I don’t have zero knowledge and I think the jury was wrong.

I also think that a lot of people are up in arms about people up in arms.

It was only because of a terrible law that a 17 year old kid was possessing a gun that the vast majority of the country believes should only be used by law enforcement.

This case showed how messed up the laws are in this country had to be for the shootings to have ever happened
and how permissive and enthusiastically accepting some people are to have 17 year old kids taking the law into his hands and antagonizing people into causing him to be afraid and then him killing them.

Also someone does not have to have watched the trial to be allowed to give a comment.
He can comment all he wants.

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/21/2021 9:38:00 AM (view original):
I don’t have zero knowledge and I think the jury was wrong.

I also think that a lot of people are up in arms about people up in arms.

It was only because of a terrible law that a 17 year old kid was possessing a gun that the vast majority of the country believes should only be used by law enforcement.

This case showed how messed up the laws are in this country had to be for the shootings to have ever happened
and how permissive and enthusiastically accepting some people are to have 17 year old kids taking the law into his hands and antagonizing people into causing him to be afraid and then him killing them.

Also someone does not have to have watched the trial to be allowed to give a comment.
He can comment all he wants.

You are contradicting yourself. You said the jury was wrong and then you said he got off because of a law you don't like. Both can't be true. He was either within the law and the jury ruled correctly, whether you like or not, or the jury was wrong and he broke laws. Which is it?

You do realize that a large plurality of people from both sides there, possibly a majority, had guns. This was said by a cop under oath as a witness. I'm going to assume you are not a gun enthusiast, apologies in advance if i'm wrong, but a glock 18 (Grosskreutz gun) and an AR-15 are both semi-automatic weapons that are equally as deadly from 6 feet away.

No, people are not up in arms about people up in arms. People are up in arms about people up in arms who don't share their ideologies.

People that say AR-15's should only be used by law enforcement typically know very little about guns. People dislike AR's more because they look scarier. There is very little difference between an AR-15 and a SR-25 or a .750 Woodmaster. The only real difference is aesthetic.

Where's your evidence that he antagonized someone? The defense tried to turn a sarcastic comment into a confession. It failed. Are you doing the same?

I agree with your last part for the most part. I'm a huge free speech advocate. My disagreement comes from the fact that we are divided as a country because there are prominent figures making inflammatory claims about stuff that they have no clue about. Like I said, we have prominent politicians still claiming he crossed state lines with a gun.

Commenting from an admitted state of ignorance is certainly allowed, but is it the best choice? It just proves my comment immediately preceeding his. People are satisfied being outraged without caring to learn the actual facts. That's awesome.

"Antagonizing"? Hmm? Was it when they used a fire extinguisher to put out the dumpster fire intended to be rolled towards the police what you're defining as "antigonizing"?
If not can you please elaborate on what he did to antagonize?

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/21/2021 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 11/21/2021 8:36:00 AM (view original):
I HOPE Rittenhouse faces multi Civil suits. Just because he escaped CRIMINAL Responsibility does NOT render him innocent of anything.
Just like OJ.

He escaped CRIMINAL punishment, too.
BUT, He still ended up paying a price for his actions.

So too, should Rittenhouse.

Meanwhile I'm heading to the "range". Time to practice.
Vigilante's everywhere have been emboldened.

Wait, you play golf? I knew I liked you for some reason. It also shows why you seem a bit angry at times. That game will do that to you.

On a less important note, I’m curious what civil charges you think Rittenhouse should face.

I USED to play golf............back when a "round" might cost you 15 - 18 bucks or some such.
I used to enjoy it. Bogey golfer who could drive and putt but was erratic as all get out with an iron club.

As to the charges?
I'm not a lawyer. Bet you like me even better now............ lol.
The answer to your question WILL be answered by some lawyer for someone who believes they were "damaged" by Rittenhouse's actions.

The verbiage within the lawsuit will include terms like "reckless" or "negligently" or "illegally" within the description of Rittenhouse's damaging actions.

How's that for a non-lawyer?

Grosskreutz (the guy shot in the arm) was already suing Kenosha before this went to trial for $10M. I have a strong feeling that suit will be dropped since he admitted under oath that he lied to investigators and that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse's head.

You are probably right. I'm sure people will file civil suits. I don't envision them making it very far.

Someone needs to ask the DA why he passed one of the most high profile cases of our generation off to the ADA. I have a feeling that it was because he knew he didn't have a case.

Could be something there legally where he wasn't allowed to be a lead prosecutor. IDK.

