against ... Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

Can't get blood from a rock.

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.

The verdict is in. He was found not guilty. Many states have laws making it harder or impossible to sue someone if they weren't found criminally guilty.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Can't get blood from a rock.

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.

The verdict is in. He was found not guilty. Many states have laws making it harder or impossible to sue someone if they weren't found criminally guilty.

Not if lies were used.

Kent350787 wrote:

Out of interest to a non-American - what is the appeal pathway for this case? From what is being reported here, an aquittal would lead to an appeal on myriad grounds.

Nothing, he was acquitted and is protected by double jeopardy which is a protection outlined in the 5th amendment of the US constitution.

You can appeal a conviction but not an acquittal. While this might not seem fair it prevents DA's or the crown (what its called in Australia) from trying the same case again and again with essentially unlimited resources just to get a defendant. Laws like this are what separates the western democracies from the dictatorships.

I would assume Australia has a similar legal standing that prevents an acquitted defendant from being tried again and again.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against Kenosha and Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

As for this ruling, it comes down to bad police work, and over charging by the prosecutor.

The wrongful death suits will probably be forthcoming.

What civil lawsuits? Wrongful death? The defendant just successfully used a self-defense plea. Claiming self-defense puts the burden of proof on the defense.

Civil law has a much lower burden of proof than criminal law and I can see those lawsuits being somewhat successful. Especially as its likely that Rittenhouse is in a position to profit from this case in terms of media appearances and a potential book deal.

OJ Simpson was deemed liable in subsequent civil trials after his acquittal in 1995.

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against Kenosha and Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

As for this ruling, it comes down to bad police work, and over charging by the prosecutor.

The wrongful death suits will probably be forthcoming.

Prosecutors have to stop overcharging in high profile cases when the charge is over the top. In no way was this second degree murder. I am honestly surprised they got this conviction with Derek Chauvin.

Had they charged him with involuntary manslaughter they might have got him to take a deal and avoid a trial altogether and it would have been much easier to convince a jury that Rittenhouse was negligent over a cold blooded murderer.

LNCS0930 wrote:

This is a pretty open and shut self defense case. The jury shouldn’t be taking anywhere this long. I’d say it’s 95-5 they’re like 9-3 or 10-2 in favor of acquittal right now. Ultimately if you’re Rittenhouse you gladly take a hung jury because rarely do hung jury mistrials get convictions on 2nd or 3rd attempts and many cases never get retried at all

Agreed.

From a common sense perspective, Rittenhouse should not have been carrying a gun. He should not have gone into a riot zone at all.

But from a legal perspective, he was only violating minute legal things such as a municipal curfew, and small details of gun laws, which AFAIK he was not charged with.

When he was attacked, he had the right to repel the attackers using force. That is legal.

During the trial, the prosecution tried to make a commonsense case. That was legally nonsensical. Americans have a right to go places, including protest areas, and not be attacked.

Same old lesson: be very careful before assaulting someone. They can shoot you dead.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.

The verdict is in. He was found not guilty. Many states have laws making it harder or impossible to sue someone if they weren't found criminally guilty.

Not if lies were used.

not only was he acquitted, his charges were dismissed by the judge with prejudice. so tough luck on civil suits

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against ... Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

Can't get blood from a rock.

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.

Please fill me in on what civil liabilities that you can receive relief from a minor filed after becoming of age.

Okie

Okie wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Can't get blood from a rock.

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.

Please fill me in on what civil liabilities that you can receive relief from a minor filed after becoming of age.

Okie

There are many options that the lawyers will explore. Either against Rittenhouse or his parents.

casinterest wrote:

Okie wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.

Please fill me in on what civil liabilities that you can receive relief from a minor filed after becoming of age.

Okie

There are many options that the lawyers will explore. Either against Rittenhouse or his parents.

There are many legal options that the Rittenhouse family will explore. Either against journalists or their parent companies.

I think the Rittenhouse's should spend the weekend with the Sandmanns.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Okie wrote:

Please fill me in on what civil liabilities that you can receive relief from a minor filed after becoming of age.

Okie

There are many options that the lawyers will explore. Either against Rittenhouse or his parents.

There are many legal options that the Rittenhouse family will explore. Either against journalists or their parent companies.

I think the Rittenhouse's should spend the weekend with the Sandmanns.

Sandmann has nothing to do with this case. Or are you saying that Sandmann killed people ?

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He was threatened by BLM protesters. Who are all races. Even white.

Another poster (NikV, IIRC) was going on about Wisconsin gun laws. I know I have seen other social media posts arguing about "Wisconsin gun laws" even though he lives in Illinois and the guns were (allegedly) bought in Illinois. I know gun laws in SFO are more strict than, say, Modoc County in northeast California. The whole "but... but... but... CHICAGO!!!!!" argument people have is completely invalid ESPECIALLY when people can go anywhere in Illinois and buy a gun.

And there is still the private sale loophole. But, if a gun is yours (AS AN ADULT which Rittenhouse was not) you can take it across state lines. But, again HE WAS A MINOR when he fired a weapon into a crowd and killed, so....

A minor in possession of a gun is a misdemeanor. The survivor of the Rittenhouse shooting was a convicted felon in possession of a gun and pointed it Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting him looks justified to me. The second one shot and died was Rosenbaum a convicted child rapist traveled to Kenosha to start trouble and was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and came after him and was shot for his trouble. Huber also had an extensive criminal record and tried to bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and got shot for his trouble. But you know the media totally sanitized the criminality of these anarchists. Now if Rittenhouse had stayed home it's true he would not be in this situation. If you take a gun to a place where you know trouble might be happening chances are you will find trouble. But the prosecution has made plenty of mistakes enough to possibly cause a mistrial . Someone from MSNBC just got caught following the jury bus so the judge has barred them from the courthouse for the duration of the trial. The left wing protesters are trying to invoke mob justice thru intimidation. So I hope it is a mistrial with prejudice or acquittal.

We don't know if that gun was real or loaded, do we?

The other people Rittenhouse gunned down, were they known to him? Like he actually knew they were child rapists and drug dealers and criminals? Or did he simply open fire and bringing up criminal past is a way to justify random murders? Remember this happened with every unarmed Black person murdered by cops. I sense a trend...

This is libel, Seb. Be careful. He didn’t murder anyone: he’s just been found not guilty. You may not like it but that’s the way it is.

I’m a Brit and I find your gun laws ridiculous. But they are rampant and this is what happens.