Crime Rittenhouse trial underway ***Verdict: Acquitted of all charges***

Did the evidence provided in Court proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyle R is Guilty of Murder


  • Total voters
    435
  • Poll closed .
Turn on MSNBC, they are tripling down, rofl.


giphy-11.gif


Lol your jim-jams are so rustled over "white supremacist" Kyle GOATenhouse defending himself and being correctly found NOT GUILTY.

Sounds like you need 4 copium a day until you die.

Cry more.

Stay rustled.

2hjkIFd.png
Like
 
{<huh}

I’m a Kyle supporter. I’m just being realistic. Successfully defending himself in civil litigation over the situation is going to be much more challenging than in the criminal proceedings. Look what happened with OJ Simpson. Acquitted of all charges in the criminal trial, then held liable for over $30 million in the civil trial.

Yeah, but that was a pretty unique case. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's all that common to be acquitted in a criminal trial, and then found guilty in a civil trial. Certainly not a self defense case, I would think.
 
<36>

Lol that is not a white power sign.

It's trolling. It's never been a white power sign. It's literally internet trolling the leftists that believed a 4chan trolling.

Lol he definitely isn't a boog boy. Boogs don't like police. He is a life guard and police/fire cadet.

I once had to speak to my dean at college cuz I told my professor okay with my hands, nonironically. They were going to kick me out of university lmao
 
It would be a positive outcome if progressives actually believed that this verdict authorized vigilantes to gun down “protesters” with impunity. Would cause the knuckleheads to think twice before showing up with bricks and lighters. Sadly they don’t believe it.

The "encouraging vigilantism" talking point doesn't hold any water. As we saw throughout this trial and after the verdict, those on the left wanted Kyle put away regardless of the facts. Fortunately, the truth prevailed and the justice system worked as intended. The evidence of Kyle's innocence is indisputable, which is why you see nonsense about state lines or calling Kyle a vigilante. He was attacked by an angry mob and was able to defend himself. That's all there is to it.


Not doing herself and favors with her side, but nice to see the integrity nonetheless.


Tulsi bless.
 
I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter but there are some people I respect that I follow. This whole Rittenhouse issue has been brutal and I'm getting wrecked there for saying the things I've been saying here.

There's one guy who doxes pedophiles and helps hunt down people who bully people anonymously, and he's talking about doing the same to people who deify Rittenhouse. It's insane, and I said so.

Another liberal source that does deep dives into the news completely skipped diving and has just been spitting out the fairy nonsense we've been hearing for weeks, crossing state lines and the like. I explained why "shot in the back" was incorrect and misleading, as politely as I could, and was blasted for arguing semantics.

I'm currently involved in a heated exchange with someone with a mountain of followers who asked me why I was helping with the deification of Rittenhouse and I said I wasn't, I was just being honest about a criminal case and lying to sell a narrative was counter productive. I said if you like lie nobody will trust you, and he said it didn't make any difference and those people are never going to trust me anyways. I told him that wasn't the point, you don't try and get people to trust you, you try and be someone worth trusting. This isn't a guy I respect or follow, he's just in the same network.

It hasn't been any fun and I expect I'll probably be blocked by people whose content I really enjoy. It's difficult to describe how unpleasant that is.




Welcome to the wide world of public opinion and blind fanatical partisanship.


Just keep in mind, it all goes away when you log out and go about your actual life. I feel like people need to be reminded of that once in a while.
 
What's the most telling is the left (media, sjw hordes) are sticking to the narrative that Kyle brought a gun to a protest, which is technically wrong / factually incorrect. Kyle brought the gun to the riot, but the left is seemingly willing to acknowledge that protests and riots are the same, or riots are a natural byproduct of protests.

This further evident by the people he shot: a convicted women beater, a convicted child rapist and a violent offender who also brought a gun. Now the left could look at these people and have two options, say they were there for the protest, or they were there for the riot... They are sticking with protests. However, there's absolutely no reflection from their side as to why a blm / social justice "peaceful" protest would attract such low life's? Why would the left claim them as part of their side? Their character screams they were there to cause trouble, which would be on the rioters side, but nothing from them to make that claim; they are sticking to the narrative they were protestors. Which further pushes the evidence that they see the riot as a legitimate and valid aspect of the protests.

