concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

Self-defense,

Consider reading something other than left wing propaganda.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

I accept it.
The first guy was chasing him. That was stupid.
The 2nd and 3rd guys were chasing and hitting. Stupid. Tackle the ****er and wrestle him if he has a long gun, don't allow distance for shooting. All 3 victims were stupid.

But what I don't accept is that people can roam the streets with guns.
Whatever. I suppose I have the good sense to stay away from those people.

Hoping for guilty in Georgia. That's more clear cut!!!

---

Yes concordtom, I agree with you. I think the threshold should be higher for going to lethal force in self defense. I think this verdict will result in more public gun use and more deaths. Not good for society.

---

Totally.
Gun sales up.

Can the families charge him in civil court? I think so. Will they?
Will this go on?

I think Rittenhouse should pay every penny he earns in book, speaking, appearance fees to the 3 families.
I'll be sickened if he turns into some gun hero.
I would laud him if he does a 180 and becomes a positive spokesman for peace.
I'm not holding my breath!

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Yes that is necessarily so. Jesus christ his whole defense was saying he was acting in self defense. Did you even watch the trial?

concordtom said:

---

Can the families charge him in civil court? I think so. Will they?
Will this go on?

I think Rittenhouse should pay every penny he earns in book, speaking, appearance fees to the 3 families.
I'll be sickened if he turns into some gun hero.
I would laud him if he does a 180 and becomes a positive spokesman for peace.
I'm not holding my breath!

---

. Coming soon, Cryin' Kyle Rittenhouse Vigilante Brigade to Bay Area freeways.

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

I accept it.
The first guy was chasing him. That was stupid.
The 2nd and 3rd guys were chasing and hitting. Stupid. Tackle the ****er and wrestle him if he has a long gun, don't allow distance for shooting. All 3 victims were stupid.

But what I don't accept is that people can roam the streets with guns.
Whatever. I suppose I have the good sense to stay away from those people.

Hoping for guilty in Georgia. That's more clear cut!!!

---

That's just it. The laws as written support a self-defense case here. Maybe the laws should be re-written, but that's an argument for the legislature and/or the governor. They weren't going to convict Rittenhouse with current laws.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Yes that is necessarily so. Jesus christ his whole defense was saying he was acting in self defense. Did you even watch the trial?

---

LOL like I said you should look up what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Read the jury instructions.

You're not a lawyer which is perfectly fine but the distinction between what you are saying and what I'm saying is important. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a purposefully high standard to help reduce convicting innocent people of crimes. Of course, it hasn't stopped white juries from convicting innocent black men throughout history in this country (and, to be fair, other people as well) but that's for another day.

I think you understand football better than the law so I'll put it in terms you may understand. When the replay officials rule on a play sometimes they say the "call is confirmed" and other times when they don't have enough evidence to confirm they will simply say the "call stands." A not guilty finding is "call stands". The jury was not tasked with confirming whether his self-defense was valid but rather whether his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard used is very important. That's part of why OJ was not guilty in his criminal case but lost his civil lawsuits.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

I accept it.
The first guy was chasing him. That was stupid.
The 2nd and 3rd guys were chasing and hitting. Stupid. Tackle the ****er and wrestle him if he has a long gun, don't allow distance for shooting. All 3 victims were stupid.

But what I don't accept is that people can roam the streets with guns.
Whatever. I suppose I have the good sense to stay away from those people.

Hoping for guilty in Georgia. That's more clear cut!!!

---

That's just it. The laws as written support a self-defense case here. Maybe the laws should be re-written, but that's an argument for the legislature and/or the governor. They weren't going to convict Rittenhouse with current laws.

---

I find some of the framing in this thread interesting. Lots of focus on the actors, not any focus on a police force and government officials who allowed anarchy and property damage. None of this happens if there are police and/or national guard in place, as there should have been. Remember, this was not the first day or protests/riots.

And the prosecutors should never have brought this case.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Yes that is necessarily so. Jesus christ his whole defense was saying he was acting in self defense. Did you even watch the trial?

---

LOL like I said you should look up what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Read the jury instructions.

You're not a lawyer which is perfectly fine but the distinction between what you are saying and what I'm saying is important. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a purposefully high standard to help reduce convicting innocent people of crimes. Of course, it hasn't stopped white juries from convicting innocent black men throughout history in this country (and, to be fair, other people as well) but that's for another day.

