Rittenhouse Verdict

[JimMIA]

It seems like the prosecution bungled what should have been a case for lesser charges and went for the home run even though it may not have been warranted.

The prosecution bungled the case on a number of occasions -- they filed charges WAY too quickly, before the investigation was even complete; they WAY overcharged the defendant; their prosecution witnesses helped the defense more than they helped the prosecution; they committed at least two reversible errors (violating Rittenhouse's 5th amendment rights in front of the jury, and concealing evidence from the defense), and those would probably have caused a retrial if there had been a guilty verdict on any charge.

They had a very difficult case to begin with because neither the facts nor the law were on their side -- so they made it worse. smh.

 

[dez1978]

That's fine, but it's important that we all remember certain fundamental things -- like nobody is guilty until convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, prior criminal history is irrelevant until sentencing if applicable, accused persons are not required to testify against themselves, etc, etc.

This very thread disputes this. Yes theres a difference between being found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to prison vs being guilty in the court of public opinion, he's very much been found guilty in a very real way that will affect him (or any person accused of a major crime) for the rest of his life. The ones who feel he's guilty will not change their mind bc of the jury's decision, and those things will punish him just as much albeit differently than if he'd been sentenced to prison.

 

[Sinder]

Exactly! He's a minor that crossed state lines with an assault rifle! How is that not a crime?

He didn't cross state lines with an assault rifle.

 

[dez1978]

Exactly! He's a minor that crossed state lines with an assault rifle! How is that not a crime?

Tell me you didn't watch any of the trial without telling me.... He didn't cross state lines with the gun. It was already there...

 

[seashoreCM]

An excellent way of stopping armed militias and flash mobs and lone wolves from looting stores and burning down buildings and attacking people with different viewpoints is with armed militias on the other side.

 

[C&Jx2]

The facts of the case proved the killings to be self defense.

But I think it was just a matter of time before Rittenhouse killed someone under the guise of his extreme “patriotism”. But the jury got it right based on THIS case IMO.

 

[TwoMisfits]

He didn't cross state lines with an assault rifle.

Again, folks believed the media's narrative. It's a VERY powerful thing to have to ignore once it sets in someone's mind.

 

[TwoMisfits]

Hopefully this entire event from start to finish will encourage folks to always remember to question the media and hold them to higher standards of fact in the future. Right now, we can see from this thread how many wrong facts have become "true" b/c of media say so, and how hard it is to unwind them, even in a televised trial for all to see. They still can't be undone in folks' minds...

 

[dez1978]

Again, folks believed the media's narrative. It's a VERY powerful thing to have to ignore once it sets in someone's mind.

Exactly my point!!! Even after it's been proved to be false people are still spouting this nonsense. Yet we are supposed to believe "the jury is instructed to not take anything into account other than what is presented in court"

 

[JimMIA]

#2 and #3

Why? And, why?

I don't know the facts of charge #2 -- specifically, I don't know which of his shots endangered the reporter. However, if you believe he was justified in shooting Rosenbaum in self defense in Count #1, and that is what endangered the reporter...he's not guilty of #2. If the shot is justified in #1, it's justified and the reporter was just lucky not to get hit.

In charge #3, he fired one shot at the "jump kick man" (prosecutor's term) because that person tried to kick him in the head while he was laying on the ground after being knocked down by Anthony Huber with a skateboard.

We don’t even know the dead mans name, just that he saw an active shooter and tried to disarm him with a skateboard. It’s all so pathetic and sad.

Anthony Huber.

 

[JimMIA]

This very thread disputes this. Yes theres a difference between being found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to prison vs being guilty in the court of public opinion, he's very much been found guilty in a very real way that will affect him (or any person accused of a major crime) for the rest of his life. The ones who feel he's guilty will not change their mind bc of the jury's decision, and those things will punish him just as much albeit differently than if he'd been sentenced to prison.

"Do stupid things; win dumb prizes."

