Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts

[Beemerguy53]

...The continued publicity will do Rittenhouse no personal good. He's being set up as a "Poster Boy" in the cultural debate.

Bingo! He is being exploited by both sides in this ongoing debate.

If he were my son, or my friend, I would be urging him to avoid the spotlight as much as possible. The people who were upset by his acquittal have been demanding that the federal government go after him for civil rights violations, and if there haven't been civil suits filed yet, there surely will be. The best thing he can do right now is try to be as low-key as possible. That won't be easy (just ask George Zimmerman) but doing interviews, putting himself out there as a 2nd Amendment hero, isn't very helpful, in my opinion...

 

[CB3]

The continued publicity will do
Rittenhouse no personal good.
He's being set up as a
"Poster Boy" in the cultural debate.

Laying low by changing his residence, continuing counseling, and following the advice of helpful and trusted legal advisors will certainly help Kyle.

As far as being a tool in cultural wars, check out how that worked out for those trying to use Nick Sandman.

I expect Rittenhouse will follow the same course and do as well financially. There are personal risk/reward evaluations to make on this course, but civil legal wins for him will advance the cause of justice and Rule of Law. There is a price to pay for lying to the American public, and it should be paid. Kyle will collect.

 

[djohns6]

The kid should not have been there . He was extremely fortunate that things worked out in his favor . It was not his place to show up and try to defend anything . I'm glad he wasn't railroaded but the next person to try that might not be so fortunate .

 

[smoothshooter]

And that is precisely why he had no business going there.

How would it have been different if he had been older?

Perhaps For Rittenhouse it was an easier decision to do what needed to be done because as a 17 year old, he was unencumbered with worries in the back of his mind about a mortgage, wife, kids, etc.
Most of us do not have the courage to do what needs to be done to stop the unravelling of the fabric of our society because of the above-mentioned concerns.

Unfortunately Rittenhouse is not totally off the hook yet. His life for the next several years will be a Purgatory of death threats, attempts on his life, doxxing, lawsuits, and having to watch his back at all times.

 

[UncleEd]

Once again to stress a
point, Rittenhouse for his
own best interests should
stay out of the limelight,
grant no interviews or
invite any media attention.

One misstatement, however
innocent and unintended, can
cause him grief.

Regarding lawsuits and counter
suits he must rely on his
attorneys and keep his
mouth shut. The only words
he should be allowed to utter
are "no comment."

 

[Puller]

Let's look at this case from a slightly different perspective. A number of people believe Rittenhouse shouldn't have been present on the streets that night, and while being there, he was looking for trouble. In one respect, it could be said that he was assisting in the protection of private property, a core concept behind what is perceived to be an American. If we look at the pre-liberal hijacking of the educational community, weren't we teaching our young to cherish and stand up for the American way of life and it's ideals?

I'm not trying to paint Rittenhouse as a patriot, but for those that say that a 17 year old shouldn't have been armed and on the streets of Kenosha that night, how many young people under 21 were active in the Revolution standing for "the American ideals"? Was he not there exemplifying what we have condoned as core tenants of accepted American history?

How many here adhere to the premise that in order to effect change, we have the "soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box"? For those of us that carry, considering how volatile society can be, do we advocate carrying with an empty chamber, because we're not out looking for trouble? Remember, for every reason that we advance against Rittenhouse not being there armed helping to protect his community is a comparable argument against why we shouldn't be allowed to carry!

How many American Revolutionaries were 21 and under?

In 1776:
Alexander Hamilton was 20 years old.

Marquis de La Fayette was 19 years old.

Nathan Hale was 21 years old.

James Monroe was 18 years old.

Andrew Jackson, the future president, joined a local militia at age 13 and served as a patriot courier.

Sybil Ludington, the daughter of one of General George Washington's aids, successfully rode her horse for 40 miles to warn American soldiers of an impending British attack. She was 15 years old.

Joseph Plumb Martin joined the American militia in 1776 when he was only 15-years-old. The soldier fought in many notable battles, served in George Washington's Continental Army, and fought for the duration of the war.

Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee was 20 years old.

Benjamin Tallmadge famously oversaw the Culper Ring, a spy organization dedicated to aiding and protecting the Continental Congress. He was 21 years old.

The list is long in American history of young folks standing up to defend what they believed was right. Not the least of which is Audie Murphy who earned his last medal while still 19 years old.

 

[JcMack]

How many American Revolutionaries were 21 and under?

In 1776:
Alexander Hamilton was 20 years old.

Marquis de La Fayette was 19 years old.

Nathan Hale was 21 years old.

James Monroe was 18 years old.

Andrew Jackson, the future president, joined a local militia at age 13 and served as a patriot courier.