I think you understand football better than the law so I'll put it in terms you may understand. When the replay officials rule on a play sometimes they say the "call is confirmed" and other times when they don't have enough evidence to confirm they will simply say the "call stands." A not guilty finding is "call stands". The jury was not tasked with confirming whether his self-defense was valid but rather whether his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard used is very important. That's part of why OJ was not guilty in his criminal case but lost his civil lawsuits.

---

Objection, misleading. Unlike officials who can confirm a call, the jury does not have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we do not know if this is a call stands verdict or a confirmed not guilty verdict.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Yes that is necessarily so. Jesus christ his whole defense was saying he was acting in self defense. Did you even watch the trial?

---

LOL like I said you should look up what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Read the jury instructions.

You're not a lawyer which is perfectly fine but the distinction between what you are saying and what I'm saying is important. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a purposefully high standard to help reduce convicting innocent people of crimes. Of course, it hasn't stopped white juries from convicting innocent black men throughout history in this country (and, to be fair, other people as well) but that's for another day.

I think you understand football better than the law so I'll put it in terms you may understand. When the replay officials rule on a play sometimes they say the "call is confirmed" and other times when they don't have enough evidence to confirm they will simply say the "call stands." A not guilty finding is "call stands". The jury was not tasked with confirming whether his self-defense was valid but rather whether his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard used is very important. That's part of why OJ was not guilty in his criminal case but lost his civil lawsuits.

---

Objection, misleading. Unlike officials who can confirm a call, the jury does not have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we do not know if this is a call stands verdict or a confirmed not guilty verdict.

---

You got the first part right (jury doesn't have an opportunity to confirm self-defense) but the second part wrong. The jury is not tasked with confirming self-defense and had no reason to do so.

MSB's statement, to which I responded, was that the jury "found he had a right to self-defense". You are correct that the replay standard is different because officials can make the affirmative statement and the reason I brought it up was to point out the difference.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Yes that is necessarily so. Jesus christ his whole defense was saying he was acting in self defense. Did you even watch the trial?

---

LOL like I said you should look up what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Read the jury instructions.

You're not a lawyer which is perfectly fine but the distinction between what you are saying and what I'm saying is important. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a purposefully high standard to help reduce convicting innocent people of crimes. Of course, it hasn't stopped white juries from convicting innocent black men throughout history in this country (and, to be fair, other people as well) but that's for another day.

I think you understand football better than the law so I'll put it in terms you may understand. When the replay officials rule on a play sometimes they say the "call is confirmed" and other times when they don't have enough evidence to confirm they will simply say the "call stands." A not guilty finding is "call stands". The jury was not tasked with confirming whether his self-defense was valid but rather whether his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard used is very important. That's part of why OJ was not guilty in his criminal case but lost his civil lawsuits.

---

Objection, misleading. Unlike officials who can confirm a call, the jury does not have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we do not know if this is a call stands verdict or a confirmed not guilty verdict.

---

You got the first part right (jury doesn't have an opportunity to confirm self-defense) but the second part wrong. The jury is not tasked with confirming self-defense and had no reason to do so.

MSB's statement, to which I responded, was that the jury "found he had a right to self-defense". You are correct that the replay standard is different because officials can make the affirmative statement and the reason I brought it up was to point out the difference.

---

You love to tip toe on some imaginary line and create nuances that don't exist just to try to win an argument. I am 100% correct here. Thanks.

Not that I advocate for what Rittenhouse did, but hopefully less opportunists will travel places to loot and burn public and private property, once the are done looting and burning property in response to this verdict.

oski003 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Yes that is necessarily so. Jesus christ his whole defense was saying he was acting in self defense. Did you even watch the trial?

---

LOL like I said you should look up what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Read the jury instructions.

You're not a lawyer which is perfectly fine but the distinction between what you are saying and what I'm saying is important. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a purposefully high standard to help reduce convicting innocent people of crimes. Of course, it hasn't stopped white juries from convicting innocent black men throughout history in this country (and, to be fair, other people as well) but that's for another day.

