Rittenhouse found not guilty

[Azy]

https://americanhistory.si.edu/citizenship/test

How do people fail this?

[AlizsahTheBard]

But, back to my main point. If you hate Kyle Rittenhouse, and me, for defending the kid? I say, it's because, you've been LIED to by left wing news media, Democrate politicians and pundits. Much of what I've pointed out, could have easily been discovered and reported on, long ago. This case, shouldhave never been brought to trial. And, I hope Kyle becomes VERY rich, sewing the crap out of all the people and companies, that have slandered him. Like, Joy Reid and Joe Biden, just to name two. And, yes, Joe Biden, is in real legal risk, of being sued. He wasn't president, at the time. Nut, it's all in Kyle's hands, on whether he chooses to bother with it? Go y'all remember the "Covington Kid"? Him, and his lawyer have been raking it in, starting with the CNN settlement.

Excuse me? You are saying if people don't agree with you they've been lied too? So people can't think for themselves, so people can't gather the evidence themselves, they need to listen to your sources or none at all. No you approached this entire thing in aggressive fashion making sweeping opinions and condemnations then act like people are upset because of news media? Could it not be also argued your opinion is skewed because of news media? Like blaming politicians for people having negative view on Kyle Rittenhouse - honestly I despise his Judge more and entire mess of a trial, where Bailiffs did nothing, judge was decried use of term victim and so on. No you are not arguing in good faith and frankly I am glad so many here can see it.

[Vekseid]

judge was decried use of term victim and so on.

My understanding this is common in such cases (though NPR claims it isn't universal), as it works entirely on not presuming guilt.

This is a legitimate grievance of how media, particularly social media, can create a skewed understanding of things. The judge made the legally mandated call, and it got blown out of proportion.

So, I thank you, Vekseid, for the support on that one, but very important part of my argument. But, in my opinion, deleting my signature and changing the title of my thread, seem to be rather petty moves, Mr. God badge.

Oh, and on fucking saying fuck, on the fucking internet goes? I knew that. But, I had read this site, was to be PG-13. So, I was trying to follow your rules. Whether, you believe me or not? And, I do object to having the title of this thread changed. Are you saying a title in the PROC channel isn't allowed to be controversial? Or, is it just at the suggestion, of one of your apparent liberal friends, you changed my title? Or, is it, that you didn't want my thread to catch the attention, of more readers? After all, a title or headline, is meant to be eye catching, to draw in a reader.

People come to my forum to discuss fucking in all of its creative variations. The politics portion of this forum is a side tangent. Putting it in front of everyone who sees one of your posts no matter where it may be in the forum is, frankly, rude. People got annoyed enough with my net neutrality notices, which has at least relevance for everyone here in that it prevents ISP censorship.

Meanwhile, that PROC is meant to cover controversial topics does not grant permission to be an ass.

Be polite, be civil, be respectful. Just because something is not expressly forbidden, does not mean that we will tolerate it. If you are constantly rude, inconsiderate, or otherwise act like a jerk, we will smack your privileges around until you get the hint and behave. If you cannot behave, you will be directed elsewhere.

This is the second-most important rule of the site, after member safety. This means respecting those who you invite to read.

You did not do this. You went in spoiling for a fight to... see liberals whine or something?

And now you're the one whining. Is the new title too civil for you?

Every site has its own culture. This is not a shock forum. It is, again, a forum about sexual writing.

People here read.

You do not need to insult their intelligence by coming up with shock drivel. Take that shit elsewhere, and perhaps try being a bit more respectful of your discussion partners here, and you will be able to find some common ground.

[Chulanowa]

Whydid I call Kyle Rittenhouse, Carl? I honestly can't say, other than, I'm bad with names. But, it was my mistake, and I own it. But, I dare say, I bet Kyle prefers being mistakenly called Carl. Over mistakenly called a murderer, as some of the poster's and likely readers, have done. For all of you that still disagree with me, I point you to Vekaeid's second post. Where, he does back, the one point of my argument, that Kyle was found not guilty, and the evidence supports self defense. And, I'll add, that in America's judicial system. One is presumed innocent, until, found guilty in a court of Law. Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges. Thus, calling him a murderer, is a mistake.

You do understand that there's a difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" right? A "not guilty" verdict simply means the court was unable to produce a guilty verdict for any number of reasons. Perhaps we should reference OJ Simpson here; there's really no doubt that he killed his ex-wife, but the prosecution was so scuffed that the jury couldn't reach a guilty verdict.

Kyle committed assault when he raised his rifle to threaten a man for painting on a car. he committed perjury by claiming a plastic bag of garbage thrown at him constitutes a need for use of lethal force. he committed murder when he killed that man, and committed another murder and aggravated assault with intent to kill when other people tried to subdue and disarm him after the first murder. That the court did not produce a guilty verdict does not change what he did.

So, I thank you, Vekseid, for the support on that one, but very important part of my argument. But, in my opinion, deleting my signature and changing the title of my thread, seem to be rather petty moves, Mr. God badge.

Oh, and on fucking saying fuck, on the fucking internet goes? I knew that. But, I had read this site, was to be PG-13. So, I was trying to follow your rules. Whether, you believe me or not? And, I do object to having the title of this thread changed. Are you saying a title in the PROC channel isn't allowed to be controversial? Or, is it just at the suggestion, of one of your apparent liberal friends, you changed my title? Or, is it, that you didn't want my thread to catch the attention, of more readers? After all, a title or headline, is meant to be eye catching, to draw in a reader.

Moving on...[/quote]

I think maybe you should just be happy that obvious bait-posting seems to be tolerated.

The main point, of my thread, is that if you hate Kyle Rittenhouse, thinking he was some racist, vigilante? You were LIED to, by whatever news source, you used. And, I do mean lied. Are you aware that MANY people believe Kyle shot three black men? It was no accident, that the left leaning media, left out, that all involved, in thisshooting were white. Some, have even reported the shooting victims were black. Don't believe me? Go check out Glen Greenwald, on substack, on how dishonest the American news media, has become. Or, is he no longer a liberal hero?

I dunno about liberals, but this leftist thinks Glenn Greenwald is kind of a shitty person - all he really does is act in a knee-jerk contrarian position. It's a terminal case of devil's advocacy and a great hallmark of a person who has no stakes in anything he talks about. Also "left-leaning media" is always a good chuckle. Anyway.

Kyle is undoubtedly a racist. He hung out with racists, he shared racist memes and banter with racists, he decided to travel to another state to threaten people for protesting the murder of a black man, then he went back to hanging out with his racist friends and celebrated by his racist admirers.

The fact that you went with "Black Lying Marxists" in your opening seethe kinda tipped your hand, buddy.

I'm not claiming Kyle is some kind of hero, or savior., as some seem to think. Kyle Rittenhouse, was a 17 year old kid, at the time. And, while being out ALONE during a riot, was clearly a dumb choice. But, who here didn't make stupid decisions, when we were teenagers? I freely admit, I did. But, I see Kyle, as a basically good kid. He says, he was trying to help people, and I believe him. And, yes, he was armed with an AR style rifle. LEGALLY armed, in Wisconsin.

Ah yes, "youthful indiscretions" and "basically a good kid"

Nah, the dude talked about how he wanted to murder protestors. Then he armed up, went out, and murdered protesters. That's not "indiscretion,' that's not "kids being kids," and it's not "basically a good person," it's a sack of shit committing two counts of first-degree murder.

These are also only defenses that seem to be used for a very certain sort of person conducting a very certain sort of action - that is, a violent white boy commiting an act of violence against someone that the right find "undesirable' - leftists, protestors, women, nonwhites, etc. Again, you're making an easy read.

Now, for those, who are under the impression that Kyle crossing state line, is a big deal. Are you aware that Kyle often drove the 20 miles, or so. Somewhere between the 17 and 21 miles, I've seen reported, is my guess. Kyle's father, other family andsome close friends, live in Kenosha. And, Kyle had a job, in Kenosha. It;s mere happenstance, the state's borders lay between, where he lives with his mother in Illinois. And, where he worked and spends time with family and friends, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Simple put, Kyle is more a part of the Kenosha community, than any outsider, that went to protest and/or riot.

Except of course he traveled there that day specifically to arm himself and act like a vigilante. He wanted to cause a problem and he did so. Now two peopel are dead and a bunch of weirdoes are jacking off about it.

Kyle. in his testimony on the stand, explained how and why he legally purchased his AR rifle, from a legal gun shop, in Wisconsin. He went, looking to buy a shotgun, for skeet shooting. But, none were in stock. But, the dealer said he could legally buy the AR rifle, in stock. As for the only weapons charge brought against Kyle? It had ro be dropped, because, when the rifle barrel was measured, it was proven to indeed, be a long barreled rifle.That's nota loophole. It's the law, as written. And, it's excellent proof of how truly incompetent the prosecutting attorney was, in this case. And is fs proof, that this was a political persecution. Not, a legitimate prosecution. I remind you, Kyle was indicted in 48 hours. A clear rush in judgement. As, 12 jurors proved, with their verdict.

Oh we can agree that the prosecution scuffed the shit out of this. After all, what interest does the state have in prosecuting someone who killed people the state itself regularly kills and assaults? Why would the state want to make itself look bad by going over the fact that its police force closed ranks  around and post ipso facto deputized the murderer? This is after all the  same state that caused the protest in the first place.

