Sifting Through Testimony at Rittenhouse Trial
Testimony is being made at the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in the deaths of two and wounding of one other. What's your perception so far? Self-defense or guilty in any one of the following crimes?
FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - charge in first shooting
FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - charge for shooting someone with an innocent in the line of fire behind intended target
FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - charge in the second shooting
ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - charge in the third shooting
FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - charge for shooting at someone kicking him but missing
POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18 - charge for being in possession and not hunting
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT - charge for breaking the 8 p.m. curfew
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles … house-faceI could see him being convicted for --
1. Though Wisconsin is an “open-carry” state where it is legal for adults to carry firearms openly, state law prohibits minors from doing so. Mr. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shooting.
2. This crime is a Class A misdemeanor that carries a basic sentence of up to nine months in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. AGGRAVATING FACTORs
3.Use of a dangerous weapon
A provision of Wisconsin law extends the maximum sentence for crimes committed while possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon. The criminal complaint invokes this provision for all five felony counts; in each case, it could add up to five years to the prison sentence for that count, if Mr. Rittenhouse is convicted.
4. First-degree recklessly endangering safety and First-degree reckless homicide.
From what I could find in this case,
and watching the videos it would he could get convicted of 1 and 2. these crimes seem to fit the situation. The last two would seem harder to prove. I don't feel 3 and 4 could be proved to be a shadow of a doubt.
The videos are very telling, and self-defense may not be hard to prove.Yeah, 3 and 4 seemed very clear cases of him being attacked as using self defense.
1 is interesting in that the charge is reckless homicide whereas his age and lack of training could be factors in why someone got shot. Though the testimony that the victim was filmed grabbing for Rittenhouse's gun should complicate the ability to convict on this charge.
Clearly guilty of charges six and seven.
After watching some of the trial I have changed my opinion. I can't see him guilty of anything but --- POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18 - charge for being in possession and not hunting
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT - charge for breaking the 8 p.m. curfew
I have also watched some of the media coverage, and at this point, I will walk away from the discussion in sheer disgust. This trial has initiated the vilest of media reports on the young man. It has truly made me aware of what American's are up against. Which is a media that is skewing any given story to suit their hateful narrative, and spread racist ideologies. Those on CNN and MSNBC literally sicken me to my core.Self defense in every case!
As far as the last one, breaking curfew, the hoodlums certainly weren't off the streets and that's when properties were most vulnerable, that's when these businesses (and Police Officers) needed all the help they could get.
It's a shame that so many in media (and even in the White House) had him tried and convicted, before they knew anything at all. But it fits their M.O.I do agree... They certainly used this young man to further push a racial divide. This to me is very very vile politicking. I keep faith that so many American's are waking up to this despicable game. We need to stand strong, and chase this bunch out of Washington.
Yes they have used him. I was just listening to a montage of MSM throwing this young man under the bus and then some, with the name-calling, accusations of racism, personal insults...so pathetic and telling!
I wonder if he'll get any apologies, doubtful! Trump never has (I only mention Trump, because these same leftist propagandists, tied this kid to Trump early on)
I think you are right, Americans are beginning to wake up. God Bless America! Have a wonderful weekend Sharlee!Funny on one ever mentions the three men that were chasing him and the rape sheets all have or the fact that the one was armed with a handgun. If you want to become more disgusted check out the rape sheets of who Kyle was defending himself from.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/ … -shooting/If you asked me, he should not have been there in the first place. He went up there to start trouble when he should have been getting ready for the prom or doing his homework. The parents should be held responsible for not controlling their young charges properly. Such was the case with negligent parents in the case of the Columbine High School Massacre of 1999.
Well, instead of duplicating a comment, I would offer the same response as I offered Cred. (minus the crack about the rifle :-) )
GAGood point. Just thinking like a mom, and n after the fact. I would have made every attempt to keep my son away from the riots. Would have been very scared of him becoming hurt or caught up with something that would get him arrested. I don't feel he went to cause trouble, in fact, he was running from trouble. It appears he is a well-rounded young man that was known for doing for others.
Yes, I agree, thinking like a Dad, I would have told my 17 year old that he has no idea of the risks and the legal ramifications of his just being there. If yoU get arrested, who do you think has to bail you out? It is one thing to use force to defend your life and your property, but you don't live in Kenosha, so how is this any of your immediate concern? You are more likely to get hurt or be an impediment than to "help" anybody.
At first, I thought you were being sarcastic, then I saw your Columbine reference.
You say he should not have been there in the first place, does that thought hold for all the under-18 people there? And for what reason do you say that he shouldn't have been there? Does that reason also apply to all the other folks there?
You say he went there to start trouble, but, there is hard evidence that shows he went there to help—either side. He gave away a bulletproof vest and carried two medical first aid `kits' instead. There is also evidence that he did give medical assistance to at least two or three people.
Did you know this? The prosecution did not dispute any of that, except for their perceived motive for his being there.
And your "parents" thing; have you seen any of the details of his `life'?
Your legs must be tired from all that jumping. All because of a legally owned and possessed rifle?
GAYes, it holds for all that were there, especially minors that are armed and should not be. Where is it legal for a minor to possess a firearm without immediate adult supervision?
I have to look at the "hard evidence" you reference, as opposed to a troublesome kid staying out past his curfew.
I will stop "jumping" and just "wait and see".You can wait if you want. The evidence I spoke of is already available, either in transcript or video form. Take your pick.
GAThat is not a rational take.
Once "children" get to the age of 16 they are essentially uncontrollable by their parents.
I think most honest folks who are parents themselves that have children this age or older can attest to that.
If you did well as a parent, then by the time they reach 16 they are rational young adults capable of making rational thought out decisions.
This idea that "children" who are old enough to give birth to children of their own, or father children, can be controlled by their parents is absurd.
Only in the last 100 years has anyone older than 16 been considered a "child" prior to this time, they worked, they were mothers, fathers, soldiers. You no longer "control" your children at 16... you guide them, you help them, you support them... you will never control them.
My Grandparents married at the age of 16, they had been working for a living long before that, they lived in their own apartment after being married.
They had two daughters before they reached their 20s.
My first serious relationship was with a woman who had her first child at 15, her second at 17. It is only the Well Off that consider people over the age of 16 as children... the same people who think their kids still need to be on their insurance as "children" at the age of 26.Uncontrollable? That depends on how they are raised,conservatives are notorious for criticizing intercity children due to lack of family values, what is the story here?
