Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

flyingclrs727 · Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:30 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
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.

OJ Simpson was civilly sued for wrongful death. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, and he used a self-defense legal defense. Self defense is not wrongful death.

KWexpress · Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:54 pm

seb146 wrote:
Veigar wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?

What compels people like you to make ridiculous projections like this? I sincerely mean this in the nicest way possible, and I'm curious.

This verdict. Rittenhouse had no reason to carry an AR-15 into a protest then claim he felt threatened and open fire. None at all. No one but no one was surrounding his house, no one but no one was ransacking his house. He has no reason to walk into a crowd of protesters, claim he felt threatened, and kill. But, the judge and jury believe that is just fine.

Someone didn't watch the trial and it shows! The jury and judge believe it's just fine, because they took the time to hear testimony from the people actually involved and at the riot, not some CNN pundit.

Aaron747 · Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:29 pm

KWexpress wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Veigar wrote:

What compels people like you to make ridiculous projections like this? I sincerely mean this in the nicest way possible, and I'm curious.

This verdict. Rittenhouse had no reason to carry an AR-15 into a protest then claim he felt threatened and open fire. None at all. No one but no one was surrounding his house, no one but no one was ransacking his house. He has no reason to walk into a crowd of protesters, claim he felt threatened, and kill. But, the judge and jury believe that is just fine.

Someone didn't watch the trial and it shows! The jury and judge believe it's just fine, because they took the time to hear testimony from the people actually involved and at the riot, not some CNN pundit.

CNN is centrist - your target should be MSNBC. Several CNN legal commentators have noted the prosecution made critical errors and the self defense verdict is logical. If you compare coverage at the two there’s no comparison.

Aaron747 · Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:33 pm

art wrote:
I think that it is not uncommon for people to judge the outcome of cases based on what they would like the law to be rather than by what it is.

This is true, but in the US we have the added dimension of structural problems that have provided unequal outcomes in courts depending on wealth and ethnic status. So there are logical concerns about outcome of cases based not on how the law should be but how and when it is applied (and for whom).

Aaron747 · Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:47 pm

Elkadad313 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
Or, to the genesis of it all on August 23, 2020, if a man wanted on a warrant for his arrest from the previous month, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, and while carrying a knife refused to comply with a lawful police order and instead went to this car, opened the door and then quickly turned toward the police officer and got shot, maybe because it’s blindingly obvious that if Jacob Blake had simply complied two people would still be alive.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Yes, Blake was unwise and met an early demise as a result of his impulsive actions. Yes, that death poured fuel on an already simmering cultural fire. Yes, that sent more people into the streets, whether they had all the facts or not. None of it makes Rittenhouse worthy of the lionization he is receiving from right wing pundits and the worst morons in Congress on the right.

Without rain, there can be no flood.

The lionization continues. Kid had a Tucker Carlson film crew with him for a week, even with staged hotel wake-ups :sarcastic:

https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/status/ ... 98912?s=21

Veigar · Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:17 am

Aaron747 wrote:
art wrote:
I think that it is not uncommon for people to judge the outcome of cases based on what they would like the law to be rather than by what it is.

This is true, but in the US we have the added dimension of structural problems that have provided unequal outcomes in courts depending on wealth and ethnic status. So there are logical concerns about outcome of cases based not on how the law should be but how and when it is applied (and for whom).

Perhaps, but this is not one of those cases.

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:25 am

Veigar wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
art wrote:
I think that it is not uncommon for people to judge the outcome of cases based on what they would like the law to be rather than by what it is.

This is true, but in the US we have the added dimension of structural problems that have provided unequal outcomes in courts depending on wealth and ethnic status. So there are logical concerns about outcome of cases based not on how the law should be but how and when it is applied (and for whom).

Perhaps, but this is not one of those cases.

No it isn't, but those perceptions color laypersons' impressions of how the legal system operates, and that comes to the fore in highly public trials and verdicts.

casinterest · Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:12 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

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.

OJ Simpson was civilly sued for wrongful death. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, and he used a self-defense legal defense. Self defense is not wrongful death.

