Rittenhouse Closing Arguments

Closing Arguments are taking place in the Rittenhouse trial.

Here is a summary of the prosecution's argument.

The judge tossed a charge of possession of a weapon by a person under 18 today because the statute required the gun barrel to be of a certain length, and the prosecution agreed that Rittenhouse' weapon was short-barreled and didn't qualify. It was punishable by a maximum sentence of 9 months.

The Judge also allowed a lesser included instruction for the shooting death of Anthony Huber.

Where the parties differ:

Rittenhouse said he feared for his life and acted in self-defense. Prosecutors sought to portray him as the aggressor who bears responsibility for the bloodshed.

The defense argument is live here.

500 National Guard troops are on call for after the verdict if requested by the state police. [More...]

< Thursday Open Thread | Rittenhouse's Counsel: Defending a Client, Not a Cause >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Mark Richards came out smoking (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 15, 2021 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    for the defense closing argument then lost a little steam.  His catch phrase for the mysterious, blurry, recently discovered video footage was "Hocus pocus, out of focus".

    The jury instructions on the charges were (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by McBain on Tue Nov 16, 2021 at 09:57:28 AM EST
    a big mess.  Then the jury had to sit through three long, often redundant closing arguments. I wasn't able to make it through any of them.  

    Before the trial started, I was surprised when the defense stipulated that their use of force expert wouldn't testify about the reasonableness of Rittenhouse's actions.  This expert, Dr. John Black, was impressive during a previous hearing, more so than any of the use of force witnesses in the Chauvin trial.  I'm not sure this jury understands the law and, thanks to Hollywood, what violent encounters are actually like.


    You'd probably have to (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 16, 2021 at 06:33:01 PM EST
    go back to ancient Assyria to find a people more intrigued by violent encounters than present day Americans..

    Who would you suggest to explain the meaning of it all to them, Lin Wood?

    He's presently off somewhere tracking Antifa-piloted UFOs.


    As I understand the underage-carrying charge (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 15, 2021 at 11:00:32 PM EST
    Wisconsin generally prohibits anyone under 18 from carrying a firearm, but there is an exception for standard rifles and shotguns, that is, long guns that are not sawed-off or short-barreled, obviously intended to permit parents to allow their kids to go hunting. But the legislature didn't specify hunting in the statute. The judge ruled that as written, the law on its face allowed Rittenhouse to carry an AR-15 in downtown Kenosha during a disturbance.

    The NRA (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 16, 2021 at 09:13:15 AM EST
    owns the pols in Wisconsin. Remember, even Feingold ran agains gun control.

    A lot of fake news these days. (4.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 16, 2021 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    Wisconsin law treats rifles and pistols differently.  It was fake news that all firearms were prohibited to 16 and 17 year olds.  

    A TON of "fake news" (4.20 / 5) (#7)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 16, 2021 at 05:16:03 PM EST
    Election "fraud" ... COVID's "just the flu" ... masks don't work ... vaccines don't work/are dangerous ... Trump won ... Jan. 6 was "Antifa" ... "Socialist!' (attached to anything ...

    I know it's fun to pretend someone said "all firearms are prohibited to 16 and 17 year old", but if you're actually worried about "fake news", there's thirty thousand more actual lies rather than imagined "fake news".  Or just turn on any hour of Faux News.


    By "fake news these days" (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 16, 2021 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    I think he means since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987.


    I use the term to describe stories from so called responsible news organizations or officials that turn out to be bogus. None of what you list meets that definition.

    A good fake news example is border agents whipping black immigrants.  Kind of like Biden describing, without evidence, Rittenhouse as a white supremacist.  

    Both instances of actions that inflame racial passions. The "Hands up don't shoot" lie is similar. I have yet to see an apology from that chose to spread that lie in furtherance of racial division.


    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 06:05:06 PM EST
    You should post a link to the "fake news" organization where you heard your (strawman) claim (i.e.  ("It was fake news that all firearms were prohibited to 16 and 17 year olds".)

    "Racial Division" (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 18, 2021 at 04:30:06 AM EST
    as you put it already exists....Pointing it out does not create it.

    I can remember when MLK was alive and not so well regarded by conservative white America.  It was said that he was "stirring up trouble."  I was reminded of that by your comment about creating "racial division."

    Conservative white America does not want to be called out for their racial attitudes.....


    Never (4.00 / 4) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    heard you complain about tRump's lies.

    Hah! (3.67 / 3) (#21)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 06:01:57 PM EST
    See?  That's the advantage of qualifiers ... like your use of the word "responsible" in front of officials or news organizations.  That automatically exempts Trump, Faux News, etc., because all they do is lie.  Like your newest, laughable claim that Biden called Rittenhouse a white supremacist.  He didn't ... but since you're simply repeating some BS from Faux News or Breitbart, it can't be called "fake news", because they're neither "responsible" or "news".

    Just pondering. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Nov 18, 2021 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    Taking all of the exact same facts, circumstances and event into account. Had Kyle Rittenhouse been a 17 year old black teenager armed with AR-15, would he have made it out Kenosha, WI alive that night?

    Rhetorical question right? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jmacWA on Thu Nov 18, 2021 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    NO WAY

    My friends in Chicago (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    call the Illinois Wisconsin border `the cheddar curtain'.

    You know what (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:55:34 PM EST
    This verdict was so predictable.  So predictable it was predicted.  For weeks.  Also equally predictable is the desperate agenda parasites wallowing it their tiny ugly victory.

    Personally I would stop giving them oxygen by trying to argue facts or law or common freakin sense.

    It's what they live for.

    What Disappoints Me About This Thread (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    1. No suggestions on how self defense laws can be improved.

    2. No clear analysis of why Rittenhouse was guilty or not guilty of particular charges.

    3. The overwhelming feeling that one's reaction to high profile court cases depends on your political persuasion.  

    The evidence for self defense was strong (3.00 / 5) (#79)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    So strong, in fact, there should never have been charges.  I wish it had never happened, I wish Rosenbaum and Huber will still alive and Grosskreutz hadn't been injured but they weren't victims.  Kyle Rittenhouse was the victim that night.  

    If what has been alleged about the prosecution's handling of evidence and witness statements is true, I hope he can sue them for malicious prosecution.  I also hope he can sue those in the media who spread false information.  I won't hold my breath for any of that but, at some point, this nonsense needs to stop.

    Let's keep in mind, this tragedy started when misinformed people decided to protest the Jacob Blake shooting before the facts came out to justify the police.  I keep thinking, hoping, people will learn not to trust the first thing they hear on TV or the internet but it hasn't happened yet.

    Sue whom for malicious prosecution? (4.56 / 9) (#80)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    Absolute prosecutorial immunity from civil rights suits has been in place since 1976, under a mostly-unanimous Supreme Court decision led by a solid five-justice majority of conservatives. As for suing media outlets over coverage you think was unfair, the First Amendment stands as a barrier. You can hold your breath for a different Bill of Rights if you want, but I would venture to guess that most of us prefer that the traditional rights of Americans be preserved and protected, including freedom of the press.
      As for remembering what "started" this tragedy, I would say what started it was the reckless decision of a 17-year-old to carry an unlicensed mass-murder weapon across state lines to offer unsolicited "assistance" to the Kenosha police in responding to a rowdy but hardly unprecedented protest of perceived police misconduct. That some others may think in hindsight that the protesters were "misinformed" is neither here nor there, so far as the actions of uninvolved civilians to threaten them with deadly violence is concerned.

    Yes, the (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    tragedy of the deaths of two and the wounding of a third  could have been avoided if more sanely-based judgment  prevailed on the part of the mother as well as the armed juvenile vigilantism of the 17-year. old Kyle Rittenhouse.  What assistance was this teenager to supply to the Kenosha police and to the 125 National Guard military troops called up by the Governor on August 24, 2000?

    And, the tragedy continues with the exploitation of young Rittenhouse by fascists as an avatar for "22nd Amendment" solutions to protests (note: such solution does not apply to riots intended to overthrow the government).


    Folks here have the ability to help (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:45:31 PM EST
    See my recommendations below on how each of us can overcome our bias, assess and reject false media memes and step up to prevent this kind of tragedy.

    When the government does not or cannot stop violence (c.f. Portland OR riots that lased for months), it creates a void that regular folks will try to fill to protect their communities. Instead of allowing violence to continue, we can pressure the government to intervene in every single malicious act of violence.

    One thing we learned from this case is that the FBI likely has excellent recordings of every violent action that occurs at protests. Normally I wouldn't look to them as the best solution, but it's clear that people with weapons aren't going to stand by while rioters wreak havoc in their communities.

    So I think we should pressure the FBI to provide that evidence to the police so they can charge and convict those rioters who put all of us at risk. Those of us who try to utilize peaceful protest to effect positive change are undermined by thieves and bad actors, especially men like the four who attacked Rittenhouse that night. Each one of them has a violent criminal history. I don't want my values to be represented by vicious men like them. Of course it would be better if Rittenhouse was not there at all, but allowing property loss and loss of life isn't the only other solution. Remember, when someone tries to burn down a business, there could be children in apartments nearby who are put at risk. Accepting violence in simple not a workable solution.

