Terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted on all counts

[Guest]

Just now, osxmatt said:

I thought he took the gun across state lines?

This is not a crime in Wisconsin, or most states for that matter. There was a possible gun charge in his home state. But he was lawfully carrying the gun in Wisconsin at the time of the shootings.

 

3 minutes ago, ort said:

 

Not be there in the first place.

 

Try and answer the actual question.

[Fizzzzle]

4 minutes ago, ort said:

 

Not be there in the first place.

There's only so much that can be taken into account during trial, though.

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

I thought he took the gun across state lines?

 

Testimony and evidence from the trial indicated that the gun was in Wisconsin the entire time at his friends house.  I could potentially see a federal straw purchase charge coming against Rittenhouse, but that's about it.  If convicted, that would mean up to 10 years in federal prison. 

[osxmatt]

Looks like I’ll have to do more reading about the case.

[skillzdadirecta]

33 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

What was the full statement?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I am genuinely curious as to what people would have wanted Rittenhouse to do once he was chased, corned, and attacked by Rosenbaum. The notion that this was “legal murder” as @stepeekeeps trying to make a thing is baffling when all of the evidence shows Rittenhouse trying to flee the conflict at every step.

 

Oh I can easily answer this question!

 

Because he's my enemy, I'd want him to die!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What was the full statement?

 

See my follow-up post.

[skillzdadirecta]

There are clear cut cases of self defense where firing a weapon and killing someone is entirely justified. Being a wannabe cop and putting yourself in harm's way knowing you're armed is not one of those instances. That's called being a vigilante and those are only cool in comic books. Travis Bickle was defending himself too. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Testimony and evidence from the trial indicated that the gun was in Wisconsin the entire time at his friends house.  I could potentially see a federal straw purchase charge coming against Rittenhouse, but that's about it.  If convicted, that would mean up to 10 years in federal prison. 

This is true, there is reason to believe it was already there. His friend cut a plea deal and admitted during the trial that he purchased it for Rittenhouse and I believe the same person said the gun was stored at his home in Wisconsin. But that is neither here nor there regarding the charges in Wisconsin because there is no prohibition against bringing the weapon there, the issue would have been with him taking it back across to Illinois which I do believe may be a state crime there.

 

It also really doesn’t matter in the context of @osxmatt’s initial question because the man who attempted to grab it from him could not have known at the time whether Rittenhouse was lawfully possessing it so the notion that it would be seen as an act of aggression in that context simply can’t be true.

[Fizzzzle]

8 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

There are clear cut cases of self defense where firing a weapon and killing someone is entirely justified. Being a wannabe cop and putting yourself in harm's way knowing you're armed is not one of those instances. That's called being a vigilante and those are only cool in comic books. Travis Bickle was defending himself too. 

Being a wannabe vigilante is not itself a crime, though. I agree that he went there looking for a fight and should therefore be held partially responsible for the consequences, but the law doesn't really work that way most of the time. The prosecution would have had to unequivocally prove that he had intent to cause harm, otherwise each individual action has to be judged on its own, and each individual case was pretty clearly self defense.

 

Now, do I think the prosecution absolutely fucked it all up and should have been able to prove he was there to pick a fight? Yes. But they didn't.

[stepee]

8 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Being a wannabe vigilante is not itself a crime, though. I agree that he went there looking for a fight and should therefore be held partially responsible for the consequences, but the law doesn't really work that way most of the time. The prosecution would have had to unequivocally prove that he had intent to cause harm, otherwise each individual action has to be judged on its own, and each individual case was pretty clearly self defense.

 

Now, do I think the prosecution absolutely fucked it all up and should have been able to prove he was there to pick a fight? Yes. But they didn't.

 

The law doesn’t work that way, but I believe skillz was more talking about how what he did is murder, not if that is legal or not in some cases.

[Jwheel86]

I've been playing with this in my head and I'm curious what you all think. My understanding is part of the reason the armed groups were there was because riots aren't covered by business insurance, I'm sure the race issue was a huge factor too, but let's just take this issue for now. If the law required insurance cover riots in a timely fashion then you at least wouldn't have business owners inviting in armed groups.

 

Right now, my understanding is one of the factors that goes into underwriting a business and homeowners insurance policy is the proficiency rating of the local Fire Department. If the local Fire Department sucks, rates go up and the insurance industry has an organization that grades departments.

 

What if something existed like that for Police Departments? Where if the insurance industry determines that a Police Department is bad, insurance rates for the community and businesses go up, creating pressure on local governments to fix the Police Department by reducing the risk of incidents that could fuel/spark riots. In this case the Blake shooting might be justified but other factors about the local Police Department could have added fuel to the protests. In the Michael Brown case DOJ found a ton of factors within the local police that explained the intensity of the protests beyond the shooting. 

[stepee]

 

 

quick change the state 

[Kal-El814]

Again there’s video of the dude saying he wished he could shoot people. Then he put himself into a situation where he was attacked and lo, his wish came true. I don’t dispute that he met the legal definition of self defense in this specific case; he was never going to be found guilty of murder. And I also appreciate that “don’t be there” is not especially useful advice nor a legally compelling argument in this situation specifically.

