Wisconsin vs. Kyle Rittenhouse for murder in Kenosha *NOT GUILTY*

Defense Says Kyle Rittenhouse Was Attacked 'in the Street Like an Animal'

During opening statements on Tuesday, a defense attorney for Kenosha, Wis. shooter Kyle Rittenhouse characterized the teen who killed two people and injured a third during civil unrest in the summer of 2020 as someone who pulled the trigger only after others attacked him "in the street like an...

lawandcrime.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

WOW. I also did not watch the trial nor do I know the case well.

I guess I thought there were lower options of degrees of charges they would possibly find him guilty of... In other words, I don't know what all the charges were.

I am still surprised at the verdict, knowing just the little bit I do of the cse.

 

[Paradise]

Justice has been served

 

[fran]

I watched the trial. I’m not surprised at the verdict. The state didn’t prove their case.

Like I said before, all was not as it was deemed by the MSM.

JMHO
fran

 

[GrandmaBear]

I really wish I was more up on this to have more of an opinion.

I do know any trial I watch, that then when I see the media's take on each day of trial and what they say, twist, opine or make the big news of that day, I often wonder if they were watching the same trial I was.

One thing I can say is at least now people will not have to choose between watching Arbery or Rittenhouse trials. Quite the hoopla with both being televised and held at the same time, although Arbery is going to closings now too and is almost over.

One other thing is media will have a field day and blame this on this or that (some will) but will fail to see how perhaps (not sure, not well informed), some of the antics of some of them and their misleading news and more may well have affected this trial itself. Is it too much to expect them to just cover a trial, give their take or even opinion on the day and behave? Still shaking my head over trying to follow jurors or whatever it was...

My last remark a not well informed person can make is I can only hope this guy is someone who learned a very hard lesson here and he NEVER EVER puts himself in such a situation again or even chances being near something like this, much less armed.

 

[daisy7]

I watched the trial. I’m not surprised at the verdict. The state didn’t prove their case.

Like I said before, all was not as it was deemed by the MSM.

JMHO
fran

I think it would have been a different outcome if the judge hadn't blocked important evidence.

 

[daisy7]

Kyle's attorney statement now "I just think everyone should mind their own business." The irony is rich.

 

[Guess Who]

I think the judge said he he will rule after a verdict is made, not that he would rule if Kyle was convicted. That's the way I understand it. JMO

it only makes sense to rule that way only if a guilty verdict was had. No reason for him to do that with a non guilty verdict.

 

[Tresir]

I think it would have been a different outcome if the judge hadn't blocked important evidence.

What evidence did the judge block? I must have missed that.

 

[Tresir]

Kyle's attorney statement now "I just think everyone should mind their own business." The irony is rich.

Well I am glad a lot of people did not do that or we would have no videos at all.

 

[Tresir]

10 lies debunked.

10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked: Devine

Of all the willful lies and omissions in the media’s coverage of the Steele dossier, Brian Sicknick, the Covington kids, Jussie Smollett, the Wuhan lab, Hunter Biden’s laptop and so on, nothing bea…

nypost.com

 

[daisy7]

What evidence did the judge block? I must have missed that.

Jury Won't Hear Evidence Of Kyle Rittenhouse's Proud Boys Connections

A jury in the trial of a man who fatally shot two people during protests in Kenosha won't hear evidence that a far-right nationalist group rallied to the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse in the weeks after the shootings.

www.wpr.org

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Jury Won't Hear Evidence Of Kyle Rittenhouse's Proud Boys Connections

A jury in the trial of a man who fatally shot two people during protests in Kenosha won't hear evidence that a far-right nationalist group rallied to the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse in the weeks after the shootings.

www.wpr.org

The Proud Boys embraced him after the shooting. He had no connection to them prior to the shootings.

This is what I think should have been let in:

...In a hearing Friday, Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder withheld a final decision on whether he would admit evidence that Rittenhouse said two weeks before the shootings that he wished he had his gun so he could shoot criminals. But Schroeder said he found the circumstance of those statements by Rittenhouse "so dissimilar" to the crimes he is accused of that Schroeder likely wouldn't allow that evidence in the trial.


Prosecutors argued the evidence was "crucial" to their case as Rittenhouse's statements would illuminate his state of mind on the night of the shootings. The video, which is available online, shows Rittenhouse witnessing alleged shoplifters at a CVS drug store and saying if he had his gun he would "start shooting rounds" at them....