Sybil Ludington, the daughter of one of General George Washington's aids, successfully rode her horse for 40 miles to warn American soldiers of an impending British attack. She was 15 years old.

Joseph Plumb Martin joined the American militia in 1776 when he was only 15-years-old. The soldier fought in many notable battles, served in George Washington's Continental Army, and fought for the duration of the war.

Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee was 20 years old.

Benjamin Tallmadge famously oversaw the Culper Ring, a spy organization dedicated to aiding and protecting the Continental Congress. He was 21 years old.

The list is long in American history of young folks standing up to defend what they believed was right. Not the least of which is Audie Murphy who earned his last medal while still 19 years old.

The young adults mentioned in this post were patriots in a war against an oppressive tyrant. Todays 21 and unders listen to and believe the subversive, un American nonsense they learn in schools from kindergarten to college. These kids want "change" but they don't know what they're changing from since they banned the books containing the history prior to the invention of the cell phone.

 

[Absalom]

As far as being a tool in cultural wars, check out how that worked out for those trying to use Nick Sandman.
….

It's working out pretty well for those who are.

But Rittenhouse should be cautious about listening to Sandmann's "advice" currently peddled in interviews by a certain segment of the media.

Sandmann didn't actually DO anything, and always had the moral high ground in a clear case of character defamation. And the liberal media's coverage and misinterpretation of an actual non-event was so over the top that they just settled. If Jeff Bezos' lawyers don't think it's worth a fight, you're golden.

Rittenhouse, on the other hand, did kill two people. And a jury never finds you innocent, just not guilty of whatever specific charges the prosecution cooked up.

None of the material facts were ever in dispute, just their interpretation. He can easily still face civil litigation, with much lower standards of evidence. He'll have to decide how many fights he wants. Of course, the media would love all of them.

 

[djohns6]

The larger "case" that was heard, unofficially, is are we legally bound to watch a riot happen and do nothing if the folks that are paid to stop it allow it to happen.

In most cases , yes .

 

[arjay]

My only comment is that I hope that kid has some sane and intelligent adults in his life going forward who can keep him out of trouble. So far I'd say he's been a gullible patsy..

 

[UncleEd]

Regarding the posting on the
youthful Revolutionary War
veterans, people took on more
mature roles much earlier
than now. "Kids" were doing
adult work already from around
10 years old and on. Maturity
was forced on them.

I remember seeing a few pictures
of Italian partisans during WWII.
Those pre- and early teens already
looked old and hardened. Maturity
ws forced on them.

Much of our references to Rittenhouse
have been about his immaturity. Yet
his youthfulness is the same as
what was expended by the tens of
thousands in WWI, WWII, Korea and
Vietnam and today. But he didn't
have the hardening benefits that
a military training program can
impart at least to some degree.

 

[Beemerguy53]

How would it have been different if he had been older?

Perhaps For Rittenhouse it was an easier decision to do what needed to be done because as a 17 year old, he was unencumbered with worries in the back of his mind about a mortgage, wife, kids, etc.
Most of us do not have the courage to do what needs to be done to stop the unravelling of the fabric of our society because of the above-mentioned concerns.

Unfortunately Rittenhouse is not totally off the hook yet. His life for the next several years will be a Purgatory of death threats, attempts on his life, doxxing, lawsuits, and having to watch his back at all times.

You know, you ask a very good question, sir: How would it have been different had he been older? And the answer is, I think, that someone a little older, and more mature, would have made better decisions, would not have inserted himself into such a volatile situation, especially one where he had no personal stake in what was going on.

We all care about what's happening in our society. The public displays of violent conduct over the past 18 months, from Minneapolis in the summer of 2020, to the US Capitol last January, have been inexcusable. But in my opinion, the way to address that is to hold politicians' feet to the fire, and insist they honor their oaths by maintaining order.

I have no problem with people defending their own homes or businesses from looters or vandals. (The Korean merchants in Los Angeles who protected their stores back in 1992, during the week-long Rodney King riots, are perfect examples, in my book, of the value of the 2nd Amendment.) But in my opinion, going to the scene of a riot while armed, where you don't have a personal stake in the outcome, is just looking for trouble.

 

[sigp220.45]

He had every right to be where he was, to have a rifle with him, and to defend himself when attacked, all hand-wringing aside.

 

[djohns6]

He had every right to be where he was, to have a rifle with him, and to defend himself when attacked, all hand-wringing aside.

Yes , but that's an oversimplification of the situation . With all of those things in his favor , he still came very close to going to jail . For everybody that said this was a slam dunk case , remember it still took three days to get that favorable verdict . That tells me that were some on that jury that needed convincing of his innocence . Things could have easily gone real bad for him .

