Prosecution’s case against Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse ... BLOWN up

[Gyfts]

Oh no, so sad. Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-verdict-watch-11-19-21/index.html

Self defense has always existed, and I'm confused as to why it took 4 days to decide this. Chauvin trial was over in 10 hours, no questions submitted by the jury to the judge, and maybe 4 or so questions submitted by this jury to the judge. If they wanted to be sure, fine. But to me it may seem as if there was one or two hesitant jurors while the rest were in agreement. It's not as if the evidence is very polarizing.

[1714201703]

1714201703

[1714201703]

1714201703

[theymos]

I'm relieved that this kid's life is only 75% ruined instead of 99% ruined, and it's certainly a good and important result for the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Still, Rittenhouse's life will be very rough, two people are dead, and one is permanently disabled.

It'll be difficult for him not to lean into his right-wing celebrity status, since his defense was largely funded by them and the media has already painted him as a far-right extremist, but if I was him I'd really try to distance myself from that, or else he'll never be able to escape it. It'll be interesting to see what his first statements are after being acquitted. I'd like to see him express regret at (unintentionally/stupidly) contributing to these three casualties, even though the shootings themselves were defensive; in hindsight, there are a great many things that he could've done differently to avoid anyone getting shot.

Self defense has always existed, and I'm confused as to why it took 4 days to decide this. Chauvin trial was over in 10 hours, no questions submitted by the jury to the judge, and maybe 4 or so questions submitted by this jury to the judge. If they wanted to be sure, fine. But to me it may seem as if there was one or two hesitant jurors while the rest were in agreement. It's not as if the evidence is very polarizing.

A few of them were probably on the fence about whether he'd been provoking the people who later attacked him. The prosecution alleged, based in part on fuzzy, disputed video/image evidence, that he was wielding his gun in an aggressive way earlier.

Some of the jurors will probably give interviews in the coming days, at which time we'll know more about what they were thinking.

[Cnut237]

It's not every day we see a kid having a gun because NORMALLY these days when we see them like that, it's usually a killing spree.

Whereas in this case, he just happened to be in that place at that time, waving a gun around? No premeditated intent to kill anyone... probably even forgot he had a gun.  

I can't believe someone with the guts to shoot could actaully cry like that. Lives are wasted including his.

He gets to live. The people he murdered don't. Wonder if the verdict would have been the same if he'd been black and on the other side? Of course, I don't really wonder... that suggests some degree of uncertainty.




Appreciate I'm not from the US, just an outsider from a nation with no gun culture... but I think many outside the US will see this the same way I do, innocent until proven guilty... if you're white. This can't be separated from its context.

[suchmoon]

Wonder if the verdict would have been the same if he'd been black and on the other side?

The verdict (along with sentencing and execution) would have been carried out when he approached the cops with his rifle.

[Cnut237]

Wonder if the verdict would have been the same if he'd been black and on the other side?

The verdict (along with sentencing and execution) would have been carried out when he approached the cops with his rifle.

Or even if he didn't have a rifle.

[PrimeNumber7]

The people he murdered don't. Wonder if the verdict would have been the same if he'd been black and on the other side? Of course, I don't really wonder... that suggests some degree of uncertainty.

Rittenhouse did not murder anyone. He was literally found not guilt of murder today.

If Rittenhouse was one of the rioters, he would not have even been charged, so there would be no verdict. For example, the court found that Rittenhouse was reasonably afraid of being killed by Gaige Grosskreutz, yet Gaige Grosskreutz was not charged with attempted murder, even after he admitted in open court to pointing a gun at Rittenhouse.

If one of the BLM terrorists shot someone, it probably wouldn't have been in self defense. I don't think there were any instances of BLM terrorists being attacked during last year's riots.

[franky1]

The second and third shootings were especially tragic since it seems that they might've honestly thought that Rittenhouse was some sort of mass murderer going on a shooting spree. That said, it's clear to me that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he shot them: they were clearly trying to kill or severely hurt him, and Rittenhouse did not provoke them. It doesn't matter in Rittenhouse's case what the people attacking him thought they were doing.