I think you understand football better than the law so I'll put it in terms you may understand. When the replay officials rule on a play sometimes they say the "call is confirmed" and other times when they don't have enough evidence to confirm they will simply say the "call stands." A not guilty finding is "call stands". The jury was not tasked with confirming whether his self-defense was valid but rather whether his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard used is very important. That's part of why OJ was not guilty in his criminal case but lost his civil lawsuits.

---

Objection, misleading. Unlike officials who can confirm a call, the jury does not have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we do not know if this is a call stands verdict or a confirmed not guilty verdict.

---

You got the first part right (jury doesn't have an opportunity to confirm self-defense) but the second part wrong. The jury is not tasked with confirming self-defense and had no reason to do so.

MSB's statement, to which I responded, was that the jury "found he had a right to self-defense". You are correct that the replay standard is different because officials can make the affirmative statement and the reason I brought it up was to point out the difference.

---

---

---

You love to tip toe on some imaginary line and create nuances that don't exist just to try to win an argument. I am 100% correct here. Thanks.

Not that I advocate for what Rittenhouse did, but hopefully less opportunists will travel places to loot and burn public and private property, once they are done looting and burning property in response to this verdict.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

I accept it.
The first guy was chasing him. That was stupid.
The 2nd and 3rd guys were chasing and hitting. Stupid. Tackle the ****er and wrestle him if he has a long gun, don't allow distance for shooting. All 3 victims were stupid.

But what I don't accept is that people can roam the streets with guns.
Whatever. I suppose I have the good sense to stay away from those people.

Hoping for guilty in Georgia. That's more clear cut!!!

---

That's just it. The laws as written support a self-defense case here. Maybe the laws should be re-written, but that's an argument for the legislature and/or the governor. They weren't going to convict Rittenhouse with current laws.

---

I find some of the framing in this thread interesting. Lots of focus on the actors, not any focus on a police force and government officials who allowed anarchy and property damage. None of this happens if there are police and/or national guard in place, as there should have been. Remember, this was not the first day or protests/riots.

And the prosecutors should never have brought this case.

---

Police aren't the reason this killer showed up at a riot with an assault rifle and was the only person who killed anyone. He made it clear on a prior video that he believed these people should be shot and said he wished he had his AR so he could do it.

You are right that police are tasked with making a choice as to how to best protect the community and sometimes they may choose to permit property damage rather than exacerbate a situation. Obviously, they don't always get it right. As we saw throughout the summer of 2020, police in different places took different approaches with bad results of all kinds. We saw police respond violently to peaceful protests as well.

California bans weapons (not just guns) at protests/rallies and had Wisconsin done the same, these people wouldn't be dead and this killer wouldn't have a future as a right wing hero and media pundit. Most states don't have a law like this on the books, but they should as it would make us all safer. Even the idiots who go out looking for trouble like this kid.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

I accept it.
The first guy was chasing him. That was stupid.
The 2nd and 3rd guys were chasing and hitting. Stupid. Tackle the ****er and wrestle him if he has a long gun, don't allow distance for shooting. All 3 victims were stupid.

But what I don't accept is that people can roam the streets with guns.
Whatever. I suppose I have the good sense to stay away from those people.

Hoping for guilty in Georgia. That's more clear cut!!!

---

That's just it. The laws as written support a self-defense case here. Maybe the laws should be re-written, but that's an argument for the legislature and/or the governor. They weren't going to convict Rittenhouse with current laws.

---

I find some of the framing in this thread interesting. Lots of focus on the actors, not any focus on a police force and government officials who allowed anarchy and property damage. None of this happens if there are police and/or national guard in place, as there should have been. Remember, this was not the first day or protests/riots.

And the prosecutors should never have brought this case.

---

Police aren't the reason this killer showed up at a riot with an assault rifle and was the only person who killed anyone. He made it clear on a prior video that he believed these people should be shot and said he wished he had his AR so he could do it.

You are right that police are tasked with making a choice as to how to best protect the community and sometimes they may choose to permit property damage rather than exacerbate a situation. Obviously, they don't always get it right. As we saw throughout the summer of 2020, police in different places took different approaches with bad results of all kinds. We saw police respond violently to peaceful protests as well.

