Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[Nakosis]

No property is worth someone's life, let alone by a teenage vigilante. I'm also a bit jaded on police because I was there when protestors were relabeled 'violent rioters' after throwing resignation letters folded into airplanes over police lines in Portland.

He went there looking for an excuse. And he was given one by the court.

50 million dollars in property damage.
While you are right, these businesses are people's livelihoods, their future. Folks are bound to get upset when their property gets destroyed and take action to protect it.

These riots should not have happen any more than Rittenhouse should have been out their with a semiautomatic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They may have better luck suing Facebook.
Facebook hit with lawsuit over Kenosha protest deaths

That is actually what appears to be a well formed lawsuit. Please note that they included Rittenhouse as a defendant. That is a good legal strategy even if he has no money. And they are nicely tied together. The Facebook post does look rather inflammatory to me. That suit may have a chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being he was a minor at the time, I wonder if they can sue his parents.

Probably not. I can't say for sure. But that he was legally charged as an adult would indicate that the problems that he caused would be legally his alone. A lawyer would know better, but using that line of thought I cannot see the parents being held responsible.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Here is an earlier article for those of us who don't know who Kyle Rittenhouse is:
Kenosha Rittenhouse trial victims: These are the 3 men he shot - CNN

Rittenhouse is at some kind of protest carrying a great big automatic weapon, and some suicidal (literally not sarcastically) person throws something at him on camera, then starts chasing him. After being chased, Rittenhouse shoots the pursuer. 2 shots in front, one glancing along the side of his head and one in back.

The prosecution argued that Rittenhouse provoked the action by pointing the gun and could therefore not use the self defense argument. This is what the jury did not accept. They still applied self defense.

Also the pursuer was not some squeaky clean citizen but had a criminal history, and that may have helped uphold the self defense claim.

The shooting alarmed other protestors, two of whom then got shot as follows:

One person tried to grab the gun away from Rittenhouse while holding a skateboard in his other hand.

The third person shot either accidentally or purposely pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse and also got shot.

That's the basic story.

Why was Rittenhouse there in the first place?

Why did he move TOWARD danger with a weapon that was illegal for him to own?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

50 million dollars in property damage.

I don't care. Property damage isn't an executional offense and it's also not why he was out there.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Nice strawman since that was never the claim. And I would like to see evidence of your Portland claim. From what I have seen there was massive violence in Portland. But go ahead and support your claim of a non-violent act being called violent and I can surely support my claim of violent protest.

Once again, if you value life property damage does take away parts of a person's life. Something that some people do not seem to understand.

I can't think of anything more boring than a sea lion.

 

[Lain]

I can't think of anything more boring than a sea lion.

On behalf of the Council of Sea Lions, I would like to notify you that they find this extremely disrespectful, and send you this informational video for your consideration:

 

[ADigitalArtist]

On behalf of the Council of Sea Lions, I would like to notify you that they find this extremely disrespectful, and send you this informational video for your consideration:

Don't worry. The sea lions I'm talking about aren't the pinniped variety. They're good sea pups.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't care. Property damage isn't an executional offense and it's also not why he was out there.

Ok, I suspect many would feel differently if it was their business or property being destroyed.

The sons of the owner of Car Source say nobody asked armed people to guard their properties while under oath in court during the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse last week. Then on Tuesday, one of Car Source’s former employees said the opposite, also while under oath in the trial.

Rittenhouse was among a number of armed men, and at least one woman, who attested they were asked to protect Car Source the night of Aug. 25, 2020.
Did Car Source ask for armed help during Kenosha unrest? Witness testimony differs

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why was Rittenhouse there in the first place?

Why did he move TOWARD danger with a weapon that was illegal for him to own?

The why question does not apply in this case. I am not sure if he could legally own the gun that he had, but it does appear that he could legally carry it. The misdemeanor possession charge was dismissed because it appears to have been misapplied. There is another Wisconsin state law that was supposed to have been violated for that law to apply and that was not what happened here.

EDIT: Sorry, closed some tabs in error. The question is why weren't the owners of the businesses there? They could have defended their property Here is a link that mentions Wisconsin's Castle Doctrine.

Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia

 

[mangalavara]

Justice has been made.
A 17 year old boy who was in good faith.
Who tried to help.
Being chased by a former delinquent, first.
Being chased by a mob of three people, one of them armed.

I totally agree!

That the American justic system works.
For over 30 hours the jury looked at the evidence and found him to be not guilty.
I would say that they did their job to the best of their ability.

Exactly! They did not decide 'guilty' on the first day of deliberation in order to appease some group. Instead, they took almost four days to reach a verdict, which indicates they were careful and trying to be objective.

I don't think it really says anything about America's future. The country is still a dumpster fire inside of a train wreck which is itself falling into the Earth to me, but a right judgment was made as far as I know.

I like your imagery, but not the overall American situation, of course.