    I think the best way to support the belief that black lives matter is to focus on specific cases or racism and structural racism and the specific individuals and institutions responsible. When we allow unethical rioters to harm anyone and everyone in their path, the good work of many ethical protesters is undone. If we want to successfully stop racism and end white privilege, we need to keep these malicious people from doing harm.


    PeterG you are woefully misinformed (2.80 / 5) (#82)
    by IronmanMk64 on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    PeterG you are misinformed.  I cannot believe that you are repeating "facts" that have long been debunked.  You obviously have not really looked at the evidence in this case and are commenting based on misinformation.

    Rittenhouse never carried an unlicensed weapon across state lines.  The gun was purchased in Wisconsin and never left the state of Wisconsin.  

    It was not a rowdy protest, it was a riot replete with arson and resulted in $50,000,000 in damages.  Josh Ziminski, the guy Joseph Rosenbaum was hanging out with all evening is on numerous videos walking around with a pistol in his hand.  He is the guy who fired the first shot, shooting at Rittenhouse as Joseph Rosenbaum was chasing him.  Ziminski is also charged and facing trial for arson and the gunshot.  

    Two prosecution witnesses quoted Joseph Rosenbaum loudly declaring that he was going to kill Rittenhouse or any of his compatriots if he caught them alone.  30 minutes later, Video and eyewitness testimony showed that Joseph Rosenbaum chased Kyle Rittenhouse and tried to take the gun.

    As a lawyer who leans to siding with defendants what is your opinion of the actions of the prosecution?

    1. video: an anonymous high def video was provided to the prosecution midway into the trial.  The prosecutors gave an unadultered copy to the crime lab.  The defense was provided with a copy of the video that had a different name, different file size, different creation date, and most importantly was 1/4 the video resolution.  Throughout the second half of the trial the defense was working from a video that was vastly inferior to the version used by the prosecution.   Because of that video, the prosecution, completely altered their theory of the case.  They opened with the theory that Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum.  They ended with a theory that right handed Rittenhouse inexplicably pointing his gun with his left hand at Josh Ziminski, thereby provoking Rosenbaum.  All based on a blurry, heavily enhanced single frame image from the HD drone video.  There were no other videos, or witnesses that had Rittenhouse point his gun at Ziminski.  That prosecution theory was formed only after the discovery of the drone video.  To repeat, the defense copy of the video provided by the prosecution had 1/4 the video resolution used by the prosecution.

    2. Jump Kick Man: throughout the trial the prosecution told the court that the jump kick man was unidentified.  Media reports have now identified JKM and he apparantly approached the prosecution months ago to testify in exchange for leniency in other charges.  If that is true then, the prosecution withheld his identity from the defense, and lied to the court that he was unidentified.

    3. accusation of suborning perjury?: Witness Nathan DeBruin testified under oath that during pretrial questioning ADA Binger and Kraus tried to get him to change his testimony.

    4. inadmissable evidence: during pretrial motions the prosecution wanted to admit videos of Rittenhouse that were unrelated to the events of the trial.  The judge did not allow it because it was propensity evidence.  During the trial, Binger tried to introduce the evidence anyway.  

    5] 5th Amendment right: under cross of Rittenhouse, Binger tried questioning why Rittenhouse chose to exercise his right to silence.  

    FYI: Peter G is one of if not the best (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    informed com mentors on this blog.

    pleased to see the reactionaries (4.20 / 5) (#85)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    suddenly all concerned about what is in fact normal, everyday behavior by prosecutors (assuming all your descriptions of their conduct are accurate). Looking forward to your joining the campaign for criminal justice reform and to end mass incarceration that I have been part of for some 45 years. I hope your concern for fairness is not limited to the rare case of a gun-toting white kid who feels the need to take a bold and reckless stand against anti-racist anger. (BTW, I couldn't care less whether the AR-15 murder tool did or did not cross a state line. An immaterial detail which I will not waste any time investigating.)

    Frank Figliuzzi, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:29:51 PM EST
    a former FBI official tweeted about an analysis from the trial of Rittenhouse.  Russian operatives created hundreds of fake personas on social media. A sample of 32, 315  pro-Rittenhouse hash tag tweets between Nov 19-20,showed 29,609.with disabled geolocations.  Of those,17.701 were listed as foreign. A deep scrub revealed most were from Russia and China.

    Wow you guys really are pitiful (2.33 / 6) (#96)
    by IronmanMk64 on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    This site is a case study in logical fallacies.  I dare you to respond with facts from the case.

    "Pitiful" (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    "dare," and an insult to the whole site.

    Feeling good, eh?


    I'll say this for him (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    he's not as insufferably self righteous as the other one.  So far

    Or as loquacious. . (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    Wow, aggressive (3.67 / 3) (#101)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:02:16 PM EST
    conservatives coming out of the woodwork.

    A celebration of the not guilty verdict, I suppose.

    Hopefully, not a celebration of carrying assault rifles to a protest.  Rittenhouse as hero?  What a mess.


    all (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:54:25 PM EST
    these ghouls are celebrating blood in the streets, it is what they want and then they have to gall to lecture us about the law, logic and "compassion".



    What a pitiful response (2.33 / 6) (#86)
    by IronmanMk64 on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    That is a pitiful strawman argument, and you have adequately demonstrated that you don't even know the basic facts of the case.  I hope you don't do that with your clients counselor.

    You ... trying to lecture PeterG (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:44:12 PM EST
    ... about being "uninformed" and giving poor advice.

    I know it's just a laughable attempt at trolling, but that's fu@%ing hilarious.


    I'm sorry, but ... (4.20 / 5) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:18:00 PM EST
    ... if I want to listen to the white wingbats on Fox News, then I'll watch Fox News. I really don't need you to parrot the unhinged nonsense coming from that network. Besides, Saturday Night Live does a much better job of that than you do.

    Oh, and by the way, Peter knows much more about criminal law than you ever could even if you lived two lifetimes. So, I would suggest that you not embarrass yourself any further here by trying to punch way too far above your featherweight class.



    Another lightweight response (2.33 / 6) (#94)
    by IronmanMk64 on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    Moved from strawman to ad hominem and appeal to authority.   How about responding with actual facts from the case?  For those of us who actually did watch the trial, and did look at the evidence it is easy to spot the people who didn't.  Get off your high horse, because it is nothing more than an ass.

    Peter was the person who commented that Rittenhouse carried an unlicensed weapon across state lines.  It was important enough for him to make that comment.  The problem is that it is untrue.

    As Peter stipulates prosecutorial malfeasance is commonplace.  But obviously his concern for fairness has its limits, since he is not so concerned about malfeasance in this case.  Good to know.


    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    you are calling Peter an "ass."

    Enough, I say you are a troll.  



    Hey, MKS, do you realize you rated (none / 0) (#109)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:28:42 PM EST
    one of the troll attacks on me with a "5"? If that was not intended, you can change it. If it was intended, I'd like to hear why. I am finding it interesting to be the subject of such attacks, perhaps for the first time. The exchange of disagreements on this site is usually much more courteous, informative and open-minded. Cf. McBain.

    Umm Peter... (3.67 / 3) (#115)
    by IronmanMk64 on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    All I did was point out that you are misinformed about a fact.  Are you so prideful that you can't be wrong?

    I also asked you to comment about the appearance of prosecutorial malfeasance.  What I listed were based on the motion by the defense.

    I wasn't discourteous with you.  Instead you called me a reactionary and gave a dismissive and smart assed strawman argument.  

    I will be happy to discuss the facts of the case in a courteous way, but that should go both ways, don't you think?

    So I will ask again nicely.  

    The prosecution received an anonymous drone video midway into the trial.  They gave the crime lab an unadulterated copy of the video.  The copy provided to the defense had a different file name, file size, creation date and was 1/4 the resolution.

    The prosecution used the HD video as the centerpiece of their theory of the case.

    The defense had no idea that they were given an inferior version.  Their defense of the video was based on the resolution of the video they were given.

    Forget the politics of the case.  Forget that it was Kyle Rittenhouse.  As a defense centric attorney.  How would you view that situation if you were the defense attorney?


    Pretty sure Peter, Jeralyn and any other (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:07:56 PM EST
    defense attorney would be outraged with what the prosecution did but I'm sure they've seen much worse.

    Just once, I'd like to see a judge dismiss charges with prejudice in a high profile case where the prosecution, media, politicians, civil attorneys and activists mess things up to the point where a defendant can't receive a fair trial. I won't hold my breath one that on either.


    The first example that comes to mind (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:28:50 PM EST
    McBain, I agree (3.00 / 4) (#135)
    by IronmanMk64 on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    I really wasn't trying to pick a fight or troll.  All I did was point out that Peter was repeating debunked information.  I didn't call him a liar, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and said he was misinformed.  We are all capable of being misinformed.  A wise person can accept being wrong.  A wise person might then ask "what else am I mistaken about"?

    Instead of a thoughtful discussion or at least admitting he didn't follow the trial closely enough to comment knowledgably which would be an acceptable answer, he decided to go with smart ass strawman.