California bans weapons (not just guns) at protests/rallies and had Wisconsin done the same, these people wouldn't be dead and this killer wouldn't have a future as a right wing hero and media pundit. Most states don't have a law like this on the books, but they should as it would make us all safer. Even the idiots who go out looking for trouble like this kid.

---

Take the L bro.

The verdict will have little consequence. The mistake was the police allowing Rittenhouse to assume and act as an ally- that he would be set upon by rioters in a lawless zone was a given with disastrous consequences but a justifiable verdict.

But ths verdict will encourage nobod to do the same- primarily because there is a tremendous asymmetry between the state and any militia and as we have seen in the past- Black Panthers, etc- the state will use that force without compunction to destroy opposition. If either Rittenhouse or a rioter had fired on police that night they would have mowed them down.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

Not quite. You should look into what "reasonable doubt" means. Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they thought he was innocent, just that they had at least a reasonable doubt.

I hope this causes people to re-think self-defense laws because decisions like this will not discourage violence and will not make our society safer.

---

Hrm did I use the word innocent? No, I used the words not guilty. Maybe don't put words in my mouth. I'm glad I don't live in your world of defending yourself makes you guilty of murder.

---

You said they "found he had a right to self defense" but that is not necessarily so. Not guilty means that they didn't think the prosecution proved he committed the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Yes that is necessarily so. Jesus christ his whole defense was saying he was acting in self defense. Did you even watch the trial?

---

LOL like I said you should look up what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Read the jury instructions.

You're not a lawyer which is perfectly fine but the distinction between what you are saying and what I'm saying is important. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a purposefully high standard to help reduce convicting innocent people of crimes. Of course, it hasn't stopped white juries from convicting innocent black men throughout history in this country (and, to be fair, other people as well) but that's for another day.

I think you understand football better than the law so I'll put it in terms you may understand. When the replay officials rule on a play sometimes they say the "call is confirmed" and other times when they don't have enough evidence to confirm they will simply say the "call stands." A not guilty finding is "call stands". The jury was not tasked with confirming whether his self-defense was valid but rather whether his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard used is very important. That's part of why OJ was not guilty in his criminal case but lost his civil lawsuits.

---

Objection, misleading. Unlike officials who can confirm a call, the jury does not have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we do not know if this is a call stands verdict or a confirmed not guilty verdict.

---

You got the first part right (jury doesn't have an opportunity to confirm self-defense) but the second part wrong. The jury is not tasked with confirming self-defense and had no reason to do so.

MSB's statement, to which I responded, was that the jury "found he had a right to self-defense". You are correct that the replay standard is different because officials can make the affirmative statement and the reason I brought it up was to point out the difference.

---

You love to tip toe on some imaginary line and create nuances that don't exist just to try to win an argument. I am 100% correct here. Thanks.

Not that I advocate for what Rittenhouse did, but hopefully less opportunists will travel places to loot and burn public and private property, once the are done looting and burning property in response to this verdict.

---

LOL, your words are meaningless. MSB drew an incorrect conclusion from the trial and the distinction is important. I like how in one breath you say you don't advocate for what the kid did and in the next you draw a conclusion appreciating the message that his acquittal sends to the community. It's likely the wrong one and if this verdict does encourage more idiots to bring weapons to these situations, they will be less likely to be acquitted. The kid was lucky the prosecution was weak, the judge was favorable and excluded evidence that showed his intent and the jury didn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This verdict should not be read to endorse or condone his behavior. That's the problem with MSB's statement.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Take the L bro.

---

Particularly rich coming from you. You regularly post misinformation and wrong conclusions, like you've done here, and don't seem capable of understanding when or why you are wrong. You are wrong here and no one who has even a minimal undrestanding of criminal law will agree with you. I note that BG is a lawyer and has weighed in on this thread and he won't chime in to support your interpretation because it's wrong.

Independent media won

— Jack Posobiec ✝️ (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2021

Video won the case

Clear and simple

Independent media showed their value to this nation today

— Jack Posobiec ✝️ (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2021

Anarchistbear said:

---

The verdict will have little consequence. The mistake was the police allowing Rittenhouse to assume and act as an ally- that he would be set upon by rioters in a lawless zone was a given with disastrous consequences but a justifiable verdict.

