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

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

And the whole Ivor Danchenko debacle now seems to be implicating the Clinton campaign.
The senate judiciary hearings were fascinating, I imagine a number of FBI employees were wearing nappies for the duration.

I'm not sure Grosskreutz has been charged with anything. I do know that days before the trial the prosecution dropped charges against him over a DUI so his criminal record couldn't get introduced in court.

Joshua Rosenbaum was medication to manage his bipolar disorder.

His (ex?) partner testified that Joseph Rosenbaum had not taken his medication for at least a week prior to the events that night. Video footage of his behaviour earlier in the night shows him acting in an erratic and aggressive manner.

Oh I totally agree it shouldn't be brought into court but I think at this stage, after the judgement it is relevant in the sense of supporting the fact that someone was likely to be perceived as threatening - not because you know their past but because they come across as violent and unhinged.

A choir boys manner and body language and general vibe is likely to be different, and to be felt as different, than that of an angry child rapist and wife beater.

@Thehoneybadger, I have now read the conversation between Grosskreutz, the man who KR shot in the arm, and the defence lawyer, Chirafisi. It certainly paints a different picture to the picture the prosecutor Binger paints about the few seconds exchange between Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse. Chirafasi asks “When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"
Grosskreutz responds with "Correct,"

Then Chirafisi continues, “It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.

"Correct," Grosskreutz said.

Set against that is the transcript of Binger’s (the prosecutor) words about the events between Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz:

“His right leg (Grosskreutz’s leg, my words) is about to hit the ground here. The gun, the AR-15 is pointed directly at him from just two, maybe three feet away. He’s trying to shield himself with his left arm. And as we approach frame 500 here, the gun goes off. At no point in this process is Mr. Grosskreutz pointing his gun at the defendant. Frame 499, the gun has just fired. Frame 500, you see the puff of smoke. 501, the bullet has hit Mr. Grosskreutz’s right bicep severing it.
Mr. Binger: (22:05)
I’m going to continue forward after this because you can see that his right arm. This is an interesting frame right here, 504. You can see that gun. I’ll go back even more. You can see that Mr. Grosskreutz’s arm with the right hand with the gun, his right hand is pointed off to the side. What pulls that gun down closer to the defendant is the fact that Mr. Grosskreutz just had his right bicep severed. It’s not a voluntary action, it’s an involuntary. The muscle is severed. Now watch. Frame 502, watch his right hand. 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508.
Mr. Binger: (22:51)
At this point, yeah, absolutely. That right arm is probably dangling down towards the defendant. It’s not going to be able to pull that trigger without a working bicep muscle and it’s not a voluntary thing. It’s done because the defendant just blew his arm off. But yeah, this is the time after the shooting, when yes, the gun happens to be pointed at the defendant. And I got to stop here for a moment and highlight the hypocrisy of the defense. Because according to the defense if someone has a gun, they’re a threat. If someone points a gun, they’re a threat. There’s only one exception to that, The defendant.”

eg. when someone stops you in the street asking for directions and you get an angry unhinged and dangerous vibe from them and chose to cross the street and call a friend ready to have them call the police if he follows you it's not because you know their previous convictions. However when you arrive at the pub and describe the guy it's certainly vindicating of your instincts if someone says oh yeah that guy, he's just out of mental hospital and he's been in prison for multiple rapes. Your instincts and perception are proven right.

The guy didn't read the man as harmless (if chasing someone you've earlier threatened to kill could ever have an innocent explanation) and his history vindicates that reading of him as he definitely wasn't harmless.

Yes a very different picture Zotter and I think a very clear one.

Add that this happened in the context of the guy walking towards the police and being hindered in the process of getting to the police and it's even clearer. There was zero need or innocent explanation for any of them to be attacking him or dealing with him at all.

Agreeing with the verdict doesn’t mean agreeing that Rittenhouse didn’t do something wrong. It simply means believing that we can only enforce the law as it is written. The American legal system is very particular on this point and I believe strongly that it’s one of the most valuable things about our legal system. The courts are supposed to to apply the law as written. Now, there are obviously multiple interpretations as to what “as written” means which is why we have the appellate system and ultimately the Supreme Court, but it’s not supposed to be up to a group of jurors to decide that just because they feel someone deserves punishment that they will be punished.

I have no sympathy for anyone involved that night. Rittenhouse went into this situation looking for a fight. He likely didn’t expect to actually find one, but he did. The men who were shot were rioting and endangering the public. They were not protesters making a stand against injustice. They were equally culpable in the incident. If things had gone slightly differently, the trial might have been over their actions that night.