 

[a1tinkfans]

Imho…I’ve followed the case from the beginning. I watched the full trial. The Facts were presented. The Burden was on the Prosecution and they Failed. That was no surprise. The Case was Over before it Started.
One of the pivotal points was THEIR witness/injured who said he POINTED HIS GUN at the defendant, and THEN he was shot.
If the media had reported FACTS rather than inaccuracies many people would’ve been better prepared for the …Expected verdict.
Many that are Still posting /Twitter etc completely erroneous, False things ( gun across state lines, traveling to the location to prowl the streets, he shot while hands were up etc, ) and claiming their social outrage would Better serve Society …by Listening to the Actual Facts of the case. It’s blatantly obvious they did not even know the details of the case.

Im saddened at Any loss of life.
Justice was Served with the Not Guilty Verdict. The Jury has Spoken.
Let’s hope Kenosha doesnt Continue to get Destroyed.

 

[Donald13]

Ignorance isn't a crime tho. They can't find him guitly of ignorance. Just because we disagree with an action does not make it a crime.

I didn’t call him ignorant. I said those who support him are… he’s guilty of murder, imo

 

[dclpluto]

I’m glad he was found not guilty.
the prosecutor thou did a terrible job and should be fired. Anyone who watches tv knows you have the right to remain silence and the right to a attorney. Guess they didn’t teach that in law school and the prosecutor doesn’t watch tv.

 

[a1tinkfans]

Not even guilty of the gun charge?? Really he was a minor with a weapon like that.
Wow just wow!

The police didn't find a need to kill anyone that night, but he killed two......... sickening.

There was NO gun charge. It was Dropped. He LEGALLY was permitted to have that particular gun. This is why so many are stunned with this verdict. Facts have been left out of the equation. The media failed Everyone by Not reporting Accurately.

 

[a1tinkfans]

Why did the jury bother taking 3 days? Were they in it for the free lunches?

I honestly think they knew the verdict and their decision would be scrutinized. The Prosecution Failed from the day they filed charges without an Investigation.

 

[bdcp]

I'm sure most of these posting about how he's "guilty" or a "murderer" etc would not want to be tried they way they want him to be. Just because you think he is doesn't make it so as the jury decided based on all the facts they had. Sorry, but the prosecutor used incorrect charges and showed incompetence and/or complete disregard/ignorance of the laws.

 

[Snowysmom]

Unfortunately he was tried by the media and found guilty even before the trial began. Everyone is entitled to a fair trail by jury, not media. I feel bad that there will be violence because of this and that people will be hurt and property destroyed.

 

[neverlandsky]

I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but some people would call the “hot zone” a “free speech zone”. That people have a right to assembly and not be put under a curfew (or “lockdown”) when they disagree with the government. That Kyle was able to walk around a weapon and not be considered threatening, even after firing, is turtle sad.

It was a "free speech zone" during the day. So many interviews were given about how peaceful things were during the day. "Hot zone" seems to always set in after dark. Hence curfews were placed after dark for safety as the #1 priority to prevent a "hot zone" to begin with. It ultimately boils down to lack of common sense and wisdom was completely ignored. The quote "Nothing good ever happens after midnight" holds very true.

 

[JimMIA]

I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but some people would call the “hot zone” a “free speech zone”. That people have a right to assembly and not be put under a curfew (or “lockdown”) when they disagree with the government.

To me, this is the touchiest question in this whole case.

We have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of assembly and speech. We have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But neither of those rights are absolute -- as explained by numerous court cases. Reasonable restrictions can be placed on both. Merchants have a right to protect their property, but that too can be restricted.

To me, the display of guns in a "free speech" situation makes that situation an unlawful assembly. In fact, there was a situation last year in either Seattle or Portland where that was announced. One of the militia groups (I think Proud Boys) were going to conduct a counter-protest and the police told them, "Fine, just don't bring your guns or you'll be arrested." The militia people abided by that directive and there were no problems and no arrests.

If a merchant wants to protect their property, fine -- hire licensed, trained security personnel who are capable of that assignment. Don't bring in a bunch of yahoos with ego needs.

Having worked stuff like this as a police supervisor, that's the approach I would have taken -- but I don't know Wisconsin law.