General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Rittenhouse verdict should not have been a surprise
The evidence was plain and present.
- Rosenbaum was an aggressive, unstable man all night, making threats and trying to start fights with people and starting fires. This is on video. He chased Rittenhouse. This is on video. Rittenhouse retreated. This is on video.
- After shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse again retreated. He told people, including the third person shot, he was running to the police who were fully visible and not far away. This is on video. He continued to retreat until he was chased down and attacked. First by an object to the back of the head, then by a man kicking him in the face, then by Huber with the skateboard.
This is on video.
- The third victim pulled back, raised his hands, then pulled his gun forward towards Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse pointed his rifle away.
This is on video. The victim testified to this under oath.
If people are angry, blame the media. They misled us on all of this from day one. What we were told was not true. That Rittenhouse was the one chasing Rosenbaum. That Rittenhouse was randomly shooting people. That he crossed state lines with a gun and driven by his mother. Again and again - for over a year, and with the video evidence available for all to see - we were told lie after lie, mischaracterization after mischaracterization by the media.
Why? Ratings. Partisanship. Polarization. Right now, they're salivating at the prospect of riots. "Oh no, wouldn't that just be the worst for us?!" And we let them do this, because we get lazy and readily believe what fits with our politics, beliefs, and narratives without questioning as vigorously as we should. And I include myself in this. I do it sometimes, too.
When I first started watching this trial, I had assumed Rittenhouse was guilty. I knew little. Only stories here and there. What got repeated on social media. Look at DU. Even during the trial, all kinds of false information was posted again and again, despite efforts to correct it. People thought the victims were black. A year after this all happened, still it persisted.
Justice cannot be about partisan teams. It can't be "We lost this one. Maybe we'll win the next one." People cannot be guilty just because we dislike them and they're on the "other team." They have to be guilty because of what the law and facts say. That's it.
The law and the facts prevailed here. There was no way reasonable jurors - unanimously - looked at all the available evidence and didn't have at least reasonable doubt in their minds. They had little choice but to acquit based on what was presented in this trial.
The judge had nothing to do with it. All this, "He's biased, a right-winger, a white supremacist, etc." came from the times he ruled for the defense. But he ruled for the prosecution plenty of times. He gave the prosecution plenty of leeway. The biggest point of contention - the video the defense wanted scrubbed from the trial - went the prosecution's way. He could've dismissed the trial at multiple points because of the prosecution's bad behavior. He didn't.
I'm sorry people are upset and surprised. I'm not happy, even if I agree with the legal outcome. People are still dead. People will still fight about this. Some will feel emboldened to worse behavior. Some will feel an injustice was done that will justify future violence.
No part of any of this is good.
But it shouldn't have been a surprise.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
lapfog_1
(30,297 posts)why was he out on the streets past curfew?
MichMan
(13,777 posts)lapfog_1
(30,297 posts)
Polybius
(18,703 posts)It wasn't only Rittenhouse.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)Stupidity I guess. He gave Rittenhouse a free and justified shot. Grosskreutz is lucky to be alive.
Yarnie
(90 posts)Why was anyone out past curfew?
kelly1mm
(5,463 posts)negate a self-defense claim, meaning he could still claim self defense if he had been charged (and found guilty of) the curfew violation.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,235 posts)All they needed was the order. A piece of paper. But they didn't bother. But you are correct, a curfew violation doesn't negate self defense.
Dr. Strange
(26,007 posts)From what I heard, there was some question about whether the curfew was declared in a legal way. It was done by the sheriff's office, but the sheriff may have cut corners. As such, the ACLU was in court challenging the curfew.
In light of that, I think the prosecution decided not to pursue those charges too aggressively because it might ultimately be tossed anyway.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,235 posts)But wasn't sure if it was confirmed or not.
manicdem
(509 posts)If the curfew was legit, then they can't just charge one guy with it as it would be discrimination. Everyone out that night would be charged.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Everyone there shouldn't have been there. But there they were.
Legally, matters not at all.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Been reading everything, listening to podcasts, watching YouTube things.
I feel my knowledge of legal matters has increased fourfold.
It's definitely a fascinating area. Maybe I'll apply to law school? I'm still squishy about why I'm back in school. Decisions.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)lapfog_1
(30,297 posts)and their families.
And the verdict matters a great deal to the future of any protests by BLM.
This will lead to open season on any protest that damages even a little bit of property ( and it may not even require damage ).
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)You can't get a guilty verdict out of, "He shouldn't have been there."
We don't (or at least shouldn't) pass verdicts on what we think people should or shouldn't have done. I don't think he should've been there either.
But it wasn't illegal.
pinkstarburst
(1,565 posts)This is the problem I have with this argument. I think Rittenhouse is a gun loving nut who was bat-sh*t crazy for being at a riot after midnight with a bunch of other loons who were crazy and looking for trouble.
The problem is, it is unfair to expect the jury to decree that Kyle Rittenhouse's reasons for being there are bad, but the thousands of other crazies out there that night had a good reason for rioting in the streets of Kenosha with guns. No one, not one single person should have been there. Especially not with a gun.
A protest is something you do during the daylight hours, standing in front of your local courthouse, carrying posterboard that talks about your issues.