A 17 year old took a rifle out to an event and killed people with no consequences and America wonders why it has so many mass-shooting problems.

I understand your perspective. My view is that the three men who were shot by Rittenhouse apparently thought that they could act without consequences. Unfortunately for them, there were consequences on the scene.

If guns make us safer as the NRA claims, then why is it that we have times more homicides than so many other westernized-industrialized countries? [rhetorical, because the answer is obvious].

In my opinion, guns can make us safer, and for many individuals, guns do indeed make them safer. I once saw a story about a very young woman who was home alone and she scared off three young men who were trying to break into her house and do whatever it was they had in mine. She was physically unharmed because she knew how to use the rifle that was in her house.

The obvious answer to me is the living individuals here, not the types of weapons available. There are quite a lot of attacks in the UK that involve knives and chemicals. I think it says more about the individuals there who wrongfully harm other people, not the presence of knives or the chemicals they use. Like a Confucian, I think people need to be fixed in order for there to be more peace in society. I know you did not mention it, but I think that simply removing guns, for example, would be a bit like government throwing money at a problem: hardly anything in the situation would be fixed.

Open carry gives me the creeps. When a bunch of guys wear guns into a Taco bell its just scary. I'm eating at my table hoping nobody shoots me and wishing I didn't know they were armed. One time a guy wore his gun into a bank where I was doing business, and that annoyed me. Lots of things annoy me though.

I am someone who does not own a firearm, and I don't think I ever will own one. I've seen apparent civilians do open carry in public many times, and it did not bother me the slightest. Not saying you should be like me though: I can't even brush my hair properly.

It is all just more evidence of a very sick country. That thinks it fine to settle things with guns.

I doubt most of us would say it's fine to settle things with guns. Gangsters and other sorts of criminals, on the other hand, would be the ones to think it's fine to settle things with guns. I am one of the great number of Americans who believe it is good to protect ourselves and others with firearms. Until human beings become 100% peaceful and benevolent, we will need weapons of some type. I do agree though that the country is not in good condition. Hearts and minds have to be changed more than anything, in my opinion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ok, I suspect many would feel differently if it was their business or property being destroyed. And the account was that he was asked to be there to protect property by a business owner.

I live in Portland. I have insurance. It's an occupational hazard I accept running a small business.

I would gladly burn it down if it meant we meaningfully addressed the growing white supremacy, gun abuse and police corruption in this country. And I sure as **** think it's more likely to come about with civil disobedience than quiet, ignorable protests if our country's history is any indication.

But that's a larger subject for another thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I suspect many would feel differently if it was their business or property being destroyed. And the account was that he was asked to be there to protect property by a business owner.

Which raises the question why weren't those owners there? It appears that they actually could have shot anyone that stepped on their property with impunity if they were part of a riot. When looking into why the Judge tossed out the carry charge I ran acro

I can't think of anything more boring than a sea lion.

Projection. to say the least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I live in Portland. I have insurance. It's an occupational hazard I accept running a small business.

I would gladly burn it down if it meant we meaningfully addressed the growing white supremacy, gun abuse and police corruption in this country. And I sure as **** think it's more likely to come about with civil disobedience than quiet, ignorable protests if our country's history is any indication.

But that's a larger subject for another thread.

But you do not get to force other business owners to have the same opinion. Yes, white supremacists will try to recruit supporters of the Second Amendment to their cause, but you are being overly inclusive. Your statement is little different from those going after all marijuana smokers because it is the drug of choice of many black people.

If anything the last election is evidence against your claim. I was hoping for a blue wave, but it did not appear and quite a few analysts put the blame on the BLM riots. Not the BLM portests. People were too afraid to vote too many Republicans out of office due to how those situations were handled.

 

[Nakosis]

Use of deadly force to protect property.

But in nearly all states, you can't generally use deadly force merely to defend your property. (Texas appears to be an exception, allowing use of deadly force when there's no other way to protect or recapture property even in situations involving simple theft or criminal mischief, though only at night, Tex. Penal Code § 9.42; see, e.g., McFadden v. State (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).) That's where we get the conventional formulation that you can't use deadly force just to defend property.
[2.] This conventional formulation, though, omits an important limitation: In basically all states, you can use nondeadly force to defend your property—and if the thief or vandal responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then protect yourself with deadly force. So in practice, you can use deadly force to protect property after all, if you're willing to use nondeadly force first and expose yourself to increased risk.
And in some states, you don't even need to expose yourself to such increased risk, if you reasonably fear at the outset that nondeadly protection of property would be too dangerous. In those states, to quote the Model Penal Code formulation (which some have adopted), deadly force can be used if
the person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:
[a] has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or
the use of [nondeadly] force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
Are People Allowed to Use Deadly Force to Defend Property?