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:23 am

casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:

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.

OJ Simpson was civilly sued for wrongful death. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, and he used a self-defense legal defense. Self defense is not wrongful death.

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

casinterest · Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:27 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

OJ Simpson was civilly sued for wrongful death. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, and he used a self-defense legal defense. Self defense is not wrongful death.

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:09 am

casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

Airstud · Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:29 am

Airstud wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654

Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.

It might "touch" on both sides but it then devotes about eight times as much space to the "Miscarriage of justice! Scrap the system!" side as it does to the pro-acquittal side.

U.S. news consumers are used to this from the major broadcast networks, Washington Post, New York Times, NPR...

And now CBS News as well.

I don't think that article contributes anything to the public's knowledge of the case and I think CBS published it solely because they wish to advance Justin Blake's viewpoint.

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:26 am

Airstud wrote:
Airstud wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:

Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.

It might "touch" on both sides but it then devotes about eight times as much space to the "Miscarriage of justice! Scrap the system!" side as it does to the pro-acquittal side.

U.S. news consumers are used to this from the major broadcast networks, Washington Post, New York Times, NPR...

And now CBS News as well.

I don't think that article contributes anything to the public's knowledge of the case and I think CBS published it solely because they wish to advance Justin Blake's viewpoint.

Viewed in the totality of their coverage, it is consistent with showing all sides. The story contributes to the public's knowledge of how black families involved in these events see the justice system. They have also published the views of Rittenhouse's mother and the experience of the shooting survivor.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kyle-ritte ... 00-10abd1h

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kenosha-pr ... 00-10abd1h

It's important to understand why people think and feel the way they do. A useful mantra from one commentator:

You stop learning when you begin every conversation from a place of politics. You start learning when you begin every conversation from a place of empathy.

https://twitter.com/secupp/status/14619 ... gr%5Etweet

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:40 am

And here’s why people feel the way they do: white dude in Kenosha was trafficking girls, arrested for sex abuse and released w/o bail, then one of the girls killed him a couple hours after he forced himself on her. She went up for first degree murder, not self defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ng-murder/

FlapOperator · Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:23 am

Aaron747 wrote:
And here’s why people feel the way they do: white dude in Kenosha was trafficking girls, arrested for sex abuse and released w/o bail, then one of the girls killed him a couple hours after he forced himself on her. She went up for first degree murder, not self defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ng-murder/

Its a heart breaking case, and the world is a better place for Volar being gone, in my opinion. But there are specific elements to claim "self defense" in nearly every state and the odious nature of the victim isn't one of them. What usually is the case for a self defense claim is immediacy of threat, disproportionate force, and a "reasonable man" standard, among obviously others.

flyingturtle · Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:37 am

This was miscarriage of justice. One of the reasons to avoid the 3rd world country the United States are.

So, this guy is a civilian. He has no close relationship to anybody living in Kenosha. He knows it's a danger zone. He knows that people there are not playing nice, He still goes there. In any sane legal system, you forfeit a large part of your "self defense" standing if you go to place where violence is expected, and you are not trying to rescue or protect a close relative of yours.

To my knowledge, he was not trained as a medic - not even on my level (Swiss IVR 2). Grosskreutz, a person Rittenhouse shot, was a trained medic.

In a just world, the judge would have adjourned the court until all the victims turn up to give their testimony.

Given that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and wanted to yank an AR-15 like weapon from him, it's possible that they had justified reasons to see Rittenhouse as an active shooter.

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:45 am

FlapOperator wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
And here’s why people feel the way they do: white dude in Kenosha was trafficking girls, arrested for sex abuse and released w/o bail, then one of the girls killed him a couple hours after he forced himself on her. She went up for first degree murder, not self defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ng-murder/

Its a heart breaking case, and the world is a better place for Volar being gone, in my opinion. But there are specific elements to claim "self defense" in nearly every state and the odious nature of the victim isn't one of them. What usually is the case for a self defense claim is immediacy of threat, disproportionate force, and a "reasonable man" standard, among obviously others.