When it's past midnight, and you're looting and breaking into buildings and running around in the streets carrying guns... that's a riot. And not one single person there had a valid reason to be there. Not one of the people who was killed. Not Kyle Rittenhouse. Not a single one.
lapfog_1
(30,297 posts)that you speak of... the only person killing anyone was... Kyle Rittenhouse.
An underage "Proud Boys" wannabe.
A budding white supremacist.
with an AK-47.
And after he killed the first person, if I had been there, I would have had no problem with killing him... active shooter.
2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)Jacob Blake for what ever reason was shot in the back seven times point blank. BLM is all about judge, jury, and execution in the streets for things often for what no white person would be arrested for. Selling loose cigarettes? Broken tail light? 13 year old playing in city park with toy gun. A cop saw "a gun" in the hand of man visiting a coworker who left his engine running at night, the other officer didn't see a gun, because it was a cell phone.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK Here in my town, we had BLM protests, my children and grandchildren attended them. I fully supported them, but I did not attend. Why? I am 64, widowed, and retired. I cannot afford medical bills for being tear gassed (asthmatic), hit with rubber bullets, or clubbed by police or militia members who seem to have no problem gathering on the State House lawn with their people hunting rifles. Police here were accused of over reaction, my kids and grandkids said the protest was peaceful. On another night BLM walked past my house, carrying signs, chanting, but on the sidewalk, no violence, not even litter. And no police intimidation or militia incitement. I was, and am, under the impression that is what the Constitution guarantees us the right to do.
And even if that is my Constitutional right, it does not guarantee me that right will be protected. My physical well being as a female in this Country has always been contingent on my personal responsibility to protect myself. To worry less about "my rights" and far more about how much medical care I can afford. How much responsibility I take to protect myself from criminals or fools. My rights don't mean too much if I am not alive to enjoy them. I am looking straight at you anti maskers and anti vaxxers, and "Kyle did nothing wrong."
And also, "good guy with gun" and "laws are on the books just apply them?" Seventeen year old straw purchase of AR 15. Takes on the responsibility of law enforcement, with or without their tacit approval, which is illegal. Full stop.
Don't bullshit me, the domestic terrorists don't need that fire power to shoot deer. I lived around and worked with actual deer hunters, the kind that put meat on their families table, could field dress a deer and carry it out of the woods. These domestic terrorists are not those guys. Kyle was not that guy.
milestogo
(18,573 posts)that the American justice system is this fucked up.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)And that's the most unfortunate thing that will come from this: expect more right-wingers to insert themselves, and their guns, into episodes in the future. The issue for me is that while he likely technically was acting in self-defense, his actions put him in that position in the first place.
The jury made the correct verdict based on the evidence but I'm afraid a great deal of people are going to make all the wrong conclusions about this verdict and it's going to lead to more bloodshed.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Every single word.
forthemiddle
(1,441 posts)In the end the American Jury system in set up to protect the defendants. IMO the prosecutor didn’t prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kyle should have never been where he was, with a loaded gun, but the Prosecutor never proved that he didn’t fear for his life.
I can’t blame the jury for this outcome.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)I’ve never cared enough about any issue to go to a protest. If I did, I would be rethinking the desire to go to one now.
Go looking for trouble, you’ll find it.
Dave says
(4,978 posts)The prosecution’s argument. You say,
“while he likely technically was acting in self-defense, his actions put him in that position in the first place.“
Didn’t the prosecution make the convincing case that, if a person’s provocation put him in that place, then he can’t then claim self-defense? I thought so.
Even though the law cited by someone else says that a person may regain the right of self defense if they retreat. Note the “may”. Was Rittenhouse in retreat? Yes, part of the time, but then he chose to “stand his ground” and shoot. It’s the “but then” that negates the “may”. He had no right to self defense when he turned and fired on Rosenbaum, no right whatsoever. If I were in the jury, it would have been a hung jury.
demmerick
(19 posts)but it wasn’t convincing. At least not to the jury.
Dave says
(4,978 posts)
Calista241
(5,608 posts)2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)Thank you.
2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)Thank you.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)was murder, even if it wasn't technically according to the law and jury. Rittenhouse is extremely fortunate. All these highly publicized cases are learning experiences for those paying attention.
And remembering, over 75% of the public supported the cause of the #BLM marches. Those people know that what happened in the Kyle Goes to Kenosha tragedy was all wrong.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Mr. Rittenhouse had a very bad judge.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Calista241
(5,608 posts)He let the drone video in, which wasn’t available until after trial had started, and which he wasn’t obligated to do.
He let the prosecution argue for provocation, which wasn’t required, and was really the only way the state could legit win their case.
PJMcK
(23,195 posts)Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)
Celerity
(47,217 posts)They overcharged from the start.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)charges that were not justified based on the facts. How could anyone call these first degree murders?
Hav
(5,969 posts)One theory was that it would have been optically disastrous if there had been no charges. Now, there was a trial but it might have only delayed the public outburst.
Initech
(102,841 posts)
Colgate 64
(14,840 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)I'm more inclined to blame open carry laws than anything else. People just walking around with high-power weapons, visibly ... nobody really knows anyone else's intent. That's a problem.
And this kid would have NEVER had the cajones to show up in that environment without his 'equalizer' at the ready and on display.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)No one should be open carrying at a protest (or at all, IMO). It invites this kind of thing. A gun always raises the probability of violence and death.
And teenagers open carrying in that environment.