 

But those are the problems as well as the justifications. He was spoiling for a fight. He got a fight. He defended himself in that fight. I’m not going to pretend I know how to amend the law to make it so that he’s culpable for “being in a place” generally, that doesn’t make sense. There are other cases like this too, where in Texas (I think) some dude called 911 because he saw someone break into his neighbor’s property, he was instructed by the 911 operator not to intervene, the guy went over to his neighbor’s house, shot the intruder to death, and got nothing but praise. Yeah, “don’t rob people” is solid advice but it shouldn’t be “because if you do private citizens are entitled to trespass and shoot you to death while suffering no legal consequences.”

 

The problem is guns. Repeal the second amendment, get guns out of the hands of private citizens. It’s that fucking simple.

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Again there’s video of the dude saying he wished he could shoot people. Then he put himself into a situation where he was attacked and lo, his wish came true. I don’t dispute that he met the legal definition of self defense in this specific case; he was never going to be found guilty of murder. And I also appreciate that “don’t be there” is not especially useful advice nor a legally compelling argument in this situation specifically.

 

But those are the problems as well as the justifications. He was spoiling for a fight. He got a fight. He defended himself in that fight. I’m not going to pretend I know how to amend the law to make it so that he’s culpable for “being in a place” generally, that doesn’t make sense. There are other cases like this too, where in Texas (I think) some dude called 911 because he saw someone break into his neighbor’s property, he was instructed by the 911 operator not to intervene, the guy went over to his neighbor’s house, shot the intruder to death, and got nothing but praise. Yeah, “don’t rob people” is solid advice but it shouldn’t be “because if you do private citizens are entitled to trespass and shoot you to death while suffering no legal consequences.”

 

The problem is guns. Repeal the second amendment, get guns out of the hands of private citizens. It’s that fucking simple.

The flipside of that is a woman in Florida fired a warning shot at her abusive ex-husband, didn't hit him and got sentenced to 20 years. She's home now after public outcry but she still had to plead to three felonies. Give you ONE guess why this was handled differently than other stand your ground cases. 

[Kal-El814]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

The flipside of that is a woman in Florida fired a warning shot at her abusive ex-husband, didn't hit him and got sentenced to 20 years. She's home now after public outcry but she still had to plead to three felonies. Give you ONE guess why this was handled differently than other stand your ground cases.

 

Mercury was in retrograde?

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Kal-El814 said:

 

Mercury was in retrograde?

BINGO.

[Kal-El814]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

BINGO.

 

GOTTEM

[Jwheel86]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

The problem is guns. Repeal the second amendment, get guns out of the hands of private citizens. It’s that fucking simple.

 

The issue is open carry not being compatible with mass shootings being a normal things. If Police are going to react like this, people will too. 

 

 

[Kal-El814]

6 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

The issue is open carry not being compatible with mass shootings being a normal things. If Police are going to react like this, people will too. 

 

 

Open carry is psychotic. I will, possibly literally, die on this hill. 

[stepee]

Are the families allowed to at least file a lawsuit against him still for the murders?

[Fizzzzle]

4 minutes ago, stepee said:

Are the families allowed to at least file a lawsuit against him still for the murders?

edit: ignore that article, it sucks. But, yeah, they can sue. You don't have to be found guilty of a crime to be held liable for damages.

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Kyle Rittenhouse can't be tried again, but victims' families can sue in civil court

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

Here's what Friday's verdict means for Rittenhouse in terms of legal matters going forward.

 

 

At least they can hopefully suck out some of that fox news or whatever money from him!

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, stepee said:

Are the families allowed to at least file a lawsuit against him still for the murders?

They can, he could also counter sue the estate. He has much better position even in the civil arena as both men attacked him first.

[SuperSpreader]

Haha

[DarkStar189]

What a mess. About all I can say. 

[stepee]

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

They can, he could also counter sue the estate. He has much better position even in the civil arena as both men attacked him first.

 

wow sounds like no way for justice to be served unless someone rittenhouses him  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

wow sounds like no way for justice to be served unless someone rittenhouses him  

I can’t imagine there will be a scenario in which Rittenhouse chases a minor down and attacks them  

[stepee]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I can’t imagine there will be a scenario in which Rittenhouse chases a minor down and attacks them  

 

Idk, maybe a similar situation to the time he was punching that girl? If you can’t imagine being this kid in that kind of situation you need to seriously go back and rewatch muppet babies!

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Idk, maybe a similar situation to the time he was punching that girl? If you can’t imagine being this kid in that kind of situation you need to seriously go back and rewatch muppet babies!

I am pointing out your fundemental misunderstanding of what occurred. That or maybe you just don’t want to admit you were wrong about what happened?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I can’t imagine there will be a scenario in which Rittenhouse chases a minor down and attacks them  

Unless he works for gaetz

[Air_Delivery]

There needs to be stronger anti-vigilante laws. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Unless he works for gaetz

[Air_Delivery]

I'm curious if conservatives would have the same reaction if say a band of liberals with AR-15s stood guard over the capital building in front of the mob.

[stepee]

l

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I am pointing out your fundemental misunderstanding of what occurred. That or maybe you just don’t want to admit you were wrong about what happened?

 

I don’t think you are pointing out anything nor do I think I ever even made comment you’d be able to regard to as wrong as I said his murders were legal.