I have no problem with the verdict from a LEGAL perspective.
Given the legal definitions IN PLACE (in Wisconsin) AND the instructions of Law the jury HAD to apply to these specific circumstances I can quite easily see WHY Rittenhouse was found NOT Guilty of the charges DUE TO a perceived "reasonable doubt" as to Rittenhouse's actions (self-defense?) at the MOMENTS of firing his weapon.

Now that I do know a tad more about the details, I don't think charges (at least) of this nature should have ever been brought.
Likely politics was the reason they were, and THAT is horrific, if true!

However, and for sure.
The FACT that He was found not guilty of the 5 charges has NOTHING to do with the societal acceptance of his actions.
I'd bet money He faces more legal jeopardy.
Lots of lawyers wanting THAT case!

He'll likely end up being found "recklessly endangering" and "damaging" someone by his actions on that night.

I agree with Dino about the state of our Gun laws in this Country and especially (seems like) in Wisconsin.
The FACT that NO charges could be brought against an under (legal) age person packing an assault-type weapon DURING a MELEE, at least partially about underlying racial issues is complete LUNACY!!

Can you imagine what the outcry would be IF the races were all reversed in this??
Imagine Rittenhouse as a BLACK 17 year old KID (in dreadlocks or some such!) packing his AR -15 down the streets during a white Nationalist protest and ending up shooting somebody?? (and claiming self-defense!!)

Think He'd get very far? Think he'd have had a 2 Million legal defense fund, an entire News Network and millions of loud political voices clamoring on his behalf? Think He'd get the benefit of every doubt, released to go home, PROTECTED by the provisions within our Laws??
Pretty sure I'm wise enough to know the answer to that.......... at nearly 70!
And honest enough to say it out LOUD!!

Posted by laramiebob on 11/21/2021 11:03:00 AM (view original):
I have no problem with the verdict from a LEGAL perspective.
Given the legal definitions IN PLACE (in Wisconsin) AND the instructions of Law the jury HAD to apply to these specific circumstances I can quite easily see WHY Rittenhouse was found NOT Guilty of the charges DUE TO a perceived "reasonable doubt" as to Rittenhouse's actions (self-defense?) at the MOMENTS of firing his weapon.

Now that I do know a tad more about the details, I don't think charges (at least) of this nature should have ever been brought.
Likely politics was the reason they were, and THAT is horrific, if true!

However, and for sure.
The FACT that He was found not guilty of the 5 charges has NOTHING to do with the societal acceptance of his actions.
I'd bet money He faces more legal jeopardy.
Lots of lawyers wanting THAT case!

He'll likely end up being found "recklessly endangering" and "damaging" someone by his actions on that night.

I agree with Dino about the state of our Gun laws in this Country and especially (seems like) in Wisconsin.
The FACT that NO charges could be brought against an under (legal) age person packing an assault-type weapon DURING a MELEE, at least partially about underlying racial issues is complete LUNACY!!

Can you imagine what the outcry would be IF the races were all reversed in this??
Imagine Rittenhouse as a BLACK 17 year old KID (in dreadlocks or some such!) packing his AR -15 down the streets during a white Nationalist protest and ending up shooting somebody?? (and claiming self-defense!!)

Think He'd get very far? Think he'd have had a 2 Million legal defense fund, an entire News Network and millions of loud political voices clamoring on his behalf? Think He'd get the benefit of every doubt, released to go home, PROTECTED by the provisions within our Laws??
Pretty sure I'm wise enough to know the answer to that.......... at nearly 70!
And honest enough to say it out LOUD!!

In your imagined scenario (and it is really sad the lengths we're going to in order to cling to the myth that this is a racist incident) I'm guessing there are several black folks participating in this white nationalist protest? And the people your imaginary 17 yr old black person shot were all black as well and attacking him?

Gee, I wonder if there are any real life correlations we could possibly draw from. Like maybe 60 miles south of Kenosha?

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/21/2021 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Someone needs to ask the DA why he passed one of the most high profile cases of our generation off to the ADA. I have a feeling that it was because he knew he didn't have a case.

Could be something there legally where he wasn't allowed to be a lead prosecutor. IDK.

Maybe the DA told the ADA "everyone takes a beating sometime"

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/21/2021 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/21/2021 9:38:00 AM (view original):
I don’t have zero knowledge and I think the jury was wrong.

I also think that a lot of people are up in arms about people up in arms.

It was only because of a terrible law that a 17 year old kid was possessing a gun that the vast majority of the country believes should only be used by law enforcement.

This case showed how messed up the laws are in this country had to be for the shootings to have ever happened
and how permissive and enthusiastically accepting some people are to have 17 year old kids taking the law into his hands and antagonizing people into causing him to be afraid and then him killing them.