Feels like it was only a matter of time.
hydrolastic
(532 posts)When the verdict was read. They were claiming this (self defense) from the beginning and it falls into the "constitutional carry" issue they talk about ALL the time. this is a huge problem and this verdict will only make it a lot worse. Sad day for America.
IrishAfricanAmerican
(4,189 posts)just as the "citizen's arrest" law in GA had to be repealed, the laws in most red states need to be rewritten. They are pushing 19th century legislation through at this time thinking it's guaranteeing "freedumb," in fact it's guaranteeing anarchy. Expect much more of this in the future until this nation gets its head out of its ass.
Yarnie
(90 posts)that showed LOTS of people with AR15s. It surprised me that so many people were so heavily armed.
janterry
(4,429 posts)we would have been left with the obvious conclusion that there are gaps in the law that need to be addressed.
jcgoldie
(12,046 posts)It is however a miscarriage of justice.
spicysista
(1,731 posts)
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Initech
(102,841 posts)Fuck that judge. Fuck Kyle Rittenhouse. Fuck the MAGAs. Fuck Matt Gaetz. Fuck Madison Cawthorn. Fuck the jury. Fuck everybody involved in this shit show.
They've basically legalized murder. What I'm worried about is that this is going to inspire copycats. The MAGAs, the NRA, Fox News, and Alex Jones have been upping the violent rhetoric and hysteria for years and now it's causing actual violence. It will inspire copycats who will probably now go judge shopping if the judge and jury are sympathetic to the MAGA cause.
Fuck. 
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Big fan!
My foam #1 hand has a gavel at the end.
quakerboy
(14,218 posts)and was a fan.
No surprises there.
lame54
(37,275 posts)Your love fest for the law
The court system is an open sewer that one should do what they can to avoid
It's not about truth and justice
It's about who plays the game better
Money has huge influence in outcomes
Look at the way Trump abuses the system to continue his life long public crime spree
Meanwhile poor defendants are lucky to get 10 minutes of a public defenders time before being sent up
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)The Wisconsin law is very clear about what does and does not constitute self defense in this case. It's been posted here countless times. Given all of the evidence, if I'm in that jury room looking at that law and those instructions, my verdict seems very clear to me.
Based on what the law is saying it's my duty to do.
When I lean hard on the law like that, I'm rebutting this idea or emotion that, "I don't like him or that he was there, so he should be guilty." And it's a sentiment that has run through a lot of arguments I've been reading. "He should be guilty because I feel this way about him and/or his behavior."
That can't be the basis for a justice system.
That's what I'm arguing against in saying what I am.
Colgate 64
(14,840 posts)the law is or isn't. Adds a lot to the discussion.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Colgate 64
(14,840 posts)what it means.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)If I'm wrong on something, I have no problem with someone pointing it out. I don't have trouble acknowledging when I get something incorrect.
So anyone's welcome to let me know. But I think I've been more accurate than most with things, everything given.
Colgate 64
(14,840 posts)obviously didn't hear/see everything the jury did and certainly weren't subject to the jury's deliberations?
Response to Colgate 64 (Reply #79)
demmerick This message was self-deleted by its author.
dchill
(40,916 posts)Hav
(5,969 posts)There are outcomes we would prefer and then there are outcomes that are likely to happen.
I remember posters here, even before the trial started, explaining their opinion after checking out the available video evidence and that people should be prepared that he will likely not get convicted.
If people lose their shit now, the cycle continues.
tirebiter
(2,602 posts)What was their approach and why didn’t it work?
Jedi Guy
(3,324 posts)In any trial the prosecution has to prove the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. But with this trial, they had to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a significant hurdle. The way WI's self-defense statute is worded, the only way the prosecution could undermine it was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse went there with the specific intent to provoke people into attacking him so he could shoot them.
That might be why they resorted to taking risks like mischaracterizing what the video evidence showed, skating right up to the line of violating Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights, and trying to sneak in evidence that the judge had forbidden.
Also, the prosecution's own witnesses didn't help their case. One of them was another person who showed up to the protests with a gun, and his testimony characterized Rosenbaum as hyperaggressive, hostile, unstable, etc. When Gaige Grosskreutz was cross-examined, he admitted to inadvertently pointing his gun at Rittenhouse prior to being shot in the arm. When the prosecution's witnesses are giving testimony that aids the defense, they're in trouble.
that they charged him so quickly that they couldn't have done much of an investigation. Maybe he was overcharged from the beginning.
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,672 posts)When did the video of Rittenhouse being chased surface? Did they have that before they charged him w/ 1st Degree Murder? Did the prosecutor know he had a hopeless case? Is that why he was pulling the stunts that could've caused a mistrial?
Amishman
(5,843 posts)and noting the disconnect between what was being discussed and what was on video
The drone one has a way better angle, and given that it was from the FBI, likely was not available for a while.
That being said, there were plenty of videos circulating when they charged him that should have made them think twice about going that aggressively.
Hav
(5,969 posts)chasing him which let to the first shooting and he therefore couldn't claim self-defense anymore. The jury apparently disagreed, it seems both on the provocation part and on the part that Rittenhouse would lose his right to defend himself despite running away.
Further, the prosecution argued that the second and third victims had as much of a right to self-defense and were reasonable in seeing Rittenhouse as a threat. That's just the short version from an almost 2 hour closing.