Where did this kid get the gun? An AR-15?
It is highly unlikely that many 16 year olds operate with adult reasoning. That takes a little more time. Our society has delineated 18 as the age of majority, not a year less. If you, as a parent, can't control that individual for whose behavior and actions you can be held accountable for, then you had better seek help.
Just because they are old enough, and some children are biologically old enough to bear children at 13, do parents abdicate their responsibility to control and supervise? Kids are old enough to mimic many adults activities, but they are not adults.
That "Waltons" mentality simply cannot apply to a more complex world, today. Do those under 17 get to sign binding contracts, get to drive without the adult/legal guardians insuring the youngsters on the road? This, just the tip of the iceberg.
I consider anyone whom I can't hold legally responsible for his or her actions as minors/children.
... were y o u focused on PROM at age 17?
and HOMEWORK????
and your parents knew where you were and what you were doing at that age?Yes, I did age appropriate things at 17, most of us did. Homework and Prom: Don't act so shocked. I know, you want to say that I was "gang-banging" instead!
Yes, my folks generally knew where I was and what I was doing, at least enough to know that I did not have saw off shotguns or AR-15s under my bed.Ah ha! "under" your bed . . ." Sure, but what was under your mattress, back then? Hmmm?
GAAh ha, shame that your train of thought you consider standard and universal. Even my mattress was never really my own.
Sureeee. . . You never had a Popular Mechanic under your mattress, huh? Sureee . . . you only had them for the articles.
Sure . . .
GA
They live in an area where rifles are allowed.
My parents were not focused on me at all.
And I was minimally focused on school work and school activities. I ended up going to college as most of us did after much partying and experimenting and exploring options/opportunities from age 15 to age 22.Relatively, so long ago, expectations and parameters of behavior were different. I was focused on school and getting to college, the alternative was being poor and marginal. I was a late bloomer socially, but I always paid attention to how my bread was going to buttered for the future.
In the face of all this, it is nice to be retired.
No one in my household had never even entertained the idea of a gun in the house.Now this I can relate to, except for the gun in the house. We lived on venison and elk (and Mom's huge garden) - guns were necessary for survival and by the time I was 15 I had a rifle and helped provide for the family.
I try hard to envision any part of America where people have to hunt game for survival rather than for mere sport. I guess it may be possible if you live far enough from a supermarket, or had no access to Amazon. I lived in Montana for 3 years, we were about 50 miles south east of Hardin Mt. Everybody went to Safeway to shop and the only game hunting was for sport, not subsistence.
I keep seeing this persistent vision of Jed Clampett in the opening of the "Beverly Hillbillies" hunting game until he struck oil.
no because you did not live in an area where rifle-use was part of life from the Indian days onward. In a civilized society they, long arm rifles, are not for shooting people, but game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_gunGoing back to the example of "Columbine High" there is a difference between a Daniel Boone lifestyle of hunting rabbits and dining (where is that a reality, I mean really?) on them and assualt weapons secretly possessed by neighbors in a modern relatively affluent community.
Have you ever shot any type of a gun? Target practice is a blast. Having the means and skill to protect yourself in any type of threatening situation is very motivating.
Of, course becoming an expert in any of the martial arts is also motivating, confidence building and gratifying on a personal power level.Yes, I am a veteran. I was required periodically during my term of service to demonstrate my proficiency, the ability to hit the broadside of a barn, with the M-16 or 45 automatic.
Firearms have no allure for me. I studied the Martial Arts, while in the Service, living in Southern California. I prefer the restraint, control and physical empowerment that is a part of learning the techniques while dealing with adversaries in a way that need not be lethal. Just buying a gun does not confer all those benefits. I liked the "personal power level".
LOL I shouldn't laugh, but in much of the West that "lifestyle of hunting" is a very real thing to tens of thousands of people. Come out of the city, Credence, and see how people actually live when not surrounded by a concrete jungle.
Just to add some depth to this unfortunate mess --- Here is some background on the men that were shot ... All thugs with serious rape sheets. Makes one wonder why Kyle was ever charged. With the videos and these guys' priors, one could ascertain Kyle would have most likely been hurt to killed if he did not use the gun.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/ … -shooting/
You guys forget the testimony that on duty cops clearly saw him on the streets. If they can prove that police officers did, indeed, express thanks directed at him for being out there, the last charge becomes shaky.
I had not heard that... Yes, that is a huge piece to consider.
Could factor in, but that police chose not to enforce the law really doesn't absolve him from breaking the law.
More than likely #6 & #7. Potentially #5 if the prosecutor presents strong evidence and really presses for it. I've watched 4 days so far and the State is way behind.
Wounded guy (3rd shooting victim) admits pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse before being shot. That should clear Rittenhouse of that charge.
That "wounded " guy has now recanted his trial testimony in media interviews. He said he wasn't pointing his gun at Rittenhouse. I don't believe him.
I watched some of the trial and I think he is innocent of all charges except the one about the curfew.
He was a powerful witness and his account seems corroborated by the facts of the videos and the prosecutor's witnesses testimony.
If the jurors think the prosecutor was as inept as I do they just might go the jury nullification route and find him not guilty of the curfew violation too.
GA
I think that I am in agreement that much of his actions were self-defense. Unlawful (by Wisconsin standards) possession of the gun and curfew violations will be the likely outcome. Even with the first charge working to convict him of his terrible choices in being so young and undertrained for the environment he entered, as the cause of the violent outcome, the defense showed that the victims who were shot were the aggressors and threats.
I see you not touching my concerns on how the media treated this young man. I applaud your restraint. We are getting too civilized, I sort of like this.
I was sure I heard that issue addressed in court testimony. I understood it to be okay for him to possess and carry the gun—as a minor, but that he could not own or control access to the gun—as a minor.
*shrug, just sayin' I support that view. Too bad if it's the wrong one.
GA
Interesting responses on this thread.
As a student of history, I know many individuals under the age of 18 have proven themselves in battle. In the Ukraine, the battle of Kruty is one people often talk about. It was a case where the Russians were going to lay siege to Kyiv. The only thing that stood in their way was less than a hundred Ukrainian soldiers and volunteers from a military school. Kids 15 to 18 who joined the battle. They were able to hold off the superior number of Russian soldiers until the Ukrainian army arrived. The point of the story is that age does not determine courage or desire to do the right thing.
I've seen people in battle at the age of 17 and celebrate their 18th birthday on the battlefield. At the age of 17 they operated some of the most deadly weapons you can imagine. Age doesn't matter.