Kyle faced no "political persecution," he got a free fucking game.

For the so called white power sign? I still say Kyle, like me and MANY, many other people. Still see and use that sign as the OK sign. And, that's all it is, to us. Where I live, on the long highway drives, many of us use that sign, as we see a car coming towards us, if the road behind us, is clear of speed traps. There are long stretches of roads in Texas. And, some small towns are notorious speed traps. And, in the past, I've flashed that sign at people of all colors. And, never once got the middle finger, from a driver of any color. As, for Kyle, he gave his smart phone to the police and unlocked it for them. I'm unaware of any warrent being issued, for Kyle's phone. And ZERO. other evidence, has been found, showing Kyle is a white supremacist.

Maybe because you were not hanging out with a white supremacist gang after murdering two people at a black lives matter protest when you did it. Context matters, and you know it. That you're being very intentionally obtuse is another clear read.

All of you, rooting for Kyle to be charged in any kind of federal charges? I predict. that you're in for another disappointment. There has been no evidence, shown that proves Kyle ever took his rifle across state lines. And, it's perfectly legal for a 17 year old to own a long barrel rifle, in Wisconsin. The DoJ can investigate all they want. But, if theyare honest? There will be no further charges, against Kyle Rittenhouse. But, Metric Garland has loosed the terrorism division of the DoJ on angry PTA parents. Because an angry parent, should be treated like a domestic terrorist? Seriously?

Maybe because of the numerous threats against school board members, teachers, and school faculty.

Between this and Rittnehouse, it seems that you believe one ought to be able to threaten and even use violence against people one dislikes or disagrees with, and it's the response to doing so that is what's wrong.

But, back to my main point. If you hate Kyle Rittenhouse, and me, for defending the kid? I say, it's because, you've been LIED to by left wing news media, Democrate politicians and pundits. Much of what I've pointed out, could have easily been discovered and reported on, long ago. This case, shouldhave never been brought to trial. And, I hope Kyle becomes VERY rich, sewing the crap out of all the people and companies, that have slandered him. Like, Joy Reid and Joe Biden, just to name two. And, yes, Joe Biden, is in real legal risk, of being sued. He wasn't president, at the time. Nut, it's all in Kyle's hands, on whether he chooses to bother with it? Go y'all remember the "Covington Kid"? Him, and his lawyer have been raking it in, starting with the CNN settlement.

I don't hate people. it's a wasted emotion. I do think you're at best extremely foolish, and at worst extremely disingenuous.

I expect you to be as celebratory when your next vigilante hero gets domed and left on the street after pulling a stunt like this. Self-defense and all.

Fixed formatting - Veks

[Chulanowa]

Round of applause for my excellent post formatting skills everyone XD

[Haibane]

https://americanhistory.si.edu/citizenship/test

How do people fail this?

I have no idea. I got 9/10 and I've never read the document or paid any interest in it. All I know about the US Constitution was gleaned from the TV (mostly "John Adams") and gun rights activists and people storming the capitol ... and this forum.

The "freedom of speech" one is the biggie that most people are clueless about. First thing is that on the internet there is NO freedom of speech (well, almost zero since almost every webspace / forum / whatever is privately owned, and in a privately owned space what the owner says is allowed is what is allowed ... but so many people just don't get that).

[Chulanowa]

The funny thing I've noticed is that the people who are loudest about absolute freedom of speech... seem to usually be the people who really have nothing to say that's worth hearing. Like 90% of the time they're mad that they don't get to use a slur of some sort and it's just like... There's 1,022,000 words in the English language that can be strung together into nearly infinite combinations of meaning and depth and you, you howling champion of the freedom to do so, are only interested in one of them.

weird stuff to me.  ;D

[Haibane]

Some years ago I was called a Nazi for moderating a forum I set up and ran at my own expense. I just giggled and banned the guy. I mean, Nazi? For keeping a subject on topic? Fuck you dude.

[Azy]

There are limits to it.  You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater is an example often used.  Doing so when there is no fire causes mass panic and people get trampled.  You cannot commit slander or liable.  I think one is written and one is spoken, and I keep forgetting which is which, but the main gist is claiming things that are not true and harm another's reputation.  Also, yes, privately owned web spaces are another thing.  The people screaming censorship over what social media has been up to recently don't quite seem to understand that when you create an account you have that TOS agreement that you must click the I agree box to make the account.  Most people don't read them at all.  I often skim through it because it would take a half hour to sit and read the whole thing, not to mention it's written in legal speak, which is often difficult for the average person to really understand anyhow.  But I believe that Facebook maintains the right to delete my account or anything I have posted because they woke up and felt like it. 

[Oniya]

You cannot commit slander or liable.  I think one is written and one is spoken, and I keep forgetting which is which,

Slander is Spoken
Libel is Legible? (Literary? - pick your L word...)

It also has to be factually untrue.

[Beorning]

https://americanhistory.si.edu/citizenship/test

How do people fail this?

I've got 8/10 and I'm not even an American...

BTW. Does this mean I can go and live in the US now? :)

[Vekseid]

I've got 8/10 and I'm not even an American...

BTW. Does this mean I can go and live in the US now? :)

Well you only need 6/10 to pass the test. Though there are a hundred questions (unless you are over 65) it gets sampled from and some aren't very common knowledge.

That said you'd have, at a minimum, several years to study the questions.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

Real US citizen test isnt diffacult, I pass this, many years before. :-) Im amazed, some people born in US dont know these answers. Its the simple test, for passing. :-)

[AlizsahTheBard]

LegalEagle did a video on this - figured some here may be interested in seeing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI

[Evilly]

To Azy, I award you the prize for the best video, to thus far be linked to my thread. Bo, is a hoot. I may have to view more of his videos.

Now, for your argument, in a later post, where you refer to "Due Process" on the issue of the 48 hour indictment. As previously stated, I'm not a lawyer. But, the due process right pertains to people being held, in jail. They must either be charged, or released, within a certain number of hours. Now, considering Kyle did try turning himself, to a policeman,that night. And, was told to go home. He ended up turning himself in, the next day, to authorities. Which, kind of kills any flight risk argument, for detaining him. In any case,a prosecuter is not forced to charge someone, within 48 hours, when the investigation, is incomplete. It's part of the reason a fair and competent prosecuter often waits months to file charges.
And, I totally agree on the amount of ignorance, naturally born Americans, often display on civics and history. Especially, when it's done, on, or near a college campus. I see it, as an argument, for supporting school vouchers, instead of supporting corrupt teacher's unions.
I agree on ToS contracts. People almost need a legal degree to get through the mountain of legalese. And, make one'seyes glaze over, reading it. Sorry to hear about your Facebook problem. That sucked.
  But, from what I hear, Kyle Rittenhouse may have a solid case to sue the crap out of Facebook. I hope he does.

Now, for all of you, still claiming Kyle is a murder, or should be charged with various different charges? You are wrong. I, again, point you to Vekseid's second post. Since, none of you, believe me. First, there is a lot of video, that night. And, it all supports Kyle's self defense. For those of you, that still believe you're correct, in your legal assertions? Why not sum up your best argument and email it to the DA's office, in Kenosha? Or, the Feds, and see what kind of response, you get? I say, you'll be wasting your time. But, it is your time, to use, as you please.

For, all of you arguing about the plastic bag, hurled at Kyle, by Rosebaum? First, I point out most of you do not even agree on the bag's contents. Yo me? Common sense says, if you hurl a plastic bag, at night. Towards an obviously armed individual. You are putting yourself in risk of being shot. And, in places, like WIS, the shooter, will likely have a solid self defense.

For all of you making a moral argument, against Kyle. Are you aware that Rosenbaum, was a convicted child rapist? 11 counts, involving 5 boys, between the ages of 9 and 11. Now, this didn't come up in the trial, as someone pointed out and linked the records of these, so called, victims. But, were you aware, that you're defending a pedophile, and two other people with criminal records. And, I can't shed a tear, for a dead child raper.
Oh, BTW. Rosenbaum, is on the record, for running around screaming the N-bomb. Why? I can only say, he obviously had mental problems. But, that's more evidence, on Rosenbaum's racism. Than any real proof of Kyle, being a racist.

[AlizsahTheBard]

For all of you making a moral argument, against Kyle. Are you aware that Rosenbaum, was a convicted child rapist? 11 counts, involving 5 boys, between the ages of 9 and 11. Now, this didn't come up in the trial, as someone pointed out and linked the records of these, so called, victims. But, were you aware, that you're defending a pedophile, and two other people with criminal records. And, I can't shed a tear, for a dead child raper.
Oh, BTW. Rosenbaum, is on the record, for running around screaming the N-bomb. Why? I can only say, he obviously had mental problems. But, that's more evidence, on Rosenbaum's racism. Than any real proof of Kyle, being a racist.

Question did you know this before he was shot, did Kyle or is Right Wing just trying to find crimes these people did previously to point out they deserved to be shot, like it usually does?

[Oniya]

In addition, we're going to need sources for these claims, as per the policies listed here.