I thought the prosecution seemed desperate when they had to argue that Huber "only" had a skateboard or that Rittenhouse was only kicked. That was a major warning sign for me. They tried to downplay the attacks on Rittenhouse which I think was even off-putting for DUers that were otherwise in fully supporting the prosecution's narrative.
I don't buy into the conspiracy shit that the prosecution deliberately threw this case, I honestly think it was a tough case for them.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)I don't know what led Kraus to go there. He was flustered and pissed about the defense said about them, but still. I couldn't believe it was his argument.
Binger did a good job on closing, much better than we'd seen for the entirety of the trial.
Then it felt like Kraus came in and undid everything. That rebuttal was just . . . wow.
Hav
(5,969 posts)It was such a horrible argument. Not only was it a concession that Rittenhouse was under attack, he expected the jury to agree with him that a person should just take the beating. He unintentionally made an argument for self-defense but in an offensive manner.
DallasNE
(7,620 posts)Was always problematic with Rosenbaum. Huber was a different matter. Rittenhouse had already fired 4 shots, setting up an active shooter situation. Huber would have been viewed as a hero had he been able to disarm Rittenhouse. His lunge was off-balance so he fell and instead Rittenhouse shot and killed him. What Huber did next would determine whether it was self defense for Rittenhouse. If Huber made no more advances then I could see reckless endangerment but if Huber again made an attempt to disarm him then Rittenhouse could claim self defense. I didn't follow the testimony so I don't know the answer to that. But the verdict, like with George Zimmerman, sets up an opportunity for still another shooting of this nature. And there is no shortage of willing participants.
Response to tirebiter (Reply #26)
Name removed Message auto-removed
localroger
(3,729 posts)...based on the absolute technical letter of the law. A lot of the stuff Rittenhouse did probably should have been illegal but isn't, and some of it won't be for a long time if ever. I suspect the long deliberation was because of a few holdouts who wanted to convict him of something, anything, and they had to go through each charge point by point establishing that no, there really wasn't any basis under the instructions they had been given for a conviction. The defense's case may have been infuriating, but every one of their points was valid. Meanwhile, the prosecution overcharged and made other mistakes, like not measuring the barrel of the gun before filing the weapons charge. And as noted elsewhere, the media were worse than useless.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Underage kid walking around open carrying an AR-15? Just no way that was legal.
Oh . . . it was? What is this law . . .
People are all pissed off about the verdict, but I'm all pissed off at the media. How did that much misinformation permeate when we had all this video for over a year?
And it's my fault too. I read things and assumed they were true. I didn't go digging either until the trial began.
DallasNE
(7,620 posts)And that issue was never brought up. Why?
The Judge just ruled that with conflicted laws on legal age the prosecution choose the wrong law. He did not cite case law so this may not be a settled legal issue. Generally the more general law must give way to the more specific law. That may be the case here but it was not a consideration in the ruling as near as I can tell.
Who will be the 3rd. First we had George Zimmerman and now we have Kyle Rittenhouse. There will be a 3rd.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Well stated.
I saw posters here claim he bought the weapon and crossed state lines with it.that his mother drove him. That he shot black people. I read that all here.
GusBob
(7,620 posts)I paraphrase: 'If I was on a jury I would vote solely based on my conscience' in the ensuing discussion the poster proudly claimed not to consider the facts, the law, or anything weighing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant
that was actually scary to read
quakerboy
(14,218 posts)Likely by rittenhouse, without doubt by others.
localroger
(3,729 posts)Just because he made it across this time without losing his drink doesn't mean he will pull it off again. He won the lottery in that he killed two people and maimed a third without doing a single thing that made it possible to hang a charge on him that the prosecution bothered to press. If the lesson he takes from this is that he is invincible, he will receive correction more quickly than anybody likely expects.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Harry Mudd was in MUDD'S WOMEN and I MUDD. You're thinking of Cyrano Jones.
localroger
(3,729 posts)I find mixed metaphors make a nice cocktail. Always something surprising. Now where did I put the Jagermeister...
Philosophizing Fool
(73 posts)Doing more than just listening to the talking heads would have caused one to realize quickly we were being riled up. Doesn't matter why he was there, it was legal, and he was attacked by members of our community, politically if not in reality. It may have allowed us to be more open to misinformation, we are all vulnerable, wanting "our" side to be right in this travesty. Hurts the pride, unquestionably, and also makes one wonder what else may be delivered in a deceiving way.
Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)I'll let you find where you missed something huge.
You write:
The evidence was plain and present.
- Rosenbaum was an aggressive, unstable man all night, making threats and trying to start fights with people and starting fires. This is on video. He chased Rittenhouse. This is on video. Rittenhouse retreated. This is on video.
Then you immediately --without pausing--write this:
- After shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse again retreated.....
Any particular thing you appear to be missing here?
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)I didn't do a play by play of the event, granted. He circled around, looked at Rosenbaum, made a phone call then ran. So, what am I missing?
Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)You completely and ridiculously gloss over the actual fact that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, which is the very crux of the entire case and critical for everything that occurred afterwards.
Which demands us to ask, why?
Why did Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum?
He says it was in fear for his life.
Was it the plastic bag Rosenbaum threw? A verbal threat? Rittenhouse claiming Rosenbaum reached for the gun that he was waving at him?
The actual threat to Rittenhouse's life that caused him to shoot was never clear, and you--by glossing over it--are admitting as much.