Under Wisconsin law, there is both a self defense and prevention of a felony defense standard for murder. Charging her with first degree murder was abjectly ridiculous.

https://www.findlaw.com/state/wisconsin ... urder.html

flyingclrs727 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:33 am

flyingturtle wrote:
This was miscarriage of justice. One of the reasons to avoid the 3rd world country the United States are.

So, this guy is a civilian. He has no close relationship to anybody living in Kenosha. He knows it's a danger zone. He knows that people there are not playing nice, He still goes there. In any sane legal system, you forfeit a large part of your "self defense" standing if you go to place where violence is expected, and you are not trying to rescue or protect a close relative of yours.

To my knowledge, he was not trained as a medic - not even on my level (Swiss IVR 2). Grosskreutz, a person Rittenhouse shot, was a trained medic.

In a just world, the judge would have adjourned the court until all the victims turn up to give their testimony.

Given that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and wanted to yank an AR-15 like weapon from him, it's possible that they had justified reasons to see Rittenhouse as an active shooter.

His father and other relatives live in Kenosha. His mother's home in Illinois was closer than to Kenosha than where 2 of the people he shot lived. What were outside rabble rousers doing there rioting and setting buildings on fire? Why didn't the governor of Wisconsin send in national guard units to stop the rioting? Rioting is not speech, and it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:36 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
This was miscarriage of justice. One of the reasons to avoid the 3rd world country the United States are.

So, this guy is a civilian. He has no close relationship to anybody living in Kenosha. He knows it's a danger zone. He knows that people there are not playing nice, He still goes there. In any sane legal system, you forfeit a large part of your "self defense" standing if you go to place where violence is expected, and you are not trying to rescue or protect a close relative of yours.

To my knowledge, he was not trained as a medic - not even on my level (Swiss IVR 2). Grosskreutz, a person Rittenhouse shot, was a trained medic.

In a just world, the judge would have adjourned the court until all the victims turn up to give their testimony.

Given that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and wanted to yank an AR-15 like weapon from him, it's possible that they had justified reasons to see Rittenhouse as an active shooter.

His father and other relatives live in Kenosha. His mother's home in Illinois was closer than to Kenosha than where 2 of the people he shot lived. What were outside rabble rousers doing there rioting and setting buildings on fire? Why didn't the governor of Wisconsin send in national guard units to stop the rioting? Rioting is not speech, and it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:27 am

Aaron747 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
This was miscarriage of justice. One of the reasons to avoid the 3rd world country the United States are.

So, this guy is a civilian. He has no close relationship to anybody living in Kenosha. He knows it's a danger zone. He knows that people there are not playing nice, He still goes there. In any sane legal system, you forfeit a large part of your "self defense" standing if you go to place where violence is expected, and you are not trying to rescue or protect a close relative of yours.

To my knowledge, he was not trained as a medic - not even on my level (Swiss IVR 2). Grosskreutz, a person Rittenhouse shot, was a trained medic.

In a just world, the judge would have adjourned the court until all the victims turn up to give their testimony.

Given that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and wanted to yank an AR-15 like weapon from him, it's possible that they had justified reasons to see Rittenhouse as an active shooter.

His father and other relatives live in Kenosha. His mother's home in Illinois was closer than to Kenosha than where 2 of the people he shot lived. What were outside rabble rousers doing there rioting and setting buildings on fire? Why didn't the governor of Wisconsin send in national guard units to stop the rioting? Rioting is not speech, and it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:09 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

His father and other relatives live in Kenosha. His mother's home in Illinois was closer than to Kenosha than where 2 of the people he shot lived. What were outside rabble rousers doing there rioting and setting buildings on fire? Why didn't the governor of Wisconsin send in national guard units to stop the rioting? Rioting is not speech, and it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

johns624 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:52 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

It seems that he acted too slowly. My wife lived in the South Bay area and worked in Lincoln Heights at the time. She was scared to death.

