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.

1. He was a minor.
2. His mother is a single parent.
3. I doubt that either has much or any money and their future earnings probably won't be much, either.

casinterest wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

casinterest wrote:

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 ?

I'm saying neither. But consider the suits brought against media by Sandmann and his settlements.

I think the the Rittenhouses might want to do some suing.

Do you speak Meme??

Here's one from the Babylon Bee that may help explain the line of thought I presented that you misunderstood:

Rittenhouse, Sandmann Agree To Share Joint Custody Of CNN

https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/statu ... 82606?s=20

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

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

Yep MSNBC in full Jan 6th Domestic terrorist hysteria.

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.

NIKV69 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

Yep MSNBC in full Jan 6th Domestic terrorist hysteria.

Which is was, to a "T"

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 never made a self-defense plea. Kyle Rittenhouse did. Making a self-defense plea puts the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that he was justified in his actions that took the lives of the two who died and caused serious injury to the one who was shot in the bicep. A death resulting from self-defense is justifiable homicide. A civil trial would have an impossible job of trying to show by preponderance of evidence that the killing was not justified, when a criminal court with a much higher burden of proof got a verdict that it was justified.

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.

Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU

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?

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?

You can try...

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.

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?

No but you can become law enforcement and do a daily tour and protect the community.

DIRECTFLT 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.

Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU

And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT 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.

Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU

And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21

The outcome doesn’t seem unexpected given so many elements of the case. Most other countries don’t see what appears to be a partisan judicial system in their countries.

The statement upthread “don’t attack someone unless you expect to be shot” (or similar) also leaves
Most people outside the US incredulous.

There were a terrible set of circumstances that led to Rittenhouse to use a gun, serious mistakes made by the prosecutors, a political environment that polarized the community by racial lines, our 2nd Amendment absolutism and witnesses that supported part of Rittenhouse's actions. Of course the news channels are going wall to wall covering and analyzing the acquittal, they should just give a few facts form the Jury decision and limit the analysis as will just make Rittenhouse a hero to some and hated by many others.

Let us not what started the events leading to Rittenhouse, White local police officers using a gun on a Black man, paralyzing him as they were trying to arrest him, was resisting it,the police officers saw in his hand close to the LEO's. For almost all Black persons, they see another excessive and racially biased use of force on Black persons that sadly led to street violence "A riot', burning down of businesses, looting and other stupid acts as the cops, unable due to so many doing those acts, backed off, than attracting vigilantes like Rittenhouse to show up with a gun.

Yes, he will have to live down his acts, but he cannot be made a hero as to do so will encourage more vigilantism when the next bad reaction to a cop shooting a Black criminal suspect.

Kent350787 wrote:

The statement upthread “don’t attack someone unless you expect to be shot” (or similar) also leaves
Most people outside the US incredulous.

Just like most Americans are dumbfounded when a person (usually in the UK) is tried for using a weapon to protect themselves when criminals break into their homes. There's no such thing as a fair fight when a criminal attacks you.

LCDFlight wrote:

You can't shoot people for rioting. It is arguable if you can shoot them for burning buildings (depends if it endangers innocent people). But if the rioters start assaulting you or endangering you, then yes, shooting them is lawful. As we saw today.

One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.

LMP737 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

You can't shoot people for rioting. It is arguable if you can shoot them for burning buildings (depends if it endangers innocent people). But if the rioters start assaulting you or endangering you, then yes, shooting them is lawful. As we saw today.

One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.

KWexpress wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

You can't shoot people for rioting. It is arguable if you can shoot them for burning buildings (depends if it endangers innocent people). But if the rioters start assaulting you or endangering you, then yes, shooting them is lawful. As we saw today.

One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.

I think he went out “looking for trouble” and perhaps hoping to be attacked, so he could kill in self defense. I suspect he wanted to do that. But that is not illegal and never has been illegal.

It was baffling to see the prosecutors try to make that case. Even if he did go there looking for trouble, that’s not illegal! Half the human race does that on a typical Friday night. And there isn’t one single law against having trouble on your mind.