    Is that what passes for intelligent commentary on this site? Sadly, to an outsider the commentary looks like an echo chamber that caters to the least common denominator of intelligence.  Certainly, nothing to be proud of.


    I share some of your frustration (3.50 / 2) (#142)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    but this is TalkLeft.  When I first started reading/commenting on this site there were plenty of heated arguments but there was more of an even split of pro defense/ pro prosecution opinions.

    Jeralyn doesn't blog about these trials like she used to and things have shifted much more in one direction. But that's pretty  much how everything is these days.  I rarely watch cable news anymore as it's become extremely one sided.  It's hard to find a place for quality debate.  

    I think you've made some good points so far, just don't expect people to embrace them. Sometimes you have to let it go.  


    More name calling, Mr. Ironman (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:11:32 PM EST



    If you were serious, you would have said (3.67 / 3) (#136)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 08:59:57 PM EST
    what you think the correct fact was, and why it made a difference. As best I can tell, Rittenhouse, age 17 (living in IL) asked a friend, 18 (living in IL) to buy the rifle for him, and hold it in the friend's house in IL until KR turned 18. KR (still 17) then picked up the rifle from the friend on his way in to Kenosha to guard the used car lot. Soliciting and conspiring to make a straw purchase of a firearm is a federal crime; luckily for KR, the feds don't prosecute juveniles. (The friend was not so lucky.) Those facts also suggest that KR believed (rightly or wrongly) that it was unlawful for him to possess the rifle before turning 18, yet he chose to possess it that night.  Again luckily for him, the judge accepted a defense argument (did I mention that KR's lead defense attorney is excellent?) that due to poor wording in the applicable Wisconsin statute, the law on firearms possession by a juvenile did not apply. (The state may be able to appeal that ruling, but probably won't.) So it appears he did not carry the gun with him traveling from Illinois to Wisconsin. But I repeat my original question, why is that fact important? And how is the truth on that score favorable to KR's case that he "did nothing wrong"?

    Illuminating, as to the good faith of certain (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    recently-appearing commenters, that after repeatedly demanding answers from me to a serious of unfairly framed questions, based on unsupported factual assumptions, there has now been no response in five days to my one direct question in reply.

    To (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    be fair, it could just be the carpal tunnel syndrome kicking in.

    Sorry, Peter (none / 0) (#170)
    by ladybug on Tue Nov 30, 2021 at 08:43:42 AM EST
    if you are referring to me. I only read through this thread once and just now noticed it was still getting comments, and you certainly deserve a response. The reason that particular fact matters is that it was a central part of the media narrative, among many others, that turned out to be incorrect. We need to have a media that acknowledges errors and strives to be correct. So many judgments are based on incorrect media reports, which in turn fuel our public passions and may affect the prosecutors and jurors.

    This is no answer at all to my question (none / 0) (#171)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 30, 2021 at 10:28:30 PM EST
    I asked why does it matter whether KR did or did not carry the gun to Kenosha from Illinois on the evening of the shootings, as opposed to stashing it, following the straw purchase, at a friend's house in Wisconsin and picking it up there that evening. ("It matters because the media repeatedly got it wrong" does not explain why the fact matters one way or another.) I accept that this fact has been repeatedly misstated in numerous media reports. Yet I fail to see that it matters one bit to the issues under discussion, as compared with the apparently true facts, for reasons I detailed in my previous post. It makes KR no more or less guilty of any charge, and it makes his conduct that night no more or less reprehensible in non-legal terms. And the true facts make him look worse in other ways, as I explained. So my question remains unanswered. A careless error by some in the media, ok. But not any evidence of a nefarious plot to poison the well against him.

    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#172)
    by ladybug on Wed Dec 01, 2021 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    that we often misunderstand and talk past one another. Sorry about that. I don't think in terms of nefarious plots but I do wonder if the extensive media coverage may ultimately influence prosecutors or jurors. I only read about these sensational cases and do not study the law. It is always enlightening to hear the legal facts from a lawyer.  

    Correction to scenario summary (3.67 / 3) (#143)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 09:52:49 AM EST
    KR's friend, age 18, lived in WI, not IL. That's the point. When I make an error of any significance, I try to fix it. Otherwise, I am acutely aware that everyone makes mistakes all the time, that most of them don't matter, and that it is best just to let them go (one's own and others' both), when it doesn't matter.

    Peter, PS if this helps (3.00 / 2) (#120)
    by IronmanMk64 on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:06:36 PM EST
    Here is a video from the trial discussing the motion and the drone video.

    Please watch.
    Court discussion about the drone video

    I have nothing to do with the video but it was the only thing I could find that showed that portionn of the trial.


    Peter, fixed (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    Not sure how that happened.   Glad you pointed it out to me.

    I am with you, my friend.  


    Sorry, pal, but you do not get to decide (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:50:11 PM EST
    what I choose to comment on. My first comment on the verdict was a criticism of the prosecutors. I would like to think that I am consistently concerned with fairness for all, but if it is "obvious" to you that I am not, that's intriguing. Just to state the (actually) obvious, my failure to comment on something does not mean I am not concerned about it. But you cannot bully or goad me into a debate with you on topics of your choice, particularly if they would require endless fact-checking, since you did not link any reliable or objective sources  (or, indeed, any sources) for any of your assertions. I already said that the "crossing a state line" detail (which I believed to be correct, but perhaps is not, I have not checked it) is utterly unimportant. This was not a federal prosecution that might depend on that fact.

    just (3.33 / 3) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    go away troll, don't spend all your rubles on cheap vodka, and take your pal Juanita with you.

    I am (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    feeling nostalgic today.  I remember when Nazis were the bad guys.

    Whaat? (2.33 / 3) (#102)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:02:31 PM EST
    I have no idea who Ironmask is. In fact I don't know anyone else who comments here. If anything I've said causes offense, none was intended.

    However I did research the facts presented in this case and I believe strongly that innocent people should not be convicted. I posted my comments because of that belief, which I believe is shared by the site owner.

    Perhaps you're calling me his "pal" because both of us have sought the truth and have rejected the false characterizations presented by media hacks who are financially invested in all of us hating on each other. Let's try to rise above that.


    We are so lucky (3.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    you are here to save us from ourselves.

    Sorry Zorba (2.33 / 3) (#163)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 12:10:44 AM EST
    Do you mind telling me why you downrated my comment?

    Was my saying I don't mean to cause offense bothersome to you? Do you feel offended even though I said I don't mean to cause that? Or do you disagree with the facts presented in this case? Is the testimony or video evidence I shared inappropriate for this site?

    I posted my comments because I believe strongly that innocent people should not be convicted. That's a major focus of this site isn't it? Is the problem that I shouldn't say I believe that this particular defendant is not guilty? You can still think so, I don't mind. Nor would I downrate you for saying so. But is saying my opinion so terrible that my comment should be erased? Many blogs are echo chambers. I didn't think this one was.

    Regarding the claim "your pal" - I truly have no idea who Ironmask is. Should I? I'm pretty sure he's not even saying what I am:

    [I] have sought the truth and have rejected the false characterizations presented by media hacks who are financially invested in all of us hating on each other. Let's try to rise above that.

    Is that last statement the problem? Rise above the distortions and lies we've heard? Did you downrate me because I pointed out the media has been dishonest and you don't want that said on this site? I don't downrate people who believe what they're told even if I think it's incorrect, a distortion or outright dishonest.

    I said it to help create community cohesion by understanding the false divisions based on untrue media declarations. Having seen the court evidence, I realize that the false media claims and characterizations not just wrong, they're divisive and getting in the way of us joining together to prevent another tragedy like this. How can we work together if I'm not allowed to say I think the main problem is the violence at our protests?

    Sorry, I really don't understand what you dislike about my comment so much that you'd try to have it erased. If it's that people who believe the defendant is not guilty are not welcome here, just let me know. Or maybe Jeralyn can tell me I should not comment here if I agree with the jury decision.


    I have no doubt you have done (none / 0) (#99)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:55:18 PM EST
    important work with criminal justice reform and appellate law.  That's why it's disappointing to hear you repeat the "carried the gun across state lines" myth and then pretend it's not a big deal.  Misinformation like that was used to build the public opinion case against Rittenhouse.

    As for Rittenhouse suing the media, it appears Nick Sandmann had some success and he didn't have to go through a trial.  

    As for malicious prosectuion, I got this from your link...

    A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State's case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights

    What if they acted outside the scope?  I understand the threshold is very high, but don't prosecutors occasionally get held accountable?  

    No (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    Scope means basically anything on the job.

    I would be happy to change that some.  Conservatives with their super pro-police stance, probably not.


    The prosecutor can sometimes be sued (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 09:25:20 PM EST
    for illegal actions taken in conjunction with the investigation and police phase. Not for charging decisions or the conduct of the trial. That's the "scope." Malicious prosecution is very hard to prove anyway. One of my exonerated clients had no one he could sue after spending 24 years in prison for "arson" resulting in the death of his daughter, that was in fact an accidental fire. Our post-conviction hearing (when finally allowed) demonstrated that the prosecutor concealed the original gas chromatographs that contradicted the state's expert chemist witness and then led the "expert" through deliberately misleading testimony at trial about the presence of "accelerants" at the scene. Prosecutor and witness alike were immune.