[sarcasm]
ok school kids take a gun to school. cop:"your 17, its ok. and you even get to kill your teachers. because if they dare disarm you, you can kill them for free, as thats now defense".
[/sc]

sorry but someone with a gun is not innocent of 'rittenhouse did not provoke them'.... HE HAD A GUN!! there was serious provocation

needless to say that they were unarmed and so what kind of life threat could he have received that equals them getting shot
[sarcasm ]'he had a empty carrier bag i had to shoot him as i have a huge phobia of plastic'
[/sc]

saying an unarmed person offers a large enough threat that a armed person should shoot them is just opening up loopholes for abuse later..
there should be an equal use of force.. EG if someone fears a fist fight.. then fine use fists back. not get out a fully auto machine gun and blitz the other persons guts across the road

[sarcasm]
'yes officer my wife handed me the wrong beer, i thought she was poisoning me, so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir, you didnt know that she changed brands just to save a bit of money, your innocent'

'yes officer my wife was talking to another man. i thought she was planning to kill me so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir if you beleived she should be hiden in the kitchen instead, then you have the right to kill her'

'yes officer my wife forgot the milk in my coffee, i feared injury so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir your innocent, wives should be trained to pour the perfect coffee or expect death'

'yes officer my wife was using her cell phone. i thought it was a gun so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir, i make that mistake with all the black people o drive by.'

'yes officer, my wife came back from the store with a grocery bag. so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir, plastic is a real environmental problem how dare she use plastic grocery bags. killing her helped the planet'
[/sc]

silly thing is .. guys that have no self assessment of whats a real threat. no patience to assess situations. no logic or mindset to manage their emotions, should not own a gun..
but 'coz america' its not an eye for an eye if 2 people have equal weaponry and offer equal risk to each other then fine duel it out.. instead its a 'i believe my life is at threat so i should kill'

no wonder depressed bullied kids end up shooting up their school if thats the lessens america want to teach kids.. [sarcasm]'its fine if you feel like you were threatened, shoot them'[/sc]

back in my day, if you get punched.. punch back. NOT grab a gun and shoot them

[_Miracle]

Snip <

Oh no, so sad. Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges.

A well paid attorney making the case for self-defense to a biased judge only confirms my own long held bias: in my country you can get away with anything if you have enough money.
Yes there is at least one country who issues its citizens firearms but ammo is highly regulated. *jeezus just google it
The 2nd amendment does not include the right to kill citizens ----although that’s a pointed connection you’re making there.
Laws vary from state to state (or even county) on things like “stand your ground” and constitutional carry.

No, not all BLM protestors are terrorists, some are naive enough to not understand their goals. However, the goal of BLM as an organization is to terrorize people, especially when they roit and "protest". Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic Obama supporter who was lawfully patrolling his community, and Martin instigated an attack against who would ultimately become his killer before Martin reached for his gun.
Also, a lot of the reason why Rittenhouse sees such dismal life prospects is due to the slander and defamation by far-left politicians who are trying to divide the country and get additional votes from their base. Rittenhouse should be able to get judgments against a lot of the "blue check" mob on twitter and by people like Job Biden, who, without evidence suggested he is a white suppremist, and that he Murdered the two people who died that night.

Trayvon Martin was kid too and his life is over because a [bigoted] grown man with a gun followed him ---> even after a dispatcher tells Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

None of the Black Lives Matters protestors exercising their ‘First Amendment Right’ are terrorists.
All looters and rioters should go to jail.

The white supremacy thing isn't too far off but it does take us off the relevant points:
"some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses" Killing in the Name RATM

And yes: I think both parties show their racism differently. I don’t even like the construct of race since we’re humans that continue to divide ourselves on things like the color of our skin.

What an absolute tragedy all around.

The whole way that this was spun is disgusting. It reminds me a lot of the Zimmerman case, where a Hispanic person who voted for Obama shot someone in obvious self-defense, and this was spun as a "white supremacist hate crime" by politicians as a despicable, cynical way to rile up their base.

Yes and there lies the subtlety in the Zimmerman verdict:
That it's somehow reasonable to feel threatened by the presence of a black man.

[Cnut237]

there lies the subtlety in the Zimmerman verdict:
That it's somehow reasonable to feel threatened by the presence of a black man.