KWexpress · Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:02 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

Like flyingclrs already said, the deterrence of having 500 NG on standby makes a huge impact on the mood of the protest. It was widely shared that if problems started, they would would be used to restore order. Why Gov. Evers didn't send the NG/ or have them on standby in last year is a great question.

c933103 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:24 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

Wasn't that caused Korean Anerican to worry about their own property and life abd thus decided to arm themselves to defend against insurgents from opposing ethnic groups targetting them?

seb146 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:24 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.

Rittenhouse inserted himself with a gun into a situation he had not business being in. Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.

johns624 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:49 pm

seb146 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.

Rittenhouse inserted himself with a gun into a situation he had not business being in. Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.

I like how you conveniently forgot that the third man shot was illegally carrying a gun, but that's par for the course for you. The fact that Rittenhouse didn't know that they were felons is immaterial. The fact that they were violent criminals shows that they had a predisposition to be aggressive, which they were. Face it, they weren't there to protest a police shooting. They were there to start sh*t.

c933103 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:36 pm

seb146 wrote:
He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. (...)

20 miles is pretty much within the radius of a city's metropolitan area. If a schoolshooting is happening 20 miles away from your home, would you feel no extra worries is needed when commuting to work that day?
And my understanding is that, the one who carried gun to the protest site, have families and works position near the area where the protest was occurring?
I won't be saying it's right to provoke and charge against protestors, but did the person in question did such sort of things?
Is carrying a gun to the site in itself deemed a provocation, in a country like the US where guns are legal?

flyingclrs727 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:48 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

Well it was 1992. Nobody was expecting the riots that happened. In 2020 the governor of Wisconsin was a fool to not announce mobilization of the national guard after shooting.

I was referring to calling up national guard units in advance of natural disasters along the gulf coast. When I was a child we had a devastating category 3 hurricane that caused lots of damage in my city. Before sunset the radio station still on the air was reporting that the governor had declared an emergency and announced a curfew starting at sunset til sunrise. The national guard units would be arriving to enforce martial law.

ContinentalEWR · Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:55 pm

seb146 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

johns624 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:26 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
seb146 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. I couldn't find anything definitive in Wisconsin law, but many states, including Michigan, it is much harder to sue for damages if the shooting was deemed legal.

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:15 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

Well it was 1992. Nobody was expecting the riots that happened. In 2020 the governor of Wisconsin was a fool to not announce mobilization of the national guard after shooting.

I was referring to calling up national guard units in advance of natural disasters along the gulf coast. When I was a child we had a devastating category 3 hurricane that caused lots of damage in my city. Before sunset the radio station still on the air was reporting that the governor had declared an emergency and announced a curfew starting at sunset til sunrise. The national guard units would be arriving to enforce martial law.

Also incorrect...unrest was widely anticipated as the King cops’ trial had been moved to a conservative part of LA county where many cops lived.

DarkSnowyNight · Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:37 am

johns624 wrote:
My wife lived in the South Bay area and worked in Lincoln Heights at the time. She was scared to death.

She would have been fine if she had just called out. Southbay was not effected by those riots. She would have had to wander all the way to Gardena, but realistically further than that as most of the action was far north.

Reinhardt · Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:57 pm

seb146 wrote:
Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.

Indeed during the trial it was irrelevant what the victims previous crimes were, which is why they were not admitted. However it does go to show the potential reasons for them being there. It was the second night of unrest, the peaceful protest happened the day before. This evening was not peaceful, there were clearly people there only there for the violence. You see this in many countries, a protest starts peacefully, then people pile in for the violence. Either far left or far right, or those that have grief with the Police. I see it here in Germany and the UK.

Kyle's extended family lived there. He had a job there. He had friends there.
Earlier in the day he was cleaning graffiti from a local school. He was a lifeguard. He had basic first aid training. He was a junior police cadet.

Testimony (personal and video) showed before he was involved in the altercations he was going around asking if anyone needed medical help. He didn't point his gun at anyone.

