Rittenhouse Verdict

[OKW8297]

Disgusting

 

[mikehn]

I was a juror in a rape trial once. The state wants you to put someone away, but yet they dont give you much to make that leap. I mean, these prosecutors are state employees who do what they can with the resources they have.

 

[rwdavis2]

The judge was positively giddy when he thanked the jury.

Hardly.

 

[rwdavis2]

Aren't the officers in Missouri facing Federal charges for crimes they've already been convicted of?

The fed can prosecute for violation of civil rights, not murder.

 

[georgina]

Let's not forget that before the trial even started, the judge said the victims could not be referred to as such, but the defense lawyers could call them rioters and looters.

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.

He can say what he wants, but I do not believe he wasn't there to prowl the streets, sorry. And by your reasoning the people he shot would have been justified in shooting him. Yet they did not. You may be saddened by loss of life, Kyle has been offered several congressional internships, he is being CELEBRATED. Not just the verdict, but his actions.

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.

I don't own a gun and don't go around shooting people. So I would not be tried that way.

 

[GBRforWDW]

Let's not forget that before the trial even started, the judge said the victims could not be referred to as such, but the defense lawyers could call them rioters and looters.

There was a pretrial hearing that determined this. He was just reminding both sides of what was determined in that hearing

 

[bdcp]

I was a juror in a rape trial once. The state wants you to put someone away, but yet they dont give you much to make that leap. I mean, these prosecutors are state employees who do what they can with the resources they have.

My DH has been on two juries. One was manslaughter and the prosecution had plenty and they convicted the guy (drunk driving and hit a woman headon). After the fact, the jurors discovered the guy (who was about 21) had a juvenile record from drinking which obviously wasn't admissable but it reinforced their finding him guilty and giving him 11 years. The other trial was a guy riding a motorcycle on a toll road with a limit of 65, doing at least 110 mph or so. The cop who initially chased him couldn't keep up because their cars have arrestors that wouldn't let him go as fast as the motorcycle was going. They also found this guy guilty and it wasn't his first offense either. The prosecution was prepared. I have never sat on a jury, but you can't make this stuff up. I was called several times and one time, the guy was representing himself lol and while questioning the possible jurors he basically admitted guilt. It was his third offense and he stated that because it was only like $100 of stuff he shoplifted that he shouldn't get the three strike rule mandatory sentence. He made the prosecutor's job so easy that in order to whittle down the jury, they drew names because neither asked for anyone to be dismissed. The guy didn't even really ask any questions. It was bizarre. My name was the second name called to leave.

Anyway, point is, some prosecutors don't have to work that hard.

 

[bdcp]

I don't own a gun and don't go around shooting people. So I would not be tried that way.

Sigh, you really missed my point. It's about rule of law and justice and the right to a fair trial. And, before anyone jumps on "justice", it doesn't mean what most people think it does.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

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

The actual media corrected themselves. The problem is more on social media where "influencers" repeat these types of things over and over in an echo chamber.

The number of people that I've had to correct regarding his mom driving there (she didn't, there are fact checks on this) is incredible.

 

[georgina]

There was a pretrial hearing that determined this. He was just reminding both sides of what was determined in that hearing

Yes, it was the same judge as the trial. And he is the one who made this ruling. He is biased.

 

[White Cat]

Yes, it was the same judge as the trial. And he is the one who made this ruling. He is biased.

How do you know? Do you know him?

 

[GBRforWDW]

Yes, it was the same judge as the trial. And he is the one who made this ruling. He is biased.

It's precedent tho

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-victims.html

 

[JimMIA]

Let's not forget that before the trial even started, the judge said the victims could not be referred to as such,

That's actually not an unusual ruling at all in cases where the defendant is claiming self-defense. Self defense is claiming that the other person is the aggressor and the defendant is the victim -- so that is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

but the defense lawyers could call them rioters and looters.

I'm sure the other side would object and the judge would then rule on whether that was an appropriate term. Any terminology used by the lawyers in trial is subject to review, and can easily be predicate for a mistrial.

I don't know whether the defense lawyers actually called anyone "rioters" or "looters" during the trial. I know they did focus a lot on Rosenbaum's very aggressive actions throughout the evening, including his threats to kill Rittenhouse and others, but I don't know what they called him, if anything.

 

[Jennasis]

I'm not surprised. It was a tall order for the prosecutors. I'm guessing the young man did actually fear for his life and reacted as such...but he should have never ever EVER have been there, and he certainly should not have been armed. He isn't Batman. He went looking for trouble and found it and then had to defend himself.

I just hope this doesn't embolden others to become vigilantes.

 

[Pink Partridge]

If the shooter had been black he would not have survived the night.

I do not think that other black shooters survive is relevant to this situation.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Pink Partridge]

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

Why would you fabricate that story?

 

[JimMIA]

Why would you fabricate that story?

I really doubt that @sailorstitch fabricated the story. Much more likely is that they read it somewhere and believed it. Pobody's Nerfect.

Let's not get the thread closed.

 

[RamblingMad]

This is interesting. He went to WI. He was attacked. He defended himself. And he was found not guilty according to WI law.

What I don't understand is the reaction to this case.

 

[White Cat]

I'm not surprised. It was a tall order for the prosecutors. I'm guessing the young man did actually fear for his life and reacted as such...but he should have never ever EVER have been there, and he certainly should not have been armed. He isn't Batman. He went looking for trouble and found it and then had to defend himself.

I just hope this doesn't embolden others to become vigilantes.

He wasn’t a vigilante.

 

[a1tinkfans]

Let's not forget that before the trial even started, the judge said the victims could not be referred to as such, but the defense lawyers could call them rioters and looters.



He can say what he wants, but I do not believe he wasn't there to prowl the streets, sorry. And by your reasoning the people he shot would have been justified in shooting him. Yet they did not. You may be saddened by loss of life, Kyle has been offered several congressional internships, he is being CELEBRATED. Not just the verdict, but his actions.

I don't own a gun and don't go around shooting people. So I would not be tried that way.

some people feel that when those in Power fail to do their job… like taking care of their homes, violence to business owners and businesses and a city literally being burned down ..it pushes people to take things into their own hands to protect it. So for them, Anything is justified as far as using weaponry as protection. And the Opposite perhaps is the mindset of Celebrating a Just Verdict.

Regardless how any of us “feel” , the Law is the Law and According to this Chosen Jury, they sided with the Defenses reasoning. .. Self Defense. The entire Prosecution Team and strategy was a Epic Fail.
I’m waiting for the Next Phase, the lawsuit/s that will surely follow and the likely Wins that will generate. …..