 

[biku324]

The kid should not have been there . He was extremely fortunate that things worked out in his favor . It was not his place to show up and try to defend anything . I'm glad he wasn't railroaded but the next person to try that might not be so fortunate .

There! Exactly right - there are unlikely to be more baby-faced 17-year-olds who will honestly break down on the stand.

 

[Chuck24]

He shouldn't have been there? Don't they call that victim shaming? As in she shouldn't have been there or she was wearing provocative clothes?

 

[88IROC]

What not to do in a crowded courtroom:

From the Alec Baldwin school of firearms safety...

 

[Kanewpadle]

Just a thought. But has anyone here ever tried to tell an 18 year old where they can or can't go? What they can or can't do? Good luck with that.

I believe in his heart he thought he was doing the right thing. Isn't that all you can ask from one so young?

He did something foolish and unwise. Something most of us would not have done. But he didn't do anything illegal. And when he needed to defend himself he used good judgement. He didn't spray and pray. He used appropriate force.

As has already been mentioned, the discussion needs to be about the bad guys. They came looking for trouble and found it. The families of those that were shot need to sue the city and politicians that allowed this event to get out of hand.

 

[Skeet 028]

Actually, yes, as many as 250 arrests by local, state
and federal authorities including two who
were indicted for arson. Stories are available
on internet if you care.

But have they been tried in court? Will they be tried? Prosecutors are sometimes refusing to try these people breaking the law. I think arson should rank up there close to murder. As far as the guy with the handgun... He got probation in that case where he threatened people with a gun while drunk. You do know you don't have to be foung guilty of a felony to lose the right to own a firearm?..even a misdemeanor can get you to lose those rights if you COULD have received a sentence of more than a year.(per the 68 GCA. Read the 4473) I'll bet threatening someone with a gun qualifies for more than a year in jail. Heck I know a fellow that was involved in a bar altercation more than 45 years ago(in Chicago) who can't pass a background check and he only paid a 75 dollar fine for being in a bar fight.

 

[Absalom]

He shouldn't have been there? Don't they call that victim shaming? As in she shouldn't have been there or she was wearing provocative clothes?

You can call that what you want, but we should be allowed to criticize bad tactical choices even if it possibly offends the sensibilities of folks who want to celebrate the kid as a hero.

Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, just like Custer shouldn't have been where he was. Rittenhouse just got very lucky a few times. Custer didn't.

 

[Rodan]

From the Alec Baldwin school of firearms safety...

 

[88IROC]

Rule 1: If you think you will need a gun, stay home. Don't cross state lines with a weapon to perform cop work unless you are a cop and actually have to.

For the record, he didn't cross the stateline with the weapon. He picked it up here.

 

[88IROC]

Have heard that the wounded person was a felon in possession of a firearm. Anyone know if this is true, and if so has anyone attempted to prosecute him?

Not a felon but he (Grosskreutz) did have a handgun, pointed it at Rittenhouse and then testified that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the handgun at Rittenhouse. And Grosskreutz was a prosecution witness!

 

[sigp220.45]

Yes , but that's an oversimplification of the situation . With all of those things in his favor , he still came very close to going to jail . For everybody that said this was a slam dunk case , remember it still took three days to get that favorable verdict . That tells me that were some on that jury that needed convincing of his innocence . Things could have easily gone real bad for him .

Because the prosecution filed "riot prevention" charges. And the impetus for the original riot - the Jacob Blake shooting - was also found to be justified.

All they do with this stuff is kick the can down the road until there is an acquittal, then you get some more riots. I suspect the jurors dragged it out to either give the appearance of a thorough deliberation, or more likely they took their time and carefully looked at each charge and the jury instructions before they acquitted him of the whole mess.

How about they just stop the riots?

I get it - just because you can go somewhere doesn't mean you should. But this kid was never the aggressor. Not doing something that is legal and your right to do because you fear being wrongly charged? Where would we be if that had been the norm for the last few hundred years?

 

[somorris]

Most folks here are saying Kyle shouldn't have been there. I know at least some here know that a large part of Kyle's family lived in Kenosha. Why shouldn't he have been there? The mobs were burning down people's businesses, burning their cars, looting and beating people. I personally saw video of an older woman trying to get the rioters to leave her business alone, and was beaten with a 2x4 for her efforts. I suspect Kyle went to Kenosha to try to protect his family there. He took the gun because he knew it was dangerous, like most of us would.