Should he have even had a gun, no, not in any sensible country. But this is part of the US that it is legal to be like the wild west. And here's the thing, it was legal for someone of his age to carry that weapon. As insane as that is. He wasn't alone. There were dozens, if not hundreds of armed people doing the same thing he was. And it wasn't illegal. Some, were invited onto private property to protect it. Again, completely nuts in this day and age but it happened.

There was no clear evidence in the trial to say he was a white supremacist. This part is a complete nonsense because the victims were not black, his reason for being there wasn't because of it. Yes something came out about some pictures taken and his family have clearly take money from Fox (very regrettable and he shouldn't be anywhere near Tucker Carlson).

BLM saying him being found not guilty with a comparison against how a black person would be treated, is probably actually correct however it has nothing to do with this individual case.

seb146 wrote:
Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.

Testimony showed they (the victims) were heavily involved in agitating the violence. They threatened Kyle's life, verbally and later physically. They started it. Kyle put out the fire in the dumpster, he tried to run away from confrontation.

They weren't just innocent protesters, come on. Their history and their actions on the night are completely as expected from people only there for the violence. In the trial this was as I mentioned irrelevant but they were not doing nothing that night and they didn't get shot by a "gun toting, white supremacist kid who crossed state lines with a gun". Trust me I am no fan of the right in the US (as my posting here shows) and I'd trust CNN and MSNBC every day of the week over Fox but they really haven't done themselves any favours over this with their coverage.

What it all comes down to, as it often does is the rights of people to bear arms. Remove that or restrict it and you'll remove the severe likelyhood of accidental or purposeful killing. Riots are dangerous enough in a population without guns. Add them in, with people carrying and it's just prime for a something to go badly wrong.

casinterest · Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:50 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

Really? the judge wouldn't let the defense bring up what was in Rittenhouse's past, you can't bring up what was in the victim's past. The only difference is that Rittenhouse chose to go with a gun. When everyone starts going with guns, you will get a lot of deaths. The one thing this incident shows, is that immature people can't be trusted with a gun.

PixelPilot · Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:44 pm

casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

Really? the judge wouldn't let the defense bring up what was in Rittenhouse's past, you can't bring up what was in the victim's past. The only difference is that Rittenhouse chose to go with a gun. When everyone starts going with guns, you will get a lot of deaths. The one thing this incident shows, is that immature people can't be trusted with a gun.

One of his attackers also chose to bring a gun and decided to point it at Kyle.
You are very right that immature people shouldn’t point guns at law abiding citizens.

Also I urge anybody that is even remotely interested in this case to watch this documentary.
https://youtu.be/KlylH0gy5HQ

casinterest · Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:53 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

Really? the judge wouldn't let the defense bring up what was in Rittenhouse's past, you can't bring up what was in the victim's past. The only difference is that Rittenhouse chose to go with a gun. When everyone starts going with guns, you will get a lot of deaths. The one thing this incident shows, is that immature people can't be trusted with a gun.

One of his attackers also chose to bring a gun and decided to point it at Kyle.
You are very right that immature people shouldn’t point guns at law abiding citizens.

Also I urge anybody that is even remotely interested in this case to watch this documentary.
https://youtu.be/KlylH0gy5HQ

And that was after Kyle had killed one person. The only person that lived , had a gun.

PixelPilot · Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:01 pm

casinterest wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Really? the judge wouldn't let the defense bring up what was in Rittenhouse's past, you can't bring up what was in the victim's past. The only difference is that Rittenhouse chose to go with a gun. When everyone starts going with guns, you will get a lot of deaths. The one thing this incident shows, is that immature people can't be trusted with a gun.

One of his attackers also chose to bring a gun and decided to point it at Kyle.
You are very right that immature people shouldn’t point guns at law abiding citizens.

Also I urge anybody that is even remotely interested in this case to watch this documentary.
https://youtu.be/KlylH0gy5HQ

And that was after Kyle had killed one person. The only person that lived , had a gun.

Again I urge you to watch this. Should clarify a lot of things including behavior of the 1st guy that died.

stratosphere · Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:56 pm

seb146 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.

Rittenhouse inserted himself with a gun into a situation he had not business being in. Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.