People have a right to go to public places as they see fit. The curfew legal force was weak, and that non-criminal charge was thrown out. I think it is more of a liability shield for cops trying to clear an area.

The current Wisconsin laws, as well as the incredibly unchecked bias by the judge that could very well be an example of CRT, favored Rittenhouse. I find it hard to believe the current hunting laws allowed him to have legal possession of a firearm when he clearly was not doing that.

So if any 16-17 year old teenager of any ethnic background is carrying a gun of any type and they are stopped by police, does that mean they can avoid a weapons charge?

But I'll buy the self-defense argument - you don't want to set precedents by charging people for defending themselves.

phatfarmlines wrote:

So if any 16-17 year old teenager of any ethnic background is carrying a gun of any type and they are stopped by police, does that mean they can avoid a weapons charge?

I don't believe he could've been in possession of a handgun, but I could be wrong. It's happened before...

The precedent is set: last one still alive is innocent and can claim self defense.


Also, why aren't we talking about the kid's delinquent parents? Driving him across state lines, with a gun to a riot? Can you imagine the outrage at this if it was a person of colour?

casinterest wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

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 ?

He does not, but he has something in common with Rittenhouse: the same knee-jerk media and wokeish mob mentality that convicted him before (even after) the FACTS came out.

johns624 wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

So if any 16-17 year old teenager of any ethnic background is carrying a gun of any type and they are stopped by police, does that mean they can avoid a weapons charge?

I don't believe he could've been in possession of a handgun, but I could be wrong. It's happened before...

It's absolutely correct. He couldn't carry any sort of handgun in public either concealed or open carry. The reason the charges for illegally carrying a firearm were dropped was due to the fact that the rifle he was carrying was longer than the minimum length. A handgun would be to short to meet the criteria.

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT 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.

Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU

And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21

Meh. Just a lazy thinker.

DL717 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU

And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21

Meh. Just a lazy thinker.

That's funny - you're talking about a conservative who has written three books now on how too many Americans question expertise and lack critical thinking.

zkojq wrote:

Also, why aren't we talking about the kid's delinquent parents? Driving him across state lines, with a gun to a riot?

Well because that isn't true....

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/ritte ... ut-weapon/

LCDFlight wrote:

KWexpress wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.

I think he went out “looking for trouble” and perhaps hoping to be attacked, so he could kill in self defense. I suspect he wanted to do that. But that is not illegal and never has been illegal.

It was baffling to see the prosecutors try to make that case. Even if he did go there looking for trouble, that’s not illegal! Half the human race does that on a typical Friday night. And there isn’t one single law against having trouble on your mind.

People have a right to go to public places as they see fit. The curfew legal force was weak, and that non-criminal charge was thrown out. I think it is more of a liability shield for cops trying to clear an area.

I think you're right - at the end of the day, the jury clearly thought Rittenhouse's actions were wrong, but not illegal.

johns624 wrote:

Just like most Americans are dumbfounded when a person (usually in the UK) is tried for using a weapon to protect themselves when criminals break into their homes. There's no such thing as a fair fight when a criminal attacks you.

...because that happens so often in the UK, right?

There is only one thing that has any sense about this trial. A Jury of his peers sat through 3 weeks of evidence and deliberated a unanimous verdict of Not guilty. These people did not volunteer for Jury duty, they were picked by the state on a random bases as citizens of good standing. I have sat on 2 Jury's, its not a lot of fun and takes up your time. Both trials I sat on were fairly mundane but everyone took thier duty seriously and rendered a Verdict that was based on the FACTS of the case. Did I like the accused? No, one of them was a dirt bag from the word go, but the prosecution
failed to make the case. Everyone should get over it as the Jury has spoken.

travaz wrote:

There is only one thing that has any sense about this trial. A Jury of his peers sat through 3 weeks of evidence and deliberated a unanimous verdict of Not guilty. These people did not volunteer for Jury duty, they were picked by the state on a random bases as citizens of good standing. I have sat on 2 Jury's, its not a lot of fun and takes up your time. Both trials I sat on were fairly mundane but everyone took thier duty seriously and rendered a Verdict that was based on the FACTS of the case. Did I like the accused? No, one of them was a dirt bag from the word go, but the prosecution
failed to make the case. Everyone should get over it as the Jury has spoken.

