Nope. Rittenhouse had been given over $2 million dollars in donations from people sympathetic to him. Whatever is left in that account after his attorneys are paid, plus more (I am assuming) if needed, would go to pay for representation if the Federal government has any intention of pursuing a case against him. Although prevailing wisdom said that that won't happen.

I would be surprised if it did. Aside from the fact that any case on the part of the feds would be super-flimsy, Rittenhouse would undoubtedly be represented by the best legal minds in the country. I doubt that the federal government would pursue anything if they knew they'd end up looking foolish.

You can add: Portland, San Francisco, LA, NYC, Atlanta and many others

I’ve been wondering the same thing.

he murdered two people. He should get the death penalty.

There were several legal funds set up to which people donated. I believe his head lawyer said one of the funds raised over $500K...

Great News, the fake news reporters lost this one!!!!

We need to understand a prosecutor a defending attorney both go to law school to learn to argue both sides of the same issue depending on who or what is paying them.

In fact several in the course of a career have changed roles. This case was clearly a major national issue. We had the right to bear arms and race combined in this case. Plus the press another national issue taking sides.

As I predicted we now have RIOTS and an issue being used as an excuse to steal.

There were other sources...

But it really bothers me that "GoFundMe" picks and chooses whom they deem suitable...

Really???

KENOSHA, Wis., Nov 8 (Reuters) - The only protester shot by Kyle Rittenhouse to survive testified on Monday that he believed the U.S. teenager was an "active shooter" and was trying to disarm Rittenhouse when a bullet from the teen's semi-automatic rifle severed part of his arm.

Correct!!!!!!!!!!

I can’t help but wonder if we are not seeing the forest for the trees here. Kyle Rittenhouse is one person. There are two dead people and one seriously wounded one as a result of what happened that night. So we focus on that—and by so doing, in my opinion, are completely missing the big picture here.

It has been said that in America, when the law won't, or can't, keep the peace, then the average citizen will step in and see to it that peace is kept. The focus on the Rittenhouse trial has been--rightfully--on Rittenhouse: what he did, and whether or not he had legal culpability for his actions. But we need to look beyond that, to the organization he was with, why they were there and focused on keeping the peace, and keeping the rioters away from private property. The reason is simple and yet profound: it happened because in August of 2020 Kenosha suffered through several days of rioting, arson and looting, and the authorities there at the time were either unable (or not allowed) to employ sufficient force to control the situation.

Kenosha was being patrolled the night of the Rittenhouse incident, not so much by the cops (who were not making much of a difference in controlling things), but by armed men making a visible presence. I guarantee we'd not have heard a word about it, had their presence alone been enough to keep the rioters at bay. But things got out of hand and people died. Regrettable, for a variety of reasons. But let's not overlook the intent, on both sides. Those armed men were there because they were not willing to see their city continue to suffer violence and vandalism. THAT is the real issue here.

It is far from new. NPR, on June 10 of this year in an article by Nate Hegyi, described a like incident in Missoula, Montana, regarding one of those George Floyd "protests". About 200 obviously armed citizens showed up at the rally. It didn't make the news because their appearance had the desired effect: things remained peaceful. As one of the armed men said, they were not there to squelch protests, but to ensure that it remained peaceful. Hard to see how anyone can argue with that.

It happened in the sleepy little Southern MN town where I lived before leaving Minnesota, about an hour from Ground Zero where the George Floyd riots had caused so much destruction. Word got out that a protest was to be held in our town the one of the days immediately following the George Floyd protests in the Twin Cities. Sure enough, several vanloads of protesters arrived early the next morning, waving signs and chanting slogans. But another group, not attached to the main group but affiliated with them, had planned on a smash-and-grab at a local store that sold guns. A lot of guns. Only the citizenry heard of it ahead of time, and when they arrived to do their mischief they found a parking lot full of obviously armed men. Those planning to do the smash-and-grab showed good sense and left immediately. The main body of protesters, in like fashion, recognized early on that the police were not the only people with guns ringing their demonstration, and so they kept things peaceful, staying in the area allotted to them by police. They were noisy and profane, but the kept it where it was supposed to be kept.

Again, this is a lot more common than we think. A group calling itself "Everytown Research and Policy" stated that "Between January 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 30,000 public demonstrations in the US. Of those, at least 560 demonstrations included the presence of an armed individual, other than law enforcement." I'm not sure where they got their numbers but I have no reason to doubt them. If anything though I think that the ratio is a lot closer than 30,000 to 560. We hear about what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse and the group he was part of. We don't hear about the ones where the mere presence of armed men was enough to keep the rioters in check, although in my estimation those incidents are equally newsworthy. "We Push For Peace", the group that Kyle Rittenhouse was a part of, that group in Missoula, Montana, and many more...they are out there, and they ARE making a difference—only, of course, the MSM never tells us about the ones that end peacefully.

The Rittenhouse trial is over. But the reasons it happened in the first place still exist. We need to stop fixating on one man, and start figuring out ways to prevent the causes. Because until we do, I guarantee that there will be many more Kyle Rittenhouses.

How someone says "I didn't watch the trial" without saying "I didn't watch the trial"...

IMO this is really the fault of the City of Kenosha. Rioting often produces these type of tragedy's. By failing to put down the trouble makers the City allowed this to happen.

not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb! Seventeen year old, with illegal gun carry (someone else bought the gun for him), crossing State lines, killing unarmed people, and instigating conflict. If he were black/brown you would be "whistling" a different tune. Hope all the ViCTIMS sue the Hell out of him and the Kenosha police.

.
.
Did you watch the trial? Where do you get your information re the facts from the trial?
.
.