Rittenhouse supposedly being in fear for his life is the essence of begging the question. But he and his lawyers sold it well, and he got to be the 18 year old kid, and his victims weren't very sympathetic, and he had a judge that was acting in a manner that--for those in the legal profession--could probably be described as "unorthodox" in as gentle terms as possible. So that's how we got to today.
But Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum was everything. Once he did that, he was an active shooter waltzing down the street with an AR-15. Police would have been justified to take him out at that point if they wanted to. Instead, he shot two more people in a situation that was entirely of his creation. And the actions of those last two victims were for all intents and purposes besides the point.
I'm sorry, but your "analysis" is 100% bunk.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)He chased Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse retreated. Video and witnesses. He lunged forward at Rittenhouse. Video and witnesses. His hand was either on or very close to the gun. Video and forensic evidence.
Even if you disagree with the evidence or see it another way, there's another standard you're not bringing into play.
Is there reasonable doubt?
In my opinion, plenty.
Based on video, forensic evidence, and witnesses.
Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)Kyle Rittenhouse, who was not an officer of the law, but rather some private civilian who voluntarily decided to bring a non-concealable semi-automatic rifle into a heavily volatile situation, is somehow afforded the privilege of shooting a person because of...a hand.
A hand.
Versus an AR-15.
If you don't think on a rational basis that's not completely ass-backwards, I don't know what else to tell you.
But I guess it measures up to the "sidewalk as a weapon" line that got George Zimmerman off.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)The prosecutor tried that in his rebuttal. It did not go over well. "Everyone takes a beating sometimes." He also claimed a skateboard couldn't be a deadly weapon.
I don't think the jury liked that one. I know I didn't.
We have seen many times a single punch kill someone. And did any of Rosenbaum's behavior that night on video strike you as the kind of situation where, "Hrm, this man is chasing me. I think I'll just stand here and see what happens."
At some point, common sense must reign.
Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)And I think you know that.
At least if you actually do have common sense like you claim you do.
EX500rider
(11,652 posts)People killed by hands & feet: 662
People killed by all rifles of which AR-15's are a subset: 455
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)…someone with their hands, who are you going to honestly claim has the advantage?
And be honest here.
EX500rider
(11,652 posts)
ProfessorGAC
(71,052 posts)Everyone has hands & feet. The vast majority of us have 2 of each.
That's roughly 1.3 billion hands & feet in the US.
The % of the population that has an AR-15 is a tiny number. There's about 15 million AR-15s in the US. Some owners have more than 1. So, there's a maximum of 15 million owners. About 4.4%
You're using a mathematical comparison, not a statistical analysis.
To illustrate, I will not use stats, either. 1.3 billion hands & feet, 15 million of those rifles. 86:1 ratio.
That is statistically apropos of nothing.
Just like your figures above.
EX500rider
(11,652 posts)...then something that is less, requardless of total numbers in circulation.
Redleg
(6,272 posts)you would turn down the rifle and just trust in your hands and feet because of your belief in statistical data.
EX500rider
(11,652 posts)Hav
(5,969 posts)It would still be the same powerful and more dangerous hands and feet. Soldiers should learn to take advantage of that.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)The point is that one is not expected to be assaulted by hands, fists, feet, skateboards or Glock 9mm's before using an AR-15 in self defense just because it is more powerful. You could also make a point that the Glock was the better firearm for the situation as it can be aimed and fired faster at close range.
yagotme
(4,016 posts)So, why did Rosenbaum charge him, and supposedly try to take it away? Reportedly he had recently been released from a mental hospital, and that may have something to do with it. It's just plain crazy to run someone down that is carrying a rifle, and get to contact distance, while acting in an aggressive manner.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)You're a very curious one, Devil Child.
d_b
(7,463 posts)I’ll never attend another protest without my Walther — that’s for damn sure.
orangecrush
(22,306 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Total agreement with your viewing of the media's role in this whole ordeal.
WHITT
(2,868 posts)that if Rittenhouse had been found guilty, Col. Klink would granted the motion from the defense for a mistrial.
This was heads the defense wins, tails the prosecution loses, from the getgo. The bias has been overwhelming at every step.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)I've asked in threads again and again what it meant that the judge was not ruling on those dismissal motions. Because I don't know. Can you declare a mistrial after a verdict is rendered? I know you can vacate one.
But he didn't want the media heat. It was clear the media scrutiny was getting to him. He seemed prickly and even thin-skinned about it.
He wanted the jury to do this. He wanted off the hook.
His wish was granted.
Colgate 64
(14,840 posts)pinkstarburst
(1,565 posts)I was not at all surprised at the verdict.
Rosenbaum (1st person killed) who threw something at Rittenhouse, was a homeless man who had spent 10 years in prison. He had tried to start fires and start fights with other people earlier in the night and had just been released from the hospital after a suicide attempt.
Huber (2nd person killed) ran at Rittenhouse and began hitting him with his skateboard.
The paramedic who was shot had a gun and was pointing it at Rittenhouse.
Put a large group of angry people together, some of whom are unstable, some of whom have guns, and of course something like this happens.
No one, not a single person there, should have been out there rioting that night. No one should have brought guns.
And if people choose to riot in the streets tonight, and bring guns, don't be surprised if this happens again.
geardaddy
(25,374 posts)It's ok to kill him?