Lets get real here. The 3 who were shot were there to start trouble there are no two ways about that. They were not there to peacefully protest I think their criminal histories kind of lead most people to believe just that. Probably why there is no sympathy for any of them. If the cops were allowed to do their jobs and not told to stand down in the face of these civil unrests you wouldn't have an issue with the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse. Your area of the country Portland Or has been in a perpetual state of riots for over a year because liberal politicians and city councils are tying the hands of the cops and letting the anarchists do what they want. Get ready because as long as looting and rioting is allowed to go unchallenged you are going to see more Kyle Rittenhouses.

seb146 · Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:38 pm

stratosphere wrote:
Lets get real here. The 3 who were shot were there to start trouble there are no two ways about that.

You sure about that? Another unarmed Black man was killed by police but these three were only there to vandalize? Are you absolutely sure about that?

But, again, I have to ask why Rittenhouse felt so threatened sitting at his house 20 miles away that he packed up an AR-15, drove to a used car lot with the AR-15, and opened fire? What were the protesters doing to Rittenhouse at his home? Rittenhouse was not threatened until he was marching toward the crowd with a loaded weapon.

I also notice no one is bringing up the "responsible gun owner" angle or the "every life is precious" angle either.

PixelPilot · Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:42 pm

seb146 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
Lets get real here. The 3 who were shot were there to start trouble there are no two ways about that.

You sure about that? Another unarmed Black man was killed by police but these three were only there to vandalize? Are you absolutely sure about that?

But, again, I have to ask why Rittenhouse felt so threatened sitting at his house 20 miles away that he packed up an AR-15, drove to a used car lot with the AR-15, and opened fire? What were the protesters doing to Rittenhouse at his home? Rittenhouse was not threatened until he was marching toward the crowd with a loaded weapon.

I also notice no one is bringing up the "responsible gun owner" angle or the "every life is precious" angle either.

It's REALLY worth watching this if you actually give any shit about right and wrong, accountability and stuff like that.
https://youtu.be/KlylH0gy5HQ

**also which black guy was killed that you are talking about? To make sure I follow correctly.

johns624 · Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:51 pm

seb146 wrote:

You sure about that? Another unarmed Black man was killed by police but these three were only there to vandalize? Are you absolutely sure about that?.

Do you even know what the word "fact" means? First of all, the police didn't kill anybody. Second, he had a knife, which is a deadly weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake

sccutler · Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:39 pm

It is often said that a lie, repeated often enough, comes to be perceived as the truth.

There is a great deal of repetition going on here, and indeed, in the press.

Think, if you can, of the pressure to convict felt by the jury; they knew - had to know - that convicting was the easy path. Nonetheless, having seen the evidence, they found that the Defendant acted in self-defense. For those who do not know, the legal standard for proving self-defense is not all that easy.

There have been some hugely incendiary statements made here about the Defendant, both statements of putative fact which are demonstrably false, and assertions of motive and character which are simply not in evidence. What is it that makes some of you so desperate to have a conviction, when the jury who sat in judgment and heard the evidence returned a matched-set of not-guilty determinations?

If it were you under indictment, would you waive your defenses for some perceived "common good"?

There is no "good" at all in wrongful convictions.

GRAMBO · Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:43 pm

I think the Rittenhouse trial illustrates how little people know how self defense laws actually work. Self Defense laws are pretty similar from state to state and have evolved over centuries and decades. With the Rittenhouse case, it is one of the most pure self defense cases you will ever see in a courtroom. Self defense is the perception of the person claiming self defense, not the attacker. For self defense, there is a 4-5 element test that the prosecution must disprove one element does not exist to take away self defense. The elements are:

1. Innocence- did you do anything UNLAWFUL to provoke an attack where you had use self defense? Based on evidence presented at trial, there was no credible evidence introduced that showed Rittenhouse did anything unlawful towards Rosenbaum (1st person shot) to cause Rosenbaum to attack him. Standing around with a gun even if it was illegal to possess the gun does not give someone the right to attack you nor does it take away your right to defend yourself. If Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum or someone nearby, then it would have been an unlawful act that would have lost Rittenhouse the innocence element.

