Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts

[rock n roll kid]

Iscs yoda got it right , i do believe

little punk should have stayed home ! if it would have been in front of his house , or in his immediate vincinity , it would take on a new meaning .
he went TOO MUCH out of his way & used some very bad judgement .
and his fake crying in court was all too obvious .

 

[Kanewpadle]

little punk should have stayed home ! if it would have been in front of his house , or in his immediate vincinity , it would take on a new meaning .
he went TOO MUCH out of his way & used some very bad judgement .
and his fake crying in court was all too obvious .

Yeah right. Like you never made a stupid mistake at such a young age.

The media and politicians we’re clearly unfair towards him. And I’m sure the last thing he needs is a bunch of bitter old fogies pointing out the mistakes he made.

Us older folks should hope that he learned something. And I’m sure he did. I predict he will grow up to be a fine young man.

 

[Puller]

I agree with the jury. I've seen the video's of that night.

I watched the Tucker interview with Kyle. I sent $1000 to Kyle's lawyers so they can sue the folks that lied about this night.

This is all about our Right to protect our family, our property, and The Constitution.

Totally agree. I'm wondering if folks have forgotten what freedom and liberty is really all about, and based on what we've seen in the past year or so it would seem Americans can indeed be easily coerced into giving up liberties. All it takes is the media repeatedly telling them what to be scared of.

 

[ladder13]

The judge put Laurel and Hardy, the prosecutors, in their place.

Rittenhouse should get a key to the city, and millions from the media.

The lawyer should be on Mt Rushmore.

 

[SMSgt]

little punk should have stayed home ! if it would have been in front of his house , or in his immediate vincinity , it would take on a new meaning .
he went TOO MUCH out of his way & used some very bad judgement .
and his fake crying in court was all too obvious .

Had the state assigned a competent prosecutor, I feel Rittenhouse's testimony could easily have been his undoing.

 

[88IROC]

Had the state assigned a competent prosecutor, I feel Rittenhouse's testimony could easily have been his undoing.

I have access to a competent prosecutor, who is extremely familiar with the case (he works in a neighboring county where they were originally going to prosecute the miserable miscreant, id. est., Jacob Blake who's really responsible for this mess) and he has told me that: a) Rittenhouse should have never been charged and, b) many Wisconsin prosecutors think Binger (the lead prosecutor) acted unethically.

 

[JcMack]

"They" are actually putting Police Officers in prison in this country in for using what idiots deem as more than necessary force to protect themselves. I'm 74 and can't dance anymore, but when they found Kyle not guilty of something he never should have been charged with I did a Jig till I fell down. Anybody notice the increasing violence in this country that is masked under the guise "pieceful protest". This stuff ain't going away on it's own.

 

[Beemerguy53]

Had the state assigned a competent prosecutor, I feel Rittenhouse's testimony could easily have been his undoing.

Good point...I've been saying since his acquittal that that young man should be very thankful.

 

[Beemerguy53]

I have access to a competent prosecutor, who is extremely familiar with the case...Rittenhouse should have never been charged...

From a strict legal standpoint, I can't argue with your prosecutorial source, but the law doesn't always drive decisions like this. Rittenhouse had to be charged...and here's why:

This was not a case of "self-defense" where a homeowner shot a burglar...or a merchant killed an armed robber. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a volatile, violent, highly-charged public situation, one where he had no personal stake, and then ended up taking two lives on a public street.

Regardless of whether he was legally justified in firing those shots -- and the jury ruled he was -- from the standpoint of maintaining order in an organized society, you can't have somebody do what he did and then have civil authorities put their stamp of approval on it. The public would never have stood for it.

 

[ladder13]

………….The media and politicians we’re clearly unfair towards him. And I’m sure the last thing he needs is a bunch of bitter old fogies pointing out the mistakes he made.

…….

Period, indeed.

 

[Beemerguy53]

... notice the increasing violence in this country that is masked under the guise "pieceful protest". This stuff ain't going away on it's own.

In the words of Stephen Stills, "there's something happening here; what it is ain't exactly clear"...

All over the USA these days, all across our society, people of all kinds feel empowered to do whatever they feel like doing, either regardless of the consequences, or without fear of being held accountable.

From the out-of-control murder rate in many large cities...to the latest fad of smash-and-grab robberies...to people looting and burning...to a crazed mob invading the cathedral of our democracy...

It seems we're watching civil society disintegrate right before our eyes. It's interesting from an academic standpoint...but not much fun to live through...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY[/ame]

 

[Execpro]

Beemerguy53: AMEN !

 

[Absalom]

Just an observation on the side:

I do find it rather interesting that several days and over 200 posts later folks are still rehashing details of the Rittenhouse verdict, while nobody has started a thread on the Arbery verdict that came shortly thereafter, and offers lessons to civilian gun owners considerably more pertinent than Rittenhouse.

 

[biku324]

I'm constantly astounded by the folks I encounter who do not know you cannot use deadly force to protect property. That's been the law mostly everywhere in the US since well before most of us were born.

 

[CH4]

Yea, I was just going to mention that. Already not much mentioned anywhere about the Arbery verdict. The juries have done their jobs, it’s time to move on.

 

[Beemerguy53]

Just an observation on the side:

I do find it rather interesting that several days and over 200 posts later folks are still rehashing details of the Rittenhouse verdict, while nobody has started a thread on the Arbery verdict that came shortly thereafter, and offers lessons to civilian gun owners considerably more pertinent than Rittenhouse.

Well, I think that's likely because there isn't much debate about the verdict in the Arbery case. I haven't seen anybody anywhere argue in support of what the defendants did in that situation...

 

[Puller]

Period, indeed.

Well, I think that's likely because there isn't much debate about the verdict in the Arbery case. I haven't seen anybody anywhere argue in support of what the defendants did in that situation...

Nothing honorable in killing an unarmed man that's posing no threat to you.

 

[Mistered]

Nothing honorable in killing an unarmed man that's posing no threat to you.

Well not to 'stir the pot' but google this one and watch the video.

Video shows Texas man shoot partner’s ex amid heated child custody battle

I'd post it myself but I am not sure of the specific video posting rules.

 

[Doug M.]

From a strict legal standpoint, I can't argue with your prosecutorial source, but the law doesn't always drive decisions like this. Rittenhouse had to be charged...and here's why:

This was not a case of "self-defense" where a homeowner shot a burglar...or a merchant killed an armed robber. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a volatile, violent, highly-charged public situation, one where he had no personal stake, and then ended up taking two lives on a public street.

Regardless of whether he was legally justified in firing those shots -- and the jury ruled he was -- from the standpoint of maintaining order in an organized society, you can't have somebody do what he did and then have civil authorities put their stamp of approval on it. The public would never have stood for it.

*
The problem with your assessment, which is arguably sound in terms of the politics of the situation, is that legal ethics, especially as related to the ethical standard for prosecutors, do not allow for such considerations. From any objective assessment, the charging decision was frivolous and malicious, and amply justifies disbarring that "prosecutor" (he is not of my tribe, and brings shame on all of us). Of all my friends and colleagues who actually do such legal work, myself included, only one was even remotely willing to defend the charging decision, and she had not followed the story nor was she aware of the falsehoods underlying the prosecution.

BTW, under the ethics rules, the elected prosecutor is just as exposed to disbarment for failing to rein in the assigned ADA.

 

[UncleEd]

The lawyer should be on Mt Rushmore.

If you're speaking of the chief
defense counsel, Mark Richards,
your proposal is rather interesting.

He has stated he believes too
many guns exist in the U.S. and
he does not believe in concealed
carry although he does own
firearms.