Also someone does not have to have watched the trial to be allowed to give a comment.
He can comment all he wants.

You are contradicting yourself. You said the jury was wrong and then you said he got off because of a law you don't like. Both can't be true. He was either within the law and the jury ruled correctly, whether you like or not, or the jury was wrong and he broke laws. Which is it?

You do realize that a large plurality of people from both sides there, possibly a majority, had guns. This was said by a cop under oath as a witness. I'm going to assume you are not a gun enthusiast, apologies in advance if i'm wrong, but a glock 18 (Grosskreutz gun) and an AR-15 are both semi-automatic weapons that are equally as deadly from 6 feet away.

No, people are not up in arms about people up in arms. People are up in arms about people up in arms who don't share their ideologies.

People that say AR-15's should only be used by law enforcement typically know very little about guns. People dislike AR's more because they look scarier. There is very little difference between an AR-15 and a SR-25 or a .750 Woodmaster. The only real difference is aesthetic.

Where's your evidence that he antagonized someone? The defense tried to turn a sarcastic comment into a confession. It failed. Are you doing the same?

I agree with your last part for the most part. I'm a huge free speech advocate. My disagreement comes from the fact that we are divided as a country because there are prominent figures making inflammatory claims about stuff that they have no clue about. Like I said, we have prominent politicians still claiming he crossed state lines with a gun.

I said the jury was wrong AND there are laws that are wrong which allowed him to possess the gun.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/21/2021 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/21/2021 9:38:00 AM (view original):
I don’t have zero knowledge and I think the jury was wrong.

I also think that a lot of people are up in arms about people up in arms.

It was only because of a terrible law that a 17 year old kid was possessing a gun that the vast majority of the country believes should only be used by law enforcement.

This case showed how messed up the laws are in this country had to be for the shootings to have ever happened
and how permissive and enthusiastically accepting some people are to have 17 year old kids taking the law into his hands and antagonizing people into causing him to be afraid and then him killing them.

Also someone does not have to have watched the trial to be allowed to give a comment.
He can comment all he wants.

You are contradicting yourself. You said the jury was wrong and then you said he got off because of a law you don't like. Both can't be true. He was either within the law and the jury ruled correctly, whether you like or not, or the jury was wrong and he broke laws. Which is it?

You do realize that a large plurality of people from both sides there, possibly a majority, had guns. This was said by a cop under oath as a witness. I'm going to assume you are not a gun enthusiast, apologies in advance if i'm wrong, but a glock 18 (Grosskreutz gun) and an AR-15 are both semi-automatic weapons that are equally as deadly from 6 feet away.

No, people are not up in arms about people up in arms. People are up in arms about people up in arms who don't share their ideologies.

People that say AR-15's should only be used by law enforcement typically know very little about guns. People dislike AR's more because they look scarier. There is very little difference between an AR-15 and a SR-25 or a .750 Woodmaster. The only real difference is aesthetic.

Where's your evidence that he antagonized someone? The defense tried to turn a sarcastic comment into a confession. It failed. Are you doing the same?

I agree with your last part for the most part. I'm a huge free speech advocate. My disagreement comes from the fact that we are divided as a country because there are prominent figures making inflammatory claims about stuff that they have no clue about. Like I said, we have prominent politicians still claiming he crossed state lines with a gun.

I respect your posting but my opinion on the evidence differs from yours and I am very very glad that you agreed with my last paragraph because that was the most important thing to me that I said.

Lets keep being agreeable when we disagree.
Kudos to you.

I did not read that most of the people there had guns but I’d like to see more then one person’s opinion on the breakdown of who had what.

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/21/2021 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 11/21/2021 11:03:00 AM (view original):
I have no problem with the verdict from a LEGAL perspective.
Given the legal definitions IN PLACE (in Wisconsin) AND the instructions of Law the jury HAD to apply to these specific circumstances I can quite easily see WHY Rittenhouse was found NOT Guilty of the charges DUE TO a perceived "reasonable doubt" as to Rittenhouse's actions (self-defense?) at the MOMENTS of firing his weapon.

Now that I do know a tad more about the details, I don't think charges (at least) of this nature should have ever been brought.
Likely politics was the reason they were, and THAT is horrific, if true!

However, and for sure.
The FACT that He was found not guilty of the 5 charges has NOTHING to do with the societal acceptance of his actions.
I'd bet money He faces more legal jeopardy.
Lots of lawyers wanting THAT case!

He'll likely end up being found "recklessly endangering" and "damaging" someone by his actions on that night.