It's okay to kill him if he threatens you, chases you and tries to assault you.
Being a convicted child rapist just gives the rest of us another reason to believe you are capable of violence and that the witness testimony against you was true to character and believable.
Progressive Jones
(6,011 posts)How did Huber get turned into an "attacker" in this case? Anyone who tried to bring down
Rittenhose after the first murder was doing the right thing.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)You can't just chase someone down you feel may have broken the law, whether or not they actually did, and be the aggressor against a target trying to flee the scene. I don't think any law in any state would allow for that.
The second Rittenhouse was running, Huber became the "Attacker" in the eyes of the law.
Progressive Jones
(6,011 posts)So now citizens aren't supposed to chase down a criminal attempting to escape justice ???
They are suddenly the " bad guy" ?
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Hell, even cops have a grey area in that regard. They can't chase a fleeing suspect and put rounds in his back, for instance; You can't run someone down like a dog and assault/murder them, I.E. the case currently being tried in Georgia. In any case where that happens, yes, the attacker is the "Bad guy".
yagotme
(4,016 posts)So, Huber is judge, jury, and possibly, executioner? Chasing a "suspect", who is armed, and running toward a police line, and assaulting him, well, he obviously didn't think his actions through.
pinkstarburst
(1,565 posts)This whole mess was instigated by Rosenbaum, the bipolar homeless ex-con (10 years in prison) who sexually assaulted a child, who had just been released from the hospital for a suicide attempt, and who attacked Rittenhouse after repeatedly stalking him, and who had spent all night attacking other people and trying to start fires.
After Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him (I have zero problem calling this self-defense), then the whole situation became very muddled. If you are Huber or Gaige Grosskreutz, from your perspective, you believe there is now an active shooter and you are heroically taking them down. But this is not not actually the case.
If you are Rittenhouse, you have just been stalked and assaulted by Rosenbaum, and acted in self-defense, and now Huber is running you and attacking you, bashing your head in with a skateboard. Grosskreutz is pointing a gun at your head. So now from your point of view, you are acting to defend yourself.
The first shooting was a result of Rosenbaum being mentally unbalanced and looking to start trouble. The last two shootings were a tragedy because no one could tell the intentions of the other person.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Rosenbaum was the catalyst for the escalation to violence.
Captain Stern
(2,219 posts)It's only been a surprise to a minority of people, that speak loud.
I don't think Rittenhouse was out there to 'do good', and help people. I think he wanted to play vigilante/soldier. I don't have proof of that. But, that's the impression I've gotten.
But the folks he shot, were coming at him. That's a fact. We actually do have proof of that.
The law is what it is. Maybe there should be a serious discussion about changing the law.
Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)And the first guy threw a plastic bag. Or maybe reached for Rittenhouse's gun, we're told.
Captain Stern
(2,219 posts)It doesn't matter what you or I were 'told'.
That's the truth.
I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.
Twelve jurors voted unanimously to not convict.
That's a fact.
Crepuscular
(1,062 posts)You forgot to mention that the first guy had also previously said to Rittenhouse, in front of witnesses, "if I get you alone I'm going to kill you" or something to that effect. He then chased Rittenhouse.
It seems pretty reasonable to think that if someone threatens verbally to kill you, chases you and then tr's to grab the gun out of your hand, that he's not doing so for benevolent reasons. Couple that with somebody else firing a gun in close proximity while this is happening and I can easily see how the Jury found that the prosecution failed to overcome reasonable doubt that this was self defense.
Tommy Carcetti
(43,635 posts)Does not change the power dynamic of who has the gun and who does not.
demmerick
(19 posts)Jacob Blake(who was wanted for sexual assault) goes back to the woman’s house, steals her car keys, and tries to take her cars and kids. She calls the cops. They show up and Blake pulls a knife when they try to arrest him. He gets shot. In response to the shooting, a protest starts and turns into a riot. During the riot, some white loser shoots three other white losers.
The entire thing is a hot mess filled with all sorts of shitty characters. None of it deserved any serious attention. Yet so many people are acting like this is some defining moment. I truly don’t understand why we can’t let this one go.
Captain Stern
(2,219 posts)My point has nothing to do at all with the what may, or may not have, caused unrest in Kenosha.
I was talking about the trial, and the trial alone.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)Ace Rothstein
(3,302 posts)Jedi Guy
(3,324 posts)Anyone who actually watched the trial could have predicted this outcome, particularly once it became clear that the narrative as framed by the media (professional and Twitterverse) was incorrect. The sheer amount of misinformation and outright fabrication was astounding. I was shocked at how many times blatantly false information cropped up on DU threads about the trial.
And now the conspiracy theories will fly in earnest regarding the prosecutor(s), judge, and jury. Some or all of them were in cahoots from the start to let Rittenhouse walk, because reasons. That's the only possible explanation for an acquittal. It simply couldn't be because of facts, evidence, and law. The mere idea is just silly.
This incident and trial were quite eye-opening, though. It's evident that people on both sides of the aisle are largely incapable of being objective and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. People on both sides of the aisle are perfectly willing and able to ignore evidence that is inconvenient to what they want to believe.
bullwinkle428
(20,645 posts)an assault rifle, and ended up killing two people while wounding a third, the verdict would be quite different.
Those willing to argue this point are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
As far as the main point of the OP - I'm personally not the least bit surprised by the verdict.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Not going to argue with that thought even remotely.