    The problem (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    was carrying an assault rifle into a protest.

    That is just asking for trouble.

    And, no doubt, many will say this a license to carry all kinds of weapons next time progressives protest.



    The trend is not good (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    as right wingers and conservatives are increasingly resorting to physical threats, intimidation and actual force.

    Such as:

    Jan. 6.

    The Trumpers and conservatives harassing the Biden bus, threatening it, and physically impeding it.  And Maroc Rubio just loved it.

    Gosar threatening Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  And before that Rep. Yoho calling her a b*tch.  Notice how the conservatives' venom is not so directed to Bernie?

    And, scratch a conservative and hear them talk about physically assaulting liberal women......

    Racism exists.  But the misogyny among the conservatives is repulsively thick.  And dangerous.


    Violence is (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    a foundational component of fascism---both to achieve and to sustain. Dissension so as to divide and conquer, scapegoats--all necessary to an undemocratic takeover of power by a minority.  

    Still (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    there is the occasional hopeful sign

    Sununu Suggests House GOP Is `Ruining America'

    November 21, 2021 at 3:06 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 154 Comments

    New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) said the Republican party's vilification of members of Congress who have criticized Donald Trump or supported bipartisan legislation is "ruining America," The Guardian reports.

    Said Sununu: "That's kind of that social media mob mentality that's built up in this country where we don't agree with one issue so we're going to attack them, we're going to vilify one person or one individual. We've got to get beyond that, because culturally, it's really, really ruining America,"

    He also specifically noted that House Republicans "have their priorities screwed up."

    New England GOPer (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:14:33 PM EST
    A dying breed.

    There are signs of life (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:34:38 PM EST
    outside New England.  I think a fair number of republicans, including elected republicans, are beginning to see Trump and Trumpism might not only be a bad strategy but a losing one.

    Two Fox News Contributors Quit In Protest

    November 21, 2021 at 7:28 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 30 Comments

    Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes write in The Dispatch that they are quitting as contributors to Fox News over a new Tucker Carlson series.

    "The special--which ran on Fox's subscription streaming service earlier this month and was promoted on Fox News--is presented in the style of an exposé, a hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism. In reality, it is a collection of incoherent conspiracy-mongering, riddled with factual inaccuracies, half-truths, deceptive imagery, and damning omissions. And its message is clear: The U.S. government is targeting patriotic Americans in the same manner --and with the same tools--that it used to target al Qaeda."

    Yes, (none / 0) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    and we need that hope.  Guess that is why he did not go for the senate seat.

    If enough republicans (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:05:27 PM EST
    Have this to say it could actually matter next year.

    They (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    won't, most of the "shocked" Republicans will disappear off the political stage, call me when they actually endorse and work to elect democrats.

    There is blood in the water now, never tRumpers are mere chum now.


    The "tragedy started" ... (3.67 / 3) (#132)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    ... when a misinformed, poorly-supervised teenager with delusions of cop/hero grandeur decided to believe the rightwing lies about BLM protests and took it upon himself to take a gun to an already volatile situation.

    Sure is convenient being white. (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 11:59:18 AM EST
    Not guilty on all counts. Disgraceful outcome.

    convicted on, based on the law?

    I don't believe he had the right (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    to claim self-defense. He went looking for trouble and found it. And exploited it.

    I believed the same thing about George Zimmerman. He started a fight and when turned on him, he claimed self defense.

    I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. It's offends my sensibilities that someone who starts something can claim self defense when goes bad for them.


    Gotcha (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    Query: did defendant have a duty to retreat? (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 05:45:36 PM EST
    Probably not in WI.

    The duty to retreat (except when in (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    one's own home), so long as it is possible to do so in safety, was a standard condition of exercising the right of self-defense in US law at least from the '50s into the '80s or '90s. NRA-inspired "reforms" of self-defense law in many states have removed that requirement in most cases; hence, "stand your ground."

    Video (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by coast on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    You did see the video of him running away right?  And of those he he shot chasing him down and attacking him right? I believe running away is considered retreating by most.

    I don't really know. From the videos, (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    in your opinion, did it look like he was retreating/trying to get away from/running away from the protestors in the seconds or minutes before he pulled the trigger?

    For those who don't know Kenosha (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    It sucks.

    I was surprised that the killer is from Antioch, a lovely little town -- on the Metra line, so a lot of commuters to Chicago -- that we drive through on the way to my son's lakehouse.

    But then, I have only enjoyed its downtown, and Antioch clearly has dark corners. I doubt that we again will get out of the car there.


    My cousin lives in Kenosha. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    Carthage College along the lakefront, where she teaches chemistry, is actually quite nice. But the rest of the city is pretty forgettable.

    Of all the towns in northeastern Illinois between Rockford and Lake Michigan, I think I like Woodstock in McHenry County the best. It's on Metra's northwest line about 20 miles southwest of Antioch, and it is everything I've always pictured a small midwestern farm town to be.



    My parents both graduated from Carthage (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:31:00 PM EST
    College when it was located in Carthage IL. "To Carthage College, to get our knowledge,..."

    Not (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:54:16 PM EST
    unexpected, but I think the really disgraceful part is just starting
    Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) on Friday celebrated Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict by encouraging his followers to arm themselves. The right-wing congressman posted a video shortly after the Rittenhouse verdict in which he called the jury's decision a victory for freedom.
    "Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty, my friends!" he said. "You have a right to defend yourself! Be armed, be dangerous, and be moral!"
    Innocent or not this kid is guilty of monumental stupidity, but the right wing is quickly turning him into a hero and  explicitly calling for more of the same.  Be moral? As in blessed be the armed and dangerous for they shall inherit the earth

    I see Cawthorn (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    and all I can think of is reenacting that Richard Widmark wheelchair scene in Kiss of Death - except with a steeper, longer staircase.

    When I see him (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jmacWA on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    I see what the Welsh would call a cwnt.

    My impression, as someone instinctively biased (4.33 / 6) (#36)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    in favor of the defense side of almost any criminal case, is that the prosecution did a terrible job, and the plainly subpar judge didn't help. Knowing that the defendant's theory would be self-defense, the prosecutors should have been building from the start the perspective that Rittenhouse forfeited his right to invoke the justification of self-defense -- which his lawyers predictably based on his perception of the situation at the moment he pulled the trigger. He forfeited that claim, they should have been arguing from the start, by deliberately placing those around him in reasonable fear of his own imminent use of unprovoked or excessive force. If so, then any force they used or threatened to use against him would itself be privileged and thus not available as a basis for Rittenhouse to invoke a claim of self-defense. Or, as we say on the playground (based on a child's sound sense of natural justice), "But he started it!"

    I agree (3.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Juanita Moreno on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 12:48:06 AM EST
    that if Rittenhouse had started a conflict he should not be allowed to use a self-defense claim. But I think many people are so afraid of weapons that they're practically a trigger point for fear. I'm a veteran so they don't alarm me. Unless the person who is in possession of them alarms me. I pay acute attention to a person's demeanor, words and actions. That's because I've seen up close and personal how vicious some men can be as they attempt to beat, pummel or kill with their bare hands.

    After watching the video of 17 year old Kyle describe his intentions and purpose for being there (to put out fires and protect people and property) and his equipment (a med kit and a weapon, since to help someone he might have to run into danger), my impression was that he was sincere and his intent was good. Naive, but basically a nice kid trying to do what he thought was right.

    After hearing testimony and seeing video recordings of Joseph Rosenbaum, I unequivocally believe he was a dangerous, vicious man who had the intent to do harm. If he had threatened to kill me as he did to Kyle and others, I certainly would have taken him at his word! Especially if called me a f@cking N-word as he did to Kyle. I completely understand why Kyle ran (retreated!) and then when cornered had to use deadly force to stop this man's attack. No wonder the poor kid had a breakdown on the stand retelling what happened to him that night. Kyle has been painted as a racist white nationalist but the real racist was the one swearing and screaming out the N-word, acting out his furious bias with his craziness on full display. Finding out later that Rosenbaum was also a violent pedophile makes my initial assessment feel even more credible.

    Please take the time to watch the evidence. Even Gaige Grosskreutz, ostensibly there as a medic, exhibited very dangerous behavior. He was part of the group of men chasing down Kyle, in spite of his lies to the police. After Kyle was knocked in the head and staggered to the ground, Freeland raced in to kick him in the face followed by Huber smashing him in the head with his skateboard. Kyle shot Huber to protect himself which made Grosskreutz come to a screeching halt, his hands protecting his face. He then raised his hands to show he wasn't holding a weapon, and Kyle lowered his rifle. If Grosskreutz had just stopped right there and asked him a question or done anything to deescalate, that would have been the end of it. Instead, Grosskreutz grabbed his Glock (loaded with a bullet in the chamber) and rushed Kyle, pointing it at Kyle's head. Again, a clear case of self-defense when Kyle shot him in the arm. Later we find out that Grosskreutz's handgun is not only not registered, but he had it hidden under his shirt without a concealed-carry permit. Grosskreutz therefore committed two weapons violations, but after a year of harping on Kyle for "illegally possessing a weapon," which wasn't even true, the news still neglects to mention Grosskreutz's violations.


