Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[horsefly 4,298]

2 minutes ago, 7HAR1980 said:

Right back at you Pete.

Haha! I'll let Pete decide if he wants to resond to that.

[horsefly 4,298]

32 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Second guessing a jury is never a good look even for Joe Biden. They heard the evidence and came to a decision, everything else is irrelevant. We all have our own opinions and many will disagree with the jury but if you were not one of the twelve who heard all the evidence it is best to keep your own counsel.

Listening carefully to the judge's comments throughout the trial and recognising his egregious bias is not the same as second guessing the discussions of the Jury.

[7HAR1980 102]

2 hours ago, RobJames said:

The boy had already shot and killed two unarmed people before that.

Yes because obviously they both just walked up to Rittenhouse casually to kiss him and to sing Kumbaya altogether didn't they?

[7HAR1980 102]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

I think anyone reading the posts would beg to differ. On both counts.

No sorry, I agree totally with Fen.

[horsefly 4,298]

1 minute ago, 7HAR1980 said:

Yes because obviously they both just walked up to Rittenhouse casually to kiss him and to sing Kumbaya altogether didn't they?

Threaten to shoot people with an AR-15 and don't expect them to try to disarm you. Yeah! that makes a lot of sense doesn't it FFS! Whereas, don't take an AR-15 (which you can't legally own as a minor) to a City you don't live in, where the Police have asked you to stay away, and don't thereby risk killing others or being killed yourself. Which makes sense? (No need to answer, we know that's too much of a challenge for you).

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

It is a frightening prospect that this could be seen as a licence for future vigilante groups feeling that they are not constrained by the rule of law

I haven't got into this because others have made any arguments I might have had. But this seems a valid concern, not least because, as I posted, under Wisconsin law someone, such as a gun-totting vigilante, claiming self-defence is assumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

What I assume this comes from is a frontier mentality from a time long ago when home-owners might face all kinds of threats and could not rely on outside help to protect them. Quite outdated now. And the whole of US gun law is based on the entirely anachronistic idea that the possession of weapons is necessary for the creation of an armed militia.

[7HAR1980 102]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

Not when the judge misdirects the jury.  If you had the slightest idea you would have known this. Just as you would have known that it was a peaceful protest. One that he took a gun in among those protesting.

They were not protesting, they were rioting.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Baracouda said:

it wasn't an 'Assault Rifle'

The “AR” in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.” AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic, a machine gun.

Not true. An assault rifle is one that has a detachable magazine. Even a .22 with a magazine is an assault rifle.

Sorry, forgot to add, you do know that the AR15 is an M16, the rifle used by the US military in places like Vietnam.

Edited November 20, 2021 by keelansgrandad

[Baracouda 47]

20 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Not true. An assault rifle is one that has a detachable magazine. Even a .22 with a magazine is an assault rifle.

Sorry, forgot to add, you do know that the AR15 is an M16, the rifle used by the US military in places like Vietnam.

Characteristics[edit]

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[18] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]

It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles according to the U.S. Army's definition. For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 180 metres (200 yd).[19]

Select-fire rifles such as the Fedorov Avtomat, FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.

Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

The more political term assault weapon is often conflated with assault rifle and does not require all of the characteristics above – especially the selective fire capability which is functionally illegal in the U.S. for civilian use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Edited November 20, 2021 by Baracouda

[7HAR1980 102]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

You know that is no accurate.They have a certain amount of choices not endless. There is very little agreement between them. They just settle for the least problem.

And you also know that witnesses are questioned by lawyers and the questions asked are not always pertinent but bent towards either defense or prosecution.

And if you really, really believe that you can just dismiss this as its up to the US how they control arms then you are hiding the truth.

Rittenhouse took a field weapon, an attack weapon, a military weapon onto the streets not to defend property but to threaten protesters. I have no time for violent protesters who initiate damage. I sympathise with protesters if they are attacked themselves or threatened.

I believe I am right in saying that virtually all protesters carries no "offensive" weapons. But I am confident in saying that all those "protecting" the gas station were carrying arms of some sort, most of them attack weapons.