[Lexandria]

Whatever the victims may or may not have done in the past,   it was not Rittenhouse's place to be judge, jury, and/or executioner. What those men may have done has no bearing on what was done to them. That is how our justice system works, and thus has no bearing when discussing what was done to them unless it was specifically part of the motivation to shoot them. However, it is unlikely that Rittenhouse knew anything about the people he shot until after the fact or it would have been a large part of the trial in one capacity of another.

[Keelan]

First, I would like to thank Vekseid, Oniya, and TheGlyphstone for feedback as I put this together, and please note this MAY be a post split among two given how long it is.

Second, I want to say I don't necessarily agree with any statement made by anyone in this thread, but I noticed that most people had SOME key fact or another that was incorrect when discussing this case, and as someone who watched (most of) the trial, tracked analyses of a number of lawyers, and looked into the case a fair bit, I feel I need to say what I do below and have worked quite a bit on it:

If you want a couple of news articles related to my assessment, here you go I got NPR and CNN:

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/us/kyle-rittenhouse-what-we-learned-from-trial/index.html

Also of note, here is the gun laws that were used to charge Rittenhouse with illegal possession by someone under 18, AND related charges on others (Spoilered because it's kind of long, but I bolded the relevant parts):

LOTS of Legal Mumbo Jumbo

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
948.60(3)(c)(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.
History: 1979 c. 115; 2001 a. 109.
The intent in sub. (1) (d) is that of the fabricator; that the gun is incapable of being fired or not intended to be fired by the possessor is immaterial. State v. Johnson, 171 Wis. 2d 175, 491 N.W.2d 110 (Ct. App. 1992).
“Firearm" means a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder to fire a projectile, regardless of whether it is inoperable due to disassembly. State v. Rardon, 185 Wis. 2d 701, 518 N.W.2d 330 (Ct. App. 1994).

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(1)  Persons under 12 years of age.
(a) Prohibition on hunting. No person under 12 years of age may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(c) Restrictions on obtaining hunting approval. Except as provided under par. (d), no person under 12 years of age may obtain any approval authorizing hunting.
(d) Restrictions on validity of certificate of accomplishment. A person under 12 years of age may obtain a certificate of accomplishment if he or she complies with the requirements of s. 29.591 (4) but that certificate is not valid for the hunting of small game until that person becomes 12 years of age.
(2)  Persons 12 to 14 years of age.
(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(3)  Persons 14 to 16 years of age.
(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may hunt unless he or she:
1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian;
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor; or
3. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.
(4)  Parental obligation. No parent or guardian of a child under 16 years of age may authorize or knowingly permit the child to violate this section.
(4m)  Hunting mentorship program. The prohibition specified in sub. (1) (a) and the restrictions specified in subs. (1) (b) to (d), (2), and (3) do not apply to a person who is hunting with a mentor and who complies with the requirements specified under s. 29.592.
(5)  Exception.
(a) Notwithstanding subs. (1) to (3), a person 12 years of age or older may possess or control a firearm and may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow on land under the ownership of the person or the person's family if no license is required and if the firing of firearms is permitted on that land.
(b)
1. In this paragraph, “ target practice" includes trap shooting or a similar sport shooting activity regardless of whether the activity involves shooting at a fixed or a moving target.
2. The restrictions on the possession and control of a firearm under sub. (1) do not apply to a person using a firearm in target practice if he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
History: 1983 a. 420; 1997 a. 197; 1997 a. 248 s. 431; Stats. 1997 s. 29.304; 2005 a. 289; 2009 a. 39; 2011 a. 252, 258.
Cross-reference: See also s. NR 10.001, Wis. adm. code.

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:
(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.
History: 1983 a. 420; 1991 a. 254; 1997 a. 27, 197; 1997 a. 248 ss. 427 to 430; Stats. 1997 s. 29.593; 1999 a. 32; 2005 a. 289; 2009 a. 39; 2013 a. 61.

Finally, here's a little thing on self-defense, because over the hours of writing this I ended up blurring terms together and not clarifying things like reasonable force, reasonable suspicion, and objective reasonableness: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/using-a-gun-self-defense-laws-and-consequences.htm

Well, not quite finally YET; please note that a lot of my assessment is from discussion and evidence at the trial, BUT it's also from memory of watching and reading up on it as I didn’t want to re-watch weeks and hours of testimony and evidence. I don't have reference to transcript either, would have loved to have better cited it, but I did what I could without trying to pull court transcripts and shit, because again it would be a LOT of work to make happen.

He crossed state lines with an illegal firearm!

"He crossed state lines with an illegal firearm!"

No. He showed up the day before in Kenosha. He stayed at his friend Dominick Black's house not his father's - both live in Kenosha while his mom is in Antioch, IL - and went to Kenosha the next day with his friends who also lived in Kenosha.

The firearm was legally purchased and owned by Dominick Black from May 2020 onwards, with the intention of transferring it to Rittenhouse when he turned 18 via a person to person transfer. Dominick retained ownership and storage of the rifle when it was not in use by Rittenhouse, only allowing Rittenhouse to use it prior to the incident in question under supervised use when they both would go shooting in a rural part of the state.

When Rittenhouse turned himself in to the Antioch, IL police 1 hour or so after the shooting, he was no longer in possession of the weapon as it had been returned to Dominick Black at that point, thus it never crossed any state lines and it was in Wisconsin the whole time.

Dominick Black was charged under the same law as Rittenhouse as 2 felony counts of transferring a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 which lead to death, but Dominick was NOT charged with having committed a straw purchase. I do not have the law to cite here, and he could potentially still be charged with it, BUT many states have a time limit on how long someone must be in possession of a firearm after purchase before it can be transferred, and since he bought it in May and had not transferred it to Rittenhouse in any capacity (carry is not the same as legal ownership, and carry of a gun you do not is not necessarily illegal unless you stole it or otherwise took it without the owner's knowledge, which Dominick told Rittenhouse he could use it), it may not be applicable and that might be why it has not been charged.

Why was the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under 18 dropped?

"Why was the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under 18 dropped?"

The law above is basically written so that in simplified language of the relevant sections:

1) People under 18 cannot open-carry dangerous weapons designated as rifles or shotguns.
2) This law only applies to people under 18 who are carrying rifles or shotguns and who are also in violation of these specific other sections of the law.
3) First section specifically states that this law only applies to short barrel rifles (SBRs), which are a form of weapon with a barrel <16in and/or an overall length of <26in.
4) Second section specifically talks about hunting by people under 16 years of age.
5) Third section specifically talks about hunting permits.

Now, this means that in order for part 1 to apply, Part 2 must be fulfilled, meaning he must be in violation of at least one component of parts 3-5 above. Part 4 and 5 only apply to hunting, and as Rittenhouse was not hunting these are not applicable. This means the only one he could be in violation of is part 3, meaning the weapon would need to be legally an SBR for Rittenhouse to be carrying illegally. However, in court the Defense contested that the rifle was NOT an SBR, the judge said they could measure it, and the Prosecution conceded that the weapon did NOT meet the definitions of an SBR and legally was just a normal rifle.

This means that as Rittenhouse was not in violation of sections 3-5, this means he didn't qualify for section 2, and thus part 1 did not apply. Meaning that it is technically legal for people under 18 in Wisconsin to legally carry rifles and shotguns in public but NOT SBRs or Short-Barrel Shotguns (SBSs), which are both regulated federally under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Now, as above Dominick Black was charged under this, but those same sections apply to the actions he took as well, meaning it's VERY possible that those charges may be dropped as well because it would have required him to give Rittenhouse an SBR, and/or them to be hunting and Rittenhouse to be both unpermitted and under 16 years of age, none of which were applicable. This does mean legally it's okay for someone legally owning and possessing a rifle or shotgun to give it to someone under 18 in public to carry so long as the rifle or shotgun is not an SBR or SBS.

If you are of the opinion that this law is fucking stupidly written, you are not wrong.

Rittenhouse wasn't part of the community!

"Rittenhouse wasn't part of the community!"

Rittenhouse worked in the community, had friends in the community, had his father and other family in the community, had a girlfriend in the community, and spent time in the community often when he wasn't at his mother's home in Antioch, which is less than 30 minutes away from Kenosha (which for those outside of the US, 30 minutes is NOT a long trip for most of the US).

But his mother-

"But his mother-

TheGlyphstone covered this well; she was not involved at all in this entire process, except maybe being there for her son when he turned himself in (conjecture on my part; he did turn himself in in Antioch where his mom lives after all).

He wasn't asked to be there!

"He wasn't asked to be there!"

Well, yes and no; there was a general call from the Kenosha Militia Group for people to show up, but no evidence supports that anybody that Rittenhouse knew was responding to that call, nor any evidence that they were associated with that militia at all. In court, everyone that was there with Rittenhouse that evening said that they were responding to the requests of Sahil and Anmol Khindri - the two who owned the location they were guarding. Everyone who showed up with Rittenhouse testified in court - as witnesses called by both Prosecution AND Defense - that they were responding to a request by them. The aforementioned owners however testified on behalf of the Prosecution that they did NOT ask them to come... but they also testified that they didn't ask them to LEAVE and were happy for them to be their to protect the building.