It's also now reasonable for far-right vigilantes to roam around the country, travelling from state to state, killing whoever they please, so long as they can provide (or have a lawyer who can provide) some flimsy pretext.
The verdict does appear to have set an alarming precedent. Anyone who protests against anything is now fair game for any extremist with a gun.

The aftermath of 2020 was bad enough. Imagine what might happen if Trump loses again in '24.

[tvbcof]

This whole thing was a staged and choreographed hoax from the get go.  I 'fell for it' for a few minutes the night it happened, but after watching a couple of the accounts and clips I could see it right away.  This girl has some stuff on it:

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/iCtctteN8BvU/

and few if any of her observations even overlap with my own.  The blockers along the road and placement of the cams was a give-away to me.  Likewise the avalanche of pre-incident footage which guaranteed that Rittenhouse would have to be found not-guilty.  Another one was some some probably authentic BLM and/or bystander footage before the first event where they were instructed that the area was an 'ANTIFA thing' and to clear out.  Directives which they dutifully complied with.

It's funny to see the Q-tard-ee wing of the 'truthers' fall for even the most ridiculous of gas-light theater shows when the script is written to seem to support their side of things.  Bundy Ranch and Malheur come to mind.

[franky1]

This whole thing was a staged and choreographed hoax from the get go.  
the most ridiculous of gas-light theater shows when the script is written to seem to support their side of things.  Bundy Ranch and Malheur come to mind.

ok so there we have it. tvbcof is a copy and paste conspiracy nut now following the alex-jones styled cultish narrative.

why is it that tvbcof swaps one cultish conspiracy nut influencer for another

is there no chance of tvbcof ever having an original independent thought, or is this forum doomed to just read repeats of something he saw elsewhere and is just rehashing their script

i mean he says he believed the deaths were real for a few minutes. but then..
.. after watching a bitchute video from a conspiracy cult..
.. and suddenly 'placement of cams were a give-away to me'..
sorry tvbcof but they were not a give-away, you were suggested it was fake and you then became brain washed(again) by another conspiracy cult to think it was staged, by your own admission.

do you even read the words you say

you say you thought the murders were real +1
you then watched a bitchute -10
you then thought it was fake-100
you then thought it was your own thought that it was obviously fake -1000

you are at minus 1110 compared to reality.  and its not even your own independent thought thinking it.

[cmg777]

Rittenhouse = Racism

Its people like you that spout racism so damned much that the word has no fucking mean kind of like how people use the word fuck so much it no longer has emphasis in meaning. What does racism have to do with Rittenhouse he did not kill anyone that was black. The only parallel is that this happening during a "mostly peaceful" protest for BLM where we all know where this usually leads to property damage and looting for free stuff since ol Bernie and AOC couldn't give it to you cuz they want their bilk.

you are at minus 1110 compared to reality.  and its not even your own independent thought thinking it.

So you are keeping social score on this? What are you a PROC operative yourself appropriating a social credit score for people while you gawk at whatever lies the mainstream media feeds you? They lied to you about WMDs in Iraq, lied to you about you can keep your doctor and that Obamacare was free, they lied to you about peaceful protests and Kyle Rittenhouse being the scum of the Earth. So I think it is you that lacks independent thought Franky. Just say nothing to see here and call it a night.

[BADecker]

All the courts were trying to do was to make it as short a focus as possible... except if they could find hi muilty.

Take all of BLM to trial for damage. Make 'em pay.

[Gyfts]

A well paid attorney making the case for self-defense to a biased judge only confirms my own long held bias: in my country you can get away with anything if you have enough money.
Yes there is at least one country who issues its citizens firearms but ammo is highly regulated. *jeezus just google it
The 2nd amendment does not include the right to kill citizens ----although that’s a pointed connection you’re making there.
Laws vary from state to state (or even county) on things like “stand your ground” and constitutional carry.

The videos from half a dozen angles do not lie. You know, a good attorney isn't skilled enough in digital alterations and CGI to make up evidence. Kyle Rittenhouse was being chased by some degenerative piece of debris that threatened to kill him and reached for his long barrel weapon. You are disappointed Kyle Rittenhouse didn't take a beating instead?