I consider Kyle Rittenhouse a very courageous young man. Police protection had broken down and businesses were being burned, looted and destroyed. When police are unable to protect people, they must find a way to protect themselves. Kyle Rittenhouse could have stayed home, but he chose to go and help protect businesses in a very dangerous situation. This took courage and a dedication to others that I find impressive.
As far as I'm concerned, he is more of a man than many of those on the left many years his senior.
A man tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard, and Rittenhouse shot him. A man tried to take his weapon from him, and Rittenhouse shot him. Another man pointed a gun at him, and he shot him. All of them, as far as I'm concerned, were quite justified. I know I would not have done anything different. The only thing is I would have tried to record three K's and not just two.
I think the left struggles to understand people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for something they believe in no matter what the danger.
In many ways, I consider Kyle Rittenhouse a hero for displaying a high level of courage.
If I could, I would award him a medal for bravery.Ok, Mike this was all just a crock of bovine excrement. I don't like the Right's tendency to excuse viligilantism.
Lawlessness disguised as "conscience" from the judgement perspective of a 17 year old kid. Yeah, right.
-------
"The only thing is I would have tried to record three K's and not just two."
So you say this? Your judgement and credibility has to be questioned .
---------
All this "talk" about sacrifice is fine as long as it is not BLM, for example, Yes, Mike?
What about the commitment to what they believe?
And if in the pursuit of your " heroic conscience" and doing the right thing, as if that is ever possible from a right wing perspective, you violate the laws then let's have the "book" thrown at you as you will deserve it.
The Right has always been rife with hypocrisy and duplicitous behavior.
Is it no wonder that I neither like nor trust Right wingers as a rule?
And no, This is neither Russia nor the Ukraine."Lawlessness disguised as "conscience" from the judgement perspective of a 17 year old kid. Yeah, right."
Age doesn't matter. As I stated before, 17 year olds have been able to hold their own in many battles. The Ukraine was an example of what 17 year olds can do when called upon to engage in battle.
You might want to look up the definition of vigilantism. It doesn't involve self defense.
BLM? The only conscience I see from this organization, that was started and run by a self-described communist, is a desire to burn and loot businesses. Being part of a mob that burns and loots doesn't take courage. It takes quite the opposite.
I accept you don't trust those on the right. I hope you can accept I hold those on the left in extreme low regard and consider them immature individuals who lack the maturity level that would enable them to engage in a respectful conversation on any topic.
The responses I receive when trying to discuss anything with those on the left have proven this again, and again, and again.You made a wonderful point Kyle was at the BLM riot to protect someone's business. To do something positive. BLM riots as a rule end up in violence, property damage --- They have a poor concept of what is right and what is wrong. They have no clear message, that I have ever been able to decipher. Only a hellter skelter message."Do what I say or we will become violent take away what you have earned..."
"Age doesn't matter. As I stated before, 17 year olds have been able to hold their own in many battles. The Ukraine was an example of what 17 year olds can do when called upon to engage in battle."
My husband was one year older (19) and given three months of training and found himself in Vietnam holding a gun... Killing. As did tens of thousands of young men.I was wearing a uniform and preparing to do battle if called upon at the age of 17...I left for boot camp two weeks after high school. So, I know 17-year-olds can handle weapons. Again, age doesn't matter.
Well, Mike, under the law, age does matter. I am well aware of many heroic acts taken by minors over eons of time.
The problem I am having with the self defense argument is that it leaves out the principle of provocation. It may be that this Rittenhouse fellow could have a valid self defense argument, but my point is that he was a point of provocation and should have stayed home where he belongs. Let's see how the court interprets all of this, shall we? That father and son numbnut tagteam in Georgia that murdered a black man while he was jogging also claim "self defense". Does provocation on their part play a role, what were they doing there in the first place? That is vigilantism, not self defense. The cop wanna be, flunky, Zimmerman claimed self defense in his killing of 17 year old Travon Martin. What about Martin's right to defend himself against this idiot stalker?
History and Rightwinger white folks seem to be quick to deny black people the right of self defense, while certainly preserving it for themselves. In both instances and cases neither perpetrator had a right to be where they were. But it is funny that when faced with a mad dog rightwing mob in the Capitol assualt, the guard trusted with defense of lives was out of line to have fired and killed this woman. Interesting how the tables turn when it is convenient, isn't it?
Can we say the same about the thugs that attacked the Capitol, cowardice and brutality?
Well, we will have to agree to disagree about the merits of our alternate political views and ideologies. And you can believe me, that the rigidity on your side is just as stark and irrational.
I don't care about labels, the Right has always used the bogey man "Communism" to otherwise impede justice and progress. That dog does not hunt here."but my point is that he was a point of provocation and should have stayed home where he belongs."
To that I say "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
It took courage to enter that situation. The police could not protect businesses. At that time, I believe it is up to the citizen to protect their property.
I lived through the LA riots. Our neighborhood was protected because a group of vets, including me, went on armed patrols. The police didn't stop us, they knew they didn't have the resources to protect us. Our patrols had blacks, whites, Hispanics and Orientals. I will spare you the details, but this resulted in safety and no fires being set where we lived, but there were attempts. There were some tense moments.
So, on this case, and this case alone, I think it is a clear case of self defense. I don't think charges should have been brought against him in the first place. The aggravating thing is it has gotten so distorted and become so political."To that I say "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
---------
Mike, I could only wish that you can apply that time worn ideal evenly across the board in a wider variety of situations.
I could probably understand your zeal for defending the neighborhood after the 92 LA riots. People needed to armed to defend their lives and property, I get that. But would you have sent your 17 year old kid to San Diego armed to resolve a similar incident there? That is a little different than defending your own turf, don't you think?
How would anyone have known that Rittenhouse was not part of the rioters, most of them, oddly enough, were white?I think it was obvious that Rittnhouse was armed. The rioters knew he was not one of them and attacked him.
This speaks to the level of stupidity of the rioters. Why you would think you could bash an armed person in the head with a skateboard, try to disarm him or pull you own weapon on him and not expect to get shot is beyond me. What did they think was going to happen?
It was obvious not about race. Rittenhouse was white and the men who got shot after they attacked him were white.
Would I send my 17 year old kid into a dangerous situation armed and ready to defend the property of friends knowing the police couldn't handle the rioters? In my situation, I would and feel very proud. I, of course, would go with them. Remember, I was wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon at the age of 17.