@PerkingFaintly

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

You aren’t wrong. The initial coverage had me believing that KR was a psychopath who was roaming the streets of Kenosha randomly firing at people. I couldn’t understand how he was even granted bail. It wasn’t until the trial that I intentionally went and read accounts from multiple sources with different bias that I was able to piece together a decent picture of the actual events. I know I still don’t have a perfect accounting because every timeline article I read that claimed to be telling the truth was clearly putting their own spin on things and highlighting different details and sometimes completely omitting significant pieces of information.

@TheHoneyBadger, reading again Chirifasi’s exchange with Grosskreutz and Binger’s words, I am not finding any of it clear. Binger’s stills from the video don’t show Grosskreutz’s gun pointing directly at KR until after he is shot, but Grosskreutz agrees with C saying it wasn't until he pointed his gun at KR, advanced on him with his gun, now his hands down pointed at him, that KR fired.

@FOJN

Joshua Rosenbaum was medication to manage his bipolar disorder.

His (ex?) partner testified that Joseph Rosenbaum had not taken his medication for at least a week prior to the events that night. Video footage of his behaviour earlier in the night shows him acting in an erratic and aggressive manner.

Then that makes it even worse. He knows he has bipolar; he knows bipolar can cause aggression; he knows he has an extensive criminal history because of his aggression; he has a 2yo child that could be at risk; and he decides not to take his medication.

We're going to have to agree to disagree Honey Badger, particularly in terms of being able to somehow sense a paedophile might present a danger of violence. I've met one of the most prolific paedophiles in the UK, he came across as a perfectly nice chap and had no criminal history until he was convicted the following year. I've also - sadly - had experience of a violent domestic abuser. He's was perfectly charming to everyone else (as many abusers often are). That's part of the reason I feel strongly that its dangerously simplistic to assume you might be able to sense a danger from someone with a violent past. I think most of us would be good at sensing danger only when we are actually faced with it, eg a person behaving irrationally or armed and threatening.

Of course lots of dangerous people come across as harmless but this one didn't. He was on film shouting, 'shoot me N*' repeatedly at protestors and rioters and he is on film chasing this guy and trying to grab his gun after threatening to kill people. He clearly isn't one of those calm, controls himself people hence the prison history and having been in a psychiatric hospital until that morning.

The levels of misinformation in this tweet and the replies are scary.

twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/status/1461807227476582407?s=20

Oh Mark Ruffalo has form for this kind of idiocy 🙄

"JoJo" the child rapist. Disappointing from Ruffalo.

Mark Ruffalo has just proved that just because an actor plays the part of an intelligent person, it doesn't mean the actor IS an intelligent person. 🤔

Then that makes it even worse. He knows he has bipolar; he knows bipolar can cause aggression; he knows he has an extensive criminal history because of his aggression; he has a 2yo child that could be at risk; and he decides not to take his medication.

I put the ex? in brackets because she had a restraining order against him for DV so I'm not clear if they were still together. On the day he was shot he travelled from the Kenosha bus station to her house, about 4 miles, and then back into town where the rioting was occuring. I missed some of her testimony so I don't know how she knew he hadn't taken his medication or whether she let him into her house despite the restraining order. What does seem apparent is that his involvement that night was motivated by a desire for trouble rather than support for a cause.

Vice President Kamala Harris
Today’s verdict speaks for itself. I've spent a majority of my career working to make our criminal justice system more equitable. It’s clear, there’s still a lot more work to do.

So not just the President putting the boot into the jury.

Biden, Harris, the celebs etc are delivering that boy straight into the arms of the far right.

given that Rittenhouse must already have a claim to a law suit against the many media outlets that have put forward mis-information.

I wonder if any lawyers are willing to take on the government?

@MaxNormal

Biden, Harris, the celebs etc are delivering that boy straight into the arms of the far right.

Their modus operandi is must stick to the narrative no matter what. The amount of blue ticks who mistakenly or deliberately tweeted that KR killed black protestors is large. Will be interesting to see if any defamation claims arise from this.

Following that trial my main take away from it is that it's the country/society that is guilty. From the circumstances of Jacob Blake's death, the level of rioting it sparked, some of the genuinely awful people who joined the riots, the lack of protection for ordinary home and business owners that made people feel compelled to act as vigilantes. And the availability of incredibly deadly weapons that it's legal for a 17 year old child to walk around with.

It's beyond fucked up.

correction

I stated earlier it was an all white jury but I've just heard another source state it was a mixed jury. The jury were not visible in the live stream from the court so I cannot speak first hand about it.