The Rittenhouse Verdict

[JoeB131]

The mob itself was unreasonable.

They just saw a man gunned down in the street by an active shooter. Trying to stop him wasn't unreasonable.

With his hands in the air.

Right, because the cops never shoot people of color with their hands up.

Whoops. Sorry, Adam.

I didn't even expect the cops to shoot him, I expected them to take him into custody, collect evidence and maybe slap him around a bit until he confessed. But again, White Privilege!!!

You do understand that you’re telling me these people trust the thugs that are more likely to kill their children than they do the cops, right?

It's a matter of fact that they do. The cops come into these neighborhoods every day, hassle people, and then go home to their nice neighborhoods on the Southwest and Northwest sides. What we need are cops that are part of that community.

Fine. So the murders will continue to go unsolved.

As long as we keep policing the way we do, um, yeah. Not to worry, the cops are all over it if some second rate actor fakes a hate crime, though.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And it is already established as a legal fact, that the acts on Mt. Rittenhouse's part that resulted in the deaths of two subhuman pieces of criminal shit, and the injury to another, were not wrongful acts, neglects, nor defaults; but were legitimate acts of self-defense.

That cuts the heart out of any basis for a civil wrongful death suit against him on the basis of those acts.

Once again- the Simpson case.

OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, but STILL found civilly liable in the civil suit. Same facts, same evidence, two different results.

The difference- Better lawyering and a lower threshold of proof.

I've pointed out, already, a significant difference between them, which makes the comparison invalid.

I do not think it was ever seriously suggested in the Simpson case that two crimes had not taken place, that two people were unjustifiably murdered.

What the criminal trial failed to establish was that Mr. Simpson was the one who had committed those crimes. The crimes were still there, and the opportunity existed to further pursue the matter via a civil case.

In the Rittenhouse case, it has been established as a legal fact that no crimes were committed, in the shootings of the three subhuman criminal pieces of shit who attacked Mr. Rittenhouse; that his actions were entirely justified as self-defense. The case fell, not on questioning whether or not it was Mr. Rittenhouse who committed the acts in question, but on whether there was anything illegal about those acts, and the trial determined that no, those acts were not illegal.

No crime. No illegal act. No basis for any further litigation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Uh, any reasonable person would realize the angry mob was after him because he just shot a man in cold blood.

The mob itself was unreasonable.

They just saw a man gunned down in the street by an active shooter. Trying to stop him wasn't unreasonable.

If they saw that then they also saw what we all saw on the video, that the “man” who was gunned down was attacking Mr. Rittenhouse, that he had struck Mr. Rittenhouse several times with a large skateboard, knocking him down at least two or three times, with Mr. Rittenhouse doing nothing except getting up and trying to flee until after about the second or third time he was knocked down. Only then, did Mr. Rittenhouse unshoulder his rifle, and shoot the subhuman criminal piece of shit that was attacking him.

I think any reasonable observer would have to conclude that Mr. Rittenhouse showed an exceptional degree of restraint. If I somehow found myself in exactly the same situation, I would not have waited until I had been knocked down two or three times. The very first time that subhuman criminal piece of shit swung that skateboard at me, I would have shot at it right away, and I would have been completely justified, both legally and ethically, in having killed it.

Of course, the mob consisted mostly of other subhuman criminal pieces of shit, so of course, just like you, they would have sided with your own kind.

 

[JoeB131]

I've pointed out, already, a significant difference between them, which makes the comparison invalid.

Not really...

I do not think it was ever seriously suggested in the Simpson case that two crimes had not taken place, that two people were unjustifiably murdered.

What the criminal trial failed to establish was that Mr. Simpson was the one who had committed those crimes. The crimes were still there, and the opportunity existed to further pursue the matter via a civil case.

This is where your comparison falls apart, Cultist Bob. If the criminal case failed to prove that OJ committed the crimes, then the civil case should have had no basis to go forward. The Criminal case failed to prove he had committed them BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Just like the Criminal case against Rittenhouse failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he wasn't acting in self defense.