I don't know whether you have ever fired or owned an attack rifle? I have. In NZ it was quite easy to buy an ex military rifle to go shooting with. I bought one and several of us used to go shooting. At first it was just targets. Eventually it became rabbits or possum which were considered vermin and the state were happy to be shot. I know it was only smaller animals but the power over life and death, not for the sport but for the ridding of vermin, is a powerful thing and after the first time, I had little remorse for what I was doing. It was only until a misfire and the rabbit ran away that I realised I wasn't enjoying it that I stopped doing it and sold the rifle.

I am positive that Rittenhouse set out to shoot people. He shot three and killed two of those. He had no remorse after the first killing and carried on. He was enjoying what he was doing.

I don't know whether you are defending Rittenhouse's rights or morals or whether you have a right wing attitude that says you agree with the way Trump was inciting sections of the US public after other sections sought to protest after they witnessed the murder of George Floyd.

I understand because I have sat as a juror on two occasions with one case (insider trading) running for close to 4 weeks.

My political affiliation has nothing to do with my opinion on the Rittenhouse case.

Yes I have fired a rifle. Hand guns too. Not sure what that has to do with this case or your history of firing weapons for that matter.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Rittenhouse set out to shoot people or that he enjoyed doing it? Are these just your assumptions?

I did read and watch evidence that Rittenhouse was carrying a backpack with medical supplies. Not at all consistent with say the Vegas shooter or the NZ shooter who both where clearly out to kill as many innocent as they could.

Again my opinion has no political interference but for the record I disagree with the US second amendment. I believe it just creates these types of unfortunate situations and allows guns to fall into the wrong hands.

[Herman 9,756]

Really??🤨

[7HAR1980 102]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

 

This would be correct for many countries but the US has the 2nd amendment. Of which I know you know.

[7HAR1980 102]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Threaten to shoot people with an AR-15 and don't expect them to try to disarm you. Yeah! that makes a lot of sense doesn't it FFS! Whereas, don't take an AR-15 (which you can't legally own as a minor) to a City you don't live in, where the Police have asked you to stay away, and don't thereby risk killing others or being killed yourself. Which makes sense? (No need to answer, we know that's too much of a challenge for you).

Maybe the violent mob should have left Rittenhouse alone then. If they thought he was a threat or that Rittenhouse was causing an offence they could have called the police. Rittenhouse was not there to shoot people and the jury has spoken. I understand you're butthurt but you need to give it up.

[Indy 3,297]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

I haven't read everything about the case but from what little Ive seen it appears that the prosecution went all out on murder 1. Looking at the evidence this was unlikely to stick but they might have got a conviction on some lesser charge. I can't  say I was surprised by the verdict just as I wasnt by the verdict in the O.J.Simpson case but as I said earlier, juries hear all the evidence and the decision is theirs.

Absolutely, I don’t have an issue with the outcome, it’s the US system and juries, prosecutors…..the outcome is done. I might not agree with it, but that’s my opinion.

 I do however think this young lad requires to be put on a high risk list and kept an eye on.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Indy

[7HAR1980 102]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Absolutely, I don’t have an issue with the outcome, it’s the US system and juries, prosecutors…..the outcome is done. I do however think this young lad requires to be put on a high risk list and kept an eye on.

I agree with this Indy. It's just unfortunate that a lot of users here don't or just blatantly refuse to. I firmly believe Rittenhouse will be watched.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

36 minutes ago, 7HAR1980 said:

I understand because I have sat as a juror on two occasions with one case (insider trading) running for close to 4 weeks.

My political affiliation has nothing to do with my opinion on the Rittenhouse case.

Yes I have fired a rifle. Hand guns too. Not sure what that has to do with this case or your history of firing weapons for that matter.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Rittenhouse set out to shoot people or that he enjoyed doing it? Are these just your assumptions?

I did read and watch evidence that Rittenhouse was carrying a backpack with medical supplies. Not at all consistent with say the Vegas shooter or the NZ shooter who both where clearly out to kill as many innocent as they could.

Again my opinion has no political interference but for the record I disagree with the US second amendment. I believe it just creates these types of unfortunate situations and allows guns to fall into the wrong hands.