But ths verdict will encourage nobod to do the same- primarily because there is a tremendous asymmetry between the state and any militia and as we have seen in the past- Black Panthers, etc- the state will use that force without compunction to destroy opposition. If either Rittenhouse or a rioter had fired on police that night they would have mowed them down.

---

Interesting take. I look at it the other way. Rittenhouse is not guilty but he's not getting off Scot free - the past 18 months, future civil trial, paying all those attorneys fees, almost certainly he'll have to relocate to another region, good luck applying for a job or getting into college, it's going to take a long time before he has any sense of anonymity. Is that as bad as being shot in the street or going to prison? No. But I know I'll be talking to my two teenagers about it, pointing out that stupid decisions have bad outcomes even if it turns out not to be illegal; don't be a freaking idiot who shows up to a riot with a gun, just stay home and mind your business.

concordtom said:

---

Can the families charge him in civil court? I think so. Will they?
Will this go on?

I think Rittenhouse should pay every penny he earns in book, speaking, appearance fees to the 3 families.
I'll be sickened if he turns into some gun hero.
I would laud him if he does a 180 and becomes a positive spokesman for peace.
I'm not holding my breath!

---

Yes they can and I expect they will. The evidentiary standard will change from beyond a reasonable doubt to preponderance of the evidence. See OJ and Nicole's family for a roadmap.

"That's part of why OJ was not guilty in his criminal case but lost his civil lawsuits."

OJ was acquitted in the criminal case because of jury nullification.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The verdict will have little consequence. The mistake was the police allowing Rittenhouse to assume and act as an ally- that he would be set upon by rioters in a lawless zone was a given with disastrous consequences but a justifiable verdict.

But ths verdict will encourage nobod to do the same- primarily because there is a tremendous asymmetry between the state and any militia and as we have seen in the past- Black Panthers, etc- the state will use that force without compunction to destroy opposition. If either Rittenhouse or a rioter had fired on police that night they would have mowed them down.

---

Interesting take. I look at it the other way. Rittenhouse is not guilty but he's not getting off Scot free - the past 18 months, future civil trial, paying all those attorneys fees, almost certainly he'll have to relocate to another region, good luck applying for a job or getting into college, it's going to take a long time before he has any sense of anonymity. Is that as bad as being shot in the street or going to prison? No. But I know I'll be talking to my two teenagers about it, pointing out that stupid decisions have bad outcomes even if it turns out not to be illegal; don't be a freaking idiot who shows up to a riot with a gun, just stay home and mind your business.

---

This was an ideological battle more than anything else. Rittenhouse was a surrogate for gun laws, white supremacy, Trump militias vs the forces of anarchy, chaos and the rule of law. I don't think he was acting on behalf of others. I think he was a scared 17 year old who wanted more than anything else to be a cop and who was whipped up by the usual suspecs. He acted stupidly but was failed by adults in his life and on the street

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The verdict will have little consequence. The mistake was the police allowing Rittenhouse to assume and act as an ally- that he would be set upon by rioters in a lawless zone was a given with disastrous consequences but a justifiable verdict.

But ths verdict will encourage nobod to do the same- primarily because there is a tremendous asymmetry between the state and any militia and as we have seen in the past- Black Panthers, etc- the state will use that force without compunction to destroy opposition. If either Rittenhouse or a rioter had fired on police that night they would have mowed them down.

---

Interesting take. I look at it the other way. Rittenhouse is not guilty but he's not getting off Scot free - the past 18 months, future civil trial, paying all those attorneys fees, almost certainly he'll have to relocate to another region, good luck applying for a job or getting into college, it's going to take a long time before he has any sense of anonymity. Is that as bad as being shot in the street or going to prison? No. But I know I'll be talking to my two teenagers about it, pointing out that stupid decisions have bad outcomes even if it turns out not to be illegal; don't be a freaking idiot who shows up to a riot with a gun, just stay home and mind your business.

---

I agree with much of what you say except:

1. There is no way that smirking bug eyed weepy tw@t is paying his own fees. He either had a GoNaziMe fund or some Right Wing group funded the fees for its poster boy; and

2. Good luck in that area with a civil suit. Even if Cryin' Kyle loses, the judgment will be as worthless as Kyle is always going to be. With the self defense evidence, they may never tag him with more than negligence and he can discharge the judgment in bankruptcy.