The point is to get a fair trial for everyone. We're nowhere close to it.
Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #71)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)If a black man legally attended a MAGAT rally, armed with an AR-15 and the exact chain of events played out, he would have a harder time getting an acquittal or even leaving alive. I don't think anyone would argue against that.
But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been aquitted.
TwilightZone
(28,834 posts)I know you've taken a lot of shit over the past couple weeks and I just wanted to note that I appreciated your posts and viewpoints. I was pretty well prepared for this, though hoping the outcome would be different, of course.
I've always found that our grasp of facts and reality are what separate us from the GOP, but at times, we can insist on promoting myths with the best of 'em. This was certainly one of those times.
Upthevibe
(9,330 posts)Thank you for your thorough assessment.
There's a Psychologist who puts out videos who I respect a lot - Dr. Grande.
I watched his video a few days ago. It definitely made me think about this horrible situation in a different way.
I appreciate your post. Thank you.
jeffreyi
(2,111 posts)I had a knee-jerk reaction to this news...haven't really been following it, but it seems odd that he is not found guilty of at least, something. However, looks like the jury did what they had to do given the circumstances.
Quixote1818
(30,449 posts)
maxsolomon
(35,492 posts)And all 3 victims would be fine as well.
This is a wet dream for RW Militias. They'll start inserting themselves provocatively and aggressively in to every left wing protest, looking for an excuse to open fire.
Kaleva
(38,749 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)
Meowmee
(6,485 posts)Then it would have been a surprise to me.
Jedi Guy
(3,324 posts)
MarineCombatEngineer
(14,558 posts)So, in your mind, the jurors are nazi's because they didn't return a verdict you wanted?
Meowmee
(6,485 posts)You are the one who sounds stupid imo.
MarineCombatEngineer
(14,558 posts)Well, alrighty then.
Meowmee
(6,485 posts)If all you have to resort to is calling me stupid by default you are not worth my time.
MarineCombatEngineer
(14,558 posts)
IzzaNuDay
(744 posts)Their crimes should have been addressed by the judicial system, not being executed by some 17YO punk carrying an AR-15 trying to play Rambo medic (more Rambo than medic) on a weeknight.
yaesu
(8,400 posts)you can called it the way you see it & I will call it how I see it, just like tRump and the criminal GOP getting away with murdering 1oo's of thousands of Americans, it is what it is.
aeromanKC
(3,516 posts)DiegoGarcia
(4 posts)and it showed...
ananda
(31,053 posts)Of course, if Rittenhouse were Black.... it would be a whole
nother story.
EX500rider
(11,652 posts)...don't chase or attack people with guns.
Much safer to mind your own business and go the other way.
bluecollar2
(3,622 posts)If only we all could be as thoughtful and methodical in our reasoning.
I suspected from the beginning that there was no intent, that this punk got caught up in a situation he was unable to handle and ended up in court.
How he got himself into the situation and what were the factors that facilitated it need to be assesed.
brettdale
(12,635 posts)If Rittenhouse had been black walking down the street with his gun, the police would've shot him dead straight away.
madville
(7,496 posts)And three white men were verbally threatening him, chasing him, physically attacking him, and pulled a gun on him, would he have been reasonably in fear for his life and justified in shooting them?
Raine
(30,666 posts)Thanks for such a well thought out post. 
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)The writing's been on the wall for weeks. The Prosecutors overcharged, brought wrong charges, didn't examine even their own evidence (Forensics) that supported the Defense, brought in witnesses that flat-out cemented the Defense's "Self Defense" claim, submitted video evidence that exonerated the Defense, and that's not even bringing up the host of procedural fuckups (Looking at the Fifth Amendment bits) or the grossly ineffectual efforts to blame violent videogames or suggesting that Rittenhouse should have just get himself get hit because "Everyone takes a beating sometimes, right?"
And all that shit's completely disregarding anything the judge did. The Prosecution was handed an unwinnable case; even the Judge knew it. He could have dismissed with prejudice, but why bother when the Prosecution was the Defense's best case and evidence for a surefire not-guilty plea?
People who thought that there would be any result other than "Not Guilty" weren't following the case -at all-. This has been kind of an understood thing elsewhere on the internet, including Law forums, pretty much since the trial began and only got more obvious as time went on.
Captain Stern
(2,219 posts)Firstly, most people in this country didn't even know anything about this trial. That's just the truth. My best bet is that about 1 in ten folks in this country have even heard of this trial.
Secondly, people that did know this trial was going on, didn't know much about it.
What happened is that a guy that may have committed a crime, or crimes, was charged. The prosecution couldn't prove the guy was guilty. Case ends.
That's how it's supposed to work. Other than, "guy is assumed to be guilty..defense must prove he's not"..it works that way far too often.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)I knew nothing abut this trial until today - probably because I don't watch cable news.
So after the verdict and all of the posts on DU, I read the account as described by Wikipedia. I could hardly believe what I was reading, because it was nothing like I expected, based on DU comments. I wondered how the prosecution thought they could get a first degree murder conviction - it made no sense.
This is a good example of how politics makes people ignore facts and logic.
Hav
(5,969 posts)to discuss this topic rationally and just based on the facts while almost of all us lack a legal background. People are quick to throw out the wildest claims with nothing to back it up.