I was merely talking of the use of weapons as an illustration of the mind set when using one. As I said, Rittenhouse appears to me of having the mind set of assault not protection. When did he decide he had to go some distance to protect a gas station?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

54 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Characteristics[edit]

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[18] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]

It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles according to the U.S. Army's definition. For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 180 metres (200 yd).[19]

Select-fire rifles such as the Fedorov Avtomat, FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.

Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

The more political term assault weapon is often conflated with assault rifle and does not require all of the characteristics above – especially the selective fire capability which is functionally illegal in the U.S. for civilian use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

If we are quoting Wikipedia,

In the 2010s, AR-15 style rifles became one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, according to The New York Times. The rifles are controversial in part due to their use in high-profile mass shootings.^[6] Promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association, AR-15 style rifles' popularity is partially attributable to proposals to ban or restrict them.^[

[1902 1,167]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Two points. He was 17 at the time. And under Wisconsin law if the defendant claims self-defence, as was the case here, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defence rather than the defendant having to prove it was.

Thank you, Purple, very informative. An interesting element of Wisconsin law there.

[horsefly 4,298]

1 hour ago, 7HAR1980 said:

Rittenhouse was not there to shoot people

That's why he took an AR-15 military weapon to a city he didn't live in. FFS! surely you can come up with something better than that.

[horsefly 4,298]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

under Wisconsin law someone, such as a gun-totting vigilante, claiming self-defence is assumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Indeed Purple! but it's also true here that, whatever the crime is, a guilty verdict is supposed to depend on the case being proven beyond reasonable doubt. My problem, and I think it's the same for a lot of people angry at the outcome, is that the judge conducted the trial in an appalling biased way, such that the jury were effectively directed to find him innocent.: 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/judge-schroeder-blasted-over-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-he-virtually-demanded-not-guilty/ar-AAQURDg?ocid=msedgntp

I actually feel sorry for the jury in this case given the way they have been instructed throughout. 

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, 7HAR1980 said:

I agree with this Indy. It's just unfortunate that a lot of users here don't or just blatantly refuse to. I firmly believe Rittenhouse will be watched.

Indeed, the point I was trying to get to earlier was to distinguish between whether it is considered a miscarriage of justice has occurred or has the the trial been conducted properly and fairly, has all the relevant evidence been produced for both sides and the jury made their decision beyond  all reasonable doubt in line with the statutory provisions.

Whether or not the US gun law is agreeable to posters is a totally separate issue from whether proper judicial process has been followed, seeking to conflate the two leads to confusion and isn’t helpful IMO

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I have just read that the law in Wisconsin only judged whether Rittenhouse, at the time, judged himself to be in imminent harm.

It does not consider anything else Rittenhouse may have done beforehand or even why he considered the need to be there.

I would ask if that applies to black people?

Wisconsin has always seemed a uncontroversial state and as likely to be Republican as Democrat as it is now.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

5 hours ago, 1902 said:

Unfortunately, I suspect that on all sides of the political spectrum, this has become far less about the facts of the case and far more about getting the political result they want. 

My own feelings are that even the judge acted in this way. This wasn't a fair trial, but that doesn't make him guilty. Its a nuanced and confused situation where quite a few people involved did stupid things that resulted in deaths.

That was a tragic result of a police force that has failed to build trust and has abused its position, that then left it in a position where it couldn't actually police. A militia culture which sees individual armed 'defenders' as heros as opposed to liabilities. A large group of individuals who have taken a legitimate political movement and then hung onto it as an excuse for looting and finally a president who sought to inflame the situation for political gain.

It's basically a tale of state and cultural failure resulting in obviously horrible personal consequences for many involved. Trying to apportion blame in this form of situation just turns into stupid whataboutery.

Yes, it's definitely political, just as the death of George Floyd was manipulated to become a political cause.

But what this particular trial has highlighted is not only that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence but that the protesting mob had murderous intentions. Now you can find plenty of Youtube videos of people being beaten up or shot by BLM and Antifa protestors over the past couple of years, some to the point of death. But even the video posted by Rob James which comes with a spoken narrative in support of the protestors contains so much evidence pointing to the murderous intentions of the protestors.