It's also now reasonable for far-right vigilantes to roam around the country, travelling from state to state, killing whoever they please, so long as they can provide (or have a lawyer who can provide) some flimsy pretext.
The verdict does appear to have set an alarming precedent. Anyone who protests against anything is now fair game for any extremist with a gun.


The aftermath of 2020 was bad enough. Imagine what might happen if Trump loses again in '24.

What riots were there in 2020 after Trump lost the first time? What does this have to do with Trump? The only rioting I saw media reports about was for Saint George Floyd. And when you mention Rittenhouse going state to state, you know he made a 20 minute drive from his residence in one state to the city of Kenosha in another state. His father lived in Kenosha, his grandmother, and he worked there.

[franky1]

you are at minus 1110 compared to reality.  and its not even your own independent thought thinking it.

So you are keeping social score on this? What are you a PROC operative yourself appropriating a social credit score for people while you gawk at whatever lies the mainstream media feeds you?

its not about believing news or fake new. its about having the ability to then do the research to then verify each and both and find out which are lies.

just because i dont trust conspiracy cult sites does not mean i trust fox news.. both can equally be drivers of recruiting idiots into groups

i also tried explaining tvbcof's sheep script follower mindset using words so this time i tried numbers.
if your offended by me rating another person. maybe try understand the reason for the rating and not the rating itself.

but oh well if your buddy is hurt by the rating. well maybe he will take that hurt and realise that its due to him hurting himself

that being said. rittenhouse should have been found guilty of some crimes that are obvious. but, oh well its america, dont expect justice

[cmg777]

its not about believing news or fake new. its about having the ability to then do the research to then verify each and both and find out which are lies.

just because i dont trust conspiracy cult sites does not mean i trust fox news.. both can equally be drivers of recruiting idiots into groups

i also tried explaining tvbcof's sheep script follower mindset using words so this time i tried numbers.
if your offended by me rating another person. maybe try understand the reason for the rating and not the rating itself.

but oh well if your buddy is hurt by the rating. well maybe he will take that hurt and realise that its due to him hurting himself

that being said. rittenhouse should have been found guilty of some crimes that are obvious. but, oh well its america, dont expect justice

More like believing everything MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC say. For the record, I don't watch Fox news (there is only one tolerable anchor on there and I think you can guess who) I get my sources elsewhere and from ones that practically predict where this is all headed. So on that topic how about the world that Franky wants us to head towards:

Getting rid of the first amendment, calling what others say is Hate speech or conspiracy giving them a negative social credit score (we are already here).

Getting rid of the second amendment, this is what they wanted to do with the Rittenhouse case is rule out self-defense altogether, give up the guns so we can be more like California or New York on steroids.

And the other amendments won't matter because we gave up the first two which are most important.

So what you are saying is that it is best to join with the establishment and become their minions of this oppressive system, Franky? I think this is what you and some others seems to infer when you'll be the first to be destroyed by it when they no longer need you. I guess that is justice for you being a slave to the Biden establishment that runs this country from the deep state.

What riots were there in 2020 after Trump lost the first time? What does this have to do with Trump? The only rioting I saw media reports about was for Saint George Floyd. And when you mention Rittenhouse going state to state, you know he made a 20 minute drive from his residence in one state to the city of Kenosha in another state. His father lived in Kenosha, his grandmother, and he worked there.

You're forgetting about the CHAZ zone in Washington where leftist broke away a whole area of Seattle for like a week or so. Also the Courthouse under siege by leftists in Portland throwing moltovs at is and attacking Federal officers trying to get in (surprised none of them were shot but I'm sure there would be outrage) and this happened before January 6th!!! Where is the outrage here and hell there are still random riots in Portland for just flat out bullshit like the Rittenhouse trial. Also there were a bunch of other random riots in other cities but I can't remember myself but those two stood out the most besides the one you mentioned in Minnisota.