Overall the left stance is absolutely clear, either you fully and completely accept any and all actions by blm / sjw and give them carte blanche on all riots and violence that takes place in their name, or you're a white supremacist bigot.
 
I once had to speak to my dean at college cuz I told my professor okay with my hands, nonironically. They were going to kick me out of university lmao

Lmao. It's incredible how hard they took that bait and are trying to ruin people with it regardless if they were using it as a genuine ok sign or as trolling.
 
The "encouraging vigilantism" talking point doesn't hold any water. As we saw throughout this trial and after the verdict, those on the left wanted Kyle put away regardless of the facts. Fortunately, the truth prevailed and the justice system worked as intended. The evidence of Kyle's innocence is indisputable, which is why you see nonsense about state lines or calling Kyle a vigilante. He was attacked by an angry mob and was able to defend himself. That's all there is to it.




Tulsi bless.

yup, the vigilante argument holds no water whatsoever.

fact is there there would have been no murder that night if the left didnt first create a martyr out of a criminal in Blake by lying. It was the left that encouraged the riots. it was the left that bailed out rioters or simply did not charge them and let them go because of libtard DAs. it was the democrat Mayor who had cops stand down to let the left throw their little temper tantrum.

if not for libtards, none of this would have happened. This is their America. Now it is time for the rest of us to fix it.
 
Lmao. It's incredible how hard they took that bait and are trying to ruin people with it regardless if they were using it as a genuine ok sign or as trolling.

A professor turned me in for telling him okay... really reflect on that.
These people are controlling education... Scary dangerous.
 
yup, the vigilante argument holds no water whatsoever.

fact is there there would have been no murder that night if the left didnt first create a martyr out of a criminal in Blake by lying. It was the left that encouraged the riots. it was the left that bailed out rioters or simply did not charge them and let them go because of libtard DAs. it was the democrat Mayor who had cops stand down to let the left throw their little temper tantrum.

if not for libtards, none of this would have happened. This is their America. Now it is time for the rest of us to fix it.

I can't call them "libtards"
Liberal is center right in the current climate.
The folks on the left are marxists, post modernists and fascists.
 
Wait…. The people who Rittenhouse shot aren’t black???

I’m confused right now

This the reaction of all the looney lefties on Twitter after they take 10 seconds to read what actually happened
 
@HockeyBjj It took Reuters the entire day to write their recap, but it's probably the most neutral of the bunch (just the legal facts, all sides got to say their piece, no editorial hyperbol bullshit), AND explained why the Defense chose to put Rittenhouse on the stand.
---

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges in Wisconsin murder trial
By Nathan Layne | November 19, 2021

O6QNK53DNNL4HB5P7NUJISV5UE.jpg

KENOSHA, Wis., Nov 19 (Reuters) - A jury acquitted teenager Kyle Rittenhouse on Friday of murder in the fatal shooting of two men during racial justice protests in a decision that re-ignited fierce debate about gun rights and the boundaries of self defense in the United States.

Jurors found Rittenhouse, 18, not guilty on all charges: two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide for wounding a third man, and two counts of recklessly endangering safety in protests marred by arson, rioting and looting on Aug. 25, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Rittenhouse broke down sobbing after the verdict and collapsed to the floor before being helped back into his chair, his hands shaking. His mother also wept.

Amid a heavy law enforcement presence, several dozen protesters lined the steps outside the courthouse after the verdict was read, some carrying placards in support of Rittenhouse and others expressing disappointment. By early evening, the crowd had thinned to a handful of people and there was no sign of disturbances in the city.

"We are all so very happy that Kyle can live his life as a free and innocent man, but in this whole situation there are no winners, there are two people who lost their lives and that's not lost on us at all," David Hancock, a spokesperson for the Rittenhouse family, told Reuters.

Rittenhouse shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and fired a bullet that tore a chunk off the arm of Gaige Grosskreutz, 28. Rittenhouse claimed self defense.

U.S. President Joe Biden, who during last year's election campaign tweeted a video that appeared to link Rittenhouse to white supremacists, said on Friday he supported the jury's decision and urged Americans to react with calm.