As the video describes, police put a curfew in place in Kentosha on the night of the events in question, and many of the protestors went home and abided by the law. One of the BLM activits is even interviewed on Rob's video where she states that she went home as she could see that the tension on the streets after curfew were rising to a dangerous level. But there was still a core number of protestors who were intent on causing trouble and it is indicative that the balance of protestors had swung from mainly black to mainly white persons by this time. This shows that the local community had pretty much left the scene and it was mainly Antifa activists left on the street. And these Antia activists had somehow managed to separate Rittenhouse from the rest of the defenders and the mob were chasing him down. Rob's video also clearly shows that the first shots were fired by the chasing mob and when they caught Rittenhouse he turned and fired in self-defence. His was not the first shots fired in that incident. Even after Rittenhouse shot the first attacker, a second attacker attempted to take him out with a skateboard and a third approached with a gun in hand, pointing directly at the seventeen-year-old.

The jury quite rightly came to the conclusion that the mob intended to kill Rittenhouse and there could be no just verdict other than not guilty on all counts.

Sadly, the incident and its aftermath is now another political event with all the usual players out in force. Ironically, most of the black residents of the Kentosha suburbs where the original police incident took place were back in their homes when the Antifa-infiltrated were about their murderous business but these are the people who suffer the most and the longest at the hands of the politicians. And that makes it doubly cruel when Biden speaks out with tacit approval of the Antifa mob who came to Kentosha to kill someone. But you know, the mid-term primaries are coming up and there are votes to be gathered and demographic sectors to be wooed. The politicians really don't give a sh!t about what is happening at street level, and if they can leverage some political benefit, they probably even encourage it.

[1902 1,167]

24 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Yes, it's definitely political, just as the death of George Floyd was manipulated to become a political cause.

But what this particular trial has highlighted is not only that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence but that the protesting mob had murderous intentions. Now you can find plenty of Youtube videos of people being beaten up or shot by BLM and Antifa protestors over the past couple of years, some to the point of death. But even the video posted by Rob James which comes with a spoken narrative in support of the protestors contains so much evidence pointing to the murderous intentions of the protestors.

As the video describes, police put a curfew in place in Kentosha on the night of the events in question, and many of the protestors went home and abided by the law. One of the BLM activits is even interviewed on Rob's video where she states that she went home as she could see that the tension on the streets after curfew were rising to a dangerous level. But there was still a core number of protestors who were intent on causing trouble and it is indicative that the balance of protestors had swung from mainly black to mainly white persons by this time. This shows that the local community had pretty much left the scene and it was mainly Antifa activists left on the street. And these Antia activists had somehow managed to separate Rittenhouse from the rest of the defenders and the mob were chasing him down. Rob's video also clearly shows that the first shots were fired by the chasing mob and when they caught Rittenhouse he turned and fired in self-defence. His was not the first shots fired in that incident. Even after Rittenhouse shot the first attacker, a second attacker attempted to take him out with a skateboard and a third approached with a gun in hand, pointing directly at the seventeen-year-old.

The jury quite rightly came to the conclusion that the mob intended to kill Rittenhouse and there could be no just verdict other than not guilty on all counts.

Sadly, the incident and its aftermath is now another political event with all the usual players out in force. Ironically, most of the black residents of the Kentosha suburbs where the original police incident took place were back in their homes when the Antifa-infiltrated were about their murderous business but these are the people who suffer the most and the longest at the hands of the politicians. And that makes it doubly cruel when Biden speaks out with tacit approval of the Antifa mob who came to Kentosha to kill someone. But you know, the mid-term primaries are coming up and there are votes to be gathered and demographic sectors to be wooed. The politicians really don't give a sh!t about what is happening at street level, and if they can leverage some political benefit, they probably even encourage it.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the type of politically biased one uppery that I was condemning. 

Edited November 20, 2021 by 1902

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Unfortunately the whole terrible saga only shows the USA in a terrible light for any so called civilized country. 

Simply its gun laws and excuses are obscene to the civilized world. 

Whatever the verdict it won't bring back the dead, or indeed find any salvation for Rittenhouse. All it will breed is more trouble and deaths ahead. 