Can't disagree with this.

Also, although the ends should not justify the means, 2 scumbags are no longer with us and another will require help with certain pleasures, so not a bad result.

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...

Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

B777LRF wrote:

Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

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.

Unless you also happen to believe Rittenhouse is endowed with prognosticating abilities, apart from obviously being a psychopath, that argument holds no water what so ever. Fact is, he went to a riot armed with a rifle and killed two people. He didn’t have to be there, he had no business playing law enforcement, and he shot three people who didn’t need to be shot.

That US police officers would rather shoot first and ask questions later is also not a very good argument.

As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.

B777LRF wrote:

Unless you also happen to believe Rittenhouse is a physic, apart from obviously being a psychopath, that argument holds no water what so ever. Fact is, he went to a riot armed with a rifle and killed two people. He didn’t have to be there, he had no business playing law enforcement, and he shot three people who didn’t need to be shot.

That US police officers would rather shoot first and ask questions later is also not a very good argument.

The third sentence is completely true, but the first makes no sense at all - previous poster was talking about a different timeline altogether.

Virtual737 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Just like most Americans are dumbfounded when a person (usually in the UK) is tried for using a weapon to protect themselves when criminals break into their homes. There's no such thing as a fair fight when a criminal attacks you.

...because that happens so often in the UK, right?

It doesn't matter how many times it happens. Once is too often. When people find out what happens when they try to defend themselves, they don't even try.

Elkadad313 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

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.

Aaron747 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

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.

Blake is still with us, more or less.

B777LRF wrote:

As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.

It appears you don't like the US...

B777LRF wrote:

As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.

You sound like a Soros puppet.

B777LRF wrote:

Unless you also happen to believe Rittenhouse is endowed with prognosticating abilities, apart from obviously being a psychopath, that argument holds no water what so ever. Fact is, he went to a riot armed with a rifle and killed two people. He didn’t have to be there, he had no business playing law enforcement, and he shot three people who didn’t need to be shot.

That US police officers would rather shoot first and ask questions later is also not a very good argument.

As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.

Going to a riot armed with a rifle is not a crime. It is strange that Rittenhouse, a fairly stupid 17 year old, knew so much more about the law than other people. Including the prosecutors. You’re just not making a case that he committed murder. Legally, he didn’t. He was just a dumb guy in a public place who had every right to defend himself from goons terrorizing the community, and did so.

This case was really about violent crime, and the fact we do not need to tolerate threats or violence from criminals. Each citizen has the right to put down threats or violent acts against them.

johns624 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.

Blake is still with us, more or less.

You're right, I stand corrected. That's what I get for posting pre-coffee at the crack of dawn.

Aaron747 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

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.

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.

seb146 wrote:

No one but no one was surrounding his house.

Yet, that is more or less what the protesters were doing in St Louis when the two lawyers came out on the lawn with guns and you lambasted them then.

Think we found some common ground: The laws as they are written are bonkers. They apparently allow for anyone* to take the law into their own hands, defining themselves when, what and where to exercise the privilege, and doing so armed with semi-automatic weaponry.

And that’s ok in some people’s book, but only because it happens to fit with their political allegiance. Both leads back to earlier comments of my dislike of what the US has become.

*Caucasians and RW enthusiasts only, obvs

I have not followed the case but it seems that there is no enormous disagreement over the facts. So if the jury came to a decision based on the facts with due regard to the legal instruction given to them, I do not see that their verdict is in itself controversial.

Those who find the verdict upsetting are upset by the law being the way it is, aren't they? 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.