 

[zeke]

Sure, sure, but he was a convicted felon, up until his felony conviction was expunged. So yes, an expunged conviction is no longer a conviction, except he was previously a convicted felon, so there's that. What I described in my original post is what I have seen reported, that's why I described it as, 'my understanding,' and I believe it to be credible reporting. That said, I give you that there's a whole bunch of information out there, I'm beginning to wonder if the sky is really blue!

That said, I think most reasonable people understand that this guy is a dirt bag, with a long, and considerable criminal history, including assault offenses. How about his drunk driving arrest this past January (his second, from what I've read). This latest DUI was dropped due to a technicality just days before this trial started. And how about his arrest for prowling/video taping police officer's private vehicles, in a private parking lot a week before the shooting incident? This guy is affiliated with a left wing militia group whose members have assault charges against an officer. His criminal charges include assaulting his own grandmother for God's sake. Great guy, I'm sure...!! Well, I wouldn't want him dating my daughter, would you?

Does his record mean that he deserved to be shot, absolutely not!! His pursuing Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand, and approaching him, when he was down, with the weapon pointed at him earned him that action.

Always thought having a record expunged just removed/sealed the record of the conviction, not overturned it. If he was asked on Fed/state firearm if he was ever convicted of a felony, and answered no, wouldn't he have lied on that form? There are some lawyers on here who might be able to shed some light?

 

[Doug M.]

It's not my duty (any more) to go to bad stuff and try to stop it. I avoid places that I think will be stupid. I would not have been there, but that's after 40+ years of development after Kyle's age. Teenage me? Heck, I don't like that guy - and we should all remember that our teen selves might have been less than wonderful.

Ok, that all aside: This prosecution was shameful. I have been a part time and cop and full time prosecutor in two states. What I saw here was a collection of deliberate fabrications by "prosecutors" who bring shame to the title; who should not be lawyers at all. The dynamics shown were clear self-defense.

To me, it seems like this prosecution stems from the same garbage that allowed for the knowingly fabricated "consent decree" in Seattle, which really increased the deterioration of the city, and that lead directly to the occupation of Capitol Hill and the functional end of honest policing (and prosecution) in King County. We have a collection of people who cannot tell the difference between actual questionable or improper police conduct (there are a couple of incidents involving the Louisiana State Police that simply cannot stand scrutiny) and the collateral consequences of criminals being criminals. Protesting the death of the latter group is just insane, reflecting in part the influence of the Balko-Wexler Axis of Evil.

I limit where I go. I may change my retirement plans. But I do not intend to be a target of corrupt prosecutors of this nature ever.

ETA: Generally state law controls the legal effect of the process to remove a conviction and to "expunge" it will usually mean it is gone as a matter of law and there is no longer a conviction. Apparently the person in question was not convicted anyway.

 

[WCCPHD]

How many American Revolutionaries were 21 and under?

In 1776:
Alexander Hamilton was 20 years old.

Marquis de La Fayette was 19 years old.

Nathan Hale was 21 years old.

James Monroe was 18 years old.

Andrew Jackson, the future president, joined a local militia at age 13 and served as a patriot courier.

Sybil Ludington, the daughter of one of General George Washington's aids, successfully rode her horse for 40 miles to warn American soldiers of an impending British attack. She was 15 years old.

Joseph Plumb Martin joined the American militia in 1776 when he was only 15-years-old. The soldier fought in many notable battles, served in George Washington's Continental Army, and fought for the duration of the war.

Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee was 20 years old.

Benjamin Tallmadge famously oversaw the Culper Ring, a spy organization dedicated to aiding and protecting the Continental Congress. He was 21 years old.

The list is long in American history of young folks standing up to defend what they believed was right. Not the least of which is Audie Murphy who earned his last medal while still 19 years old.

My fifth Great Grandfather enlisted in the Colonial Army when he was 14 (in place of his father, who had fought in the French and Indian War) and was 17 when he helped load and fire the first cannon at Yorktown. Many years later, when applying for his Revolutionary War Pension he answered the question (in court under oath) of what officers he personally knew and would know him, that he personally knew General Wayne, General Lafayette and General Washington.

 

[sheepdawg]

What's scary is the wide open social media sites are on fire about this. The Internet Warriors are resorting to vile name calling and threats. It doesn't bode well for the future

 

[Beemerguy53]

What's scary is the wide open social media sites are on fire about this. The Internet Warriors are resorting to vile name calling and threats. It doesn't bode well for the future

What distresses me about what I'm seeing online is this insistence that Rittenhouse somehow "got away" with something, and that the "fight for justice" will continue...

As I have stated many times here on the Forum, I don't think he should have been there...but a jury heard the testimony, reviewed the evidence, deliberated for 25 hours, and found him not guilty. People have to respect that...being upset at a verdict doesn't mean said verdict was unfair...