Sahil was found in pictures with everyone that showed up including Rittenhouse, and Anmol even testified that he spoke with Rittenhouse directly about fundraisers to help fix the damage to the businesses and community. Again, they were the only two to testify that they did NOT ask Rittenhouse and his friends to show up, but also explicitly said they did not ask them to leave either.

This is conjecture on my part, but I could foresee them being concerned about legal liability in civil suits if they HAD asked them to come show up, and thus may have motivation to deny doing so.

Why didn't they allow the video with him hitting a girl or threatening to kill shoplifters?

"Why didn't they allow the video with him hitting a girl or threatening to kill shoplifters?"

Veks linked the former, so here is the latter (one's NYPost, one's it's original source, video same, NYPost gave me less trouble watching):
https://www.jsonline.com/videos/news/crime/2021/08/19/rittenhouse-can-heard-saying-wish-had-my-expletive-ar/8188781002/
https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/kyle-rittenhouse-dreamed-about-shooting-people-days-before-kenosha-video/

For the former, it should be noted that he didn't just beat up a girl at random; for context: Rittenhouse's sister was arguing with the girl in question, the two of them eventually came to blows as you can see in the video, and it was after the girl and his sister started fighting that Rittenhouse jumped in assaulting the girl along with his sister.

Just as easily as you could argue 'he was beating up a girl', you could also argue 'he came to defense of his family in a confrontation'. Could be swung for character either way with a competent lawyer.

For the second video: it was found nearly a year after the incident, but is dated as having been taken approximately 15 days prior to the incident in Kenosha. The video was not taken in Kenosha. Additionally, there is no visual confirmation that the person talking is Rittenhouse, just sound of a voice kind of like his. There also seems to be some question of where it came from, and how it was found.

Another piece that wasn't allowed was the part involving the Proud Boys: in this case, it wasn't allowed in because it had no relevance to the case, as it occurred AFTER the events of the trial took place. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that he knew any of the members of the Proud Boys prior to that incident at the bar after his release. In fact there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest he knew them prior to meeting them at the bar even. Whether Rittenhouse is racist or just a dumbass kid being an edgelord and enjoying attention from them, I will not speculate, but I will say that out of all of the evidence pulled from his phone, accounts, and social media, they did not bring up anything to indicate such in trial or prior to it aside from this incident.

However, there were two main reasons for not including any of the above in the case:

1) The above was deemed 'propensity evidence' towards violence, but the propensity they were attempting to allege was determined to not reflect the nature of the violence of the incident in a meaningful way; one incident was only involving fists, one incident was verbal only with an unrealistic ability to back up their verbal declaration, and the last one did not involve actual violence at all and occurred after the fact. However the bigger issue was:

2) If they had allowed the propensity evidence for Rittenhouse, they would have opened the door to propensity evidence for Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz

I'll be careful here since as per Veks there's been some issues on this section, so I'll provide a link to snopes real quick which goes over things: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/

But the short of it is that if they had allowed the propensity evidence of the Defendant, then they likely would have been able to allow the propensity evidence of Grosskreutz, Rosenbaum, and Huber, as well as possibly others. Not to mention, as the Snopes article notes and the court concluded: there was no evidence to suggest that any past actions were directly related to the events of the case by any parties involved directly in the incidents of the case, aka. the propensity evidence was ultimately deemed irrelevant for everyone involved.

Why can't they call them victims, but they can call the victims rioters and arsonists and looters?!

"Why can't they call them victims, but they can call the victims rioters and arsonists and looters?!"

An important facet to this answer: the legal system operates under 'innocent until proven guilty' in the US, which is in contrast to some other countries to my awareness. This means that the burden of proof is on the Prosecution to show that the Defendant is guilty of a crime and to provide evidence as such beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why for closing arguments, Prosecution goes first, then Defense, and the Prosecution gets a Rebuttal (because the burden of proof is on them, meaning they have the harder case to make in court and thus get the last word).

As such, on to victim: this is a self-defense case, NOT a murder case, to put it colloquially. If it was a murder case, then calling the deceased a victim is not a problem; they CLEARLY are a victim, but the question of the case is 'is the Defendant the one who committed the crime against the victim?' However, in a self-defense case, the question is NOT whether someone is dead or injured - that is already a given - but rather instead 'was the death or injury the result of criminal action in the first place?' aka 'is the deceased a victim or a perpetrator of a crime against the defendant who then responded in self-defense?'

'Victim' as a term for the deceased and injured would thus be seen as a prejudicial term, as in order for their to be a 'victim' there must necessitate a 'perpetrator' or 'assailant' or 'aggressor' or etc when in the context of an interpersonal crime. A victim has to be victimized in order to be a victim, basically. As such, the term was not allowed to be used in the self-defense case, and apparently this is standard practice for self-defense cases seen by this judge (possibly the court, but at least this judge)

Looter, Rioter, and Arsonist however has a slightly different logic: self-defense requires that you be in imminent threat to death or great bodily harm in Wisconsin, meaning you cannot shoot someone simply for lighting a building you do not own on fire or attempting to (I specify 'you don't own' to avoid having to go into Castle Doctrine in Wisconsin; best to avoid since it's not applicable here). For the Prosecution, calling the deceased or wounded these terms could hurt their case against the defendant - but that's fine because they have the burden of proof to make their case. For Defense, this is a double-edged sword; sure, it could paint the deceased or wounded as criminals, BUT it could convince the jury that the reason for the shooting was to prevent property crime, not to protect his life or limb. As it could be a problematic term for Prosecution AND Defense, it was deemed fine to use.

However, the use of these terms had another reasoning too: we have video evidence of Rosenbaum and others lighting things on fire and being belligerent and confrontational, and this evidence was admitted into evidence for the case. As they were not the ones on trial, and the evidence supported the labels, it was thus set by the judge that 'if you can show it on evidence, you can use the terms if you think it will help your case'.

As an example of what I mean, this was included into evidence (yes I know it's twitter, but it's the video, and also NSFW because you may see the wound of Grosskreutz in the tweet above the video): https://twitter.com/i/status/1460326688387223556

If Veks wants to clip out the above link it's fine; I'm having a very hard time finding full video of Rosenbaum pushing a lit dumpster towards a gas station before it was put out by a fire extinguisher and directly lead to him being aggressive towards people armed with rifles and his infamous 'shoot me n***a!' clip.

As another note: they also did not allow a clip of the cops telling Rittenhouse that he was doing a good job and they were glad the other guys and him were there, because they did not want the topic of the case to be about the failure of or actions of the cops, but rather about Rittenhouse's own actions, and thought that would also be unfairly prejudicial against the Prosecution to suggest his actions were approved of by the cops. This likewise was not shown at trial either.

He impersonated an EMT!

"He impersonated an EMT!"

First, that was not a charge in the case.

However there is video evidence of him responding 'yes' when asked if he was an EMT, and another one I'm aware of where he said he was an EMT and to come to him if they needed medical aid. He had a medical bag with medical supplies with him as well and was wearing purple nitrile gloves as well throughout the night. Keep in mind however, that 'medics' were a common thing throughout 2020 at protests on both/all sides, and it's not necessarily clear just how many were trained EMTs vs how many were simply Good Samaritans out there wanting to help people, but I heard the term 'medic' and saw everything from white and red crosses to plate carriers with 'Medic' patches on them throughout the last year.

I suspect this was not charged because of a funny little quirk of language wherein we often use official terms for unofficial things; given the prevalence of 'medics' throughout last year, the prosecution would have to prove that when he said 'EMT' he was indeed intending to convince people that he was a licensed medical professional and not just someone who was willing to provide Good Samaritan aid and using a common term people recognize. This could prove difficult as they may have seen many 'medics' over the course of the last year across the news. In other words: it was probably a fight not worth having as it would probably detract from the rest of the Prosecution's 'murder' case to go after it.

He provoked them first! It's not self-defense if you provoke!

"He provoked them first! It's not self-defense if you provoke!"

This is a complex answer, but some details of note and a link to a recent video by LegalEagle that covers some of the nuances of this as well (Disclaimer: I only support about the first half of the video; towards the end I feel it gets a bit... iffy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI&ab_channel=LegalEagle

1) Rittenhouse was open-carrying (legally, see above), meaning he was legally allowed to have that gun on his person visible to the public so long as he made no attempt to hide (aka 'conceal') the weapon on his person, because then he would now be 'conceal carrying' a weapon which would have required a permit to do so in Wisconsin and typically is unavailable to anyone under 21 years of age or higher
2) Similarly, longarms are typically less strictly regulated than handguns, to which Handguns require the individual be 21 years of age and either worn open-carry in a holster OR conceal-carried with a permit, which Rittenhouse indicated is why he had a longarm and not a handgun
3) Open carrying on its own is legal in Wisconsin, and thus it is not implicitly a provocative act unless you attempt to threaten, aim the weapon at ('brandish'), or do some other aggressive or threatening action other than simply existing with an open-carried firearm on your person

So, what does this mean? It means that Rittenhouse simply possessing a rifle is NOT on its own a provocative act from a legal standpoint; he would have had to point the gun at someone, grip it and make threatening gestures towards someone, shoot it, or otherwise take any action traditionally viewed as provocative or threatening. The evidence provided does not indicate he pointed his gun at anyone until AFTER Rosenbaum had begun to chase him, with 2 possible and dubious exceptions:

1) There was a couple second section of a video in evidence during the trial where someone said 'You pointed that gun at me!' to him, he responded 'I did?' in a questioning tone, and was seen walking away from the individual in question. The video - which I'm having difficulty finding so I'm going from memory here, my apologies - did not actually show him pointing the gun at the individual in question. This was when it was still light out in the day, several hours before the shooting.

