DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Riittenhouse Found Not Guilty

I do blame you, since you can't, and won't stop, without having the last word.

Rittenhouse was tried on the LAW, not opinion, as it should be.

Argue with that.

Technically, all law is opinion.

so,, I think I'll go to a protest or a gathering of many people,, Or maybe I'll go a Church or ball game.. Take my legally obtained rifle and start to piss people off so they attack me,, Then I'll kill them cause I know I'll be able to walk away unscathed..

Now that you now have that on record, no, you would be found guilty

Incorrect. (I thought you had me on ignore?) Law is law. Period. Until the law changes, law is law. And opinions don't matter.

Lol. That's what I was thinking.

I think there are enough key words in there that we'll have some new crawlers indexing data and creeping the site tonight. He definitely won't go unscathed.

Isn't Rittenhouse Hispanic?

SO what your saying is that I showed intent.... Right?

If that's the case, what the hell did Rittenhouse do when he showed up a charged environment with a loaded weapon

Thank you for proving my point.. He went there with intent to do harm.. Otherwise, why carry a loaded weapon.

Interpretation

While it does no good to try and explain this to you, you're not the only one who reads the board so I'll explain it anyway. Often times what a prosecutor does is paint the picture of what leads up to the event being tried. What a defendant says and does before something like this happens helps tell the story of why it happened. Of how his mind and thought process works. None of the things I listed were "opinions". The only opinions involved would be the conclusions a jury draws based on the facts presented. Which is how it works with much of the factual evidence.

Rittenhouse did hit two girls in a fight. So that clearly shows he isn't beyond committing a violent act when he had no cause to.

He was in a bar hanging out with either Proud Boys or at the very least Proud Boy sympathizers. If that is something one finds repugnant they would leave, not embrace it. He also made white supremacist hand gestures. Once again, not an opinion.

He did say he would shoot shoplifters. This clearly shows he thinks the first actions that should be taken against anyone that commits any crime is to shoot them.

Claiming those are opinions doesn't change the fact that all of those words and actions from him are facts.

This is how many court cases work. Denying that truth is your opinion and certainly not fact. Sometimes prosecutors are allowed to enter things like that into evidence and sometimes they are not. In this case they were not. But trying to pretend that factual evidence such as this never sways a jury because they can see how the defendant actually is, is simply false.

I've never said that Rittenhouse wasn't found not guilty based on the evidence. I've never said that the prosecutor would have gotten a guilty verdict had he been allowed to include this evidence.

What I did say, and still say is the jury would have gotten to see that Rittenhouse wasn't some innocent kid going there out of the goodness of his heart. It would show them in his own actions and words to be more of a wannabe Rambo than the only side of him that the defense put on the stand. They would have gotten to see how the real Rittenhouse felt, acted and what he believed.

That's what I've said all along and it's true.

Fair enough. So, in reading your post, it seems you want things that don't apply, legally, in the case, to apply and taint the jury. Got it. (and good job in the picks this week, by the way)

Sorry Bubba....it doesn't work that way. Just saying

From written judicial opinions, interpretations of the constitution and codified laws, deciding if precedent applies, to what anyone in congress 'thinks' we need as a law; all are examples of opinions based on what they believe the law to mean. Or interpretations as you say, except interpretations are just opinions of what they believe something to mean... same difference?

So, if you show intent, which is what I did and you commented that i would be convicted (or something like that) but Rittenhouse goes to another state and has a rifle doesn't show intent?

Exactly. And not to go too off-track, but you want to leave room for common sense application of laws. Poorly written laws can lead to what we saw here with the possession charge being dropped.

In some cases they allow such things and in some cases they don't. In this one they didn't. As it stands it seems it depends on the judge as to whether they're allowed or not. If giving a picture of who a person is and showing the mind set of that person is what you call "tainting the jury" then we simply disagree. My guess is if this were a trial of someone else under different circumstances you would agree with me.

And it's not so much that I wanted it allowed as it is I'm wondering how it may have changed things if it were allowed and I wonder what the jurors will think when they find out these facts and feel about it not being allowed.

Thanks.

I know its late but I'll address your confusion.