2. Imminence- Is the attack happening or at the point where it was unavoidable? Kyle shot Rosenbaum just as he lunged at his gun while coming at Rittenhouse at full speed. Forensic evidence presented at trial showed that gunpowder was on Rosenbaum's hand consistent with your hand on the barrel or within 1-2 inches. The other three charges happened while Rittenhouse was being attacked.

3. Proportionality- Is the use of force proportional to the imminent threat? With Rosenbaum, he was considered armed as soon as his hand was on the barrel. If Rittenhouse didn't shoot, he would have been in an MMA style ground and pound situation at best, at worst, Rosenbaum has his gun. That is considered being imminent danger of grave injury or death. With the other three, one was curb stomping Rittenhouse, another was bashing him in the head with a skateboard, and the third had a Glock pointed at Rittenhouse's head. All three of these are all threats of grave injury or death.

Another thing, Rosenbaum appeared to chase Rittenhouse unprovoked by Rittenhouse. A gun was shot into the air very close by. Rittenhouse turned around and pointed his gun at Rosenbaum to get him to back off. Rosenbaum continued the pursuit. If Rittenhouse shot then, he would have lost on the Imminence and Proportionality tests.

4. Duty to Retreat - Wisconsin is a stand your ground state, so Rittenhouse did not have a duty to try and retreat if practicable before using force. However, when confronted by Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse ran away, and did not shoot until he was cornered and nowhere to go. With the other two, he was fleeing to the police, fell down, and was then attacked while on the ground.

5. Reasonableness- Are your actions and decisions to use force sound? Would someone else in the same situation make the same decisions? The law is clear - you don't have to suffer any type of injury before responding in self defense.

LCDFlight · Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:00 pm

sccutler wrote:
It is often said that a lie, repeated often enough, comes to be perceived as the truth.

There is a great deal of repetition going on here, and indeed, in the press.

Think, if you can, of the pressure to convict felt by the jury; they knew - had to know - that convicting was the easy path. Nonetheless, having seen the evidence, they found that the Defendant acted in self-defense. For those who do not know, the legal standard for proving self-defense is not all that easy.

There have been some hugely incendiary statements made here about the Defendant, both statements of putative fact which are demonstrably false, and assertions of motive and character which are simply not in evidence. What is it that makes some of you so desperate to have a conviction, when the jury who sat in judgment and heard the evidence returned a matched-set of not-guilty determinations?

If it were you under indictment, would you waive your defenses for some perceived "common good"?

There is no "good" at all in wrongful convictions.

The defense did not need to prove self defense. Instead, the prosecution had to prove it was murder. This was an impossible task, because the self defense claim was not only viable, it was also documented on film, and agreed by witnesses. A lot of people find the law confusing, likely including the guys who were shot - and yet the 17 year old Rittenhouse had no trouble navigating the law.

I find it shocking that so many people cannot or will not understand that you are allowed to be almost anywhere you want to be, and defend yourself if you are attacked. We have become used to hearing that the violent men attacking us are actually the victim. I can still recall the days when boys and men were not supposed to attack innocent people. The 17 year old got it right away. And legally, it isn’t “more complicated” than that.

windy95 · Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:31 pm

casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

casinterest · Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:34 pm

windy95 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Aaron747 · Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:37 pm

windy95 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

PixelPilot · Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:38 pm

casinterest wrote:
windy95 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Sooooo you didn't watch the trial nor the video documentary I posted.
This tells that you don't really care about facts.

PixelPilot · Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:39 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
windy95 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

Come on man. Grammar police on international internet forum?
Is everybody around the world required to use flawless English now?

Aaron747 · Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:41 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
windy95 wrote:

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

Come on man. Grammar police?
Is everybody around the world required to use flawless English now?

It was the repeat of the error that caught my eye. I didn’t say anything about perfection - this is basic 3rd grade English! If the user were in a foreign country, different story.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net