2) The defense's single piece of contrary evidence to everything else that showed what happened prior to the original ambush by Rosenbaum was footage from a drone taking off over a block away from Rittenhouse, going up into the sky, and being focused on the lot where the shooting of Rosenbaum took place. The Prosecution said that it showed Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at the Ziminski's - who were on the opposite side of the car that Rosenbaum had hid behind before ambushing Rittenhouse - which they claimed was evidence of provocation (and if it was true, it would qualify as provocation certainly). However, there was a lot that was questionable about this:

   A) The video was from the drone more than a block away, and this evidence required 20 hours of work by an expert to make it usable. Even so, the video was still unzoomed block+ distance, and not only did they have to show the judge a close-up of it on a big HD screen to try and get him to see what they were saying, and even then he still didn't see what they were saying was there (but allowed it anyway). I paused the video and tried to find him and even I had issues seeing what they said it was.
   B) The Defense pointed out how the Prosecution didn't properly explain what had been done to it over the course of the 20 hours of work that went into it, and raised the issue of interpolation (it's what they meant even if they had difficulty explaining it to a non-tech-savvy judge) and other forms of digital distortion or 'adding pixels via AI or algorithm', and the Prosecution's expert was absolutely stupid and unable to properly explain the situation with the image. However, the judge ultimately allowed the evidence to be shown to the jury.
   C) However, once it was shown, the Defense pointed out that if there was no pixels added, the image would appear to show that somehow Rittenhouse had become a left-handed shooter, when he was right handed, had been carrying his weapon on a sling in a right-handed shooter orientation (sling going up over the top of the right shoulder and around the left side of the chest) immediately prior to encountering the Ziminski's, and was doing so immediately after when Rosenbaum was chasing him.
   D) The only people who could have supported this version of events and give credence to the ONLY piece of evidence that could have indicated provocation prior to the first shooting incident if true were the Ziminskis... and they were never called by the Prosecution nor the Defense to testify. The Prosecution indicated they would not call them as it was a '5th Amendment Issue' - which as a reminder is the right to remain silent, right to not have to testify against yourself in a court of law, and right to seek legal counsel, all without this being taken as admission of guilt or innocence.

The rest of the videos and witness statements do not support that he engaged in any other activity that could have legally been seen as provocative, for while putting out fires with a fire extinguisher provoked some of the rioters in a non-legal sense, and some may have been unnerved by the fact he was visibly armed, neither of these would be legally sufficient to argue provocation.

Additionally, there was no talk of provocation being a thing until AFTER Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he was not shot when he had his hands up and was appearing to surrender, but instead he was only shot AFTER he then pointed his gun and moved towards Rittenhouse after his apparent surrender. The bringing up of provocation is actually a marked pivot in the Prosecution's argued case after that.

However, even if he HAD provoked: just because you engage in a provocation does not mean you lose the right to self-defense INDEFINITELY. I'll use an example to illustrate:

1) Person A goes up to Person B, points a gun at him, and says 'give me your wallet' <-This act would be provocation, and would also qualify as a threat of death or great bodily injury for the purpose of Person B being able to defend himself

2) Person B knocks the gun away, draws his own gun, and attempts to shoot person A <-He is now in the process of using lethal force in an act of self-defense against an assailant

3) Person A - whether or not he is injured by Person B at this time - now turns around and flees as fast as he can from Person B who is now shooting at him in self-defense

4) Person B sees Person A is now fleeing, and decides that he is going to sprint after him, intending to continue shooting him <- Person B is now attempting to give chase to Person A who provoked him and to which he has responded with self-defensive lethal force, and is in the process of becoming the aggressor

5) Person B no longer is at risk to imminent death or great bodily harm, and is now the pursuer; if Person A runs into a Dead End alleyway and Person B continues to approach him with the gun up and/or begins shooting at him again, Person A is now legally within his right to defend himself with lethal force because he is now at imminent risk of death or great bodily injury from Person B after he made a good faith effort to flee from a problem he started.

Basically, self-defense has to be used defensively in response to perceived imminent great bodily harm or death; it is not a carte blanche to kill the person who is threatening you if they are no longer a threat - e.g. if you blow their arm off and they are no longer pointing a gun at you (Grosskreutz) or they flee from you and no longer pose a threat ('Jump-Kick' Man). If you attempt aggressive action after they no longer are  threat, then you forsake your right to self defense and can give your provocateur the right to use theirs. This is actually one of the main reasons a lot of self-defense cases fail; accidentally crossing that border from self-defense into assault is very easy to do.

This actually is a good time to address:

Why didn't he just keep fleeing?! Why did he turn around and shoot Rosenbaum?!

"Why didn't he just keep fleeing?! Why did he turn around and shoot Rosenbaum?!"

Note: LegalEagle Video in previous section is relevant here too.

So, there's a few methods by which self-defense is handled, but the two main ones in a legal sense outside the home, business, or vehicle are: Duty to Retreat, and Stand Your Ground. Duty to Retreat states require that you exhaust EVERY attempt to flee or extricate yourself from the altercation before you can even consider responding aggressively. Stand Your Ground (or states that simply aren't Duty to Retreat) do NOT require you to do that; if you are met with a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, you do not have to retreat and can instead respond with lethal force right from the get go (aka. you can stand your grown against a threatening assailant).

Wisconsin is NOT a Duty to Retreat state; Rittenhouse, when faced with a credible imminent threat to death or great bodily injury would NOT be required to flee first before using lethal force to defend himself. This means, that when Rosenbaum ambushed Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse may have legally been in the right to shoot Rosenbaum immediately without running from him as he did, assuming that Rittenhouse did not provoke Rosenbaum first. This is why that one piece of odd-ball evidence from the Prosecution - the drone footage - was so crucial to their case when Grosskreutz tanked their case on the stand.

Anyway, the short of it is that Rittenhouse didn't HAVE to retreat, but chose to anyway. This is usually good in a court of law because it's easier to paint yourself as attempting to exhaust all other options first, despite not legally being required to do so. This worked in Rittenhouse's favor I believe.

However, right after Rittenhouse was first being chased, Ziminski shot his handgun into the air ('Warning Shots' and the like are actually quite illegal, and the Ziminski in question has a pending case as per the 5th Amendment Concerns aforementioned) approximately at the same time as the bag was thrown by Rosenbaum at Rittenhouse. At this point Rittenhouse turns around, points his gun at Rosenbaum, but does NOT pull the trigger as Rosenbaum briefly pauses - visibly unarmed - before starting to chase Rittenhouse again. This is not 'provocation' either as Rosenbaum at this point is still the aggressor, and while he does pause, he then continues to pursue Rittenhouse, continuing his aggression.

Rittenhouse then gets to his position between the cars, and additional evidence at trial from a different angle shows that across the street in front of Rittenhouse is a decently sized crowd of people destroying property and potentially antagonistic towards him and his friends. Seeing that, it could possibly be reasonable for him to conclude he did not have any further ability to retreat as he would be running into or by the angry crowd that may have come after him alongside Rosenbaum, though keep in mind he STILL did not need to flee from a legal standpoint in the first place. It is at this point that he turns around and shoots Rosenbaum, killing him.

But he shoots him four times! Twice while he was on the ground not a threat! And he was unarmed!

"But he shoots him four times! Twice while he was on the ground not a threat! And he was unarmed!"

For context: Rittenhouse fired 4 shots in less than 0.75 seconds, or less than 750 milliseconds (normal human reaction time is around 0.25 seconds or 250 milliseconds for reference). For this section too, I refer to this: (Source: https://news.wttw.com/2021/11/09/drone-video-rittenhouse-murder-trial-shows-first-shooting )

And a quote from it:

Kelley, the pathologist, said Rosenbaum was shot four times by someone who was within 4 feet of him. He testified that Rosenbaum was first wounded in the groin and then in the hand and thigh as he faced Rittenhouse, and then was shot in the head and in the back.

Those final two shots were at a downward angle, the pathologist said. Prosecutors have said this indicates Rosenbaum was falling forward, while defense attorney Mark Richards said Rosenbaum was lunging.

Kelley said both scenarios were possible.

Kelley also said Rosenbaum’s hand was “in close proximity or in contact with the end of that rifle.”

Richards pointed out small injuries from soot on Rosenbaum’s hand and said: “So that hand was over the barrel of Mr. Rittenhouse’s gun when his hand was shot.”

“That makes sense,” Kelley said.

And video of it, to which it's the 0:15 - 0:18 second mark, which is drone video of the shooting, is available here (NSFW warning for areas around the given time... and the fact that technically it's video of the shooting): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-murder-shooting-video-b1954579.html

So, what does this mean? Well, it means that when Rosenbaum was shot, he was within 4 feet of Rittenhouse, and per the pathologist his hand was either 'grabbing' or 'swatting' the barrel of the rifle as their is GSR/burns on his hand. We have visual evidence and forensic-supported evidence that he was NOT shot after he was on the ground, but rather as he was 'falling' or 'lunging' at Rittenhouse after the first 2 shots. In context of an incident we're literally measuring in fractions of a second, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the fall/lunge was the latter in the circumstances, not to mention that once it was abundantly clear that Rosenbaum was going to the ground, Rittenhouse did stop shooting, as it was obvious that Rosenbaum was no longer a threat.