A civil case has a much lower threshold... that the actions of the individuals involved caused harm.

In the Rittenhouse case, it has been established as a legal fact that no crimes were committed, in the shootings of the three subhuman criminal pieces of shit who attacked Mr. Rittenhouse; that his actions were entirely justified as self-defense. The case fell, not on questioning whether or not it was Mr. Rittenhouse who committed the acts in question, but on whether there was anything illegal about those acts, and the trial determined that no, those acts were not illegal.

Except a civil case doesn't have to prove that a crime was committed, it only has to prove that Kyle's actions caused harm. People are found liable for traffic accidents and property injuries all the time when no crime was committed or even citations issued.

If you combine Kyle's liability with Kenosha's for allowing these armed thugs to show up with guns after curfew, then you have an awesome case for civil liability. A dangerous situation was allowed to occur.

If they saw that then they also saw what we all saw on the video, that the “man” who was gunned down was attacking Mr. Rittenhouse, that he had struck Mr. Rittenhouse several times with a large skateboard, knocking him down at least two or three times, with Mr. Rittenhouse doing nothing except getting up and trying to flee until after about the second or third time he was knocked down. Only then, did Mr. Rittenhouse unshoulder his rifle, and shoot the subhuman criminal piece of shit that was attacking him.

Right. Gee, so if someone guns down people you care about, everyone else should just let him run away, right? It strikes me that you could maybe, maybe make the argument the shooting of Rosenbaum was justified, as he was acting erratically, but Huber was trying to take an active shooter into custody. Make a citizen's arrest, something you guys on the right claim a right to do all the time.

I think any reasonable observer would have to conclude that Mr. Rittenhouse showed an exceptional degree of restraint. If I somehow found myself in exactly the same situation, I would not have waited until I had been knocked down two or three times. The very first time that subhuman criminal piece of shit swung that skateboard at me, I would have shot at it right away, and I would have been completely justified, both legally and ethically, in having killed it.

Uh-huh.. I think what we've established is you have anger management problems, and if you ever did murder someone, it was probably kind of stupid of you to post all your angry rants on USMB under your real name.
Just sayin'.

Of course, the mob consisted mostly of other subhuman criminal pieces of shit, so of course, just like you, they would have sided with your own kind.

The mob was average citizens who were rightfully outraged that a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back seven times.

Now, I should point out that while you frequently describe people of color murdered by police as "sub-human", you have also gotten on this board and screamed about Waco.

David Koresh and his followers cheated the welfare system, molested children, illegally sold guns, and oh, yeah, killed 4 Federal Agents. Yet to hear you tell it, the ATF were the bad guys.

I on the other hand, think the ATF and FBI actually were reckless at Waco. (Three investigations, however, found the Davidians set the fires.) Just like I think the cops involved in most of the notable BLM incidents were reckless.

 

[beagle9]

Sooner or later, the Protesters will bring their own ARs.

That's fine.... They have that right.

 

[beagle9]

"In a civil case you just have to prove negligence," said Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. "Did his conduct fall below the standard of care that the average person would have?"

So questioning why he was in the middle of a riot with a firearm and interpreting that as negligent conduct could be enough for him to lose the civil case.

Glad you said RIOT....Correct word.
At least you didn't say peaceful "protest", because that went out the window when all the trouble started. If you think that the citizen's and owner's of businesses and property don't have a right to defend themselves or their property from vandal's, thieves, looter's, and robber's, otherwise when the law has been called down for corrupt political reasoning, then you must have fell and bumped your head.

If a mob comes to my property with the intent to burn down my home in protest of something, and to hurt me and my family if we stand in their way, then it's on in our community brother (we stick together in my community). Somebody is going to pay a price, and it won't be me and my family or my neighbor's and their families. We will stand our ground, so it's best to just pass our communities on by with that bull crap.

