Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty?

[weegiemum]

How? He shot 2 people dead in front of witnesses, but apparently it was "self defence"?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-kenosha-shooting?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

@FrippEnos

NekoShiro

(not a lawyer) the first thing I would have thought that would have to be proven in England would be the intent to use the bottle as a weapon to kill somebody.

No - not quite

It’s intent to kill OR CAUSE GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

@TheHoneyBadger, the defence lawyer asked him if he agreed that the video still showed his gun pointing at KR at moment video showed his arm had been shot which he said yes. The prosecutor showing video stills up to that moment argues, as said, that the pistol was not pointed at Rittenhouse until the bullet severed Grosskreutz’s right bicep, and his hand dropped down as a result.

certainly no Left that Europeans would recognise

The USA is much more to the right as a country. But people like Bernie Sanders would be recognized as being on the left by Brits.

The child rapist Joseph Rosenbaum had a far better death than he deserved.

who at 17 goes to something like that with an automatic weapon

Silly, immature boys trying to be heroes. He was only 17 after all. Something everyone is forgetting as they shriek about him being a murdering white supremacist. Legally still a child and we now know that teenagers brains don’t fully mature until they’re in their mid twenties. Except laws and societal expectations haven’t shifted in line with that. They call him a Trump supporter and police supporter but at 17 most youngsters are still inculcated with their parent’s/family’s values even if they’re starting to rebel. He was a police cadet, of course he’s going to support the police. Stupid kid, totally out of his depth and it ended very, very badly.

@Anotherlovelybitofsquirrel

The child rapist Joseph Rosenbaum had a far better death than he deserved.

True

America is a fucking mess. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this verdict, unfortunately it will basically signal the OK for more people to carry guns to protests about stuff they don’t like “to keep the peace” / intimidate the shit out of the protestors. What could possibly go wrong?

@TheHoneyBadger

The relevance of the background maybe is that these were people running at, attacking, pointing guns at their shooter and whom he perceived as being a threat to his life - one was severely mentally disturbed and the others criminals - do you think they would have given off, 'just trying to stop you for a chat' vibes?

The examples you have are of their behaviour on that night. That's what should be examined, and was. The type of person they were may have made them behave a particular way, but it's a really slippery slope to base justice on a person's criminal - or otherwise - past. That's why our justice system doesn't usually allow that kind of information to be known. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't know about the past crimes of the people he shot, he shot then because he was afraid for his life. This case was about proving whether that was actually the case or not.

LondonWolf Sat 20-Nov-21 07:29:43
as well as a long drawn out investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election
Proved to be largely unfounded though wasn’t it?

Eh? It proved to be very well founded indeed.

Eg, report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee (chair was Republican):

Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election
Vol 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure
www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf
[p3]
II. (U) Findings
1. The Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure at the state and local level.

See also the other four reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee, linked here (I’ve read parts but not all of them):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

See also just for interest a hearing of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee: www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/russian-interference-in-the-2016-united-states-election

See also the Mueller Report from the Justice Department:
www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download
[pp1-2]
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

I’m sure for some people and media, the last clause of the last sentence is the bit that interests them most.

However the rest of the Mueller report does establish in great detail that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. Not a secret report, and very well publicised.

You’ve nonetheless formed the impression that the idea of Russian interference in 2016 is “largely unfounded”.

Much of this thread is discussing whether the media we consume is giving us the full picture. Maybe your preferred media didn't give you the information you needed on this.

Sorry, that's a bit of a diversion. Except it's not, because the question of media coverage does seem relevant to this thread.

@lawnotorder
I’ve not seen the full video, but after he had shot the first person how could you not expect people to try and take him down to stop him? The one with the skateboard?

But can you see how he may have interpreted that he was in danger? As I said upthread the problem was guns.
Who at 17 goes to something like that with an automatic weapon.
I'm sure lots of people of all ages were armed though again because guns

I guess this is just where America enters fantasy land compared to the rest of the world? Where you do not have the right to carry a dangerous wealth around the streets much less to use it because you “BELIEVE” some other person presents a serious danger to you.

I can see how the verdict could be absolutely correct according to US law, but I think their law is friggin nuts! It’s basically a big Armed Vigilantes and Welcome Here sign. When the US economy does start to crumble relative to what it still is today, you can easily see the whole country collapsing into chaos in a few short weeks.

No, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m talking of The Steele Dossier. There was interference from the Russians supposedly, but Trump was cleared of being part of the conspiracy. Maybe you don’t like that but he was

Much of this thread is discussing whether the media we consume is giving us the full picture. Maybe your preferred media didn't give you the information you needed on this.

Right back at you

There was interference from the Russians supposedly,

There was interference from the Russians.

No "supposedly" about it.

I'm not sure why you're hedging about this?