To me, the point is that sometimes you have to step up and face evil. You can't let your fear control you. People such as the rioters and looters have to be confronted and stopped. I'm sure you've heard of the quote, "If not me, then who?"
Judging by your string of comments it looks like you should look into what you are talking about—before talking about it.
You appear to know no more about this incident than what you have heard from Liberal headlines. And your responses contain no more than Liberal mantras: Vigilantism, Right-wingers, hypocrisy and duplicitous behavior, etc. etc.
If you had checked out the details of what you are criticizing your responses wouldn't be so inaccurate. You would also realize that distrust runs both ways.
I considered a less critical response, but from the first, when you were offered a few facts about the issue, you have continued addressing this incident in a manner that suggests you don't know much more than what CNN or MSNBC might have told you. You know; that he's a murderous Right-wing vigilante white supremacist that went there to instigate and hope he gets a chance to use his mean-looking `military assault weapon'.
As I perceived it, what was revealed in the trial testimony paints a very different picture. I think it is you that have a problem with "bovine excrement."
GAI have looked into it and as you often do, you miss the point.
First of all where is this irrefutable eyewitness news source that is so infallible compared to the mainstream things the rest of have to suffer with? Your unerring sources? So, what are we getting from your right wing headlines?
I have looked into, so now, I am talking about. That is if that is ok with you?
I think that it is you that is doing the "jumping"now. The kid may well have a justifiable on the spot justification for the "self defense" argument. I don't know where you folks come from to think that it ok for a minor to be in of possession and brandishing a firearm , where it was illegal to do so. And I say that this is part of the provocation that has to be taken in consideration with his "self defense" plea at his trial. He simply had no business being there, he was a vigilante, all the same.
I know that distrust runs both ways and that is woe to our experiment in democracy and this republic.
WHO is telling you that you would have us believe is so much more reliable? Did I say anything about a murderous right wing white supremacist? You are beginning to sound like "Wilderness" (scary weapons).
But he is a vigilante, regardless.
So, that is OK, I'll leave the bovine excrement with you....Damn, I was trying not to admit this, but, I watched most of the televised trial—starting with the prosecutor's presentation, through to the last defense witness and cross-examination. I did miss big chunks but I saw the majority.
So, my "irrefutable eyewitness news source" is myself, and the source for that source is the information and explanations presented in court by the judge, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, and the legal beagle commentators from CNN and Fox that did the `sidebar' explanations of `what just happened' moments. I have read or pursued very little online content on this issue. I just stumbled across the start of the trial one day and was hooked.
There was a bonus in that every fact or claimed fact, accusation or rebuttal made by both sides was accompanied by relevant video clips, (prepared by the best team each side had). It was possible to see, with my own eyes, of all things, the actual proof in action. Not only that, but both sides presented detailed street and block presentations that showed, like connecting the dots, the timeline and location of the night's events as they relate to Rittenhouse's actions and movements.
That qualifies as an `almost' irrefutable eyewitness news source to me. How about you?
Also, the prosecutors tried multiple times to use video clips showing Rittenhouse brandishing his weapon. With the exception of the final confrontation, when he fell in the street and was surrounded by the protesters, they failed to show any instances of him "brandishing his rifle. Contrarily, in almost every clip prior to that final event, his rifle was clearly seen slung across his back. I think that would be a hard position to brandish from.
To your other part of that charge, I think most of America "would come from" the thought that it is okay for a minor to possess a firearm. My first rifle was given to me when I was six and it was not illegal for me to "possess" that rifle for target practice or squirrel hunting.
I think my legal possession was the same as Rittenhouse's "possession." I could not and did not own my rifle, and I did not have control of access to it. Court testimony indicated that was Rottenhouse's situation too. The rifle was owned and registered to his adult friend. It was kept in that friend's dad's gun safe, so he did not have control of access to it. In short, like my first rifle, ownership, (which I think you are equating to possession), wasn't mine, and my possession was only when someone else allowed it.
When the defense and prosecutor spoke to this, the explanation seemed to be that it was not against Wisconson law for a minor to possess a rifle under the circumstances that Rittenhouse did*
*(as mentioned, I haven't dug into this, but I have `high confidence' that I heard correctly. I took the fact that the prosecutor accepted that explanation from Rittenhouse when he was on the stand as agreement.
And finally, (and with my Wilderness hat on), your statement: "And I say that this is part of the provocation that has to be taken in consideration with his "self-defense" plea at his trial," I will say this. In my view, the last three days of the trial were all about the prosecutor trying to prove "provocation." It was all he had left, all the claims of the listed charges were plainly debunked.
And at the end . . .the prosecutor asked the judge to give the jury instructions that they could consider lesser, (unspecified and unlisted I think), charges. That doesn't sound like something an optimistic prosecutor would do.
Come on bud, so far there has been factual presentation that contradicts all of your claims, except that provocation thing. He had a scary-looking rifle. His dress was casual normal, (not all camouflaged and vested up), he didn't strut around in a bulletproof vest swinging his rifle like it was a big pecker he was proud of, and he really did go into the scene and offer first aid to people.
Where in the hell is his "provocation," (in your eyes), if it isn't his scary rifle or conservative buddies, (it's bad that I think you would judge that association alone is a form of provocation)?
Am I still missing the point?
GA"Damn, I was trying not to admit this, but, I watched most of the televised trial—starting with the prosecutor's presentation, through to the last defense witness and cross-examination. I did miss big chunks but I saw the majority."
-----
Well, GA, you might have said so at the beginning, of course from your perspective that is as Eyewitness as one can get.
Since, I wasn't privy to the live report, I offer these three reports on what happened. They are not too long for you to peruse. Are they pretty much what you have observed in the live stream report?
Reading this, there are issues that conflict with your statements, regarding a bonefide self defense argument and the legality of his being in possession of the firearm at that time. Rittenhouse, being this basically good guy, sort of stuff. Did he have a valid self defense argument or was there provocation involved on his part? This will be need to be sorted out in his trial.The exception regarding minors and firearms would be an adult supervision circumstance associated with hunting, yet there is not much "game" in Kenosha.
This is not going to be a slam dunk for Rittenhouse. It appears that this matter has racked him up 5 felony charges. And there is no legal justification for him under 18 to have been in possession of a firearm at the scene in question. I see him going up there just stir up trouble and provoke a confrontation, rather than this Good Samaritan type he is being labeled as. That is just my opinion! However, this man who bought the weapon for Ritt nhouse knew or should have known that it was illegal for Rittenhouse to take it and have access to it the way he did that day.