How this nation has went down these road's to la-la land is simply amazing. This Brooks thing that has now happened, is yet another incident where law and order has broken down because of the woke/leftist/Democrat corruption, and trust me when I say that you crazies have sealed your fate in the coming elections. You've gone to far, and a heavy price will be paid by you at the ballot box.

You can't get away with murder and mayhem thus calling it a protest. That don't cut it, and people will rise up to defeat you crazies in the coming election's. Enjoy it while you got it, because it's gone in the coming election's. You've royally screwed up this time, and I think you know this. Brooks sealed the deal, and if you all think that you can sweep that one under the table (like the media wokies are desperately trying to do), then you better think again.

 

[beagle9]

I’ve seen the videos, they were kicking and swinging things at him.

But again, all he knew was that an angry mob was after him. Why? Because an angry mob was after him.


Again, I’ve seen the videos and he tried to turn himself in to the first cops he came across.


Because they attacked him.


They didn’t manage to kill anyone because Kyle
successfully defended himself before they could. It’s not rocket science.


If Rosenbaum had gone straight home from the mental hospital, Kenosha would be a forgotten riot.


Irrelevant. It was an asinine argument because those same thugs you say look out for the neighborhoods are responsible for more deaths of black children and innocents than the cops.


If these murders go unsolved because they don’t trust the cops then they have no one to blame but themselves for the murders remaining unsolved.

This is what’s known as circular reasoning: I don’t trust the cops to solve murders so the murders don’t get solved because I don’t trust the cops to solve murders.

Keep up the good works on this knuckle head, because he is about as dumb as they come. Not sure how he got so dumb, but I doubt you will ever have to untie the other side of your brain that's tied behind your back in order to defeat him, because he's just that dumb. Maybe you'll show him some mercy by drinking some moonshine just to make it more fair. lol

 

[beagle9]

They just saw a man gunned down in the street by an active shooter. Trying to stop him wasn't unreasonable.




Right, because the cops never shoot people of color with their hands up.

View attachment 569610
Whoops. Sorry, Adam.

I didn't even expect the cops to shoot him, I expected them to take him into custody, collect evidence and maybe slap him around a bit until he confessed. But again, White Privilege!!!



It's a matter of fact that they do. The cops come into these neighborhoods every day, hassle people, and then go home to their nice neighborhoods on the Southwest and Northwest sides. What we need are cops that are part of that community.




As long as we keep policing the way we do, um, yeah. Not to worry, the cops are all over it if some second rate actor fakes a hate crime, though.

You want the country to split creating no go zones, and communities made up of specific colors with their own colored police force, otherwise you want segregation again. Ok let's do it, you start it or fight for it, and we'll see just how far you get with this dumb bull crap. I bet their will be thousand's upon thousand's of multi-colored people who will not let the dregs of society dictate their positions or roles played in this society or COUNTRY, so get your dumb head out of the sand you dummy.

 

[hadit]

Let's play a quick game. Let's imagine white folks were out politically demonstrating about something, and some of them were tearing shit up.

Then let's imagine a 17 year old black guy from the neighboring state were to come to the scene of the protest worried (rightly or wrongly) about the possibility of property destruction, and carrying a gun he wasn't supposed to have

And let's imagine some right-wing white guys were to taunt him and chase him. (putting aside the fact that he'd already have been shot dead by cops or one of those white guys) imagine he then shot several of those protesters

Does anyone really think a self defense claim would have worked in that case ? Do you think the white guys defending Shittenhouse would have rallied to that Black guy's defense, even after it was HE who came with the gun and inserted himself in the situation ?

Here's where your analogy breaks down. To be accurate, the people who chased down the young black man would have to also be black. To match reality, they could not be white, they would have to be black people attending a riot carried out by white people about a white grievance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All of them.

List some names. When did they testify to that fact?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not relevant...



Nope. Remember, again, the burden on the prosecution in the criminal case was to prove that it wasn't self-defense BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. The fact the jury struggled with this for a couple of days says this wasn't as clear cut as you like to think.

A civil case, they just have to prove Kyle was negligent when he created the situation.

