Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

That may have been the case decades ago.
I really don't think it is True these days.

The adage:
"If you aren't a progressive under 30, you don't have a heart..."
Has seeming changed to:
"If you aren't a progressive under 30, you don't have a fist (or jackboot)."

The antifa movement has a lot to do with that, imo.
This "affliction" has affected Australia, also, btw.

Hopefully the prosecution will face sanctions for some of their actions here (constitutional violations, withholding evidence, etc.).

Regardless of what people think about their effect on this case, if allowed to go unchecked, those same actions could result in innocent people being jailed as a result of prosecutors being allowed to repeat such actions and them going unchallenged, or people who commit serious crimes being freed as a result of mistrials resulting from such activities being challenged.

Perhaps it's not surprising that activists and Democratic politicians would reflexively cite white supremacy in a trial outcome that disappoints Team Blue. More troubling is the response to the verdict from an organization that should know better: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a statement reacting to the verdict, ACLU-Wisconsin Interim Executive Director Shaadie Ali lamented the "deep roots of white supremacy" in Kenosha that prevented Rittenhouse from being "held responsible for his actions."

"Kyle Rittenhouse was a juvenile who traveled across state lines on a vigilante mission, was allowed by police to roam the streets of Kenosha with an assault rifle and ended up shooting three people and killing two," said Brandon Buskey, director of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. "These are the simple, tragic facts. His acquittal comes after an ACLU investigation exposing how Kenosha law enforcement used violence against protesters and drove them toward white militia groups, in ways that escalated tensions and almost certainly led to these shootings."

In a Twitter thread, the ACLU complained that Rittenhouse was not held accountable for his "conscious decision to travel across state lines and injure one person and take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police."

Of course, it is not illegal to travel across state lines; the fact that Rittenhouse wandered outside the boundaries of his home and entered a neighboring municipality was irrelevant to the case. The jury did not agree with—and the facts of the case did not support—the claim that his decision to shoot three people was "conscious" in the sense that it was premeditated. He argued that he rationally believed his life was in imminent danger, and the surviving shooting victim provided testimony that supported this argument.

One might have expected that an organization dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties would not so cavalierly take the side of prosecutors against the concept of self-defense. In the past, the ACLU has done terrific work shining a light on prosecutorial misconduct—the tremendous power the state has to stack the deck against defendants. The ACLU purports to believe that all people, even the guilty, deserve due process protections. The organization is evidently outraged by the verdict: Is the ACLU outraged that the prosecutor tried to argue that Rittenhouse exercising his Miranda rights was evidence of his guilt?

I don't specifically vote for party...a lot of the votes are just on if this or that will pass. That said with the shenanigans the republican party has pulled I will vote all democrat, not that I like the democrats but they are better than the fascists.

either way I cannot help thinking if you can vote it is very dishonorable not to vote..I mean I just think it is disgusting not to vote...not to say I am not open to hearing other perspectives but that is my perspective I think it is shameful not to vote if you have the option to.

I'd love to see how people would react if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a 17 year old female lifeguard acting in self-defence, instead of being a man.

Are women allowed self-defence in anyone's world view?

Same here. I thought at least a lesser version of one the "reckless" charges ...

There are rumblings that some jurors may have been afraid of the groups backing Rittenhouse. Do you think that is possible?

A jury fully acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse on Friday, bringing a close to the high-profile and often tense trial that reflected America's deep political polarization.

Rittenhouse, 18, who was not charged with murder, faced charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide for fatally shooting two men and injuring a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse was also charged with reckless endangerment of two additional men.

The teenager pleaded not guilty to all five counts and testified that he acted in self-defense, saying the men he shot were attacking him. He was acquitted on all counts.

In the aftermath of Friday's verdict, a flurry of responses and reactions to the ruling restated longstanding myths and misinformation surrounding the trial and Rittenhouse's actions on August 25, 2020.

Insider debunked six such myths.

[...]

Unclear: The people Kyle Rittenhouse shot were protesters

Gaige Grosskreutz, a then-27-year-old EMT who survived being shot by Rittenhouse, testified during the trial, telling the jury that he frequently attended demonstrations as a volunteer medic and chose not to affiliate with any particular side. He said he had gone downtown the night of August 25, 2020 — and dozens of other nights that summer — to provide medical aid to anyone in need, regardless of political affiliation.

The motives of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, were less clear that night. Rosenbaum was seen in a number of videos not protesting but causing destruction, setting fires, tipping over a Porta Potty, wielding a chain, and at one point even shouting the N-word. Rittenhouse's defense attorneys characterized Rosenbaum as a "rioter," and even the lead prosecutor said in his closing statement he would have prosecuted Rosenbaum for arson had he not been fatally shot.

Rosenbaum's fiancée told The Washington Post in 2020 that he wasn't there as a rioter or a looter. Just hours before the protests, Rosenbaum had been released from a hospital following psychiatric care for a suicide attempt.

"Why was he there? I have no answer. I ask myself that question every day," she told the outlet.

Huber's girlfriend told the New York Post that she and Huber, 26, were protesting that night. She disputed the defense attorney's characterization of Huber as a "rioter" or "looter." Huber's great aunt, Susan Hughes, also testified at Rittenhouse's trial, saying Huber knew Jacob Blake personally and was upset by his death.

Myth: Rittenhouse went downtown on August 25 to answer a 'call to arms' put out by a Kenosha militia group

A "Kenosha Guard" militia group on Facebook did issue a "call to arms" ahead of the violence on August 25. But the tech company later confirmed that Rittenhouse had not been a follower of the flagged page.

Rittenhouse testified that he and Black went downtown because they were invited to guard the Car Source, a Kenosha car dealership, during the unrest and were under the impression they were going to be paid.

The China brothers who own the dealership denied this under oath, but multiple other witnesses testified against them, backing Rittenhouse's version.

Myth: Kyle Rittenhouse is a self-identified white nationalist

The civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing the Blake family, falsely described Rittenhouse on Friday as a "self-declared white nationalist." But Rittenhouse has never publicly identified as a member of any extremist group.

After he pleaded not guilty to the initial charges in January 2021, prosecutors said Rittenhouse went to a bar in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where he posed for photos with members said to be of the Proud Boys while flashing a "white power" hand signal.

His legal team said Rittenhouse did not know who the men were or what group they were affiliated with and was unfamiliar with the hand symbol's meaning.

The judge noted that the prosecution did not find any evidence of his affiliation with a white supremacist group in phone records or social media history, and as Michelle Mark previously reported, ruled the trip to the bar was not relevant to the 2020 shooting.

It is disappointing to see that you are both indulging in what amounts to "victim blaming" here...

Given the jury determined his actions were not "murder" (actual or attempted), nor "reckless" (nor, for that matter, any of the lesser included items for which he was also on trial for), this would suggest his actions were indeed "self defence". This, then, suggests that your comments are endorsing the punishment of the victim of a number of assailants for what happened to those assailants following their initial use\attempted use of force against him - It is true that what they received was worse than the gave (although it isn't known if it was worse than what they intended), but had they not initiated their attacks upon him, there is no evidence that they (or anyone else) would have received any harm from him.