@LondonWolf

who at 17 goes to something like that with an automatic weapon

Silly, immature boys trying to be heroes. He was only 17 after all. Something everyone is forgetting as they shriek about him being a murdering white supremacist. Legally still a child and we now know that teenagers brains don’t fully mature until they’re in their mid twenties. Except laws and societal expectations haven’t shifted in line with that. They call him a Trump supporter and police supporter but at 17 most youngsters are still inculcated with their parent’s/family’s values even if they’re starting to rebel. He was a police cadet, of course he’s going to support the police. Stupid kid, totally out of his depth and it ended very, very badly.

I don't disagree with anything you've said but it should also be noted that he had been out during the day, with his gun, cleaning off graffiti with other people and doing first aid. He didn't just show up in the evening with his gun.

I'm not sure why you're hedging about this?

I’m really not . Please don’t try to imply that I am. I just prefer to look at both sides and stay firmly on the fence. It’s more interesting that way. I truly live by the three sides rule. You sound irritated at someone not agreeing with you tbh. Earlier the thread was a respectful exchange of ideas and thoughts now it’s beginning to take the usual route to snark 🤷🏼‍♀️

I don't disagree with anything you've said but it should also be noted that he had been out during the day, with his gun, cleaning off graffiti with other people and doing first aid. He didn't just show up in the evening with his gun

You’re right. Can’t always fit everything into every post though 😉

Also I’m sure for some people and media, the last clause of the last sentence is the bit that interests them most.

Oh just noticed this. Why is it “hedging” to say “supposedly” but fine for you to imply that DT being cleared is a shaky claim only believed by a certain kind of person? Why do you demand standards from others that’s you’re not willing to live up to yourself?

I'm neither irritated nor snarky. I'm not even commenting on Trump's personal connection or otherwise to Russian interference.

Thanks for saying you're not hedging.

So does that mean you agree that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election?

Which is what mathanxiety raised at Sat 20-Nov-21 07:01:45 and you were responding to?

(I don’t want to drag this thread too far off topic, but you seem keen to pursue it.)

@LondonWolf

Also I’m sure for some people and media, the last clause of the last sentence is the bit that interests them most.

Oh just noticed this. Why is it “hedging” to say “supposedly” but fine for you to imply that DT being cleared is a shaky claim only believed by a certain kind of person? Why do you demand standards from others that’s you’re not willing to live up to yourself?

Eh? I haven't implied anything there.

You've brought that to the party yourself.

I don’t want to drag this thread too far off topic, but you seem keen to pursue it.)

Again right back at you. I’m just responding to lengthy posts you directed to me.

In my opinion, I think there was definitely Russian interference. Was it as influential as was claimed? Who knows. What we do know is that politicians will make heavy weather out of any potential advantage that comes their way and that’s the position I always try to take when considering these matters. I can’t always manage it, sometimes things just are felt in the gut right? I know that centrist/on the fence types piss people off but that’s where I am. I genuinely find it more interesting and satisfying to know both sides.

Eh? I haven't implied anything there.

Sure

He has been found not guilty. He should keep his head down from now on and not goad people who do not share his opinions. Otherwise he will be a target.

He did, but under oath. When he's not under oath he paints it very differently it seems. Does anyone know if he has been/will be charged for illegally carrying a weapon?

There is a penalty for lying under oath. When questioned in the witness box he was asked if KR only fired when he had pointed his gun at him, he stated that was correct. It generated a face palm meme of one of the prosecution lawyers. He's suing for 10 million (can't remember who but not KR) which he won't win because it's been proven (and by his own admission) he was shot by someone defending themselves. I believe he was charged with carrying an illegal weapon.

[quote flashbac]@madisonbridges

Yes. I do feel more sympathy for those that are dead because some idiot thought it was a good idea to get a gun and act like some 'big man'

"Joseph Rosenbaum — depressed, homeless and alone — didn’t belong to either side. He had spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual conduct with children when he was 18 and struggled with bipolar disorder. That day, Aug. 25, Rosenbaum was discharged from a Milwaukee hospital following his second suicide attempt in as many months and dumped on the streets of Kenosha.

His confrontation hours later with Kyle Rittenhouse, a heavily armed teenager who had answered the call for “patriots,” kicked off a chain of violence — the deadliest of the summer — that left Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, dead. A third victim, Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, lost a chunk of his right biceps but survived."[/quote]
Joshua Rosenbaum was medication to manage his bipolar disorder. He might have had a mental illness but he wasn't mentally incapable. He had been in prison for, amongst other things, anal rape of children aged 11 and under. He was violent in prison. He was released from prison and committed domestic abuse. He threatened to kill people while he was out protesting. He confronted KR, KR did not confront him. In fact, KR fled from him and JR chased him.
I don't believe any of the multiple people that were carrying guns should have been out with them. If no one had guns, there'd be no shooting. But it was JR's actions that started the shooting. If he had not chased KR, who had not behaved aggressively towards him, the shooting would not have started. However, do I think JR deserved to die? No. Do I have sympathy that a child rapist and woman abuser is dead? Er, no. However, I accept that you obviously care more about that thug than I do. Bipolar does not excuse his violence towards women and his sexual deviance with children.