"While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken," Biden said.

Elsewhere reactions showed the country's deep partisan divisions. The verdict was greeted with outrage by many on the political left and celebrated by gun rights supporters.

"It is unconscionable our justice system would allow an armed vigilante ... to go free," the Congressional Black Caucus said in a statement.

The thorny issue of race also hung over the case, although Rittenhouse and the men he shot were all white. Some Black activists said on Friday the U.S. police and courts would have treated the teenager more harshly if he had been Black.

But conservatives saw the verdict as a validation of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which grants Americans the right to bear arms.

U.S. congressman Madison Cawthorn, a Republican representative from North Carolina, said on Instagram: "Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty my friends. You have a right to defend yourselves. Be armed, be dangerous and be moral."

REPEATEDLY ATTACKED

In reaching its verdict after more than three days of deliberations, the jury contended with dueling narratives from the defense and prosecution that offered vastly different portrayals of the teenager's actions on the night of the shootings.

The defense argued that Rittenhouse had been repeatedly attacked and had shot the men in fear for his life. They said he was a civic-minded teen who carried a medical kit in addition to his gun and was in Kenosha to protect private property after several nights of unrest in the city south of Milwaukee.

The violence followed the police shooting of a Black man named Jacob Blake, who was left paralyzed from the waist down.

The prosecution portrayed Rittenhouse as a reckless vigilante who provoked the violent encounters and showed no remorse for the men he shot with his AR-15-style rifle.

Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer Daniel Adams, who closely followed the trial, called the verdict “very dramatic but not entirely surprising.”

Most lawyers "who looked at the evidence had a feeling the state would not be able to clear the threshold of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.

Live-streamed and dissected by cable TV pundits daily, the trial unfolded during a time of social and political polarization in the United States. Gun rights are cherished by many Americans and are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution even as the nation experiences a high rate of gun violence and the easy availability of firearms.

Rittenhouse, who testified that he had no choice but to open fire to protect himself, is viewed as heroic by some pro-gun conservatives who consider the shootings justified. Many on the left view Rittenhouse as a vigilante and an embodiment of an out-of-control American gun culture.

Protests against racism and police brutality turned violent in many U.S. cities after the police killing of Black man George Floyd in Minneapolis three months before the Kenosha shootings.

The Rittenhouse verdict ended the highest-profile U.S. civilian self-defense case since a man named George Zimmerman was acquitted in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager, in Florida in 2013.

With so much of that night in Kenosha caught on cellphone and surveillance video, few basic facts were in dispute. The trial instead focused on whether Rittenhouse acted reasonably to prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm," the requirement for using deadly force under Wisconsin law.

The prosecution, led by Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, sought to paint Rittenhouse as the aggressor and repeatedly stressed that he was the only one to kill anyone that night.

RISKY DECISION

Rittenhouse's gun was loaded with 30 rounds of full metal jacket bullets, which are designed to penetrate their target. The jury saw a series of graphic videos, including the moments after Rittenhouse fired four rounds into Rosenbaum, who lay motionless, bleeding and groaning. Other video showed Grosskreutz screaming, with blood gushing from his arm.

Rittenhouse testified in his own defense last Wednesday in the trial's most dramatic moment - a risky decision by his lawyers given his youth and the prospect of tough prosecution cross-examination. Rittenhouse broke down sobbing at one point, and emphasized that he acted out of fear for his life.

"I did what I had to do to stop the person who was attacking me," he said.

His defense counsel, Mark Richards, said Rittenhouse has difficulty sleeping at night and was being treated for post traumatic stress disorder. He said the defense team decided to have him testify after they tested two versions of their case before mock juries, one with him testifying and one without.

"It was substantially better when we put him on," Richards told reporters after the verdict. "In Wisconsin, if you don't put a client on the stand, you're going to lose. Period."

Rittenhouse testified that he shot Huber after he had struck him with a skateboard and pulled on his weapon. He said he fired on Grosskreutz after the man pointed the pistol he was carrying at him - an assertion Grosskreutz acknowledged under questioning from the defense. Rittenhouse testified that he shot Rosenbaum after the man chased him and grabbed his gun.