    Yep, I just checked NPR (2.33 / 3) (#140)
    by Juanita Moreno on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 01:48:31 AM EST
    and they're still misreporting thus:
    [Rosenbaum] crossed paths with Rittenhouse in a used-car lot as Rittenhouse brandished an AR-15-style rifle. Rosenbaum, meanwhile, was unarmed and carried a plastic bag containing a toothbrush, toothpaste, socks, deodorant and some papers.

    Oh please. Brandished? [to wave or flourish something, especially a weapon, as a threat or in anger or excitement] Please find me a picture of young Kyle brandishing and waving his rifle around. Every picture and video I've seen indicates he's responsible, safe and law abiding in the manner he handles his weapon. As I said above, I known from personal experience that someone as hostile and aggressive as Rosenbaum could easily kill a woman or teenager with his bare hands. Why is corporate news, even NPR, still presenting him as some innocent victim, as if he wasn't the one putting Kyle and others at risk with his fury and out of control behavior? As a peaceful protester with decades of experience, I'm bothered by the media downplaying this man's aggressive violence. The toothbrush nonsense minimizes his dangerous intent. And it sure seems from the infrared evidence like Rosenbaum was hiding in wait before coming out to attack Kyle. Crossed paths? Pffttt.

    Here's their misleading description of Huber's violence:

    Huber eventually caught up to Rittenhouse and tried to stop him by hitting him with a skateboard. But the single blow was not enough to bring Rittenhouse down. (emphasis mine)

    Erm, lie much NPR? Or is that NYT speaking? Rittenhouse was already on the ground when Huber smashed him in the head with a skateboard. NPR then labeled Huber's violence as "a tussle." And let's not mention that Huber's violent past includes being arrested for holding a knife to his younger brother's throat and threatening to kill him. Of course the media is aware of his past offenses but why bring that up when they can tarnish Kyle instead with made up stuff.

    Peter and others, doesn't any of this media dishonesty bother you? We've known that Fox News has lied for decades but this recent deceit promulgated by the Left-wing corporate-owned media is much more dangerous. I yearn for the days when NPR told the truth. Where's Amy Goodman and her honest, clear-headed journalism?

    I thought coming here I'd find reasonable and truthful discourse. Really Peter, I don't see any reason for you or anyone to assume Kyle would use excessive force just because he brought a weapon, but there's no question that his four attackers exhibited unprovoked violence. Watch the FBI infrared video that looks like Rosenbaum was waiting between cars until Kyle passed him and then raced out to attack. Do you notice Rosenbaum had threatened the lives of two people, but it's the smaller, weaker teen he chose to target? What if an innocent bystander got shot because they happened to be behind Rosenbaum when he finally cornered Kyle? For that matter, innocent people could have been injured each of the four times Kyle had to use a weapon to protect himself.

    What happens when good people don't stand up to these malicious thugs who show up to riot and plunder? Millions of dollars of damage and loss of innocent life. Please, all of you. Turn off the profit-oriented mainstream news, look at the evidence, forget the hatred and anger you've been sucked into, open your hearts and choose to be a force for good, not a pawn of corporate greed.

    Although many here seem to despise Rittenhouse, it breaks my heart that he was forced to shoot people to protect himself. He's not some punk who revels in hurting people. Maybe you'll never find it in your heart to care about this kid or others like him, but at least consider that those of us who try to peacefully protest are put at risk by the aggressive, violent thugs who show up to riot, burn and loot. They deserve your anger, along with the corporate media that lies to us with the obvious intent to create more divisions, more anger, more fear, more hatred and more violence that they can cover to increase their profits.


    The law may be (3.67 / 3) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    immoral but the jury was bound to follow it as they assessed the facts and the Wisconsin statutes applicable to them.

    It seems so wrong, however, that an underage boy could obtain an assault rifle, have his mother drive him from Illinois to Wisconsin to defend property that is not his own, and kill two men and wound a third claiming self-defense. He was looking for trouble and he found it. But, the jury has decided to acquit on all charges, so be it.

    What is most worrying is the fascist forces of the Republican Party that support murderous vigilantism and will celebrate this decision.  Hardly any winners in this mess--certainly not the dead or wounded.

    And, the wounded includes Rittenhouse--probably a sociopathic personality, who other than his 15 minutes of fame with Republicans is unlikely to be thought of as that nice boy next door who would be a great catch for your daughter.


    I wonder whether there will be a civil suit (3.67 / 3) (#58)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    Remember what we learned after the O.J. verdict: a "not guilty" at a criminal trial does not bar a civil action for damages on account of "wrongful death." I don't know Wisconsin law, but I imagine that his parents may have significant liability as well.

    Make him sell thar gun. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    Looks like (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 08:01:42 PM EST
    the parents of Anthony Huber plan a civil suit against Rittenhouse and the Kenosha Police Department.

    It was a political trial from the start. (3.50 / 2) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    Filing charges a few days after the incident without time to identify and interview witnesses is the tip off. The prosecutions witnesses made the case for the defense. What an embarrassment.

    99% of criminal cases begin with an arrest (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    at the scene, including cases where the shooter or one of the combatants claims self-defense (as in bar fights and domestic disturbances), with no open-minded or deliberative investigation and interviewing of witnesses (other than immediate bystanders) first. That is no indication that such cases are "political."

    No, (4.20 / 5) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    this is a result of conservative monsters telling people that it is okay to shoot protestors. Y'all need to OWN what you have been doing and quit trying to blame someone else or find excuses. It says a lot about how bankrupt you are that you find more of a problem with the timeline of prosecutors filing charges than actual unarmed people being murdered.

    Everyday I think there is no lower conservatives can go or or surely they can't get any more disgusting.

    Conservatism must be electorally destroyed or we are going to have more and more cases of conservatives murdering people with no accountability.


    What gives (3.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 02:58:48 PM EST

    What gives with calling violent rioters "protesters"?  

    Rittenhouse was chased by violent vigilantes seeking to cause harm to a child.  

    If the Wisconsin governor had called out the national guard after the first night of rioting, the locals would have no need to protect themselves and their property.

    For that mater those passing the lie that Jacob Blake was unarmed also share some responsibility for the violence to follow.


    Maybe peoople are (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    getting it from Republicans.  "Nearly Half of Republican Voters Call January 6 Riot Legitimate Protest", by Jack Brewster, Forbes, June 17, 2021.

    Rep. Paul Gosar (R.AZ) described the insurrectionist rioters are "peaceful patriots."  Or could be a Wisconsin thing: Senator Ron Johnson (R.WI) described the riot as a largely "peaceful protest." And, then there is Rep Andrew Clyde (R.GA) who described the l/6 riot as a "normal tourist visit."

    Of course, there is Trump, himself, who said to the insurrectionist rioters, "we love you, you're very special."


    same for Charlottesville (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    Just a peaceful protest of the removal of the Lee statue, right?

    Two sides of the same coin (3.50 / 2) (#70)
    by coast on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 09:42:00 PM EST
    Those that defend the Jan 6th insurrection are no different than those who continue to characterize the events of the summer of 2020 as peaceful protests, which cost I don't know how many lives and between $1B to $2B in damages...but they were luckily "mostly" peaceful.  Lord knows the cost if they may have been actual riots.

    Who doesn't love ... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 20, 2021 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    ... a good, false equivalency.

    BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful.

    Although there were quite a few instances of rightwing infiltrators seeking to provoke violence, if that's what you mean.


    They all weren't violent (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    and anyone, violent or not, with a sense of self preservation, is likely to try to neutralize some numbskull waving a gun around in a crowd - especially after all the mass shootings we've had.

    Umm, thousands of people were recording events (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Juanita Moreno on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    that night, as well as the FBI and police.

    Could you please post just one picture of Kyle Rittenhouse or any of the other armed men waving a gun around in a crowd?


    A "child" (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 20, 2021 at 07:57:42 AM EST
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha ....

    You mean when the "child"/"violent vigilante" with the rifle they were chasing after he had already killed someone?

    But it's funny when wingers want to suddenly pretend they're concerned about the consequences of lies, after ignoring those consequences (and participating in those lies) for 4 years.


    If he was running away after shooting someone (4.20 / 5) (#76)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 20, 2021 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    and the folks chasing him knew (or thought they knew) that, then we have a "citizen's arrest" situation -- see defense arguments in Florida Arbery trial -- and young Mr. Rittenhouse was obligated to surrender, not shoot them.

    Defendant was not a "local." (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    Well (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    once again you are making excuses for murdering people. You are blaming the victims which is typical conservative MO. You disgust me.  

    "unarmed people being murdered" (3.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    Please, please take a look at the actual evidence.

    We cannot win the fight against racism and prevent further divides in our communities when we argue with false statements.