Causes of action against the state for any negligence of the police or Guard for not controlling Kyle are probably a long shot because of governmental immunities.

I would not want to be him. Lots of crazies out there. He will be looking over his shoulder forever.

Rittenhouse defense was paid for by conservative groups. If he had a public defender he would have been convicted or copped to a lesser charge.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

I accept it.
The first guy was chasing him. That was stupid.
The 2nd and 3rd guys were chasing and hitting. Stupid. Tackle the ****er and wrestle him if he has a long gun, don't allow distance for shooting. All 3 victims were stupid.

But what I don't accept is that people can roam the streets with guns.
Whatever. I suppose I have the good sense to stay away from those people.

Hoping for guilty in Georgia. That's more clear cut!!!

---

That's just it. The laws as written support a self-defense case here. Maybe the laws should be re-written, but that's an argument for the legislature and/or the governor. They weren't going to convict Rittenhouse with current laws.

---

I find some of the framing in this thread interesting. Lots of focus on the actors, not any focus on a police force and government officials who allowed anarchy and property damage. None of this happens if there are police and/or national guard in place, as there should have been. Remember, this was not the first day or protests/riots.

And the prosecutors should never have brought this case.

---

California bans weapons (not just guns) at protests/rallies

---

That seems like a good common sense law

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The verdict will have little consequence. The mistake was the police allowing Rittenhouse to assume and act as an ally- that he would be set upon by rioters in a lawless zone was a given with disastrous consequences but a justifiable verdict.

But ths verdict will encourage nobod to do the same- primarily because there is a tremendous asymmetry between the state and any militia and as we have seen in the past- Black Panthers, etc- the state will use that force without compunction to destroy opposition. If either Rittenhouse or a rioter had fired on police that night they would have mowed them down.

---

Interesting take. I look at it the other way. Rittenhouse is not guilty but he's not getting off Scot free - the past 18 months, future civil trial, paying all those attorneys fees, almost certainly he'll have to relocate to another region, good luck applying for a job or getting into college, it's going to take a long time before he has any sense of anonymity. Is that as bad as being shot in the street or going to prison? No. But I know I'll be talking to my two teenagers about it, pointing out that stupid decisions have bad outcomes even if it turns out not to be illegal; don't be a freaking idiot who shows up to a riot with a gun, just stay home and mind your business.

---

This was an ideological battle more than anything else. Rittenhouse was a surrogate for gun laws, white supremacy, Trump militias vs the forces of anarchy, chaos and the rule of law. I don't think he was acting on behalf of others. I think he was a scared 17 year old who wanted more than anything else to be a cop and who was whipped up by the usual suspecs. He acted stupidly but was failed by adults in his life and on the street

---

I very much agree he was failed by his parents. Maybe he lied to them about it like many teenagers do. But generally, what kind of parent lets their 17yo go to a riot to protect businesses, much less being armed. W T F ?

I trend towards thinking he was a dumb teenager that felt some sense of irrational duty to his dad's hometown. Then he got in WAY over his head and people died.

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, this means that all anyone needs to do is display a fear and we get to start shooting?

---

12 strangers spent 4 days going over evidence and found him not guilty. You have to accept that. They found he had a right to self defense.

---

I accept it.
The first guy was chasing him. That was stupid.
The 2nd and 3rd guys were chasing and hitting. Stupid. Tackle the ****er and wrestle him if he has a long gun, don't allow distance for shooting. All 3 victims were stupid.

But what I don't accept is that people can roam the streets with guns.
Whatever. I suppose I have the good sense to stay away from those people.

Hoping for guilty in Georgia. That's more clear cut!!!

---

That's just it. The laws as written support a self-defense case here. Maybe the laws should be re-written, but that's an argument for the legislature and/or the governor. They weren't going to convict Rittenhouse with current laws.

---

I find some of the framing in this thread interesting. Lots of focus on the actors, not any focus on a police force and government officials who allowed anarchy and property damage. None of this happens if there are police and/or national guard in place, as there should have been. Remember, this was not the first day or protests/riots.

And the prosecutors should never have brought this case.