For me, the provocation thing is the main point.
We will have to wait and see.
I believe Rittenhouse needs to be prosecuted, yet circumstances could come into play allowing for some leniency in his sentencing.
----------
https://thecrimereport.org/2021/11/11/r … in-public/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- … story.html
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-la … wisconsin/Those were informative links. And they provide good fodder to explain how they affect our perceptions. Even better it let's us discuss those perceptions instead of arguing each others "facts and truths."
The easy one first; the legal possession issue. I can now see the point as arguable, but I still lean to my perception, (and personal belief), that he could legally possess at 17 years old. It appears the courts will interpret and decide this one.
The harder one is that even if it was illegal for him to possess there, I can't see that denying him the Right of self-defense because I didn't see any evidence of him being aggressive or provocative.
But, as to our perspectives, your links provided great examples of why we have different views of the evidence.
From the Crime Report link:
"On the day of Aug. 25, 2020, Rittenhouse simply took the M&P 15, and attached the rifle sling he bought at a sporting goods store earlier that day. Black says he did not say anything to dissuade him from bringing it, according to the New York Times. "
There are two agreed facts; he "took" the rifle and he "attached the sling." And one "acceptable statement:" "Black says he did not say anything to dissuade him from bringing it,"
I can easily see your perception of that as the guy just came to the house got the gun, attached a sling and his friend didn't say anything to stop him from leaving with it. Is that close to your reading?
To compare that to the court testimony:
Both Black and Rittenhouse went to sporting goods store. Black drove. Two slings were purchased, one was for Black's gun. As for the taking of the gun, Rittenhouse was directed to the basement, by Black, to get the gun(s) so they could put the slings on.
Also, Black was leaving with Kyle and they both had their rifles, so why would he be expected to dissuade Rittenhouse from taking his?*
Remember, court testimony shows that both of them believed their purchase plans and actions were legal.
For me, the additional information and context paint a completely different picture. Does it for you?
Now we just have to wait for Closing Arguments Monday and we can beat them up before the jury takes it out of our hands. I am voting for acquittals on all counts.
GA
My initial reaction to Rittenhouse was that he was unqualified to be there, and that lack of experience contributed to people being killed. Despite hearing what happened on the ground that evening that was clearly self defense, I still believe he was negligent in being there in the first place.
If others of his age were there, and they were in the same scenario, I would feel the same way.Accept for the "unqualified" thing. I agree with you. It was dumb of him to be there with his rifle. I see it as a dumb decision by a seventeen-year-old wanting to ruin with the Big Dogs kinda thing.
However, the fact that he was both a police cadet and a fire cadet, (not some street-hardened low-life or militia tag-along), and, he took two first aid kits and did administer some first aid, and did not take his bullet-proof vest, tells me that his motives weren't bad. I can see a scenario where he might have treated some serious injury and saved somebody's life, and everyone would be praising him instead of trying him. Yep, taking the gun was dumb.
GA
Dominick Black, Kyler Rittenhouse’s friend, was carrying his own semiautomatic rifle that night in Kenosha. In May of 2020, he had bought Rittenhouse a similar rifle at a hardware store in Northern Wisconsin. Dominick and Kyle stored their guns in a safe located in the garage of Dominick's family home. They target-practiced together on the property owned by Dominick's family.
Due to threats of violence and the possibility of break-ins in Kenosha, Dominick's stepfather took the guns out of the safe and brought them into the house. Before the two went downtown, on the day of the shooting, Kyler had brought his rifle upstairs.
Dominick is charged with two felony counts of providing the gun to Kyle.
However
These two teens were on a mission to protect their families and property ... on an instinctive level. They are victims of their age, adrenaline and overwhelming instinct to ward off the enemy. It's what the youth do.
In a civilized society, we rarely need guns to fight off people ... especially in one's own country where we are generally surrounded by fellow citizens and neighbors.
But they did need to fight off terrible people who were NOT fellow citizens and neighbors!!!!!!
."With education, we can turn war into peace. Therefore, we must educate our young adults on the appropriate use of firearms. This way, we ensure the safety of the ones possessing the gun and the people around them."
https://usa.inquirer.net/73015/how-old- … -buy-a-gunLet's look at what was going on all around Dominick and Kyle.
Who/what caused it to happen?
https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/arti … reventable
Damage assessments:
"A car dealership that was burned during riots on August 24
City property valued at $2 million was destroyed by rioters, including garbage trucks, street lights and traffic signals.
Kenosha's mayor requested $30 million in aid from the state to cover the extensive damage.
Damage to private property could be as high as $50 million, according to estimates from the Kenosha Area Business Alliance. This includes the 100-year-old Danish Brotherhood Lodge which was burned down when 40 buildings were destroyed and an additional 100 buildings damaged."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlMy secret is out, I watched the majority of the trial's closing arguments. My bias has been obvious, so I will only say that I thought the prosecutor was awful and that the defense was only slightly better. I felt the jury had what they needed and the closing arguments were just an attempt to seal the deal. (and that the jury was smart enough to see that)
Until, the prosecution's final rebuttal closing statement by the larger ADA guy. That's when the trip down Alice's rabbit hole began. That sounds like hyperbole but it was the least hyperbolic of the ones that came to mind. It went from bad to really bad to awful and at least a half dozen more things that were the steps to the final crossing into Bizarro World.
As for listing the detailed `missteps', they came so fast, with each getting worse, that there were too many to remember accurately. But the final step into their Bizarro world was the uncontested dumbest. It was their claim that when Rittenhouse got kicked in the face by what they are calling the `Jump kick guy', (he took a jumping booted kick into Rittenhouse's face), the kick didn't really knock him backward, that movement was Kyle rolling over to "track" the kicker and shoot him. Each of us can decide, but, between both sides, the jury has probably seen the video of that moment at least a dozen times—in slow motion and real-time. This ADA is telling the jury not to believe their eyes. Geesh.
The other examples were sillier than that but just as weird. Hopefully, someone will find that final rebuttal clip and post it. I think that even folks that haven't followed the trial will find those rebuttal statements as incredulous as I did.
.
[EDIT] The judge dismissed the minor/possession charge.
GAI found the ADA rebuttal clip I was discussing:
Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Prosecution's rebuttal to defense's closing arguments
And from the opening . . .