Also, unlike the Worst Lawyer in Kenosha County, the civil case is going to have lawyers who are going to know what they are doing.



None of which matters. It's already been established that you can hold institutions accountable civilly EVEN IF the injured parties were breaking the law. I direct you to the kid who fell through a painted skylight while stealing lights from a school.


All of them.


Once again- the Simpson case.

OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, but STILL found civilly liable in the civil suit. Same facts, same evidence, two different results.

The difference- Better lawyering and a lower threshold of proof.

Once again- the Simpson case.

OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, but STILL found civilly liable in the civil suit. Same facts, same evidence, two different results.

I don't recall video showing OJ acted in self-defense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, because the cops never shoot people of color with their hands up.

Whoops. Sorry, Adam.

I didn't even expect the cops to shoot him, I expected them to take him into custody, collect evidence and maybe slap him around a bit until he confessed. But again, White Privilege!!!

How long ago was the gun in his hand?

 

[hadit]

It's amazing what the right wants for this country , just amazing. Now is anyone willing to argue against this simple fact , two of the people shot were trying to stop this pimple from killing more people.

Doesn't that fit the classic definition of "vigilante"? They should have reported it to the police instead of forming a vigilante (lynch) mob and try to kill him themselves.

 

[beagle9]

Doesn't that fit the classic definition of "vigilante"? They should have reported it to the police instead of forming a vigilante (lynch) mob and try to kill him themselves.

That's exactly what it looked like, because they were attacking him, and why ? For the very same reasons that it all broke down at every point to begin with - no law enforcement to be found - where as the police showed up in the aftermath because they were in wait and see mode as was ordered upon them ??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except a civil case doesn't have to prove that a crime was committed, it only has to prove that Kyle's actions caused harm.

Causing harm doesn't mean liable for damages.

 

[progressive hunter]

They just saw a man gunned down in the street by an active shooter. Trying to stop him wasn't unreasonable.




Right, because the cops never shoot people of color with their hands up.

View attachment 569610
Whoops. Sorry, Adam.

I didn't even expect the cops to shoot him, I expected them to take him into custody, collect evidence and maybe slap him around a bit until he confessed. But again, White Privilege!!!



It's a matter of fact that they do. The cops come into these neighborhoods every day, hassle people, and then go home to their nice neighborhoods on the Southwest and Northwest sides. What we need are cops that are part of that community.




As long as we keep policing the way we do, um, yeah. Not to worry, the cops are all over it if some second rate actor fakes a hate crime, though.

who got shot down in the street by an active shooter??

 

[hadit]

They just saw a man gunned down in the street by an active shooter. Trying to stop him wasn't unreasonable.

So they were vigilantes then.

 

[Vrenn]

They already have. They did that in seattle.

But this raises one important observation and one important question:

1.) If rioters arm themselves then that is their right as American citizens and I for one would not deny them that right.

2.) If they do then those who support the riots would be faced with an uncomfortable question: Do I support those who arm themselves so as to loot, burn, destroy and otherwise break the law with impunity or do I support the ones who arm themselves to prevent it?

Not one single "Protester" that has been armed riot in the last 20 years or more. But using the Rittenhouser case as a test, they would have gotten off if something was thrown at them and they shot them dead.

 

[Vrenn]

.... even thought he was not?
The state should punish people for laws they did not break?

Justice isn't so cut and dried and now you and others will have to live (or die) by that "Justice". Around here, the whole situation would have been avoided. No rioting, no burning, no nut with a gun running around. Had the nut with a gun wandered into a Protest (yes, Dorthy, we have one from time to time) he would have (At a minimum) been temporarily delayed by the cops until they were sure he put the damned thing away or didn't need locked up.

 

[Vrenn]

Hopefully the #BLMob and Antifa trogs understand what "self defense" means.
What it -actually- means, not the deliberate misunderstanding espoused by those who cannot get over the fact Rittenhouse was found not guilty.

And OJ was innocent.