---

California bans weapons (not just guns) at protests/rallies

---

That seems like a good common sense law

---

Yeah just like those "Gun Free Zone" signs they post at schools lol

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The verdict will have little consequence. The mistake was the police allowing Rittenhouse to assume and act as an ally- that he would be set upon by rioters in a lawless zone was a given with disastrous consequences but a justifiable verdict.

But ths verdict will encourage nobod to do the same- primarily because there is a tremendous asymmetry between the state and any militia and as we have seen in the past- Black Panthers, etc- the state will use that force without compunction to destroy opposition. If either Rittenhouse or a rioter had fired on police that night they would have mowed them down.

---

Interesting take. I look at it the other way. Rittenhouse is not guilty but he's not getting off Scot free - the past 18 months, future civil trial, paying all those attorneys fees, almost certainly he'll have to relocate to another region, good luck applying for a job or getting into college, it's going to take a long time before he has any sense of anonymity. Is that as bad as being shot in the street or going to prison? No. But I know I'll be talking to my two teenagers about it, pointing out that stupid decisions have bad outcomes even if it turns out not to be illegal; don't be a freaking idiot who shows up to a riot with a gun, just stay home and mind your business.

---

This was an ideological battle more than anything else. Rittenhouse was a surrogate for gun laws, white supremacy, Trump militias vs the forces of anarchy, chaos and the rule of law. I don't think he was acting on behalf of others. I think he was a scared 17 year old who wanted more than anything else to be a cop and who was whipped up by the usual suspecs. He acted stupidly but was failed by adults in his life and on the street

---

I very much agree he was failed by his parents. Maybe he lied to them about it like many teenagers do. But generally, what kind of parent lets their 17yo go to a riot to protect businesses, much less being armed. W T F ?

I trend towards thinking he was a dumb teenager that felt some sense of irrational duty to his dad's hometown. Then he got in WAY over his head and people died.

---

I've seen dumber. He was able to memorize the script his attorney wrote. Few criminal defendants can do that. If they could, more of them would testify on their own behalf. I was actually impressed.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The verdict will have little consequence. The mistake was the police allowing Rittenhouse to assume and act as an ally- that he would be set upon by rioters in a lawless zone was a given with disastrous consequences but a justifiable verdict.

But ths verdict will encourage nobod to do the same- primarily because there is a tremendous asymmetry between the state and any militia and as we have seen in the past- Black Panthers, etc- the state will use that force without compunction to destroy opposition. If either Rittenhouse or a rioter had fired on police that night they would have mowed them down.

---

Interesting take. I look at it the other way. Rittenhouse is not guilty but he's not getting off Scot free - the past 18 months, future civil trial, paying all those attorneys fees, almost certainly he'll have to relocate to another region, good luck applying for a job or getting into college, it's going to take a long time before he has any sense of anonymity. Is that as bad as being shot in the street or going to prison? No. But I know I'll be talking to my two teenagers about it, pointing out that stupid decisions have bad outcomes even if it turns out not to be illegal; don't be a freaking idiot who shows up to a riot with a gun, just stay home and mind your business.

---

He's not paying a dollar of attorneys fees - that came from a legal defense fund from his devoted vigilante fans. I would imagine that this kid ends up making far more money from the easy right wing grift plus media stuff than he would have had he continued on his prior path. Thing of how pathetic it is in this country that killers like him can raise money by selling merch to deplorables.

This whole episode is the best thing that ever happened to him. He wasn't exactly primed for a successful life given what we've heard about him over the past year and seen from him on video. Hopefully he won't kill again or get into any more needless altercations and perhaps his newfound notoriety (with wealth to follow) will help him stay on the straight and narrow. Too bad the people he killed won't have the same chances he has.

Kyle is going to find plenty work at KKK events /Gun rallies

going4roses said:

---

Kyle is going to find plenty work at KKK events /Gun rallies

---

When he was freed on bail, it was his 18th birthday. He is in a picture with some Proud Boys at a bar. Is there other evidence that he is actually racist? Why would you even bring up the KKK? He is white and supports and wants to be a police officer. Does that make him racist?

Both doctors and strippers get paid to touch your junk and make more per hour than you do all day. Are they the same?

Are you ok?

All bs aside?

Is everything ok ?

Well, he will pass the psychological test to be a policeman in that state with flying colors. Probably the last 2 White guys he will kill or even use deadly force against.