As the attacker was closing that four-foot separation, (remember seeing police explanations about how fast an attacker could close on a police officer from 15 or 20 feet?)
Since he was bigger than the attacker Kyle should have "punched him in the face . . . kick him in the testicles . . . knee him in the face . . . hit him with your gun . . ." etc.
I suppose if that didn't work then Kyle would have the time to use his final resort—shoot. That is if he isn't knocked unconscious or punched in the face himself by then, I guess.
The prosecution made a big deal about how far away the attacker was and that Kyle fired four shots in .76 seconds, he had time to evaluate each shot before he fired the next one. Yet, evidence shows powder soot on the hand-wound, meaning that in that same .76 sec. the attacker had closed the distance and had his hand on or over the gun muzzle.
I thought that was bad, but it got worse.
.
The ADA says "guns don't have handed, there is not a left-handed or right-handed gun." Helloooo . . maybe he should check on that. He's wrong.
And then, "a skateboard is not a deadly weapon." Hmm.. earlier he had said that hands and feet could be deadly weapons, but a large, heavy skateboard, (this was not a little kid's skateboard), swung at the head or neck, sharp edge forward, (not just a flat-board wack), could not cause deadly harm. In fact he states that the skateboard guy and the guy with the Glock pistol were not potentially deadly dangers. geesh. That was the first step into Bizarro world. Then he followed with "the jump-kick man's kick didn't really make much contact, the movement the video plainly shows is just Kyle tactically just rolling over to continue a tracking-to-shoot maneuver.
Followed by their admitting that the skateboard guy did grab hold of the rifle and was trying to take it away from Rittenhouse—which the video shows plainly to be true, but, because Kyle had the harness that prevented the skateboard man from succeeding, it was a no harm-no foul thing and Kyle had no reason to shoot—at that point. Well, when does he have that right, after the gun gets taken away and aimed at him?
He finishes that point with an emphasis that Kyle's self-defense right would only be valid if he faced an "imminent threat." Doesn't that make you wonder that if, when running from a mob that attacked you, losing your means of self-protection in a battle isn't an imminent threat then what is?
Then he goes on to refute the imminent threat thing by saying "sometimes you just have to take a beating" for your actions. Yep, in his words, Kyle only got a "few scrapes" out of this and he should have taken a beating instead of fighting back with a gun. Not in my world. If you attack me and I fear that attack, I am going to shoot you too. But in this ADA's bizarre thinking these riots were just the same as childhood fights where you tussle until one cries, uncle. When Rittenhouse was faced with a beating he should have just waited to see how bad his beating was going to be before escalating his response, (if he is still conscious enough to do so). Well, maybe that is the correct perspective in his world, but not the real world as I see it.
And then . . . he rationalizes that Rosanblaum(?) might have had his shirt covering his face, (when he attacked Rittenhouse), as a Covid precaution. In a riot, this guy is worried about spreading covid?
The video is probably an hour-long bore for most, but it was a ridiculous prosecution effort to me.
GAI found the ADA rebuttal clip I was discussing:
Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Prosecution's rebuttal to defense's closing arguments
And from the opening . . .
As the attacker was closing that four-foot separation, (remember seeing police explanations about how fast an attacker could close on a police officer from 15 or 20 feet?), the prosecution says he had time to think of alternative actions.
Since he was bigger than the attacker Kyle should have "punched him in the face . . . kick him in the testicles . . . knee him in the face . . . hit him with your gun . . ." etc.
I suppose if that didn't work then Kyle would have the time to use his final resort—to shoot. That is if he isn't knocked unconscious or punched in the face himself by then, I guess.
The prosecution made a big deal about how far away the attacker was and that Kyle fired four shots in .76 seconds, he had time to evaluate each shot before he fired the next one. Yet, evidence shows powder soot on the hand-wound, meaning that in that same .76 sec. the attacker had closed the distance and had his hand on or over the gun muzzle.
I thought that was bad, but it got worse.
.
The ADA says "guns don't have handed, there is not a left-handed or right-handed gun." Helloooo . . maybe he should check on that. He's wrong.
And then, "a skateboard is not a deadly weapon." Hmm.. earlier he had said that hands and feet could be deadly weapons, but a large, heavy skateboard, (this was not a little kid's skateboard), swung at the head or neck, sharp edge forward, (not just a flat-board wack), could not cause deadly harm? In fact he states that the skateboard guy and the guy with the Glock pistol were not potentially deadly dangers. geesh. That was the first step into Bizarro world. Then he followed with "the jump-kick man's kick didn't really make much contact, the movement the video plainly shows is just Kyle tactically just rolling over to continue a tracking-to-shoot maneuver.
Followed by their admitting that the skateboard guy did grab hold of the rifle and was trying to take it away from Rittenhouse—which the video shows plainly to be true, but, because Kyle had the harness that prevented the skateboard man from succeeding, it was a no harm-no foul thing and Kyle had no reason to shoot—at that point. Well, when does he have that right, after the gun gets taken away and aimed at him?
He finishes that point with an emphasis that Kyle's self-defense right would only be valid if he faced an "imminent threat." Doesn't that make you wonder that if, when running from a mob that attacked you, losing your means of self-protection in a battle isn't an imminent threat then what is?
Then he goes on to refute the imminent threat thing by saying "sometimes you just have to take a beating" for your actions. Yep, in his words, Kyle only got a "few scrapes" out of this and he should have taken a beating instead of fighting back with a gun. Not in my world. If you attack me and I fear that attack, I am going to shoot you too. But in this ADA's bizarre thinking these riots were just the same as childhood fights where you tussle until one cries, uncle. When Rittenhouse was faced with a beating he should have just waited to see how bad his beating was going to be before escalating his response, (if he is still conscious enough to do so). Well, maybe that is the correct perspective in his world, but not the real world as I see it.
And then . . . he rationalizes that Rosanblaum(?) might have had his shirt covering his face, (when he attacked Rittenhouse), as a Covid precaution. In a riot, this guy is worried about spreading covid?
The video is probably an hour-long bore for most, but it was a ridiculous prosecution effort to me.
GA
On a serious note. I think the violent images of video games which feature the use of weapons and shooting scenarios are a bad/detrimental stimulus/influence on the minds/emotions of children, teens and adults.
The possession of the firearm has been dropped as apparently Wisconsin says it is not against the law. The prosecution didd not check the law is that instance. I don't think they have proved Kyle guilty.