-The gun charge was dismissed because he wasn't in violation of the statute. Yes, the TITLE of the Statute says "under 18"... but the title is just that, it is NOT part of the actual language or element of the law. The Judge didn't drop that charge out of hand. The defense filed a pre-trial motion to have it dismissed along with the curfew charge. The judge did not rule on the gun charge until the very morning of the day the jury was given jury instructions which was a Monday. The previous Friday the defense again tried to get the charge dropped, pointing out why the charge was not applicable in this case. The ONLY thing that statute could get Kyle hung up on was the barrel length. Anything under 16" would have been bad. The judge gave the prosecution the ENTIRE weekend to measure the barrel and present their argument to him. Come Monday morning they still hadn't and even though they were given the opportunity to do it that morning they did not because they already knew the length was fine.

Now as far as travelling the 20min across state lines to turn himself in... the prosecution never argued or tried to show that he was the actual person who possessed it in transit.

As for the other charges and some comments about not being able to infer based on the amount of time it took to get a verdict...

When the jury came to a consensus verdict on each charge, they filled out a form for that charge with the verdict AND the date in which they reached that verdict. Everything was then turned in to the Court collectively once a verdict was reached on all charges.

On Day 2, the jury found him not guilty on the counts involving "jump kick man" and Anthony Huber, the skateboard guy.
On Day 3, the jury found him not guilty on the count involving Gage Kreuzquitz (Sp?), the guy who rolled up on him with the Glock
On Day 4 is when they found him not guilty for killing the pedophile and the reckless endangerment charge for a shot allegedly going it he direction of a report, Richie Mcginnest (sp?)

Odd thing is, many people including myself thought that the killing of the pedo would have been the lynch pin, how they decided on that would determine how they decided about everything after. This was the opposite. It could mean that the jury bought very little of what they prosecutors were saying. Maybe they didn't by the story that they were being heroes?

This thread is actually a really good example of the problem with "social justice". A lot of information and facts came out in this trial. About 90% of what the prosecution presented in terms of evidence and witnesses actually favored the defense. In fact, many who followed the trial were critical of how much the defense dropped the ball and it was the evidence that cleared Kyle more than anything his lawyers did. What I've seen rampant through this thread is posters wanting him convicted based not on facts, but on a narrative. It doesn't matter to them that the facts don't line up with the narrative. It doesn't matter that the actual laws and legal standards don't line up with the narrative. It doesn't even mater that the jury who had more information than they did and arrived at the verdict they did because again, it doesn't line up with their narrative. There is ZERO evidence he was there in opposition to BLM. As if that were a crime even if true. The prosecutors dumped his entire phone and still found ZERO evidence to being part of a militia or white supremacy groups. That's what lynch mobs were: 'prosecutions' based on a narrative, with no regard for facts, evidence or law, justified by their own view of "social justice".


BTW, look up Andrew Coffee's case... he's a black dude that won his self defense claim the same day Kyle was acquitted after shooting at a bunch of cops.

Most everything you brought up was discussed in the thread. But let's go to the points I was making towards the end. Much of Rittenhouses activities and words that happened before the incident were not allowed in court. His attack of two girls in that fight. The fact he was hanging with either white supemacists or white supremacist sympothizers in a bar. The fact he said that he wish he had a gun and would shoot shoplifters.

And as far as juries go, it certainly didn't take but a fraction of time for the jury to come to a verdict in the Arbury case and they had multiple charges on three different defendants. So my point all along is that the jury didn't see this as an open and shut case as some suggested.

I certainly do not doubt the jury came to the right conclusion based on the evidence that was allowed in court.

The point is...

The Right to self defense is still alive and well in America.

Since when is going to another state, carrying a loaded military style rifle into a crowd self defense.

I know he said he went there to save lives,, I know of two that would have been saved had he just stayed home playing his nintendo game

Let's not forget his Father lives in that city and he worked in that city. He did not just pick up and cross state lines. He was well connected to that city.

Now he'll be connected to that city forever.

The right celebrates Rittenhouse's infamy. Scarlet letters are their thing.

GOP interest in offering Rittenhouse an internship gets weirder

One House Republican said he'd arm-wrestle a colleague over a Kyle Rittenhouse internship. Lauren Boebert challenged Madison Cawthorn to a sprint.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...enhouse-internship-gets-weirder-n1284516

Let me see here, Ritty has zero criminal record while you guys are guilty of slander.

If you actually believed that you would sue us. Your orange God has taught you that's what you should do. Even when you know there are no grounds to do so.

Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, but he will always be infamous for his acts. You just can't wash the stink off a turd and try to pawn it off as a tater.