Now, the unarmed part? Here's a article for reference: https://abc7chicago.com/terry-kennedy-skateboard-josiah-kassahunm-murder-wheaton/10926911/

Something people don't realize is just because you are UNARMED does not mean that you are NOT a threat, particularly when there is credible evidence and reason to believe that you intend to inflict imminent death or great bodily harm given the chance. In this case, as above we have evidence of Rosenbaum lighting fires and being physically threatening towards people connected to Rittenhouse and to which various people testified Rittenhouse was physically present to witness as well. During trial an eyewitness and Rittenhouse both reported that he and Rittenhouse had been verbally threatened by Rosenbaum earlier in the evening, specifically "If I find either of you alone, I'm going to kill you!" Because of this, AND the fact that Rosenbaum ambushed him while he was indeed alone away from his friends, AND the fact that he continued to pursue him after Rittenhouse leveled his gun at him following the ambush, AND there is credible report to suggest Rosenbaum was reaching for the gun, it is thus reasonable in the moment for Rittenhouse to conclude that if he did not take action that Rosenbaum was a risk to inflict imminent death or great bodily injury, potentially including gaining control of his weapon and using it against him.

He was offering medical aid; why didn't he help him?! Why did he flee if he did nothing wrong?

"He was offering medical aid; why didn't he help him?! Why did he flee if he did nothing wrong?"

So, to answer the latter first: because he realized that he was surrounded by a crowd that was potentially antagonistic towards him, and he had just shot someone, and people in the crowd were yelling 'why did you shoot him?' and 'Get him!' It would not be unreasonable in the moment for him to conclude that he was NOT safe yet, and as a result when he finally started moving again, we have video evidence of him running TOWARDS the cops, with his gun lowered not pointing it at anyone, and yelling to people as he was fleeing 'I had to shoot him!' and telling others 'I'm going to the police!'

However for the former: you are not necessarily required to offer first aid against someone that you had to use lethal force against in self-defense, particularly if doing so could prove to result in additional risk to yourself to do so. In fact, in almost all states that I'm aware of, at BEST if you provide medical aid to your attacker, you would be protected by a 'Good Samaritan' law whereupon you would not be liable for negative effects from an honest, sincere attempt to help someone that requires medical aid. However, legally you are NOT required to in Wisconsin, and in fact it would be perfectly reasonable for Rittenhouse to conclude that if he had stayed there surrounded by potentially antagonistic people who had imminent knowledge that he had shot Rosenbaum (Imminent Knowledge will be important later), even to provide medical aid, that he would still be at risk from the crowd, thus see the previous paragraph.

Keep in mind, if he had stayed there and not fled, it could have resulted in him having to use MORE lethal force to protect himself from the crowd, and there could have been EVEN MORE bodies dropped that night. The Defense even noted this in trial: If Rittenhouse had not fled, they said, then all of the shootings at the second location would have been move to the first location instead as the mob set upon him.

But the others thought he was an active shooter!

"But the others thought he was an active shooter!"

Okay, I bring up 'imminent knowledge' now, and would refer you to Ahmaud Arbery's case because this is a CRUCIAL component of that case, and is the reason it looks like it's going to (justly) result in a guilty verdict:

The ones that attacked him, how did they know that he was the active shooter? Huber and 'Jump Kick Man' and 'Rock Man' were either not called to testify, not found, or were obviously deceased. Grosskreutz testified under oath that when Rosenbaum was shot, he was over a block away from it in the direction of the cops (the direction Rittenhouse ran after the shooting of Rosenbaum). For the ones unable to testify, there's no video evidence or eyewitness testimony that they were at the parking lot where Rosenbaum was shot. So, how did they know he was an active shooter? Well, the crowd was yelling that he was, mostly, and while some individuals in the crowd were told by Rittenhouse that he had shot someone and that he was heading towards the police, the actual people that pursued him did NOT have imminent, personal knowledge that he had been the shooter.

To complicate matters, around the time of the shooting there were actually 9 gunshots: Ziminski's 1 shot prior, Rittenhouse's 4 shots, and then 4 shots from a known individual who was attempting to serve as a deterrent immediately after. Three people fired guns, and not everyone who was shouting about Rittenhouse shooting someone had seen him do so first hand. So, how did the people who actually attacked Rittenhouse know that HE was the shooter or that he had ACTUALLY shot someone? If the circumstances had been different and the crowd had simply made an assumption, then these individuals may have attacked a completely innocent person because they were just listening to the crowd when they had neither eyewitness, first-hand imminent knowledge nor the benefit of video evidence to look back and see what happened prior to this.

Add to this that Rittenhouse was running towards the police, was NOT pointing his gun at anyone else, was not engaging in provocation of anyone else (because remember simply open carrying legally is NOT provocation on its own), and while they were TECHNICALLY right that he was the shooter, they did not have what could be considered REASONABLE legal imminent knowledge to believe so at the moment, simply trusting the crowd was right. This is one of the risks of citizen's arrest laws and plays a significant role in Ahmaud Arbery's case, for example, because the defense argued that the neighbor telling the McMichaels that Arbery had committed a crime was the reasoning for them to chase him down with their truck, and which ultimately resulted in Arbery's unfortunate demise when he was then LEGALLY attempting to defend himself.

(Legal thing for the Arbery case: Citizen's Arrest in Georgia requires Imminent Knowledge of the commission of a misdemeanor OR felon. AND if a felony was committed, you are allowed to chase them if they're fleeing. They did not have imminent knowledge as they did not witness Arbery being at the property OR committing a crime in their presence - they were told he was by the neighbor - and the crime he WAS alleged to have committed would have been a misdemeanor, meaning they would not have been able to pursue him to engage in a citizen's arrest as he was fleeing, and you can only chase someone who is fleeing if they've committed a Felony. This case should absolutely be a guilty verdict, and as of Friday, 11/20/2021, the Judge appears to be preparing to give a directed verdict to the jury - basically he's looking to tell the jury that per the law they must convict, in slightly different language of course. Now it's 11/23/2021 and the Jury is doing their thing...).

Additionally, even if we ignore the above: the way the series of incidents took place, if shooting Rosenbaum was a legally protected action according to the law, then that means that Huber, Grosskreutz, and Jump-Kick Man were going after someone who LEGALLY had not committed a crime, even if they thought he did. Now obviously, this is relevant at trial and not 'in the moment' for the incident, but it was illustrated during the trial by the Defense in Closing: If Rittenhouse acted in self-defense against Rosenbaum, then it would legally follow that he was being pursued after committing a legally protected action, assaulted when he was on his back, and forced once more to defend himself from imminent threat once more.

What about shooting location 2 against Huber, Jump-Kick Man, and Grosskreutz?

"What about shooting location 2 against Huber, Jump-Kick Man, and Grosskreutz?"

So, remember that Rittenhouse was fleeing, and the ones who eventually attack him don't have imminent knowledge of him being the shooter, simply going by the word of the angry crowd of people behind him?

They chased after Rittenhouse, who was fleeing towards the cops, 'rock-man' hit him in the back of the head, but backed off and ultimately nothing came of it, then Huber attacked him with a skateboard, where Rittenhouse is now on the ground and unable to continue fleeing in that moment.

This is important, because now Rittenhouse CANNOT flee, meaning all he can do if they continue to attack him is defend himself, from a crowd that is shouting 'get him' and 'he shot someone'. Jump-kick man thus attacks him, and Rittenhouse fires at him twice as he's being kicked in the face, but misses because again, he's kicked in the face.

Remember, being unarmed is not the same as not being a threat, and kicking someone in the head is ABSOLUTELY a potential risk to great bodily injury, especially considering that if he'd been knocked unconscious the crowd may have continued to assault him while he was so.

Huber then strikes him in the head and neck with a skateboard - a skateboard is absolutely a risk to great bodily harm and or death, see here: https://abc7.com/starbucks-fight-santa-ana-man-dies-skateboard/1098183/ - and then like Rosenbaum goes for the barrel of the gun, pulling it into his chest which is when Rittenhouse fires, killing him nearly instantly as he stumbles away a few steps.

At this point, Grosskreutz just saw Huber get shot, and has raised his hand - with his own .40S&W Glock in his right hand, which he admitted under oath during the trial he was not legally allowed to have, nor was he legally allowed to carry because his conceal carry permit had been rescinded at the time (and because he's a convicted felon, but that part was inadmissible per a previous section above). Prosecution tried to pull the 'provocation' card here as well, stating that Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at him at this moment, but there was only one still-frame from one specific angle (and this moment there were multiple) to support this claim; all the others showed that he had the gun at low-ready pointing down towards the street in front of him (he just happened to be facing Grosskreutz at the time).