Okay, here is what I think:
Dominick's stepfather, who brought the guns out of the safe and into the house, should be held accountable. He allowed Kyler access to the firearm. Who knows, he might have instigated Dominick and Kyler to go into town that night. Terrible, if so. I agree these two teens shouldn't have been there with guns. At all. They should have been told not to go and to stay home and let the authorities handle the situation: The governor, the police, the national guard. The boys brought their long arm guns, which are not to be used for street violence, but for game.
Bring forth the stepfather.
Who will listen to me?
- no one.
Get the kid out of the picture or there will be some bad stuff on the horizon.
I actually feel like we are being led toward civil war.
We need to stop the black against white stuff being promoted. We need to stop BLM and we need to stop Antifa.
We need to acknowledge/identify the destructive influences tearing us apart and bringing us down ... and fight against them. Trouble is, we are not even allowed to discuss Antifa. They were the ones who caused the problems, including all the adults who could not stop Antifa from rioting those nights and burning up everything they could torch.
Kyler should not be held accountable. There should not have been a trial for this matter. His intent was to protect his father and his father's town, Kenosha. It's a sad case and I will be very very sad if Kyler goes to jail.
I would not have let my kid go to town with a gun that night, any of those nights. No Way.The fact that Rittenhouse's father lived in Kenosha, could support the fact that he may have gotten involved to help him. That would change my stance regarding Kyle substantially. I did not realize this before.
The question is: why the violence in the town????????
BLM is being blamed, but I question that, I don't know about antifa. I need to find out generally who actually participated in the riots verse who is being blamed.
I don't know, I don't live there and neither do you...
Whatever "supremacy" you are obviously advocating here will change in time with coming change of demographics coming to a theatre near you."Whatever "supremacy" you are obviously advocating (I am not) here will change in time with coming change of demographics coming to a theatre near you." C
In CA, I am a minority. So what?- what is the nature of "supremacy."
Could it simply be a dominant cultural mode?With a change of numbers could come a change in "dominent cultural mode"
why crucify a 17 year old kid in the face of the destructive force of ANTIFA???????
I don't want to crucify him as long as he was there for a legitimate defense concern.
Well, I do agree he shouldn't have been there. Especially with a Gun.
Dominick's stepfather was negligent.
Thank You for this freedom of speech.
I use it for the good.What will happen when America is dominated by the black culture?
Will there be black supremacists in America?It's so silly. We are actually talking about modes of behavior and ways of seeing reality.
We all have different views, all unique and individual. Lets just leave it at that.On that point, I can find agreement with you.
What do you think of David Katz's assessment. (I met him at the pool where I swim.)
https://cheddar.com/media/breaking-down … ittenhouseI think he got his most important point wrong which, to me, casts doubt on the other stuff he had to say.
He said it was damning that Rittenhouse waited "4 or 5 seconds" before firing the 3rd shot, the "kill shot," at Rosenbaum. Court testimony and video evidence show that all four Rosanbaum shots were fired in a .76 second burst. There was no 4 or 5-second delay between shots. (unless I am mistaken of course)
GAMr. Katz seem to have his ducks in a row, regardless of the outcome, Rittenhouse is no hero. He reminds me of a lot of Rightwingers looking for an opportunity to use their weapons on real live people, and get away with it.
Kyle Rittenhouse found NOT GUILTY on all counts.
Justice has been served.I agree. Now, let's wait to hear from those that don't.
GAYes, I suppose that I will have to eat my hat, this time. Got any salt and pepper?
I have backed away from condemnation of this Rittenhouse fellow as it was proven that he could support his use of deadly force, ok. While, I thought that he had no business there in the first place, I realized that he might of been there to assist his father so I backed off a bit.
But now, the focus will be on the Arbery case in Georgia, and those two, father and son numb-nuts, had better not get off as there are a lot of eyes on this one.
An acquittal will result in a Georgia on fire that would make General Sherman's assualt look like a folk dance.
Self defense in itself is not good enough without considering provocation.
We will see.....,These are two very different cases.
Their defense is citizen's arrest in the Arbery case? Ridiculous.
I personally see these men getting convicted of 2nd degree murder.
If they actually thought Arbery was a burglar, they could have followed him and notified police. They had NO right to confront him. They had NO right to chase him. They certainly had NO right to shoot him.
If these three knuckleheads get convicted, I will feel that justice has been served. One of them is a former police officer. HE should have known better.
In this case, I believe these three should be convicted of 2nd degree murder. I don't think first degree murder, because there is not an element of it being preplanned. I am not a legal scholar. Just a regular guy who read about stories.Good, I am glad that even you recognize this.
The fact of the confrontation and provocation could make many believe that the defendants were looking for an opportunity to shoot Arbery, I want maximum penalties. It could be reasonably anticipated that Arbery might resist not knowing what the actual intent of those men were.You and I agree on this one.
Arbery would probably have a case for self defense if he would have lived.
I agree with you on maximum penalties.
Yes! Crazy! From what I heard and read, the judge was on the ball.
This case should have NEVER been brought. The prosecutor displayed a high level of incompetence. It's a shame this kid had to go through this at all.
I hope he sues everyone in the media and gets quite a bit of money from it.
I'd even support him suing the biden administration for biden calling him a White Supremacist.Good call by the jury. Pretty plainly proven to be self defense.
The video posted to Biden's twitter was of Chris Wallace asking Trump if he would tell white supremacists and armed militias (when Rittenhouse's photo then showed) to stand down from US cities to deescalate the violence. Rittenhouse admitted going there armed to protect property - hence he was a member of an armed militia. Biden's twitter claim calling him part of an armed militia was a truth to those who understand what the word 'and' means.
Then he is seen flashing white power signs with members of the Proud Boys in a bar.
Should be interesting lawsuits."Rittenhouse admitted going there armed to protect property - hence he was a member of an armed militia."
Huh?
Not based on a definition in English. A militia is a military organization.
"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem" · .
Any proof these guys wore uniforms, marched, worked on tactics?
I've seen militias...he was not a member of any militia.
"Then he is seen flashing white power signs with members of the Proud Boys in a bar."
I think the "Okay" sign is often just that...a sign of being okay. To think it is a white power sign is just plain stupid.In the English language, the term militia definitely can refer to:
'forces engaged in a defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
There were multiple militia groups on the ground that night in Kenosha.
And the okay sign when standing with neo-fascists definitely means something different. That's like trying to convince someone that members of the Third Reich were just waving at people.