 

 

The gun laws in the US are not the problem. If the US did bring in extremely tough gun-owning laws all that would happen is that previously legally-held weapons would now be illegally-held weapons, and the whole business would go underground just as happened with alcohol in the 1920s and narcotics in the 1960s. Nothing would be solved by changing gun laws.

One has to ask why is it that there is so much gun crime, and why other countries with high rates of gun ownership do not have the sort of crime numbers as the US. It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that within the UK, one of the highest rates of gun ownership per head is actually here in tranquil Norfolk. Yet we don't see anywhere near the levels of gun crime on the streets of downtown Swaffham or North Walsham that is seen in a single day in place like Detroit or Chicago. 

If it isn't gun laws or gun ownership that is the main driver for gun crime, then what is? I don't have any hard figures on the subject but my opinion is that it is all down to the state of mind of those owning guns. That for some reason, in those places they are far more likely to use weapons to resolve situations than places where gun crime is not so high. And to go into any further detail as to why they are using weapons to resolve situations would probably fill a book or two and covers much more detail that I could go into to here. But to give one very small example of what I mean, why is it necessary to encourage and promote a rap culture which glorifies weapons (and using them), drugs and demeans women? None of it is helpful.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

9 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Unfortunately, this is exactly the type of politically biased one uppery that I was condemning. 

Yet, we are in agreement that events like Kentosha are used for political purposes.

[1902 1,167]

1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

Yet, we are in agreement that events like Kentosha are used for political purposes.

No, I believe that events are always political, but some people like to use them to score cheap political points by stripping them of context, pretending that their own end of the political spectrum are all saintly and refusing to accept that it usually takes two to tango. 

I think it's clear that you are part of that group.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

7 minutes ago, 1902 said:

No, I believe that events are always political, but some people like to use them to score cheap political points by stripping them of context, pretending that their own end of the political spectrum are all saintly and refusing to accept that it usually takes two to tango. 

I think it's clear that you are part of that group.

What is the context that I have stripped away?

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

20 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The gun laws in the US are not the problem. If the US did bring in extremely tough gun-owning laws all that would happen is that previously legally-held weapons would now be illegally-held weapons, and the whole business would go underground just as happened with alcohol in the 1920s and narcotics in the 1960s. Nothing would be solved by changing gun laws.

One has to ask why is it that there is so much gun crime, and why other countries with high rates of gun ownership do not have the sort of crime numbers as the US. It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that within the UK, one of the highest rates of gun ownership per head is actually here in tranquil Norfolk. Yet we don't see anywhere near the levels of gun crime on the streets of downtown Swaffham or North Walsham that is seen in a single day in place like Detroit or Chicago. 

If it isn't gun laws or gun ownership that is the main driver for gun crime, then what is? I don't have any hard figures on the subject but my opinion is that it is all down to the state of mind of those owning guns. That for some reason, in those places they are far more likely to use weapons to resolve situations than places where gun crime is not so high. And to go into any further detail as to why they are using weapons to resolve situations would probably fill a book or two and covers much more detail that I could go into to here. But to give one very small example of what I mean, why is it necessary to encourage and promote a rap culture which glorifies weapons (and using them), drugs and demeans women? None of it is helpful.

Let start with why do they need 'assault' rifles?

My own experience of the US is handguns in the car glove compartment and some go in for hunting.

But assault rifles - surely no need (who are they going to fight?) and removing these would at a stroke limit some of the worst 'active' shooter incidents and the weak minded fantasists.

[1902 1,167]

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

What is the context that I have stripped away?

A failure of policing that has left millions distrustful of the state, the fact that a 17 year old took a semi-automatic weapon with high magazine capacity to another city with the apparent expectation and wish for a confrontation, that the 'defenders' had large numbers of right wing militias members who relish a violent confrontation and much as anti-fa have ever done, that the then president of the USA did what he could do to stir it up in order to encourage violence and attempt to build fear in a key voting demographic (white suburbanites). 

However, I'm sure you will excuse all of that because you are clearly on the right of the political spectrum, so feel that 'your' side are only defending themselves or values you respect in the same way that those on the left tend to feel the protestors were doing the same.