However, referring to provocation and reasonable belief of imminent threat to death and great bodily injury... I refer you to the part of the trial that served as the key point when the Prosecution's case basically was sank:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_arwYa2Zw&t=21s&ab_channel=RobertBouick

The short of this moment: it wasn't until Grosskreutz leveled his gun AT Rittenhouse that he was shot. Pointing a gun at someone absolutely qualifies as provocation, and a lethal threat of death or great bodily injury, and Rittenhouse only shot after the threat was presented. He shot once, disabling Grosskreutz' arm, and stopped firing because he saw that Grosskreutz was no longer a threat.

Rittenhouse then got up, and continued heading towards the police, and approximately 1 hour later he had turned himself in to the Antioch PD.

The whole incident with the 3 assailants he shot at or shot took less than 6 seconds.

But the judge was biased!

"But the judge was biased!"

Some certainly think so, but I definitely disagree: The judge appeared wishy-washy, not willing to commit, and evidence or objections were often argued for extended periods of time as he went back and forth. There were of course moments of exception regarding serious violations, but even so it did not appear that he favored either group in his rulings.

For the Prosecution, he allowed them to admit evidence mid-trial, allowed them to use the aforementioned drone footage despite not being able to see what they were claiming, refused to rule a mistrial when the Prosecution kept making grievous mistakes, let them badger Rittenhouse on the stand for hours before and after Rittenhouse broke down on the stand, and also let them attempt to get new lesser charges added in. The phrase 'let's let the jury be the fact-finders on this' was his general go-to when he was unsure but the Prosecution was being pushy. However, he DID yell at them whenever they messed up egregiously (and they did that a LOT), but whenever there was doubt he almost always put the decision in the jury's hands to decide.

For the Defense, he upheld their objections to egregious behavior by the Prosecution when they were raised, occasionally was forced to step in and do the Defense's job for them in the case of some violations, allowed them to get the gun charge tossed by letting them measure the weapon in court. However, he conceded a LOT of evidence and argument to the Prosecution because the Defense wasn't as pushy, but ultimately allowed the Defense to challenge the things that he did allow so that it was more reasonable. However, if the judge HAD been on his side or simply more objective and not aware of the national stage he was on, there were several moments where the Defense ABSOLUTELY had grounds to push for a mistrial with prejudice (aka, the case is completely tossed and there will be no retrial because there was some form of serious Prosecutorial misconduct), but ultimately refused to do so.

For those who want to cite the 'tumbler' that Rittenhouse drew juror names from: that might not be the norm, BUT the judge claims it's standard practice for HIS court - Judges generally have a lot of leniency with how things proceed in their court. Rittenhouse wasn't 'choosing' his jury; he was randomly selecting 6 people who would NOT be his jury, but would be backups in case one or more members of the jury would be unable to perform their duties as jurors. In fact, it was polled afterwards that the 3 people who were MOST LIKELY to rule 'not guilty' were the first three he picked to serve as backups, meaning his chances of getting a not-guilty verdict were actually worse than if he had gotten to pick and choose his jurors as some have tried to claim.

What it appeared like to me was that the Judge was thrust into national spotlight, where they had to deal with threats to intimidate the jury, constant media coverage that wasn't always accurate and was often critical, and even had to throw out MSNBC because one of their freelancers tried to dox the jury and was caught following the bus that they were on. I think the whole thing was just taxing and draining on him and he was trying really hard to make sure he didn't feed the media flames.

Hell, don't believe me? MSNBC - who again was banned from the courtroom the day before the trial came to a close - seems to think he wasn't unfair either: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/rittenhouse-trial-judge-s-performance-was-controversial-it-wasn-t-n1284282

He went there looking for trouble though!

"He went there looking for trouble though!"

Well, problem with that is that's mind-reading; we don't actually KNOW what Rittenhouse was thinking, which is why we require evidence. Propensity evidence was NOT allowed, so we only have the evidence in trial to go by, and as a reminder for people the 5th Amendment is the right to not have to testify against yourself (aka self-incrimination) as well as the right to remain silent without it being used as a signifier of guilt. The principle behind this effectively means that the Prosecution has a more difficult job because they cannot compel Rittenhouse to testify in his own trial or otherwise force him to incriminate himself (though do note, he did take the stand in this case... for over half of a day in court).

The evidence and testimony provided at trial showed over the many hours he was there that afternoon and evening, he spent most of it cleaning up graffiti, going around asking people if they needed medical attention, talking with his friends and other members of the community including the police, putting out fires with a fire extinguisher, and no real concrete evidence that he had provoked, threatened, or was aggressive towards anyone.

Even then, those facts aren't necessarily legally relevant as they don't have a bearing on whether he actually acted in self-defense or not; it did make it that much harder for the Prosecution to claim he was a violent, aggressive troublemaker however.

To add to this: a number of lawyers who've given their assessments have found Rittenhouse's testimony on cross-examination (he was a witness for his own Defense, so cross-examination was when the Prosecution was asking him questions) to have been exceptionally good for him. He was able to illustrate his thoughts clearly, kept his cool with the exception of one (well-known) incident, kept his answers consistent, and illustrated his thoughts as being motivated to help people or fear for his life. While his testimony could have absolutely hurt his case and he didn't have to do so, the end result was that it made him look more sympathetic and human to the jury. He even handled some of the more egregious and out-there questions well (e.g. 'Bullets are bullets' and 'video games aren't real life' as responses)

[Keelan]

So you think the verdict was good? Do you think he was morally right?

"So you think the verdict was good? Do you think he was morally right?"

Legally? Well, as Veks noted: the Prosecution never really had a case for what they claimed he'd done. I'm honestly of the opinion that if this hadn't been so widely televised, it may well have been dismissed well before it got to trial, but unfortunately it was and it did, and now... well, I'll get to that in a bit.

Morally? Do I think he did a 'good thing' by shooting three people, killing two? No, not in the slightest, even factoring in some of the 'propensity evidence' of those he shot. While I'm personally a proponent of the right of everyone to defend themselves up to and including lethal force if necessary and reasonable, I do not believe that having to kill another human being - even if it's legal to do so and is the only way for one to stay alive - is a morally 'good' thing. Necessary perhaps to allow individuals of all sorts to protect themselves from those whom would harm them perhaps, but I definitely don't want to see people gunning down others for any reason.

Legally Rittenhouse was in the right, morally nobody there was innocent or in the right. Everyone involved and many others associated should have just stayed the fuck home as far as I'm concerned.

"What should we take away from this then?"

Honestly? I ain't gonna bullshit anyone by talking about how Rittenhouse isn't a hero, or how this will escalate tensions, or give a preachy thing about the right of self-defense and the most vulnerable among us...

What I really think you should take away from this is how fucking stupid it is to try and push for ideological victories at every opportunity regardless of the facts, and to realize how this trial could have actually been a good launch-point for a bipartisan effort to address prosecutorial power in this country.

What gives you that idea?

"What gives you that idea?"

For those who didn't watch the trial, the Prosecution of this trial was HORRENDOUS. Like 'breaking the law on national television' horrendous. During the course of this trial the Prosecution:

1) Lied about Rosenbaum BEING chased by Rittenhouse in their opening statement, only for video evidence to immediately contradict this.
2) They ambushed the defense mid-trial with new evidence they got, and defense couldn't get it tossed
3) Indicated that they knowingly overcharged Rittenhouse on the carry charge, which is why it got tossed right before the Judge had it measured right before Jury Instruction.
4) Attempted to backdoor the previously inadmissible 'Propensity Evidence' against Rittenhouse multiple times and claimed that the Defense had 'opened the door to it'
5) They badgered Rittenhouse for HOURS on the stand, ultimately to no avail but it was still done.
6) Violated Rittenhouse's 5th Amendment Rights by trying to suggest (TWICE) that Rittenhouse's silence and securing counsel was indicative of his guilt
7) Saw Binger POINT A FUCKING RIFLE AT THE JURY WITH HIS FINGER ON THE TRIGGER AS PART OF HIS CLOSING STATEMENTS
8) Tried to pivot to a 'provocation' charge with at BEST dubious evidence mid-trial after Grosskreutz tanked their case on the stand, when this was NEVER mentioned or brought up at all prior to that
9) Appeared to give the Defense non-forensic inferior copies of digital video evidence, which was demonstrated during deliberation in the courtroom, pointing out how the metadata indicated a different creation time, and how it was the only piece of evidence that was NOT given to them by Dropbox
10) Tried to blame the Defense getting the evidence in 9 and not contesting it ON THE DEFENSE.
11) Suggested to the jury that mere possession of a firearm means you have no right to defend yourself (flagrantly not true)
12) Suggested that Rittenhouse was not at risk of life or limb from Grosskreutz's Glock because his AR-15 was 'bigger and more dangerous, how could he be a threat to you?'
13) Suggested to the Jury that Rittenhouse should have FIST FOUGHT Rosenbaum who was attempting to grab his firearm after ambushing and chasing him
14) Told the jury that sometimes 'people have to take a beating' (I forget exact terminology, but basically tried to say that Rittenhouse should have let himself get beaten by the crowd instead of protecting himself)

I personally observed people left, right, and center all seeing how flagrantly scummy the Prosecution was that there are a number of people hoping this guy gets disbarred and is no longer able to be a prosecutor. Hell, they fucked up SO bad and so visibly that a significant part of the closing argument from the Defense was basically saying to the jury 'you guys saw how they were lying to you CONSTANTLY throughout the trial, and here's the evidence', and the Prosecution had no real response to that other than to double-down on their claims (and basically spend a half-hour screaming at the jury in Rebuttal).