    Blame the Law, not the Judge and Jury (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:29:31 PM EST
    Agree, and Kenosha (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    many of the sort who make the laws. The Wisconsin legislature has been Republican-run, bought by the NRA, for more than a decade.

    CX: Kenosha elects many, etc. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    I di not read the entire article (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    but this caught my eye:
    We could make self-defense an affirmative defense that must be proven by the defense by clear and convincing evidence, not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

    Wouldn't that conflict with the entire foundation of our justice system, which is "Innocent until proven guilty?"


    The prosecutor... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 15, 2021 at 03:30:05 PM EST

    Pointed the rifle at the courtroom audience with his finger in the trigger. Must not of heard of Alec Baldwin.

    That's hilarious (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 07:15:24 AM EST
    Let's see a photo of him doing that.  No?

    Guess it's more of that "fake news" you're pretending to be concerned about.


    He had his finger on the trigger. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 11:26:12 AM EST
    That's how tragic accidents happen.

    There's no clip (none / 0) (#18)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 04:57:28 PM EST
    and no bolt in the gun. That gun has the same lethality as my cane. If I hit you with it.

    No argument. But that doesn't mean (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 18, 2021 at 03:41:56 PM EST
    disregard standard established gun safety practices. Cuz when you do, tragic accidents can/will happen.  

    Except, in this case ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 20, 2021 at 07:45:50 AM EST
    ... they can't.  With the bolt removed and gun disabled, it might as well have been a metal broomstick.  It was literally impossible for the gun to fire.  But I understand why conservative media is pushing this.

    in it, it might as well be a metal broomstick. Literally impossible to shoot anyone (like, say, the DP and director). It can't.

    Oh, oops, accidents happen. Imagine that.

    That's why you always wear your seatbelt, not just when your superior intellect says you should.

    Similarly, always treat a gun like it's loaded. Don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. But I understand why the liberal media is pushing against this.


    Actually, I don't .... (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    ... always wear my seatbelt.  For example, I was at a photoshoot in a junkyard awhile back where the cars were completely and obviously inoperable - like the gun in that courtroom.  I sat in one of them.  Call me a daredevil, but I didn't even put a seatbelt on.

    No idea what you think the "liberal media is pushing", but it can't be funnier that wingers pretending to be outraged by a prosecutor putting his finger on the trigger of a disabled gun while not pointing it at people.


    photo shoot in a junkyard? That changes everything.

    Treat every gun like it's loaded. Don't put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot.

    These concepts are the literal foundation of responsible gun safety practices. Gun safety matters.

    Pretty big fail on Binger's part on national TV, at least among those of us who haven't been in a photo shoot in a junkyard. Though, of course, this fail pales in comparison with his overall fail.


    I get it (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:43:12 AM EST
    You don't understand analogies, especially how to construct them.  You analogized handling a gun to wearing a seatbelt, which makes sense if you're in an operable/moving car.  I was pointing out that your seatbelt analogy was a "big fail", because the gun was completely and obviously inoperable with the bolt removed.  Glad to help out with analogy construction any time you need it.  

    Just a hunk of plastic and metal that can't do a thing, but wingers gotta wing, soooooo ....


    That wasn't the claim (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    Leaving side the fact that the bolt was removed, he claimed he pointed it at people.

    where he pointed it.

    That said, keeping your finger finger off the trigger is like #2 or #3 on just about every safe gun handling list. Cuz, you know, treat every gun like it's loaded.

    Binger knows better, or at least he should.


    Yet (none / 0) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    you seem ignore the tragic "accidents" that are possible when fools like Rittenhouse go locked and loaded into places where he shouldn't be.

    So you agree with me then? (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 04:30:35 AM EST
    but do you agree with me that the danger from untrained and unregulated yahoos wandering the streets with LOADED weapons is a greater danger of tragic outcomes?

    vs unsafe gun handling.

    I really don't see what this question has to do with the topic of the lead prosecutor violating basic and fundamental gun safety practices on national TV while trying (and failing) to get a murder conviction of someone who killed multiple people with that very gun, but, ok...

    If by "untrained and unregulated yahoos" you mean those who carry guns due to their propensity of being involved in illegal and violent criminal activities, sure. Yes, there is a much greater danger of tragic outcome from these "yahoos" than from unsafe gun handling practices in general.

    Maybe by "untrained and unregulated yahoos" you are referring to some other group? What are the statistics on tragic outcomes from that group vs unsafe gun handling practices? That should answer your question for you.


    unsafe gun handling (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jmacWA on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    So do you think Rittenhouse took the basic NRA safety course?  Somehow I doubt it.

    NRA says a million people a year take their training. And there are dozens if not hundreds of other orgs that do basic gun safety training as well like the Boy Scouts, etc. And he was infatuated with the police, who of course have and generally support training, to the point he enrolled in an Illinois police cadet program when he was younger that offered firearms training, etc. But who knows.

    Don't (none / 0) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    play dumb, you know exactly what group I am talking about.

    You rightfully point out that the prosecutor did not practice optimal gun safety (although you are beating the subject to death) while shrugging your shoulders at the obvious safety concerns with the likes of Rittenhouse roaming the streets with a lethal weapon.


    against clear and obvious facts = me beating the subject to death? Ok.

    Where/when did I "shrug my shoulders" at Rittenhouse's dipshittery?


    Obvious (none / 0) (#153)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    fact= you have spent a lot of bandwidth on the dipshittery of the prosecutor and zero on the dipshittery of Rittenhouse.

    something a smart man once told me (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    Do not assume that someone is your persecutor simply because he does not act as your savior.

    Something (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 04:59:00 AM EST
    a smart person once told me, "you can't win an argument by changing the subject" especially with a total non-sequitur.

    Link (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    Yeah - that link (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 05:54:29 PM EST
    ... doesn't support your claim that he was pointing it at people.  Posts on Twitter are not a source for facts or reality - much like the orange, pathological liar still pushing the Big Lie.  



    Ms. Merritt, I'm curious to get your take on (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 08:37:14 AM EST
    the trial judge in this case. Have his actions which, to the uninitiated, seemed somewhat...odd, actually been relatively normal, or are they unusual, for a trial of this nature?

    standing? (none / 0) (#13)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    Why exactly is Jacob Blake's uncle leading protests outside the courtroom about the killing of white protestors (possibly in self-defense, possibly not) by a white person.  

    This is (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 11:51:24 AM EST

    The Black (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 06:57:25 PM EST
    Wow: WATCH Rittenhouse trial judge Bruce Schroeder refer to a Black juror as "the Black," as he explains his reasoning for letting Rittenhouse choose the excluded jurors himself.

    "When the clerk drew the name out of the tumbler, it was a Black...the Black...the only Black."


    Idiot judge gets that wrong, too. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 17, 2021 at 10:02:50 PM EST
    The judge's pown procedure was that the defendant drew six numbers of jurors to be excluded from being voting members.

    The remaining twelve became the voting members by default.

    The juror of color is a voting member, so the defendant did not draw that number,

    Jeesh, this judge is a fool.


    Fool and (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jmacWA on Thu Nov 18, 2021 at 04:18:27 AM EST
    a TOOL of the GOP

    The "accidental" appearance of the (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 18, 2021 at 07:18:51 AM EST
    Lee Greenwood ringtone was a nice touch.  

    This bodes ill for all. (none / 0) (#54)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 05:03:07 PM EST

    There are ways (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 07:11:09 PM EST
    it could get a lot worse.  For example, if something bad happened to him now that he is "free as f'ck" again.

    This should in no way be interpreted as a wish or a prediction or anything else that would trigger the triggerable but this kid would IMO be wise to lower his profile.  In the interest of his personal safety.  As well as the safety of the rest of us.

    Jus sayin.


    Eittenhouse plans to go to college (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 08:56:22 PM EST
    now, according to his lawyer. Far feom Wisconsin and I,linois. Works for me.

    But I have to wonder whether that dumbf*ck has the GOA.

    He sure can cover tuition, with the millions raised for him by wingnuts. Except that there seems to be a battle about who gets the bail money back. Mama Rittenhouse wants it.

    Stay tuned to the white trash soap opera ahead.


    White trash? (3.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 01:42:41 AM EST
    Stereotype much?

    Choose kindness (3.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    Did someone down rate me for disagreeing with the use of an inappropriate slur on a professional blog? Where is your compassion? Poor people don't deserve your derision, especially if they are low income and under-educated. Whenever someone categorizes a group of people as "less than," they are doing harm to the social fabric of our communities. Anyone who has seen this kid's mother speak can understand that if one of the professionals who frequent this site had stepped in to help mentor him, he would have found other ways to express his desire to help people. He had good intentions but was tricked into putting himself in a terrible position. This kid was convinced to risk his life protecting rich men's property, for Pete's sake. At the very least someone outside his family and social group could have helped him understand that the rich always trick the poor into doing their dirty work. In spite the media portraying Kyle for the past year as a racist, white supremacist, out-of-state vigilante who illegally carried a rifle that he brought across state lines to be an "active shooter" who murdered innocent protesters, it turns out he was just a kid trying to do what's right. Meanwhile, the four people who physically attacked him all had a history of violent criminal behavior. I have talked people out of committing violence at protests and I've even helped put out fires. Luckily I look nothing like that young man so I don't inspire the hatred and viciousness he is still being subjected to even now that it's patently obvious he's innocent.

