Ritttenhouse Trial

[nursej22]

The Rittenhouse trial has begun in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The prosecution is presenting first, but apparently the defense argument will be self-defense. So a 17 year old travels out of state with his rifle to a demonstration because he fears for his life? 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

21 minutes ago, subee said:

driven in harm's way by his mommy

I don't think the was evidence that Kyle's mother was driving him around.  I believe that Rittenhouse's testimony revealed that he was driving himself around and that he rode with others sometimes because he didn't have correct insurance or registration or something. 

[chare]

39 minutes ago, subee said:

Did any healthcare workers arrive at the scene of the riot with shotguns?   This  is a 17 year old child, driven in harm's way by his mommy, who thought a shotgun was part of his first aid kit. ...

I don't think he had a shotgun, did he?

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, chare said:

I don't think he had a shotgun, did he?

He did not have a shotgun.  

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

He did not have a shotgun.  

You and Chare are correct...it wasn't a shotgun which seems rather quaint compared to the semiautomatic.  And I fell for a lie when I said it was his mother:(  I was his brother.  But it doesn't chance the essential truth that this was a slo-mo action during which he had many opportunities to change his course of his poor choice to 1.  Show up to a riot and 2. To bring a lethal weapon.  I thought manslaughter would be the proper charge and, by Wisconsin law, the jury could have done that.  

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

9 hours ago, Daisy4RN said:

It really doesn’t matter what any of us think, it matters what the law states regarding the facts of this case. The judge dismissed the charge of Rittenhouse carrying an illegal weapon bc according to the law he wasn’t. He also did not carry said weapon across state lines even though that and other mis/disinformation was freely flying around on certain “news” channels. 
That said, I agree that I also would not want my kid in that situation and it was probably not the best choice for him to be there but that (bad judgement?) does not negate his right to self defense. The man who pointed the gun in his face was carrying that gun illegally however. The jurors had ALL the evidence and found it was self defense, he had his day in court.

Okay, the charge of carrying an illegal weapon was dismissed. The acquitted attended a protest, with a rifle, after curfew. Two people died  and another was shot. If he hadn't been armed, they wouldn't have been shot, at least by him. I think that it not only "wasn't the best choice", it was stupid, naive, poorly thought out choice that resulted in death and permanent disability. 

So again, do you think there should be any negative consequences? 

[Cclm, LPN]

55 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

Okay, the charge of carrying an illegal weapon was dismissed. The acquitted attended a protest, with a rifle, after curfew. Two people died  and another was shot. If he hadn't been armed, they wouldn't have been shot, at least by him. I think that it not only "wasn't the best choice", it was stupid, naive, poorly thought out choice that resulted in death and permanent disability. 

So again, do you think there should be any negative consequences? 

I do not know? Do you think having your name and reputation slandered by being called a white supremacist for over a  year is not  punshisment? Having MSM call him a white terrorist and even the POTUS?  Then become acquitted in a court of law and still have race baiting vultures on CNN and MSNBC and some in the democratic  spouting lies about him still?? 

Going to bed eveynight worried that he might be locked up for the rest of his life? 

I pretty sure he has learned his lesson and wishes he never went there that night. He has paid his debt for being there that night. 

Kyle didn't know it but Rosenbaum was a convicted child rapist. Convicted of forced Sodomy on children. He did a very short time in jail. Was he held accountable enough? 

This kid is innocent and a child rapist is never going to be able to rape a child in there orifice or any other body cavity ever again. That's justice imo. 

What do you want? A public lynching? 

 

[InHisImage, BSN]

9 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Rittenhouse was not old enough to purchase or carry the weapon that he used to kill two people.  

Kyle Rittenhouse's surrender to hometown cops, path of AR-15 rifle used in Kenosha

I think the prosecution failed to fully describe this in the evidence and that played a part in the verdicts. 

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55

Bottom line is that none of what you have stated was relevant in determining the legality of his possession of said firearm.  You also ignored the quoted subsection of the Wisconsin law that WAS relevant in determining that Rittenhouse possessed the firearm legally.  I’m going to have to trust the judge on this one since he has the qualifications and experience to make the call.

[InHisImage, BSN]

1 hour ago, nursej22 said:

 

So again, do you think there should be any negative consequences? 

There should be no legal consequences.  There have already been plenty of negative consequences and likely will be for quite some time.

[chare]

2 hours ago, nursej22 said:

[...]

So again, do you think there should be any negative consequences? 

What do you think should happen to him.

[toomuchbaloney]

6 hours ago, InHisImage said:

Bottom line is that none of what you have stated was relevant in determining the legality of his possession of said firearm.  You also ignored the quoted subsection of the Wisconsin law that WAS relevant in determining that Rittenhouse possessed the firearm legally.  I’m going to have to trust the judge on this one since he has the qualifications and experience to make the call.

You are free to trust the judge.  Clearly, he runs a very unusual court room and the judge's own judgement was put on display in very uncomfortable ways for the fellow.  I suspect that the scrutiny will result in his retirement sooner rather than later. Qualifications and experience weren't the only things observed in that courtroom.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

I think it's pretty obvious that I think the acquitted was wrong and committed a crime. I am not a lawyer but I should think if anything, he is was guilty of reckless endangerment, which usually calls for a small amount of jail time which I think he already served. I do not think he should be the subject of a Fox channel special, or hailed as a hero, or serve as an aide in Congress. 

[toomuchbaloney]

19 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

I do not think he should be the subject of a Fox channel special, or hailed as a hero, or serve as an aide in Congress. 

But many social conservatives do think he should be elevated in that way...