Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"Witnessed a self defence event" aka witnessed Huber getting shot as he was moving away from Rittenhouse. Witnessed Rittenhouse being a threat to another person, in your words. Witnessed, by any measure of logic and common sense, someone try to take down someone who may have been an active shooter, and get shot doing so.

We know from the trial that KR was acting in self defense with respect to Huber, and that KR was not an "active shooter".

When GG advanced on him with a drawn gun, he didn't fire until GG had the gun pointed at him.

All of this is is pretty straightforward.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

That has to come into play.

No it doesn't.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

We know from the trial that KR was acting in self defense with respect to Huber, and that KR was not an "active shooter".

When GG advanced on him with a drawn gun, he didn't fire until GG had the gun pointed at him.

All of this is is pretty straightforward.

"From the trial." Hate to break it to you, but this all happened before the trial, in the dark, and in some cases of the actions: within split seconds.

We know from the video that Huber had turned away from Rittenhouse when he was shot. We know from the angle Grosskreutz was at, that's what he saw. We know Rittenhouse had his gun pointed at Grosskreutz within the same second Grosskreutz had his gun pointed at Rittenhouse, and if you want to make the argument that Rittenhouse assessed the situation (saw Grosskreutz point his gun, raised his rifle, and then fired) within that second, you're free to, but good luck. What we don't know is if Grosskreutz would have fired, especially if Rittenhouse hadn't pointed his gun at him. We know this we can't know this, because he had multiple chances to fire on Rittenhouse before that, and he didn't.

It is straightforward, which is why it's weird you can't grasp it.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"From the trial." Hate to break it to you, but this all happened before the trial, in the dark, and in some cases of the actions: within split seconds.

We know from the video that Huber had turned away from Rittenhouse when he was shot. We know from the angle Grosskreutz was at, that's what he saw. We know Rittenhouse had his gun pointed at Grosskreutz within the same second Grosskreutz had his gun pointed at Rittenhouse, and if you want to make the argument that Rittenhouse assessed the situation (saw Grosskreutz point his gun, raised his rifle, and then fired) within that second, you're free to, but good luck. What we don't know is if Grosskreutz would have fired, especially if Rittenhouse hadn't pointed his gun at him. We know this we can't know this, because he had multiple chances to fire on Rittenhouse before that, and he didn't.

It is straightforward, which is why it's weird you can't grasp it.

You're arguing the jury was wrong in acquitting KR?

[PepsiFree]

It’s like trying to explain algebra to an infant.

[PeteMoss]

I do feel you guys are close to a breakthrough here

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

No it doesn't.

You seem to be affording Rittenhouse a lot of “this-didn’t-happen-in-isolation” benefit of the doubt that you’re not interested in entertaining for any of the people he shot. I don’t get it.

[VladtheImpaler]

More interesting than the trial is the intentional lying about the facts and the nature of the case by NYT, MSNBC, CNN, The Brandon et al. I look forward to the lawsuits and I am curious if Brandon can be sued for the campaign ad, as he was not President yet...
Even more interesting is that the media outlets continue to lie, so I am assuming that they see the inevitable payouts to Rittenhouse as minor inconveniences and less important than continuing to spread a particular narrative.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

More interesting than the trial is the intentional lying about the facts and the nature of the case by NYT, MSNBC, CNN, The Brandon et al. I look forward to the lawsuits and I am curious if Brandon can be sued for the campaign ad, as he was not President yet...
Even more interesting is that the media outlets continue to lie, so I am assuming that they see the inevitable payouts to Rittenhouse as minor inconveniences and less important than continuing to spread a particular narrative.

Yeah I mentioned it a few pages back as well, but I really wouldn't be shocked to see a defamation case. Unless he wants to just disappear into normalcy and not make a big deal out of it, but he definitely does have a case. MSNBC was particularly disgusting

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Yeah I mentioned it a few pages back as well, but I really wouldn't be shocked to see a defamation case. Unless he wants to just disappear into normalcy and not make a big deal out of it, but he definitely does have a case. MSNBC was particularly disgusting

He already has lawyers, so the lawsuits are coming - curious to see mostly if Brandon has immunity until he steps down/dies.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

More interesting than the trial is the intentional lying about the facts and the nature of the case by NYT, MSNBC, CNN, The Brandon et al. I look forward to the lawsuits and I am curious if Brandon can be sued for the campaign ad, as he was not President yet...
Even more interesting is that the media outlets continue to lie, so I am assuming that they see the inevitable payouts to Rittenhouse as minor inconveniences and less important than continuing to spread a particular narrative.