A lot of that stuff was not allowed in court because it was not factually relevant to the events that happened that night. And his actions and associations weren't the only one's not allowed in. The fact that Rosenbaum was a convicted child rapist was not allowed to be brought in front of the jury. What's funny is that the Defense wanted to bring it that he had just gotten out of the mental hospital and the judge denied it because the State had not opened the door to that. Then the State screwed up and mentioned he was on medications which then allowed the Defense to explore that. The criminal conduct that led to invalidation of the concealed handgun permit held by Gage (the guy who got his bicep blown out) was not allowed in either.

This judge was known for wanting to put as much factual evidence in front of juries to allow them to make the decisions in cases brought before him. If his defense lawyers were more aggressive they could have successfully gotten the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice due to the prosecutions blatant Civil Rights violation during the trial.

But on to the next!

Some people don't understand. It is what it is.

They would much rather believe what they are spoon feed by the media. Sheep to the slaughter!

Sadly, that's the majority of posters here.....but just concentrated to a handful of clowns that repeat it over and over again. I suggest making a game out of it..... copy and paste a comment made here to a google search for a headline of an article. You won't believe how much it works.

I missed the part where the State opened the door. That's interesting from a procedural perspective. I was wondering how the defense was able to bring that up.

Another great post. Glad to read facts from people that actually watched the entire case and not those who simply regurgitated a headline or comment from the media. The idea that the judge is the main problem in this case is simply laughable. The fact people keep trying to frame it that way time and time again is nothing but agenda-vomit, either from themselves or the talking head(s) they choose to bend over to.

Punk goes to another state to supposedly save lives... Carries a loaded weapon into a charged environment, gets some of the crowd riled up, Shoots 3 killing 2. Yeah, he was found Not guilty.. But he is guilty of the worst possible judgement on the planet.. He's an idiot and republicans are fighting over who should hire him as an intern...

Piss poor elected officials....

I'll have to admit, I thought the judge was more of a problem at first, but that was just from my own review of the timeline of the case, the ruling, and how the events of the "possession" charge went down, because from a policy perspective, it seemed like that was the slam dunk element. I never really thought murder/homicide was going to stick, and rightfully so, IMO. To me, it seems like he weaved - coincidentally mind you - around all of the technicalities of the various laws. I would have to think there will be some statutory amendments - or at least proposed legislation to amend the statute(s) - coming soon.

Pot meet kettle. Claiming you're not being spoon fed by the media you follow from reading your posts is laughable. Same with that other gentleman, or maybe not, from southwest Tennessee.

I've highlighted "at first" to assume this means that as more info presented itself, you changed your opinion? Unfortunately, this isn't the case for many.

I did not get my talking points from the media. I watched the video. The video was plain and simple. They attacked him and he acted in self defense. People keep saying he crossed State lines. That is laughable. His Father lives in that city and he works in that city. I think his judgment to be on the streets while idiots were rioting was not smart. But, just because someone made a bad decision does not give another person the right to assault them. As citizens of this Country we should be able to be anywhere at anytime in public without fear of assault. Just because someone was somewhere else other than where they live it does not give others the right to assault them. Bad judgment is not criminal and it is not a free pass for criminals to attack. So if a female at a frat house that gets sloppy drunk and raped. Acted in bad judgement but her attackers still had no rights to attack. If she had a weapon and shot her attackers she would be justified just as this kid.

HE doesn't live in that city. That's simply a fact. His legal residence is in a different state. So in your opinion anyone should be able to walk down the public street with a loaded AR-15? I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm asking you if you think that's right?

I'm not one of the people who have claimed that Rittenhouse was guilty. So I think you're addressing the wrong poster here. What I'm saying, and have said all along is the jury was forbidden from seeing who Rittenhouse was. Things he had said and done that would give the jury a glimpse into his thought process and who he was associating with leading up to these events. I've also been clear in saying I have no idea how or whether it would have changed the verdict.

I didn't get my talking points from the media either. What I did get from the media were things that Rittenhouse said and did which may or may not have impacted the jury that weren't allowed in court.

Yeah, that's the case, as more information came out regarding the timing of the ruling and the ability to get the barrel measured and whatnot, that caused me to adjust for sure. I typically try to ignore all the hyperbole that comes along with just about every slant in the media and I looked at just the shear timeline and the words the judge actually said during the course of his rulings. As more information came out, it became more clear that what was initially mentioned was just a subset of the judge's rationale, which initially made him look like a buffoon.