    I wish I had been there that night to counsel him on how dangerous some of those rioters are and what would happen to him if he was forced to defend himself. I would have told him about my decades of experience at non-violent protests and how today's protests/riots draw malicious, despicable people he!l bent on causing harm, even burning or stealing from black-owned business. I would have tried to give this young man the perspective that age and wisdom brings, not just judge him or insult him. Please take the time to look at the evidence and stop allowing yourself to be misled by the very news organizations that profit from the ever-increasing divides in our country based on bias and misinformation.

    Imagine if people helped youth like him instead of labeling and insulting them. Wouldn't that make the world a better place? I suggest you look in your heart and reconsider the damage caused by insulting an entire group of people and ignoring or dismissing the actual facts of this case. Please become part of the solution instead of perpetuating the problem.


    Teenage boys are credulous and emotional. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:45:03 PM EST
    Because their brains aren't yet sufficiently mature to reason and rationalize a given situation the way we can, they can be prone to manipulation by smooth-talking adults who may also be role models. I've always suspected that was the case with Kyle Rittenhouse.

    I'm not excusing what Rittenhouse did but my Gawd, that was not an adult male we saw in that courtroom. That was an 18-year-old boy who was once so full of false bravado - as 18-year-old boys so often are - that he was likely talked into going to Kenosha by one of the adults in his life, without ever stopping to consider the potential consequences. When he finally realized the stakes at trial, he burst into tears in court.

    (As for his mother Wendy, don't get me started. She hobnobbed with local Republicans and basked in the reflective infamy of her son's dirty deed. Way to go, Mom.)

    Provided he can avoid further interaction with overly politicized adults who'll otherwise want to use him in the furtherance of their own agendas, I really don't see Kyle Rittenhouse as a threat for re-offending. I think he learned a very valuable and costly lesson, and he'll likely be paying for his actions for the foreseeable future, at least with the personal notoriety now attached to his name. His is not an easy road ahead.



    Is that really what you saw (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 05:51:33 PM EST
    Some innocent led astray by outside forces.  Who will "pay for his actions" because he is now famous.



    Just a lost lamb led astray (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    That was quick (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 08:52:32 AM EST
    Get the kid down to Mar-A-Lago before the corpses get cold.

    According to your comment history (3.86 / 7) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    You last popped up here to whine about Bernie in 2015.

    You don't know anything about Towanda.  Or anyone else here.  I personally abandoned this particular thread the the trolls a week or so ago.    It happens here.  This being a "professional blog"

    And speaking as an inheritor of a long line of white trash you don't know what your are talking about on that subject either.

    Please do us a favor and disappear for another few years and take iron mike with you.


    Pretty sure I'm not a whiner (3.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 07:24:01 PM EST
    but thanks for remembering me. I'm up-rating your childish post because I think it's important that we work through these kinds of disagreements and I don't want your comment to disappear. My guess is that you and I both want the same thing - less racism, less violence and a better world to live in.

    Look, I came here to comment because I assume legal professionals are interested in the actual facts, not what talking heads on corporate news tell them to believe. If I post the evidence from this case on DailyKos or the likes, I'd get banned for "repeating right wing talking points" or something. In reality, it infuriates me that the Left wing news is continuing to trick people and stir up trouble. Why should we have to go to stupid Fox news to see videos that reveal the truth. The entire case was recorded by maybe someone not paid by corporate media will consolidate it and publish a truthful assessment of how we got fooled by the media.

    Right now a lot of people are desperately wanting to believe the memes that make them comfortably angry in their hatred of "the other." That's why they're refusing to even consider the facts, the evidence, the videos and pictures that 100% refute the corporate-owned media lies that keep us at each others throats while they steal from both sides. People have been trained by social media to:

    1. Not be inquisitive about why someone thinks differently from them.
    2. Refuse to agree to disagree.  
    3. Despise and even hate anyone who refutes the memes promoted by "their side's" media.

    Most of the country is being duped into fighting and hating each other based on false premises. While I would never walk into that situation with a rifle strapped to me, I probably have more in common with Kyle Rittenhouse than the rich car lot owners or the vicious men who chased him down. He was a teenager - smaller, weaker and clearly less aggressive than the men who attacked him. As a woman who has experienced male violence, I know exactly what if feels like to be attacked by someone much stronger than me.

    I'll say again that I wish I had been there to counsel Kyle and I hope others here take me up on my suggestion of mentoring youth like him before more young men find themselves in situations that quickly get out of hand because violent, angry rioters are likely to attack them to try to take their weapon. People like Kyle are not our enemy. They are just pawns in a system meant to keep us at each other's throats while the powerful oppress us all. If you open your heart and mind to what he was trying to do that night, you'll understand what I'm saying. Yes, he and others are misguided. So step up and provide some sensible guidance. When we reach out to those we disagree with, we often find common ground that helps us resolve our differences. If you don't believe that, I refer you to MLK Jr's beliefs that poor whites and blacks are both economically oppressed and should band together to fight those who benefit from racial divisions.

    So c'mon Capt, prove you're the good man I believe you are. Go review the evidence and see for yourself that each of the four shootings was justified, including Jump Kick man (Maurice Freeman) who kicked him in the face while he was down. The charge for firing his weapon trying to stop Freeman's attack could have landed Kyle more than 12 years in prison. Jump Kick man was depicted as a hero trying to stop an "active shooter" but in reality he's probably just another angry man who saw and took the opportunity to hurt someone weaker than himself who dared to stand up against violent rioters. He had open charges for drunk driving with a passenger under 16 and disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier. Real nice guy. Of course no where near as bad as the guy who raped children. Not that he "deserved" to be shot, only that his history and violent past help make sense of what happened that night. The details matter because when you watch the videos, you see plenty of non-aggressive protesters who did not attack Kyle. But each of the four who did attack him have records involving violent behavior. That puts their actions in context and might even help you find some compassion for the kid who thought he was there to help people that night. The jury knew none of the attackers' criminal histories of course, yet still concluded that each incident was self-defense.

    The trial via media is what I'm concerned about. Freeman's identity was kept hidden from the public and the defense attorneys even though he offered to testify in exchange for immunity on his current offenses that Rittenhouse was the aggressor. The prosecutors wisely turned him down, probably realizing that if he lied under oath and one of the many recordings from that night exposed the truth, their case would fall apart. Still, they unethically kept his identity secret from the defense and the public. Knowing who those men are and the violence they've committed in the past sheds light that could have helped prevent the enormous misinformation campaign committed against us over the past year. I'm asking folks here to look at the evidence and stop promoting unethical beliefs about what happened. Every time someone says one of the four men are heroes for trying to stop and "active shooter," they are disparaging the pain and suffering caused by actual active shooters who have deliberately murdered innocent people including children in our schools, lesbians and gay men and co-workers who in no way deserved their wrath. So I ask you again to look at the evidence and consider the damage caused by the media and those who repeat their false memes.

    Then read my other comment about mentoring youth like Kyle so they don't get sucked into risking their lives for dishonest rich car lot owners who later refuse to admit they asked for help from private citizens.

    I'll hang out a bit waiting to hear what ideas you have to prevent future catastrophes like this. Be on the side of good and offer us some solutions other than hating on those of us who want to make the world a better place.


    Whatever the past (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    histories of the people Rittenhouse killed, given the overall chaotic situation, the escalation of violence, the fact that most people are in panicked fight-or-flight mode in those situations, and given this country's recent history, any number of others easily could have interpreted what was transpiring as a mass-shooting in progress and attempted to thwart the shooter and they'd probably be dead now too and leaving you to scramble for reasons to justify why they all had it coming.

    Regardless of how much you'd like to give him a cup of cocoa, a foot rub, and tuck him in for the night, you'd have to be as dense and imbecilic as he apparently is to believe he traveled to Kenosha with a Loaded AR-15 simply to "help" in the most benign way possible and without thought of shooting people having ever  entered his mind.


    I specifically said the opposite:
    Not that he "deserved" to be shot, only that his history and violent past help make sense of what happened that night.

    Given Rosenbaum's temperament and violent history as a pedophile, it's not surprising that he would seek conflict at a riot and exhibit dangerous behavior that night. It's important to understand who he was because it affects his choices, his calling Kyle a F@cking N-word, his declaration that he was going to kill Kyle and others, his choice to attack Kyle and his dangerous attempt to grab Kyle's rifle. If people are unwilling to learn about and understand what happened that night, preferring to continue to promote dishonest memes, we won't be able to prevent future tragedies.

    "KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) -- The first man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha was "hyperaggressive" that night, threatened to kill Rittenhouse and later lunged for his rifle just before the 17-year-old fired, [prosecution] witnesses testified Thursday."