I think the president will have immunity - whether it is formalized or not.

As for the rest of them, they deserve to get taken behind the woodshed.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

You seem to be affording Rittenhouse a lot of “this-didn’t-happen-in-isolation” benefit of the doubt that you’re not interested in entertaining for any of the people he shot.

What is an example?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think the president will have immunity - whether it is formalized or not.

As for the rest of them, they deserve to get taken behind the woodshed.

I think under Clinton the Supreme Court rules that the president was subject to Civil suits during is term in office because they didn’t present a significant impairment to the duty of the president.

However the infraction must have occurred prior to becoming president. While president he has immunity from civil suits based on his actions while president.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think under Clinton the Supreme Court rules that the president was subject to Civil suits during is term in office because they didn’t present a significant impairment to the duty of the president.

However the infraction must have occurred prior to becoming president. While president he has immunity from civil suits based on his actions while president.

Well, I think it would be amazing. But I also think it would be hard to get it over the finish line.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What is an example?

Literally every defence or Rittenhouse you have made. You talk about the circumstances and what must have been going through Rittenhouse’s mind with respect to everybody he shot, yet you can’t acknowledge that to everybody else he would have appeared as the prototypical school shooter.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Literally every defence or Rittenhouse you have made. You talk about the circumstances and what must have been going through Rittenhouse’s mind with respect to everybody he shot, yet you can’t acknowledge that to everybody else he would have appeared as the prototypical school shooter.

It's not that I can't acknowledge that. It's that I won't acknowledge that.

Either GG witnessed the shootings and saw they were self defence, or he didn't witness them and he was relying on a mob calling out active shooter.

Neither one of those passes the reasonableness test.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I prefer the full flavored experience of CalgaryPuck.

Even better, put every member of CP on your ignore list. Navigating threads becomes quite the adventure.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

More interesting than the trial is the intentional lying about the facts and the nature of the case by NYT, MSNBC, CNN, The Brandon et al. I look forward to the lawsuits and I am curious if Brandon can be sued for the campaign ad, as he was not President yet...
Even more interesting is that the media outlets continue to lie, so I am assuming that they see the inevitable payouts to Rittenhouse as minor inconveniences and less important than continuing to spread a particular narrative.

The teen at the centre of the Covington kids incident at the Lincoln Memorial won his lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post. So it seems paying settlements for defamation is just chalked up as a cost of doing business for American media giants these days.

As I noted earlier, on any contentious issue in the U.S. today the major media has pretty much discarded any pretence of giving a truthful or balanced account of the incident. You need to seek out multiple sources and check and cross-check sources just to get a factual outline of what actually happened.

It does seem that local news is still pretty good at capturing the facts of a story. It’s at the national level where it’s just all Team Red/Blue Narrative all the time, facts and nuance be damned.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The teen at the centre of the Covington kids incident at the Lincoln Memorial won his lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post. So it seems paying settlements for defamation is just chalked up as a cost of doing business for American media giants these days.

As I noted earlier, on any contentious issue in the U.S. today the major media has pretty much discarded any pretence of giving a truthful or balanced account of the incident. You need to seek out multiple sources and check and cross-check sources just to get a factual outline of what actually happened.

It does seem that local news is still pretty good at capturing the facts of a story. It’s at the national level where it’s just all Team Red/Blue Narrative all the time, facts and nuance be damned.

He didn't win any lawsuits. The Washington Post suit had 30 of 33 claims thrown out and they settled after that ruling.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

More interesting than the trial is the intentional lying about the facts and the nature of the case by NYT, MSNBC, CNN, The Brandon et al. I look forward to the lawsuits and I am curious if Brandon can be sued for the campaign ad, as he was not President yet...
Even more interesting is that the media outlets continue to lie, so I am assuming that they see the inevitable payouts to Rittenhouse as minor inconveniences and less important than continuing to spread a particular narrative.

Please provide links of this in non-opinion columns.