Huber's parents, Karen Bloom and John Huber, said in a statement they were "heartbroken" by the verdict.

"It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jury-rittenhouse-murder-trial-deliberate-fourth-day-2021-11-19/

Thanks. This part was interesting. I guess the emotional impact of seeing the defendant outweighed the risks of prosecution getting him with good questions?


His defense counsel, Mark Richards, said Rittenhouse has difficulty sleeping at night and was being treated for post traumatic stress disorder. He said the defense team decided to have him testify after they tested two versions of their case before mock juries, one with him testifying and one without.

"It was substantially better when we put him on," Richards told reporters after the verdict. "In Wisconsin, if you don't put a client on the stand, you're going to lose. Period."
 
Your response illustrates exactly what I am talking about. I acknowledge what the media and the "one side" did. You are missing my entire point when you say "the other side is saying no". Many from the other side are doing a lot more than that. Acting as though Rittenhouse is some sort of overall victim here is ridiculous.

Actually no, it really isn't.

Rittenhouse went to the riots to defend private property and provide medical attention to whoever needed it as best as he could.

He was attacked, he defended himself, and 'one side' have been trying to destroy him and send him to live in a cage until he dies.

If riots were threatening YOUR friends and family's areas, would you stand by and do nothing? Maybe you would. I, and many over here with the means to defend what's valuable to us, would do whatever is neccessary.

How about doing what in neccessary to survive a 3-on-1 attack? Don't you have the right to self-defense?

And that's why many more people than probably you would have thought have been taking this court case very personal.

This isn't just about Rittenhouse, its about our rights to self-preservation when the government fails to do it.

For anyone on "that side" and cares about responsible gun ownership, I do not know how you can support Rittenhouse overall (again, not saying supporting a "not guilty" verdict, but Rittenhouse in general). I don't need to expand on the points again that I brought up in my original post. His choices that night prior to the shooting were extremely poor. I'm sure some from "your side" may group those who criticize Rittenhouse with the "other side" even though they probably don't share a lot of the same beliefs.

Thank God Rittenhouse had that gun, and I'm guessing you had no clue that while he was being chased a handgun was fired behind him?

Also, his 3rd attacker, the one that survived but his bicep was blown off? Did you know he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse and was about to pull the trigger but thankfully Rittenhouse did first?

I ask those questions honestly not knowing if you knew the answers. So please answer them.

It blows my mind how so many people have turned into sheep for "one side" or the other.

Those that don't aren't paying attention.

For anyone who succeeds in life, they are going to realize the world isn't black and white.

Yet you sound like you think everyone that's right-wing is a die-hard Trump supporter.

There are a lot of arguments on either side of most situations. Hell, attorneys make their living off of grey area. Yet the political realm right now loves this antiquated two party system that is even more divided, which again, is exactly what foreign threats love. And guess what? Most people are eating right up and jumping into this one side or the other mindset which is basically stereotyping which most consider a negative term.

Apathy is death.

Sounds like you're fine with indifference.

Not exactly sure where you want to pigeonhole me but my general thoughts are: Not guilty; complete dumbass who put himself in a horrible situation; verdict, although correct, is horrible for society (does not discourage others to make dumbass decisions like he did, divided us even further, etc), his attackers were dumbasses too (again, on the "other side", you see people defending them even though I doubt they truly believe it deep down), etc.

Remember last years BLM riots? I sure as hell do.

Causing $2 Billion of damage, 32 people dead, and untold amount of chaos?

There'd be much fewer rioters if there were more Kyle Rittenhouses across the nation. And no, not to shoot people, just to show that there are armed people in areas there'd be no defense against those that'd want to burn it all to the ground.

You can sit around and talk about the media all you want, but really, is the general population doing better? Instead of talking about the entire situation and all of the grey area, it devolves into "my side vs. your side".

That's an interesting question - "Is the general population doing better?"

Just look at the world in the last 20 months. What were the problems? What have been the solutions? What are the new problems? What problems were there before and that have gotten worse?

What's the source of those new problems?
Why haven't those problems that could have been fixed been fixed yet?
Are those who are in charge of problems view the problems as problems?

Everyone that has their answers to these questions have picked a side.
 
Back
Top