    Much as it seems like a simple solution to just tell people not to bring weapons to protests to protect residents and property, until we get the police to do their jobs and stop the violence, we'll continue to see concerned citizens fill the void left by police, mayors and governors who fail to protect us. Portland burned for months. I bet the FBI has videos of every rioter who committed violent crimes in Oregon, Kenosha and elsewhere. Why haven't those dangerous criminals been arrested, charged and convicted? That is unacceptable. Until the Left steps up and demands an end to the violence, the wingnuts will continue to point out how foolish we are. What's everyone afraid of? It's not racist to demand anti-racism protests be allowed to occur without rioting.

    I get it that some folks will refuse to seek the truth and continue pushing already disproven memes:

    "he traveled to Kenosha with a Loaded AR-15"


    1. The rifle was bought and always remained in WI.
    2. "Traveling to Kenosha" was a frequent occurrence for Kyle since he's worked there (20 minute commute) and his father, uncle, cousins, friends and coworkers all lived there. Kenosha was Kyle's community in every sense of the word. On the other hand, a lot of people traveled from across the country to protest and/or riot in Kenosha, Portland and other cities causing millions of dollars in damage. Does that help people of color when our local government resources are sucked up paying for the damage?  
    3. Weapons are loaded after they're brought to the location they're needed for protection, not before.
    4. AR-15 is essentially a trigger word for those who are uncomfortable and unfamiliar with weapons. The rifle was a Smith and Wesson, not a Colt. No matter, the point is that there are much more dangerous weapons out there and they are owned by people who should never be allowed anywhere near a gun. From the good sense Kyle showed in not shooting Grosskreutz when his hands were up in the air, I'm going to say Kyle is not one of the nutcases we have to worry about. Grosskreutz, on the other hand, brought an unregistered gun to a protest and hid it in his clothes in violation of concealed handgun laws. That's a very dangerous thing to do and I hope he's never allowed to purchase a gun in the future.

    The crazy misinformation from our side is almost up there with the idiocy on the Right:
    "A gun rights organisation is "awarding" Kyle Rittenhouse with an AR-15-style rifle following his acquittal"
    OK, the jerks on the Right are still winning the stupidity race.

    Look, people like me are willing to identify, assess and help mitigate the nonsense on both sides. My comments here are an attempt to draw others into the habit of disregarding the divisive, inaccurate, dishonest memes and seek the truth so we can create in a more sane, compassionate world.

    So please stop maligning me with nonsensical interpretations of what I've written here:

    "you'd like to give him a cup of cocoa"

    Did you not even read what I wrote? Or are you so immersed in hostility towards "the other" (me, apparently) that you can't understand that I'm trying to find solutions, not stir up even more anger and division.  


    What I'd like is patently obvious. (2.33 / 3) (#161)
    by Juanita Moreno on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    I want to utilize the tools available to citizens to make our country better, fair and just, especially with respect to racial issues. I want to protest safely and effectively without vicious unethical rioters making a mess of our efforts to effect positive change. To that point, I want the the police to stop violent protesters so that private citizens like these men who open carry weapons don't feel the need to step up to protect their communities. I don't deny that depending on armed citizens is not a safe solution to these problems, which is why I hope the FBI shares these drone videos they've apparently been collecting so the police can charge violent rioters and help prevent them from hurting peaceful protesters, minority-owned and other businesses and families who live in the vicinity of rioters' fires.

    I realize youth like Kyle can be manipulated into attempting something they might not be mature enough to handle. Yet he handled himself remarkably well. He didn't obtain an illegal gun or "brandish his rifle" as corporate media still claims. (Lookin' at you npr/NYT). He wisely retreated when crazy malevolent Rosenbaum tried to attack him. In spite of how terrifying that must have been (yep, I've been there, done that trying to escape violent angry men myself, which might be why I understand Kyle's self defense actions) Kyle only turned to defend himself when he was cornered and after he heard a gunshot. After having to use legal force to protect himself, he went to find the police. When other men attacked him, and granted, they might have thought he had done something wrong, he did not shoot anyone until one chaser had hit him in the head with a brick, he stumbled to the ground and the next man (Freeman) kicked him in the face, then Huber smashed him in the head with a skateboard while he was down, resulting in Kyle shooting Huber in another completely legal self-defense action. That shot caused the fourth man chasing him, Grosskreutz, to stop in his tracks and raise his hands to show he was unarmed. After all of that head slamming and the terror those attacking men must have caused him, Kyle still very responsibly lowered his rifle upon recognizing that Grosskreutz was not a threat at that moment, only bringing it back up when Grosskreutz pulled out his illegal Glock loaded with a bullet already in the chamber and rushed Kyle pointing his handgun at his head. Once again, it was a completely reasonable, sensible and legal act of self-defense when Kyle shot Grosskreutz in the arm that was pointing the loaded handgun at his head.

    The reason I point out these details is because they matter. After a year of misinformation from corporate-owned media, good people like you still believe Kyle violated the law. And many people don't understand that the other people involved that night had violent criminal histories and issues that affect the terrible choices they made that night. Instead of hating on some kid like Kyle who got duped into protecting a rich man's property, we can choose to understand what actually happened, ensure the police do their jobs properly so private citizens don't have to step up to help, and break down the barriers between our side and those who will continue to make us look bad when we repeat false memes and act with derision instead of compassion and understanding. The more that folks on our side repeat false memes on this or any of the other contentious issues that seem to have completely different scripts on each side of the divide, the more we loose the attempt to win over and keep voters.  

    Social media has taught people to revel in hatred of others who disagree with you. It takes a conscious choice Jondee to break free of that mass manipulation and open your mind and heart. I'm just trying to do my part in reaching people who might be willing to reassess the memes they've been tricked into believing.


    Yes, but (2.00 / 1) (#145)
    by RickyJim on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    was he guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, under Wisconsin law of the charges filed against him?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Remember the John and Lorena Bobbitt cases?  They were both found not guilty of what they did to each other.

    RickyJim, we now know the answer (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    to your question, as do you (so you are disingenuous, it seems, in asking it, not actually an "inquiring mind"). We know he was not guilty, because a unanimous jury said so after a trial. In other words, the jury found there to be reasonable doubt as to one or more of the propositions that the prosecutor had the burden of establishing at trial. That's all that matters at this point, as Jeralyn has emphasized.

    I Disagree (none / 0) (#148)
    by RickyJim on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    We are allowed to discuss whether or not he was guilty under our own standards.  A jury's decision and objective truth are two different things.

    We are not speaking the same language (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 10:05:37 PM EST
    In most criminal cases, "he did it" is a synonym for "guilty," because those case are simple. The Rittenhouse case was not simple; it was highly complex. We know he "did it," but the dynamics of self-defense under the Wisconsin statute and imponderable questions of intent -- decided by a unanimous jury of ordinary citizens based on admissible evidence after a trial -- resolved the purely legal question of "guilt." There is no such thing as "guilty under our own standards," as far as I am concerned. My "own standards" would likely involve decreeing a different self-defense law and different firearms laws from those adopted by the Wisconsin legislature. What's the point of going down that path to nowhere?

    Ricky, my take is many people (3.50 / 2) (#154)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    are unable to separate their feelings about Rittenhouse's decision to go to the protest with a gun and his right of self defense. They think if the decision to go there was wrong, he shouldn't be able to claim self defense.

    I think the decision to go there was dumb but the law is pretty clear.  Even had the gun charge stuck, it wouldn't have removed his legal right to defend himself with deadly force.

    Obviously, I agree with the not guilty verdict and I think some of the haters would probably vote not guilty if they were on the jury and presented with the facts.

    Sometimes our freedom to protest and bear arms combine in tragedy.  


    My (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    take is that many here consider the whole affair extremely tragic and would still consider it so even if he had been convicted. On the other hand there are some here who can hardly contain their glee and somehow think this is a great victory for our society.

    Wow you concede he was dumb, and do the same old shoulder shrug, implicitly surrendering the streets to dumb heavily armed people.



    We have met the dumb overly armed people (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    and they are us.

    Eittenhouse plans to go to college (3.67 / 3) (#66)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    now, according to his lawyer. Far feom Wisconsin and I,linois. Works for me.

    But I have to wonder whether that dumbf*ck has the GOA.

    He sure can cover tuition, with the millions raised for him by wingnuts. Except that there seems to be a battle about who gets the bail money back. Mama Rittenhouse wants it.

    Stay tuned to the white trash soap opera ahead.


    Criminal justice major no doubt. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 09:02:46 PM EST
    Adding (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    I will be very surprised if he did that.  Lower his profile.

    Yes, it is (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 08:19:59 PM EST
    unlikely Rittenhouse will keep his head down.  Several Republican Congressmen are talking about an internship for him but he is a hot property for the fascist/white supremacy cause..  He may be a little young for a FOX anchor, but a book deal ghost written by  Bruce Schroeder might be a possibility.

    Maybe he`ll run for Congress in a couple years. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 08:25:30 PM EST
    Rittenhouse (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 20, 2021 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    will be on Tucker Carlson's white supremacy hour on Monday. A film crew was embedded during the trial.  We can look forward to Rittenhouse sitting on that white couch of Fox's every day, probably.

    Well its a great day for (none / 0) (#71)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 19, 2021 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    organized groups of armed thugs everywhere in the country.