Nobody should be allowed to have a gun at a demonstration on either side. Walking around with an AR-15 on your back is inviting trouble. IMO, he should have at least been found guilty of manslaughter.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Well I am glad a lot of people did not do that or we would have no videos at all.

I already knew all of those. It was illegal for him to own a long gun at age 17. His friend bought it for him, but kept it at his house. So a 17 year old was walking around with a gun he couldn't legally own.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

 

[Tresir]

Jury Won't Hear Evidence Of Kyle Rittenhouse's Proud Boys Connections

A jury in the trial of a man who fatally shot two people during protests in Kenosha won't hear evidence that a far-right nationalist group rallied to the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse in the weeks after the shootings.

www.wpr.org

Thanks for clarifying. So the judge did consider it but disallowed it.
"Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said their side commissioned an expert analysis of the contents of Rittenhouse's cell phone. He said the report from that analysis found that the phone's contents "(do) not establish that the user belonged to or even had any interest in any militia-style organizations."

The judge sided with the defense."

 

[Tresir]

I already knew all of those. It was illegal for him to own a long gun at age 17. His friend bought it for him, but kept it at his house. So a 17 year old was walking around with a gun he couldn't legally own.

Yes. The defence found a loophole apparently.

Breaking down why Judge Schroeder dismissed Kyle Rittenhouse's gun charge

According to Wisconsin law, anyone under the age of eighteen who possesses a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor, and those convicted can serve up to nine months in jail. Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three people in Kenosha, killing two of them. However, his defense team found an...

www.wuwm.com

 

[Tresir]

Tucker Carlson commenting on the case. (Kyle is on his Monday night show apparently)

Tucker Carlson: Media and Big Tech lied about the Kyle Rittenhouse case - here's the truth

Tucker Carlson dissects what the media and Big Tech have been saying about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and how it's different than reality.

www.foxnews.com

 

[RoundPeg]

Still so much misinformation floating around. I had a girl argue with me last night. Claims she watched the entire trial. Yet claimed Rittenhouse "crossed state lines with a gun".

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Yes. The defence found a loophole apparently.

Breaking down why Judge Schroeder dismissed Kyle Rittenhouse's gun charge

According to Wisconsin law, anyone under the age of eighteen who possesses a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor, and those convicted can serve up to nine months in jail. Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three people in Kenosha, killing two of them. However, his defense team found an...

www.wuwm.com

Yep, I can't argue that by Wisconsin law his not guilty verdict is very unjust, Wisconsin just has stupid laws. A guy who has a gun he can't legally possess walks around, alone and with no authority, looking for someone to shoot isn't guilty of anything is hard to accept.

You can say he wasn't looking for someone to shoot, but I believe the CVS video and the fact he brought the gun with him says otherwise. But for his bringing the gun with him, two people would still be alive. His claim to being there was to protect someone's property. So why did he leave if that's the only reason he was there? He wanted to help people? Then leave the gun behind. If you don't want to leave it behind then don't leave at all. You'll need to keep the gun from being stolen from you in an area that you know is experiencing a violent riot. So your ability to render first aid is greatly diminished.

I think he thought shooting someone would be just like the video games he played, but found out it's much different in real life. I believe he was truly traumatized by what he did, but that's not punishment enough.

All JMO.

It's my belief that if you do something to egg someone on to attack you and then kill them. Claiming self defense shouldn't apply. If George Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the police Trayvon Martin would still be alive. If the McMichaels hadn't gone after Ahmaud Arbery he'd still be alive and if Kyle Rittenhouse hadn't brought his AR-15 two other people would still be alive.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Still so much misinformation floating around. I had a girl argue with me last night. Claims she watched the entire trial. Yet claimed Rittenhouse "crossed state lines with a gun".

I know someone who I would have said knows more about the case by far than I, however, all of that information came from one source and one cable news channel. The person's opinion of much of it fits hearing that and only that source and it includes some of this apparent misinformation.

I am not taking any side nor talking politics at all with this next remark or favoring any sources, I didn't follow much but this remark is so true and hits home with the overall problems in this and other cases/media, etc. and agendas:

"On the second day of jury deliberations Wednesday, the judge railed against media distortions, although he seemed most aggrieved about attacks on his reputation, rather than Kyle’s. He threatened to stop trials from being televised, but that’s exactly the wrong solution.

Only because the public was able to hear the evidence for themselves did they become aware of the malevolent dishonesty of the media coverage, which has threatened a fair trial and ensured riots if Kyle is justly acquitted."

Imho, anyone who to this day has not learned what a lot of the media is has very thick blinders on. Just my opinion.

Source: Article in Post #150 on this thread from Tresir