Not a response to any particular post, I was just curious.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But you do not get to force other business owners to have the same opinion. Yes, white supremacists will try to recruit supporters of the Second Amendment to their cause, but you are being overly inclusive. Your statement is little different from those going after all marijuana smokers because it is the drug of choice of many black people.

If anything the last election is evidence against your claim. I was hoping for a blue wave, but it did not appear and quite a few analysts put the blame on the BLM riots. Not the BLM portests. People were too afraid to vote too many Republicans out of office due to how those situations were handled.

Tough titties for those business owners. Still doesn't justify execution for property damage.

Analysts also say there wasn't a blue wave because half of Democrats feel forced to vote Democrat as lesser of two evils, with anemic representation of actual leftist policy, and our woefully right leaning Overton window becomes more apparent and more disenfranchizing as global telecommunication increases.

So maybe democrats should find their balls. (Not that I think our system will meaningfully change through votes either.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Use of deadly force to protect property.

But in nearly all states, you can't generally use deadly force merely to defend your property. (Texas appears to be an exception, allowing use of deadly force when there's no other way to protect or recapture property even in situations involving simple theft or criminal mischief, though only at night, Tex. Penal Code § 9.42; see, e.g., McFadden v. State (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).) That's where we get the conventional formulation that you can't use deadly force just to defend property.
[2.] This conventional formulation, though, omits an important limitation: In basically all states, you can use nondeadly force to defend your property—and if the thief or vandal responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then protect yourself with deadly force. So in practice, you can use deadly force to protect property after all, if you're willing to use nondeadly force first and expose yourself to increased risk.
And in some states, you don't even need to expose yourself to such increased risk, if you reasonably fear at the outset that nondeadly protection of property would be too dangerous. In those states, to quote the Model Penal Code formulation (which some have adopted), deadly force can be used if
the person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:
[a] has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or
the use of [nondeadly] force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
Are People Allowed to Use Deadly Force to Defend Property?

Not a response to any particular post, I was just curious.

It appears that Wisconsin's law on self defense if one own's a business is a bit more "liberal":

On December 7, 2011, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill passing a castle doctrine for Wisconsin. The bill provides criminal immunity (WI statute 939.48(1m)[17]) and protection from civil suits (WI statute 895.62 [18]) for homeowners or business owners who use a gun in self-defense while on their property, with the presumption that any action is justified. The law is a "stand your ground" law, which does not contain a duty to retreat. This applies at the user's private vehicle, business, and at their home. Protection extends to improvements only (driveway, sidewalk, patio, fence, garage, house...), not bare ground. Also, the criminal must have forcibly entered, or be in the process of attempting to forcibly enter, and the defender must be present in the home, car, or business. The Washington County DA ruled that opening a door counts as forcible entry.[19]

The law does not apply if force is used against police while in the line of duty if the shooter knows or should have known that the victim was a police officer or other public safety worker. (WI statute 895.62(4)(b)[17]) The law also does not protect those who are engaged in criminal activity. (WI statute 939.48(1m)(b)(1)[17])

Just an intro. From the law itself:

"1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring."

A simple fence around the property would be good enough to qualify as a "breaking and entering". The owners of the businesses were not there but they were fine with others putting themselves at greater risk. They do not have such a clear cut defense of their actions.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Use of deadly force to protect property.

But in nearly all states, you can't generally use deadly force merely to defend your property. (Texas appears to be an exception, allowing use of deadly force when there's no other way to protect or recapture property even in situations involving simple theft or criminal mischief, though only at night, Tex. Penal Code § 9.42; see, e.g., McFadden v. State (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).) That's where we get the conventional formulation that you can't use deadly force just to defend property.
[2.] This conventional formulation, though, omits an important limitation: In basically all states, you can use nondeadly force to defend your property—and if the thief or vandal responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then protect yourself with deadly force. So in practice, you can use deadly force to protect property after all, if you're willing to use nondeadly force first and expose yourself to increased risk.
And in some states, you don't even need to expose yourself to such increased risk, if you reasonably fear at the outset that nondeadly protection of property would be too dangerous. In those states, to quote the Model Penal Code formulation (which some have adopted), deadly force can be used if
the person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:
[a] has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or
the use of [nondeadly] force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
Are People Allowed to Use Deadly Force to Defend Property?

Not a response to any particular post, I was just curious.

Just another reason why this country is trash

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tough titties for those business owners. Still doesn't justify execution for property damage.

Analysts also say there wasn't a blue wave because half of Democrats feel forced to vote Democrat as lesser of two evils, with anemic representation of actual leftist policy, and our woefully right leaning Overton window becomes more apparent and more disenfranchizing as global telecommunication increases.

So maybe democrats should find their balls. (Not that I think our system will meaningfully change through votes either.)

Self defense is never "execution". If you have to use loaded terminology it indicates a weak argument. People had a reasonable reaction to rioting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just another reason why this country is trash

Or you could be merely very very wrong.