Well intentioned 17 yo child who exercised poor judgement with sad results. He should have been handled as a juvenile, then we would not have had a spectacle, and he might have received the counseling he needs. Now he’s a hero with a target on his back. But he’ll get a movie deal out of it.

The only "tragedy" here is the fact that it went to court. Intentionally or not, Rittenhouse did the world a favor by taking out the trash when law enforcement couldn't. :clap2:

Violent protests have to go!
 

I guess justice was served and Kyle was lawfully defending his own life. I wasn’t there, was not on the jury, but I respect the process and accept the verdict.

One thing I strongly disagree with are violent protests — of any kind. The constitution states that citizens have a right to Peaceful assembly. Nothing mentioned there about looting stores, tearing a placard from the hands of a protester you don’t agree with, or bringing Any type of weapon with you as you protest. So nowadays, when you take to the streets, you may be facing grave danger.

He also testified that Rittenhouse lowered his weapon when he raised his hands and only shot him when he advanced and pointed the gun at Rittenhouse's head... So there's that...

That is then the prosecutor did his, now famous, "face palm"...

Gaige Grosskreutz Admits Rittenhouse Shot Him Because He Pointed a Gun at Him #RittenhouseTrial - YouTube

http://www.amerika.org/wp-content/up...lm-800x625.jpg

And here is the testimony of Mr Grosskruetz, regarding that he "inferred" there was an "active shooter"... He testified he only saw Rittenhouse shoot after he was on the ground and being attacked. Not very compelling...

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Shooting survivor thought Rittenhouse "was an active shooter" - YouTube

Plus, there is ZERO video evidence (and there are multiple views) of Rittenhouse "racking" his weapon...

If you agree with the verdict or not what sane person goes into a volatile situation with or without a firearm and expects a wonderful outcome.

Finally a jury got it right !

You mean like our military does when they are deployed? I guess some folks feel that everyone should cower in their homes as the mob destroys their city. That would be "sane?"

He never crossed state lines with the gun.

He actually traveled abut a third of the distance to Kenosha than Mr Grosskreutz did...

A skateboard can and has been used as a deadly weapon.

But sure, bring race into a white kid shooting other white people...

Originally Posted by byte1 View Post
not guilty on all counts!! :clap2::clap2::clap2:

Justice has prevailed... And I hope he SUES the hell out of all that wrongfully accused him...
:bigbow::bigbow:

The prosecutor had an agenda too bad he graduated last in his class……

If you agree with the verdict or not what sane person goes into a volatile situation with or without a firearm and think this might not go very bad. I believe this young man has other issues.

He did go there dressed to kill. The prosecutor did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt about whether this was in fact not self-defense but murder.

The burden was not met.

People also ignore the fact that he gave his ballistic vest to his friend.

Why would someone, who is hell bent on shooting people, give up his protection?

Oh, I know! It's because he stated he was going out to provide medical assistance and didn't think he would need it...

Me too

There is no reasoning with a closed mind.

"A protest not a riot," Martin Luther King proved that PEACEFUL PROTESTS can be done.
It takes GREAT leadership to keep a group from becoming a mob. The videos show clearly the three shot were attacking Rittenhouse. Their previous records show all three have a history.

As far as Sandman and the DAMAGE MONEY HE WAS PAID. The case was settled because both parties agreed to the negotiated settlement. That is actually common practice. The press decided it was in THEIR best interest to settle. Were their a trial,
their past history would be reported. It would be lengthy, trial of press bias.

Rittenhouse perhaps more of an issue, we have right to bear arms, we have race, we have our leaders commenting, perhaps, causing fueling the now RIOTS and perhaps not mentioned by many the POLICE ACTION or lack there of. Will the, sure to be, suit for DAMAGES be settled out of court that is a choice that will be made by BOTH parties. My opinion, the posts show clearly that we will never, agree on, right to RIOT, right to bear arms, race, or the right of press BIAS. All have been issues throughout HISTORY. Any attempt at SETTLEMENTS will not be accepted by all. That in itself is part of the problem.

Both the second amendment and the first amendment-no national religion, right assemble, freedom of speech are very broad and are tempered by case law. There are no shortage of legal conflicts. The right to bear arms does not include all arms. Contrary to our biased press you cannot own an ASSAULT WEAPON which is by definition an automatic weapon. Freedom of speech, does not include RIOT. The Rittenhouse trial will be a major legal precedent.
You more clearly have the right to defend your life with lethal force. A protest does not allow you to attack others.

That is not how legal precedent works. Google it. Precedent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

With legal precedent you usually mean cases from Federal high courts like the US Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. And then those from State Supreme Courts.

This was a State case, tried in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin does not have the death penalty.

GoFundMe may have been involved at first but is legal fees were donated by a foundation. See the following:

"The money was collected by a Texas nonprofit called the #FightBack Foundation, founded by John Pierce and L. Lin Wood." (Courtesy of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/20/21)

As I've said many times-there is right there is wrong, there is legal. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. I do not have a high opinion of attorneys. They go to school to argue both sides of the same issue depending on who or what is putting coin their slot. I've dealt with them.

As far as what should have been done in this case, the press should not have shown their obvious BIAS, our politicians should not have shown their BIAS, the police should have prevented this but typically were told NOT TO.

There is a vast difference between sitting in your office AND BEING THERE.

We can and do tie things in a knot to support our point of view. We all do that.

The death penalty is obviously another complex issue issue that people will not agree on.
We think, we expect, we demand PERFECT-it does not exist.

I would argue that they are not our "leaders", they are our "representatives" and our "public servants".

I'm sure Fox was unbiased, correct?

Perhaps not, BUT they did get it right...........:clap2:

Unfortunately, some do not understand that.