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? 

 

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/22/kyle-rittenhouse-initiative-targets-media-whoopi-goldberg

Part of me is sympathetic to him being just 19 and having to endure all this scrutiny in the public eye and being called things prior to being declared innocent and after.  The other part of me questions his and the adults around him  motives for going there in the first place and that he killed three people in self-defense. He can't erase that three people died. He's not a total victim.  I think people are entitled to comment on that.  I do think calling him a murderer when he committed the acts in self-defense isn't right.   

Rittenhouse wasn't declared innocent...he was found to have killed unarmed people in self defense. Imagine killing two unarmed people and then whining that some might express opinions that disagree with the self defense acquittal. I guess his "team" will look for the deepest pockets as they fund raise in conservative circles and decide how those words and opinions hurt him. 

[chare]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Rittenhouse wasn't declared innocent...he was found to have killed unarmed people in self defense (emphasis added).

Thank you for mentioning this; technically he was found not guilty.  While some might argue that this is semantics, it means much more that that.  It doesn't mean that the defendant didn't do what he or she had been charged with, it means that the prosecution failed to prove that they didn't.  

I know you are aware of this, but I think there are some on here that aren't.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

Wouldn't he have to show damages? He is famous and and being held up as a hero. You can't just sue people because you think they are being mean to you. Ms. Goldberg is not an attorney. She voiced her opinion, even if it didn't meet the legal definition of murder. 

I agree, Rittenhouse, although a legal adult, is being taken advantage of by unscrupulous people. 

[chare]

1 hour ago, nursej22 said:

Wouldn't he have to show damages? He is famous and and being held up as a hero. You can't just sue people because you think they are being mean to you. ...

[...]

If you sue for a large enough amount, the respondent might think it easier, and cheaper, to settle.  Remember Mr. Sandmann's lawsuits against CNN, NBC, and the Washington Post, all for $250 million to $275 million?

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

4 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Rittenhouse wasn't declared innocent...he was found to have killed unarmed people in self defense. 

He was cleared of the charges of murder and is a free man.  To me that means he was innocent of murder. 

In the post you quote I also said "....and that he killed three people in self-defense" so clearly I understand this. 

But I suppose semantics matter.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

45 minutes ago, chare said:

If you sue for a large enough amount, the respondent might think it easier, and cheaper, to settle.  Remember Mr. Sandmann's lawsuits against CNN, NBC, and the Washington Post, all for $250 million to $275 million?

I try to forget about that Sandmann mess. According to this article from Law & Crime, https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/ the insurance company may have decided to it was cheaper to settle. At least once attorney speculated that Sandmann may have gotten as little as $50,000. Interesting that one of the lawyers representing him was one Lin Wood. 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Not to mention people take the settlement because they might actually lose the case.  

36 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Not to mention people take the settlement because they might actually lose the case.  

Yep.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

8 hours ago, subee said:

He is legally an adult.  It wasn't a peanut butter sandwich he toted with him to take to a violent demonstration.  Do you really believe that a bullet to a skateboarder was commensurate force?  By bringing a rifle to the event, he planned on possible using it.  Our legal code distinguishes between robbery and armed robbery because they ARE separate offenses.  He brought this on himself because he had no business being there , much less with a weapon as lethal as firepower.

 

I agree with chare above, it doesn't matter what I think because the jury found him not guilty.  

I already said in this thread that he shouldn't have been there in the first place.  Moot point.

 

[FranEMTnurse The other member, LPN, EMT-I]

I don't feel this should be discussed anymore. IMHO it is an over discussed subject.

26 minutes ago, FranEMTnurse The other member said:

I don't feel this should be discussed anymore. IMHO it is an over discussed subject.

Then why are you reviewing and commenting on the thread? This topic is merely a reflection of our current gun culture. 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

3 hours ago, FranEMTnurse The other member said:

I don't feel this should be discussed anymore. IMHO it is an over discussed subject.

Your feelings are not an important addition to this thread.  If you have something useful to add, please do so.  Do you think that teenagers with AR-15 rifles is not a topic worthy of discussion?