Wait. Being armed and in the same general area automatically means one is a member of an organized military force? I would have to strongly disagree with that; it would also mean that anyone opposing that same force would automatically be a part of it. An insolvable contradiction.
"Rittenhouse admitted going there armed to protect property - hence he was a member of an armed militia"
And there it is, one of the accepted misrepresentations I mentioned in another comment. As I see it, what you described does not make him a member of an armed militia. Apparently the jurors, and even CNN, (now, after the verdict), didn't, and don't, see him as a member of an armed militia.
Did you check out the link I offered that explained those Proud Boys photos and signs?
GAI saw it, but I have little patience for people making excuses for neo-fascists so it didn't interest me.
Meaning you see Rittenhouse as a neo-facist because he stood with a group of them, (whom he had not met before), for beers?
Oh well. I thought the New Yorker article was deep and fairly presented, even though there were a couple of word choices that inferred a liberal tilt. I didn't read them as making excuses for anything.
You know, momma always said patience was a virtue. I think she was right.
GALook at that, what the hell . . . he can do it with both hands. Only a `blooded-in' militia man is allowed to use either hand.
Damn, you guys are right. I am lousy at sarcasm.
GA
Oh well, just imagine that I said something sarcastic and witty.
GA
I am so pleased to see justice, clear, and simply make me regain a bit of faith in our system. I also hope he as well as his Mom sues Biden as well as several in Congress, many media talk jocks that defamed this young man. The list is long, it is time that those that clearly think they can defame anyone they choose need to be sued and made examples of. And these news outlets need to also be made responsible for their false reporting.
I think this case had to be brought. It's bad that Rittenhouse had to suffer through the ordeal, but just imagine the potential danger from a simmering public that demanded justice. This way they get justice. And they get to see it work.
I think this event, (the trial and verdict), allowed that same public to hear some facts instead of someone's interpretation of those facts, and, it put an undeniable spotlight on a lot of general misrepresentations that too many follow as "facts." And I don't mean stuff like the hard facts that he was not a white supremacist and he did not cross state lines with an assault rifle, etc.
I am talking about the accepted representations of white supremacists and militant militias being anyone with conservative values, a gun, and camouflage, of course.
As for suing . . . I don't think he should sue anyone. It will be hard enough to make this his past, instead of his ever-changing present, as it is. Imagine how much harder it would be if he did what you suggest.
GAI disagree. He has been publicly defamed based on blatant lies spread by an incompetent media.
I would begin with suing biden, various media outlets, and move forward to Hollywood people who also defamed him.
He suffered a tremendous impact to his reputation, character and more.
I hope he sues all of them and wins quite a substantial amount settlement.
If it were me, I would be drafting the complaints tonight and have them filed tomorrow.. . . and I would be getting out of Dodge and looking for the road ahead.
I like my prospects of happiness a lot better than yours Mike. :-)
GAFalse, as always. Sandmann settled, likely for nuisance fees just to go away.
https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawy … h-peanuts/Oh great, now we get Twitter feeds as go-to sources.
But, it grew on me. The message sounds logical and the guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about. (oh gawd, now I'm giving credibility to forum feeds. what's next?
GASandman settled two lawsuits. He settled a lawsuit for $250 million. Did he get $250 million? Nobody knows as neither side can publicly discuss the case. He has five more lawsuits pending.
"Kentucky's Nicholas Sandmann celebrated his 18th birthday on Friday by notching his second victory against the mainstream media for defaming him, providing pushback in a world where false reporting seems to always go unpunished.
The former Covington Catholic High School student announced a settlement in his $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post on Twitter. As in the January settlement of a similar defamation suit against CNN, the terms weren't disclosed, and Sandmann said he has more work to do.
“The fight isn't over... two down, six to go,” he tweeted, referring to lawsuits against six other media outlets. “
Don't hold your breath, @jack,” Sandmann added, threatening a case against Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
He has lawsuits pending against ABC, CBS, the New York Times, Rolling Stone magazine and Gannett, the owner of USA Today and the Cincinnati Enquirer."
https://www.rt.com/usa/495802-sandmann- … cnn-media/And yet that steaming pile of manure you posted said HE GOT $250 million. He would have had a hard time proving defamation as my link noted. Companies paid him to go away since it's cheaper than legal fees.
Semantics.
If you win an award of $250 million, it can be interpreted as getting $250 million.
I'm sure companies did pay him to avoid a court trial. IF a jury was to get into the details of what these companies did, it would probably cost them more then $250 million. It was to their benefit to settle out of court.
It looks like you see those as comparable. I don't. But, if I were in the shoes of the MAGA hat kid it would be a different game and I would go for the brass ring too.
GA
I agree with you.
The problem is
1. They don't realize they're idiots
2. They have no sense of realityWe do need to keep a good sense of humor. What more can we do? LOL
Suppose if they have any decency, 1. They realize their idiots, and 2. They've got a severe shift in reality.
Related Discussions
- 66
Could a black man be free from murder charges with self defense claim?
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
The answer is YES.It happened in Florida.On November 19, just hours after Rittenhouse's verdict was read, Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty on all counts of murder, and attempted first-degree murder. The Indian River County Sheriff did register his disappointment, but like Rittenhouse, Coffee...
- 33
Is Jodi Arias guilty of murdering Travis Alexander or is was it self-defense?
by Deborah 12 years ago
Is Jodi Arias guilty of murdering Travis Alexander or is was it self-defense?Jodi Arias admitted to brutally murdering her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander, but was it in self defense? Is she a true psychopath?
- 126
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
by VC L Veasey 10 years ago
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
- 39
Official: Charges coming in Trayvon Martin death
by Longhunter 13 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/official-charges- … 38994.htmlIt's about damn time but can he get a fair trial?Will all groups on both sides of this issue accept the outcome of a trial and move on?
- 4
How does a jury convict a person of vehicular homicide while jaywalking?
by platinumOwl4 13 years ago
How does a jury convict a person of vehicular homicide while jaywalking?A mother in the state of Georgia attempting to cross the street not at an intersection was convicted of this crime. However, the person who hit the child had had several other incident that day, in the same area. The...
- 5
Will the Trayvon Martin homicide lead to changes in state "Stand Your Ground" la
by Xenonlit 12 years ago
Will the Trayvon Martin homicide lead to changes in state "Stand Your Ground" laws?Other nicknames for laws that are based on the Castle Doctrine include the Defense of Habitation Law, and "Make My Day" law.Either the "stand your ground" laws present a deadly threat to...