[Blackbird45]

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.

[MrFlorida]

Finally a jury got it right !

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

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.

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?"

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Proveone

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.

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...

[DaleDivine]

Originally Posted by Proveone

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.

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

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

[Petersweeney]

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

[Blackbird45]

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.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

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.

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.

[JMintzer]

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...

[jrandall]

Originally Posted by skyking

I watched most of the testimony and agree with the jury.

Me too

[DAVES]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Actually I never said that the rioting was condoned, but that it was not condemned. I similarly pointed out that there was no condemnation of the adults that attacked Rittenhouse, nor was there condemnation for the MSM that reported misinformation as facts, such that other posters on TOTV repeated those "facts" in their attacks on Rittenhouse.

However, I did see posts inferring that Rittenhouse was "flashing the "OK" sign — a gesture that has been co-opted by known white supremacist groups", and that "he was awaiting trial for killing people at a Black Lives Matter protest....he was there illegally carrying a weapon now he was again breaking the law by drinking in a bar"

So apparently up until the cited post above, it was a protest (not a riot) and the weapon was illegal, which turned out to be.....an incorrect statement that was made in advance of the trial and the facts of the trial.

As far as MSM being "protected" from lawsuit, two different media outlets that I know of, settled out of court in the Sandman case. Sandman, and now Rittenhouse, were NOT public figures and my understanding is that as such, there is a different standard the media can be held to in their "reporting".

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.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by DAVES

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.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Pupiczech

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

This was a State case, tried in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin does not have the death penalty.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

There were other sources...

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

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)

[DAVES]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

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.