I agree with Dino about the state of our Gun laws in this Country and especially (seems like) in Wisconsin.
The FACT that NO charges could be brought against an under (legal) age person packing an assault-type weapon DURING a MELEE, at least partially about underlying racial issues is complete LUNACY!!

Can you imagine what the outcry would be IF the races were all reversed in this??
Imagine Rittenhouse as a BLACK 17 year old KID (in dreadlocks or some such!) packing his AR -15 down the streets during a white Nationalist protest and ending up shooting somebody?? (and claiming self-defense!!)

Think He'd get very far? Think he'd have had a 2 Million legal defense fund, an entire News Network and millions of loud political voices clamoring on his behalf? Think He'd get the benefit of every doubt, released to go home, PROTECTED by the provisions within our Laws??
Pretty sure I'm wise enough to know the answer to that.......... at nearly 70!
And honest enough to say it out LOUD!!

In your imagined scenario (and it is really sad the lengths we're going to in order to cling to the myth that this is a racist incident) I'm guessing there are several black folks participating in this white nationalist protest? And the people your imaginary 17 yr old black person shot were all black as well and attacking him?

Gee, I wonder if there are any real life correlations we could possibly draw from. Like maybe 60 miles south of Kenosha?

I haven’t seen anyone say that this was a racial incident but you keep saying it is an issue.

A few people said there are racial undertones because it was a BLM event and it is a fact that the far right blames BLM protestors collectively gor any violence etc
buf no one said these shooting contained racism.

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/21/2021 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/21/2021 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Someone needs to ask the DA why he passed one of the most high profile cases of our generation off to the ADA. I have a feeling that it was because he knew he didn't have a case.

Could be something there legally where he wasn't allowed to be a lead prosecutor. IDK.

Maybe the DA told the ADA "everyone takes a beating sometime"

I have no idea why anyone would speculate as to why the Ada of Knisha instead of the Da would handle the case. Could be a hundred reasons even that the Da felt that Ada is the best litigator.

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/21/2021 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/21/2021 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 11/21/2021 11:03:00 AM (view original):
I have no problem with the verdict from a LEGAL perspective.
Given the legal definitions IN PLACE (in Wisconsin) AND the instructions of Law the jury HAD to apply to these specific circumstances I can quite easily see WHY Rittenhouse was found NOT Guilty of the charges DUE TO a perceived "reasonable doubt" as to Rittenhouse's actions (self-defense?) at the MOMENTS of firing his weapon.

Now that I do know a tad more about the details, I don't think charges (at least) of this nature should have ever been brought.
Likely politics was the reason they were, and THAT is horrific, if true!

However, and for sure.
The FACT that He was found not guilty of the 5 charges has NOTHING to do with the societal acceptance of his actions.
I'd bet money He faces more legal jeopardy.
Lots of lawyers wanting THAT case!

He'll likely end up being found "recklessly endangering" and "damaging" someone by his actions on that night.

I agree with Dino about the state of our Gun laws in this Country and especially (seems like) in Wisconsin.
The FACT that NO charges could be brought against an under (legal) age person packing an assault-type weapon DURING a MELEE, at least partially about underlying racial issues is complete LUNACY!!

Can you imagine what the outcry would be IF the races were all reversed in this??
Imagine Rittenhouse as a BLACK 17 year old KID (in dreadlocks or some such!) packing his AR -15 down the streets during a white Nationalist protest and ending up shooting somebody?? (and claiming self-defense!!)

Think He'd get very far? Think he'd have had a 2 Million legal defense fund, an entire News Network and millions of loud political voices clamoring on his behalf? Think He'd get the benefit of every doubt, released to go home, PROTECTED by the provisions within our Laws??
Pretty sure I'm wise enough to know the answer to that.......... at nearly 70!
And honest enough to say it out LOUD!!

In your imagined scenario (and it is really sad the lengths we're going to in order to cling to the myth that this is a racist incident) I'm guessing there are several black folks participating in this white nationalist protest? And the people your imaginary 17 yr old black person shot were all black as well and attacking him?

Gee, I wonder if there are any real life correlations we could possibly draw from. Like maybe 60 miles south of Kenosha?

I haven’t seen anyone say that this was a racial incident but you keep saying it is an issue.

A few people said there are racial undertones because it was a BLM event and it is a fact that the far right blames BLM protestors collectively gor any violence etc
buf no one said these shooting contained racism.

This isn’t true at all. There are dozens if not hundreds of articles claiming that Rittenhouse is a racist. The president of the US when he was a candidate even insinuated it.