[franky1]

funny part is im not even american.
funnier part is some people think they understand the american constitution but then prove their ignorance when the ignore the words like "well regulated".
so while some idiots think its ok to give 17yo's a gun and an excuse to kill anyone trying to disarm them.. 'coz constitution' . they forget that their constitution never actually expressly allows anyone to kill anyone

EG candles are not illegal.. but using them to start arson and burn people is illegal
being allowed to own a candle does not give freedom of moral-ignorance to then burn people

having a car does not mean you can run people over

its not about law. its about intelligence and morals... common sense stuff

as for thinking i am against freedom of speach. well you can say what you like but understand that your right to say bull-crap does not mean someone else cannot correct you and show other readers that your rants about freedoms are flawed.
oh and just to note. you have the right to speak. but that does not mean you have the right to a loudspeaker device, a stage or a platform.
those who own platforms, stages, forums have their own right to ban whomever they like.
this does not gag your speach. because your jaw still moves and your tongue still wiggles. so just remember you have the right to speak. but not the freedom to spam forums with bull crap and think that no one should correct, debunk or rebuttal you.

with right also comes with responsibility.
seems you forget about responsibility. especially with your mindset that a guy with a gun vs a guy without a gun.. the guy with the gun has responsibility for his actions.

[tvbcof]

This whole thing was a staged and choreographed hoax from the get go.

It's funny to see the Q-tard-ee wing of the 'truthers' fall for even the most ridiculous of gas-light theater shows when the script is written to seem to support their side of things.  Bundy Ranch and Malheur come to mind.

ok so there we have it. tvbcof is a copy and paste conspiracy nut now following the alex-jones styled cultish narrative.

why is it that tvbcof swaps one cultish conspiracy nut influencer for another

is there no chance of tvbcof ever having an original independent thought, or is this forum doomed to just read repeats of something he saw elsewhere and is just rehashing their script
...

Wrong again.  In the case of Bundy Ranch, I fell for it for a few days.  Then I saw one obscure vid from a no-name analyst about one of the acts (a tasering along a road) and it was obvious that there was a lot of stagecraft.  Simple logic implies that if one act is scripted, the whole thing _must_ be.  After that it was just a matter of weighing the 'stage show' hypothesis against others in analyzing observations.  It explained most of the observations, stage mistakes, and other oddities perfectly.

The number of people analyzing the right-wing flavored hoaxes is minuscule.  More left-wing friendly stuff (e.g., Boston or Sandy Hook) gets skeptical attention, but even here it has been stamped out pretty well through programs of 'controlling the narrative.'  The kind of burying and quashing of voices and analysis was nothing new for the scamdemic.  I've seen it for years, and well over half a decade for certain critical and obscure subjects.  The scamdemic simply made it the 'new normal'.

In the case of the Kenosha hoax, I was completely first, and almost the only person calling it.  Ever.  When I went looking for a vid for my post above, I scoured through Jewtube for a while with zero results for skepticism.  Buttchute had a ton of 'mainstream' right-wing crap, but I had to seek high and low before finding that woman's video which I posted.

Funny story:  When Sandy Hook happened I checked what Alex Jones had to say just out of curiosity.  His position was that it was real and as the government said, and 'just because some things have been staged doesn't mean everything is.'  Only when a ton of other's started proving the fraud in undeniable ways did Jones dip is toe in when he started losing cred, then he pulled it right back out when it started costing him in mainstream attacks.  Most of the people doing real work on Sandy Hook left the genera and/or died (e.g., Jeff C.)

[Cnut237]

It's also now reasonable for far-right vigilantes to roam around the country, travelling from state to state, killing whoever they please, so long as they can provide (or have a lawyer who can provide) some flimsy pretext.
The verdict does appear to have set an alarming precedent. Anyone who protests against anything is now fair game for any extremist with a gun.


The aftermath of 2020 was bad enough. Imagine what might happen if Trump loses again in '24.

What riots were there in 2020 after Trump lost the first time? What does this have to do with Trump?

It has nothing to do with Trump, yet. I'm considering a future scenario, in which this ruling and the current machinations of elements of the Republican party intersect.

I'm not sure whether or not you personally believe the election was stolen. But of course you're aware that Trump wasn't happy about losing, and has done everything he can to try to reverse the decision, and to subvert the democratic process. Even Mitch McConnell has been clear on the consequences of this, during Biden's certification.