Sometimes, we delude ourselves into believing a narrative only because it confirms our biases. And unfortunately, even when reality hits like today, some still cannot snap out of it because it's not the comfortable thing to do. Just look at the major, dark tone of the threads that this event has caused.
PDT69
(37 posts)I agree with it all.
ismnotwasm
(42,486 posts)The media coverage, the misinformation is exceptionally fucked up.
The emotional part, “why was that little shit inserting himself in a situation *openly armed* for any reason then to cause trouble” is still there
But, I’m not as angry at the verdict.
yaesu
(8,400 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 19, 2021, 10:32 PM - Edit history (1)
the case was thrown, justice was not done, Im not surprised the justice system deems another fascist is above the law, following in the footsteps of the flushed turd.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,936 posts)Things have really changed here recently. The hatred toward the left-wing of the party has really tilted things.
ismnotwasm
(42,486 posts)Response to Sympthsical (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Sympthsical (Original post)
Post removed
ripcord
(5,553 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)ripcord
(5,553 posts)I'm not saying you are wrong it is just hard to grasp.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)being the defenders of the people who operate in the shadows of protests, to destroy property. This then becomes a burden on the Democratic party.
When you wonder why the Democratic party has problems beating inept Republicans, keep this in mind.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)But he went there looking for trouble, found it, and left three bodies in the street in the process.
There should have been consequences. I guess we get to wait to see how the civil suit and possibly the federal civil rights charges go.
Raine
(30,666 posts)Redleg
(6,272 posts)I don't know the extent to which the 3 victims had committed crimes that night prior to meeting with Rittenhouse. I understand that one had started a dumpster fire. Are we supposed to accept that being shot and killed or wounded is a just penalty for arson or for violating curfew or for breaking windows? Nobody here that I know of is defending rioting or arson. Even so, don't the accused rioters/arsonists have right to a fair trial after they are charged with a crime by those legally empowered to enforce the laws? We'll never know how two of the victims would have testified in court because they were both killed.
Yes, liberals can lose on this issue when we adopt the framing the right uses. It is also true that some of the folks here at DU were duped by mis-information about what occurred. But surely this cannot be as bad as some on the right saying that Rittenhouse is a hero deserving of the Congressional (sic) Medal of Honor or a legislative internship with a US congressperson. These examples were from ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS and should surely carry more weight than what Joe Schmuckatello from the DU forum has to say about it.
Hav
(5,969 posts)and it just seems to be a counterreaction that Repub idiots want to invite him to Congress.
But to clarify one aspect, those 3 weren't shot for rioting or arson. The defense's claim is that they were shot in an act of self-defense, not because they were seen starting a fire.
I also hate trashing the victims but this is a case where Dems have to be careful with their messaging. Rosenbaum spent many years in prison for raping children I think.
Redleg
(6,272 posts)the way that the right is idolizing Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shot them because he claimed that he felt threatened. Couldn't the two dead victims have claimed the same, had they lived?
yagotme
(4,016 posts)Carrying signs claiming "hero" status. The 2 deceased individuals were chasing/assaulting KR, as GG was. I doubt their claim would carry any more weight than GG's did.
Redleg
(6,272 posts)No, they're not. That's the big difference. The GOP has a lot of fringe nuts in elected office, Democrats seem to have only a few.
Quixote1818
(30,449 posts)
KT2000
(21,031 posts)Why was Rittenhouse there in the first place. He wanted to serve as a vigilante. Protesters see a teenager with an AR-15 and any attempt to stop or subdue him is to be interpreted as a threat to him and every action Rittenhouse takes is considered self defense.
This decision puts all shooters in malls, schools, theaters, in charge through self defense if anyone tries to stop them.
The gun charge should not have been thrown out.
Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)He's not charged with "being there in the first place." I don't think he should've been there either.
Any attempt to assault someone - gun or not - triggers self-defense for the person being assaulted. If someone has a gun, it's not legally a threat until there's a provocation (i.e. pointing the gun at someone).
The gun charge was thrown out because Rittenhouse didn't break the law.
People can't be guilty just because you feel what they did was wrong. You have to have laws a person has broken so you can charge them and try them in court.
KT2000
(21,031 posts)a part of the law.
yagotme
(4,016 posts)cannot shoot someone that is trying to stop him, and claim self defense. He has to stop committing the crime. This has been gone over so many times here, I don't know why it's still being brought up. KR was retreating, before he fired on anyone. He was being chased by a man that had previously threatened to kill him. He ran into a parking area, and was partially blocked by the cars, where he turned and fired on Rosenbaum, who was still running toward him. At basically point blank range. The rest of the time, a large group of people were chasing him, some of them assaulting him. He was not there to shoot anyone and everyone. He had ample opportunity to do that, and did not, unlike a mass shooter.
KT2000
(21,031 posts)with his AR-15 is asking for trouble and that is exactly why he was there in the first place. Seventeen year olds do not have mature judgement. At 17 he has murdered two people. The school shooting has "authorized" people trying to stop a shooter - no matter who it is. The difference is it was protesters trying to stop the idiot. In Kenosha, the protesters were guilty by just being there and had no right to stop a shooter. Just ask their police.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)He was never the aggressor and was attacked by Rosenbaum for no reason.
yagotme
(4,016 posts)Wrong. Killed 2 people. There is a legal difference between the two.
48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)Seems like a lot of folks are homeless.