What this means is there is/was a potentially now wasted opportunity to get everyone discussing addressing the powers that overzealous, politically motivated prosecutors are allowed to wield, and how much they're allowed to get away with without punishment for doing so. I'm sure we can ALL think of a case where some prosecutor - trying to make sure he wins reelection or gets to further his career - was more focused on his 'win record' than on seeking justice, and was willing to pull every dirty trick in the book. Hell, the current Vice President was one of those prosecutors who put a TON of mostly black men in prison in California in furtherance of her career.

This was a rare instance where a lot of people who watched the trial - regardless of ideological leaning - saw just how FUCKED Binger and co were as Prosecutors.

But what's being reported instead? Mainstream and many leaders say it's a 'miscarriage of justice' in no uncertain terms, and to emphasize my point:

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WIGOV/bulletins/2fd149d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/reaction-rittenhouse-verdict/2021/11/19/bd9c9ede-47d4-11ec-973c-be864f938c72_story.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-biden-stands-by-jury-acquittal-for-kenosha-killings.html
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-political-reaction-20211119-3qsgdtnf7na5xklkmzeukceq74-story.html

'Win for white supremacy', 'Sign of a broken system', 'if Rittenhouse had been black he wouldn't have even got a trial', on and on and on, pushing from a perspective of ideology and tribalism as they double-down and triple-down after nearly a year of reporting mischaracterized, inaccurate, or outdated information about the case. There's serious discussion occurring about whether - like the case with the 'Covington Kid' - Rittenhouse has legal grounds to sue various media outlets for defamation,  and he may very well have a case with some of the reporting I’ve seen.

So instead of using this as a springboard to try and get support for ACTUAL justice reform in the legal system focusing around prosecutors which seems to have a novel bipartisan support... we have ideology and inaccurate reporting on one side because they're more concerned about pushing a narrative like they have been, and an unfortunately fact-supported case win that the other side can use as evidence of how left-leaning prosecutors are targeting the 2nd amendment and the right/white people/etc.

I'm at least glad to see that it was the legally-correct result, and only hope that the Ahmaud Arbery case follows suit with guilty verdicts, which looks to be the most likely outcome at this time. While I've not been following it as well as I have been the Rittenhouse case, I am not unaware that the Prosecution AND Judge in the Arbery case are FAR more competent at their jobs, have done a far better job of making their cases, and have made far more legally consistent rulings. However, the three Defense Attorneys have been... an absolute joke: not only have they made some statements that have been (rightly IMHO) seen as racist (the 'Black Pastors' comment and the 'Toenails' comment made during closing today), but they essentially hinged the entirety of their case in a similar way as the Rittenhouse Prosecution tried to establish the 'Illegal Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by someone under 18' charge, that is by misreading the structure of the law on it's face. Because of this, the Defense basically structured things so that the Defendants all admitted to knowledge and action that essentially incriminated themselves on the stand on the off-chance that the Jury Instructions were not exactly perfect. The Defense even pointed out on 11/19/2021 right before they ended for the day that if they read the law CORRECTLY it would basically mean they were requesting a 'directed verdict' from the jury (aka. basically telling the jury they HAD to vote a specific way because of the way a certain law is read/interpreted/structured).

The thing of note from the Arbery case is that the Defense is actually doing so bad a job that they could possibly appeal a guilty verdict based on the sheer incompetence of their own counsel... but that will be addressed if/when it comes to that.

And, at suggestion of Veks, the video below has a very good framing of perspective, particularly for those who find the ruling of this case still quite troublesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcdq_ypetAc

[Blythe]

...you know, my first post in this thread was an intense emotional kneejerk one, and Keelan, your posts certainly help me see I could stand to learn more on the case. I happily rescind my opinion of Rittenhouse being a murderer and revise it to "This case is a lot more complicated than I realized before, and while I don't particularly like Rittenhouse's actions here and still don't really see him as ethical, it's certainly not as cut and dry as I initially believed."

Posts like yours are why I do enjoy this section; I feel I learned some things about the case I definitely did not know before.

[Keelan]

...you know, my first post in this thread was an intense emotional kneejerk one, and Keelan, your posts certainly help me see I could stand to learn more on the case. I happily rescind my opinion of Rittenhouse being a murderer and revise it to "This case is a lot more complicated than I realized before, and while I don't particularly like Rittenhouse's actions here and still don't really see him as ethical, it's certainly not as cut and dry as I initially believed."

Posts like yours are why I do enjoy this section; I feel I learned some things about the case I definitely did not know before.

Thank you and you're welcome; this was honestly the EXACT reason that I wanted to write this up here. I greatly appreciate you saying something and letting me know it was worth the effort.

I wish I could give as good a writeup for the Ahmaud Arbery Case (which looks to be a guilty verdict most likely), but this case kind of dominated the landscape.

It obviously eclipsed the Cameron Lamb case, per the Beau video: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/20/us/cameron-lamb-eric-devalkenaere.html

It also outclassed the Andrew Coffee IV case - a self-defense case of a black male convicted felon who was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (felon), the attempted murder of a police officer, and the death of his girlfriend (Alteria Woods). Woods was killed when the police performed a raid on his home at night, to which Coffee responded by shooting at the cops, whom fired back. Woods was killed in the crossfire. (If you're getting flashbacks to the Breonna Taylor Case... this one was in 2017, preceding it). He argued self-defense, being in reasonable fear for his life and not realizing it was cops because he claimed he didn't hear them announce themselves.

He managed to win his self-defense affirmative defense, meaning he was found not-guilty of the felony death of Woods and of attempting to kill an officer... but was still found guilty of the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, which considering the whole case was about him shooting at officers it was an unfortunate given.

3 legally sound if bittersweet rulings in the same week, 1 more hopefully to be a legally sound result too.

We really only seemed focused on one of them.

[Dice]

For all of you making a moral argument, against Kyle. Are you aware that Rosenbaum, was a convicted child rapist?

"Your honour, the man I shot was a piece of shit" only works if you both knew that ahead of time and had cause to shoot. Not to say I am going to cry many tears over this one, just that "Your honour there are these circumstances I only learnt about 5 weeks after the fact" is not a defence.

In other news, I just finished my security refresher. In the whole time we did not discuss guns once. Senior First Aid, guns mentioned? Nope. Not one time. You guys have a hell of a time telling me your the land of the free and not the land of the fearful.

[Chulanowa]

Now, for all of you, still claiming Kyle is a murder, or should be charged with various different charges? You are wrong. I, again, point you to Vekseid's second post. Since, none of you, believe me. First, there is a lot of video, that night. And, it all supports Kyle's self defense. For those of you, that still believe you're correct, in your legal assertions? Why not sum up your best argument and email it to the DA's office, in Kenosha? Or, the Feds, and see what kind of response, you get? I say, you'll be wasting your time. But, it is your time, to use, as you please.

Except the part where Kyle is the one to make the opening threat against a man for committing petty vandalism. I've already explained to you how a not-guilty verdict doesn't actually equate innocence, nor does it erase the actions committed.

For, all of you arguing about the plastic bag, hurled at Kyle, by Rosebaum? First, I point out most of you do not even agree on the bag's contents. Yo me? Common sense says, if you hurl a plastic bag, at night. Towards an obviously armed individual. You are putting yourself in risk of being shot. And, in places, like WIS, the shooter, will likely have a solid self defense.

So you're arguing that someone has a right to wave a gun at someone else and demand compliance, and if they do not receive such compliance, then it's their right to murder that person "in self-defense."

The only person who put Rosenbaum in danger of being shot was Kyle Rittenhouse, by pointing a fucking gun at him.

For all of you making a moral argument, against Kyle. Are you aware that Rosenbaum, was a convicted child rapist? 11 counts, involving 5 boys, between the ages of 9 and 11. Now, this didn't come up in the trial, as someone pointed out and linked the records of these, so called, victims. But, were you aware, that you're defending a pedophile, and two other people with criminal records. And, I can't shed a tear, for a dead child raper.
Oh, BTW. Rosenbaum, is on the record, for running around screaming the N-bomb. Why? I can only say, he obviously had mental problems. But, that's more evidence, on Rosenbaum's racism. Than any real proof of Kyle, being a racist.

Huh, that's funny. You've been gurgling on about "rule of law" and whatnot... and then you try to make the  argument that people who have criminal records - who've done their time - need to be summarily executed in the street.

I guess it's not a "double standard" if you don't actually have any standards at all, huh?

[Beorning]

Okay, after Keelan's post I honestly don't know what to think anymore. Based on what was being reported earlier, I thought that Rittenhouse was some sort of rightwing kid who picked a gun, went to a protest and shot people after provoking them. Now it looks like he genuinely wanted to help and shot people who were really a threat to him...

Drat, I'm confused  :-\

BTW. After all this time, I honestly still don't know whether all those protests were peaceful protests with some small looting by unrelated hanger-ons, or some big explosion of anger that really got dangerous, with the protesters themselves rioting and looting...

What is the truth???  :-\