But Trump is charismatic, and knows how to rile up his base. And he has plenty of allies. And a large proportion of the population believe his claims, including 68% of Republican voters. Also, 30% of Republicans believe that "true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country". Can you see how the Rittenhouse verdict may have consequences here?

Who Thinks Political Violence Is Justified?
After the violent attacks on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, the prospect of political violence threatening a peaceful transfer of power has become more than an abstract question. As noted above, nearly one in five Americans (18%) agree with the statement “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” Republicans (30%) are more likely to agree with this than independents (17%) and Democrats (11%). Among Republicans who most trust far-right news sources, agreement increases to 40%, compared to 32% among those who most trust Fox News and 22% among those who most trust mainstream news sources.

https://www.prri.org/research/competing-visions-of-america-an-evolving-identity-or-a-culture-under-attack/

Ultimately Trump wasn't able to reverse the election result, because he didn't have his people in the right places. This is a mistake he is working hard to address for '24. It's no coincidence that Trump allies are running for secretary of state in certain locations... and not even just against Democrat incumbents, they're also fighting against those Republicans who opposed 'stop the steal'.

If you don't get enough votes to win an election, and the officials refuse to reverse the decision in your favour, then you have two options. You can get more votes, or you can put more compliant officials in place. One is somewhat easier than the other.

So, consider the four points below, and ask yourself whether these might not intersect if Trump loses in '24.

1) 30% of Republican voters believe that "true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country".
2) Trump is putting the 'correct' officials in place, who will certify the results in his favour regardless of the vote count.
3) If the votes say the Democrats won, but the 'impartial' officials say that Trump won, then a lot of Democrat voters will head out onto the streets to complain.
4) The Rittenhouse verdict means that "true American patriots" can kill protesters with impunity, and the dead won't even be called victims.

[cmg777]

funny part is im not even american.
funnier part is some people think they understand the american constitution but then prove their ignorance when the ignore the words like "well regulated".
so while some idiots think its ok to give 17yo's a gun and an excuse to kill anyone trying to disarm them.. 'coz constitution' . they forget that their constitution never actually expressly allows anyone to kill anyone

EG candles are not illegal.. but using them to start arson and burn people is illegal
being allowed to own a candle does not give freedom of moral-ignorance to then burn people

having a car does not mean you can run people over

its not about law. its about intelligence and morals... common sense stuff

as for thinking i am against freedom of speach. well you can say what you like but understand that your right to say bull-crap does not mean someone else cannot correct you and show other readers that your rants about freedoms are flawed.
oh and just to note. you have the right to speak. but that does not mean you have the right to a loudspeaker device, a stage or a platform.
those who own platforms, stages, forums have their own right to ban whomever they like.
this does not gag your speach. because your jaw still moves and your tongue still wiggles. so just remember you have the right to speak. but not the freedom to spam forums with bull crap and think that no one should correct, debunk or rebuttal you.

with right also comes with responsibility.
seems you forget about responsibility. especially with your mindset that a guy with a gun vs a guy without a gun.. the guy with the gun has responsibility for his actions.

So I'm trying to remember... Are you from the UK? Or Europe? Where they both have illegal immigrant Middle East/Afrikaners that half the time end up stabbing people, raping women, or blowing things up? It might help to have an amendment to own a firearm to defend one's self to counteract these terrible acts, am I right? Then these people wouldn't feel so welcomed to commit these acts because no one will do anything about them. Or are you from Australia where they took that right away and now they under absolute COVID tyranny like Europe/UK?

Who Thinks Political Violence Is Justified?
After the violent attacks on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, the prospect of political violence threatening a peaceful transfer of power has become more than an abstract question. As noted above, nearly one in five Americans (18%) agree with the statement “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” Republicans (30%) are more likely to agree with this than independents (17%) and Democrats (11%). Among Republicans who most trust far-right news sources, agreement increases to 40%, compared to 32% among those who most trust Fox News and 22% among those who most trust mainstream news sources.

https://www.prri.org/research/competing-visions-of-america-an-evolving-identity-or-a-culture-under-attack/

Your chart over samples Democrats btw.