Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So I guess this basically sets precedent that it's better to just shoot the guy rather than try and disarm him I guess.

If you're both running away from each other, then there is no one to shoot.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So I guess this basically sets precedent that it's better to just shoot the guy rather than try and disarm him I guess.

Better idea. Don't attack a guy with a gun and let the police do their job.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Better idea. Don't attack a guy with a gun and let the police do their job.

Best idea. Don't grab a gun and try to do the police's job.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I assumed in this case, we were talking about the victim of a crime. If you think it is useful to clarify this, then I guess we can do that.

Considering two of the individuals will never get a day in court or ever be charged with anything, and the one survivor was not charged with any crime related to Rittenhouse, then Rittenhouse cannot be called the victim of a crime and, at very least, Grosskreutz cannot be excluded from the definition of "victim of a crime."

If we're using the low bar of being the victim of an act that may be prosecuted by the state, then the other three are still victims, as Rittenhouse was actually prosecuted by the state.

If Grosskreutz had shot and killed Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pulled the trigger, he would likely be free today, whether from avoiding charges altogether (which there is precedent for in situations where people have engaged and killed people they believed to be active shooters), or by using the defence of others defence in Wisconsin law.

So, you may argue Rittenhouse is a victim based on whatever definition you want, but any definition you use applies to at least one, if not all, of the other three involved.

[OptimalTates]

Riots breakout after an armed man is shot by police but media incorrectly labels him as unarmed.

The day a suicidal man with mental issues is released from the mental health facility he is in Kenosha during the riots. With no regard for his own safety he violently confronts multiple armed men requesting they shoot him.

Wannabe-cop kid gets his chance to play make believe and decides to go to the riots.

Right as the suicidal man is chasing the armed kid someone shoots in the air and the kid shoots the man as he grabs his gun.

Two people believe it's an active shooter case and try to confront the kid only to be shot.

After being granted bail, the kid becomes a cult hero for a bunch of racists that he parties with.

It's like you got a stew brewing of everything wrong with the USA in this story. False media reports with no regard for facts, abysmal mental health care, extreme gun culture and racism.

[OptimalTates]

And then of course having the entire thing so politicized.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

And then of course having the entire thing so politicized.

This basically became the right wing Super Bowl. The only people protesting this result were the professional left wing protesters. This mattered a lot to a the Fox news audience.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Considering two of the individuals will never get a day in court or ever be charged with anything, and the one survivor was not charged with any crime related to Rittenhouse, then Rittenhouse cannot be called the victim of a crime and, at very least, Grosskreutz cannot be excluded from the definition of "victim of a crime."

If we're using the low bar of being the victim of an act that may be prosecuted by the state, then the other three are still victims, as Rittenhouse was actually prosecuted by the state.

If Grosskreutz had shot and killed Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pulled the trigger, he would likely be free today, whether from avoiding charges altogether (which there is precedent for in situations where people have engaged and killed people they believed to be active shooters), or by using the defence of others defence in Wisconsin law.

So, you may argue Rittenhouse is a victim based on whatever definition you want, but any definition you use applies to at least one, if not all, of the other three involved.

You're wrong.

The jury determined: KR did nothing wrong because the other three made credible threats KR's wellbeing (or acted in a way that could cause grievous bodily harm).

The reality is that there were three perpetrators and one victim. As Marlo Stanfield said: You want it to be one way. But it's the other way.

[OptimalTates]

No, the jury determined that the prosecutor did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense.

They made no finding on Grosskreutz.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're wrong.

The jury determined: KR did nothing wrong because the other three made credible threats KR's wellbeing (or acted in a way that could cause grievous bodily harm).

The reality is that there were three perpetrators and one victim. As Marlo Stanfield said: You want it to be one way. But it's the other way.

So is Grosskreutz going to be tried for the attempted murder of Rittenhouse? If not, how is Rittenhouse defending himself?

[OptimalTates]

Pictured above from the aerial drones: Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz/Huber

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So is Grosskreutz going to be tried for the attempted murder of Rittenhouse? If not, how is Rittenhouse defending himself?

I have no idea if he will be prosecuted for anything. KR was prosecuted for political reasons, maybe GG will not be prosecuted for the same political reasons.

He admitted on the stand to committing a number of crimes:

- giving a false statement to police
- chasing someone and pointing a firearm at them
- he wasn't allowed to carry a pistol because he did not have a concealed carry permit

Edit: Did GG get immunity in exchange for testifying? I couldn't find anything referencing that, but it is possible he did.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I have no idea.

You should have stopped there.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're wrong.

The jury determined: KR did nothing wrong because the other three made credible threats KR's wellbeing (or acted in a way that could cause grievous bodily harm).

The reality is that there were three perpetrators and one victim. As Marlo Stanfield said: You want it to be one way. But it's the other way.

The facts, nor any practical or legal definition of the term “victim,” support anything you have to say in this post, but it’s a free country and you’re welcome to make up whatever you want and call it reality.

I find it bizarre that with even more posts than I have in this thread, your obviously keen interested has not produced any fruits of understanding. Might be worth reading up what the jury actual determined and how crimes and trials work and their implications. Reading even some layman-level material should shore up your confusion.

Though I just as well suspect you probably do know and are doing your usual thing. But, if you do honestly lack info here, it’s worth educating yourself.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So is Grosskreutz going to be tried for the attempted murder of Rittenhouse? If not, how is Rittenhouse defending himself?

Self defence is based on what we reasonably held as a belief by the person defending themselves. Grosskreutz's motivations have nothing to do with it.

So you can easily have a scenario where both parties believe they are acting justly.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I have no idea if he will be prosecuted for anything. KR was prosecuted for political reasons, maybe GG will not be prosecuted for the same political reasons.

Political reasons? I think usually when two people are murdered they have a trial to see if the murderer is guilty of a crime/crimes.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Political reasons? I think usually when two people are murdered they have a trial to see if the murderer is guilty of a crime/crimes.

There never was a murder.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by blankall

Self defence is based on what we reasonably held as a belief by the person defending themselves. Grosskreutz's motivations have nothing to do with it.

So you can easily have a scenario where both parties believe they are acting justly.

You can have a situation where both parties can claim self defense.

But this isn't one of those scenarios.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Political reasons? I think usually when two people are murdered they have a trial to see if the murderer is guilty of a crime/crimes.

Brian, NOOO!!

Originally Posted by BoLevi

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You can have a situation where both parties can claim self defense.

But this isn't one of those scenarios.

As already said, this is likely a scenario where the other party could claim defence of others, so blankall's scenario of two sides believing they are acting justly applies here.

That said, the biggest reason that this isn't one of those scenarios is because only one of the people involved were charged with a crime and prosecuted. Grosskreutz has no need to claim any sort of defence, because (thus far), he's innocent in this situation in the eyes of the law.