Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

Thermal said:
Not just "could have", but the "natural and probable" result would be delinquency. Seems awfully incongruent with Kyle being clean to open carry, if providing him with a gun is a kind of crime.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of that law more in the terms of say, adult gives kid drugs to take but instead the kid hands the drugs into the authorities. You can still find the drug pusher guilty of the charge despite the fact that the kid didn't do the delinquent act of taking the drugs. That's why I said could.

Agreed. I can't imagine a more sweetheart deal. Also tbh, I don't fault Black too much. It's not like He was some gun-runner. He made a bad decision to buy the rifle a little early for his close-in-age buddy, kind of like buying beer to share with a just-south-of-21 friend. A lot of us have done similar.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Based on how I'd read the giving a minor a gun part of the law I figured there was no way Black was going to get off on those charges if it came to trial, regardless of Rittenhouse's verdict. I feel like this deal is probably the best thing that could have happened short of the prosecution dropping the charges.
 
theprestige said:
Destroy the gun? How stupid. If they want to destroy, they should offer to buy it at a fair price, and then do whatever they want with it.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

The ostensible owner (Kyle Rittenhouse) of the weapon wants it to be disposed of --- dismantled and shredded.
Dominick Black had also expressed interest in claiming the gun, and Rittenhouse was concerned Black might try to sell it for rumored six-figure offers.
This court decision placed the entire matter of that particular weapon to rest, as the Kenosha Police Department will handle the destruction of the gun and provide proof of it having been accomplished according to established procedures for such.
 
That wild and crazy kid Kyle is going back on the stand, playing defense in a wrongful death suit filed by the father of one of his victims (Anthony Huber, the skateboard Kyle killed). The suit alleges that the police and Kyle worked together to set the stage. Interesting.

In an ongoing show of the lad's famed courage, he hid for four days to avoid being served.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/01/1153706694/kyle-rittenhouse-wrongful-death-lawsuit-kenosha
 
Thermal said:
That wild and crazy kid Kyle is going back on the stand, playing defense in a wrongful death suit filed by the father of one of his victims (Anthony Huber, the skateboard Kyle killed). The suit alleges that the police and Kyle worked together to set the stage. Interesting.
Click to expand...

If by interesting you mean a crackpot theory....
 
Brainster said:
If by interesting you mean a crackpot theory....
Click to expand...

Meh....crackpot is a little strong. The police openly encouraged the help of these random rifle-toters. The well known video had the cops tossing water bottles to them saying "we appreciate you guys, we really do" (keep in mind that the cops had no idea what Kyle and company were doing that night).

Kyle was supposed to be "defending" some trashed car dealership. But he was wandering around the streets, in violation of curfew like the rest of the rioters. Could the argument be raised that the police encouraged him to participate? I think it could. They certainly didn't exactly suggest he get out of there, like any law-abiding citizen visitor should have done.
 
Brainster said:
If by interesting you mean a crackpot theory....
Click to expand...

There’s video footage of police giving Rittenhouse water and welcoming him into an area they were proclaiming off-limits to everyone else. They also let Rittenhouse leave the scene after several witnesses told them he shot someone.
 
johnny karate said:
There’s video footage of police giving Rittenhouse water and welcoming him into an area they were proclaiming off-limits to everyone else. They also let Rittenhouse leave the scene after several witnesses told them he shot someone.
Click to expand...

Ultimately Kyle put himself in that position and I think Brainster is full of **** for thinking that this is a crackpot theory.

Kyle had no reason to be there, was breaking the law in real time using an illegally acquired gun on land that he was not requested to be on.

I'm going to swim in 2A nut hugger tears when Kyle is sued into oblivion and realizes that all his grandstanding over this event is going to come back and **** him financially for the rest of his life.
 
Brainster said:
If by interesting you mean a crackpot theory....
Click to expand...

Rittenhouse went well beyond defeding property in what he did.
Frankly, his gettng off was a gross miscarraigne of justice.
As for his stupid video game, the guy should be keeping as low a profile as possible.
 
johnny karate said:
There’s video footage of police giving Rittenhouse water and welcoming him into an area they were proclaiming off-limits to everyone else. They also let Rittenhouse leave the scene after several witnesses told them he shot someone.
Click to expand...

Evidence for the highlighted? I saw the video of him leaving the area with his hands up as the cops came into the area rapidly.

Yes, you have evidence that the police were unopposed to Rittenhouse and others, and so maybe you make the argument that the cops were derelict in their duty. But how does that imply the cops and Kyle worked together to set the stage for Huber's death? A whole bunch of crazy things had to happen to create those circumstances (including Huber foolishly bringing a skateboard to a gunfight).
 
Brainster said:
Evidence for the highlighted? I saw the video of him leaving the area with his hands up as the cops came into the area rapidly.

Yes, you have evidence that the police were unopposed to Rittenhouse and others, and so maybe you make the argument that the cops were derelict in their duty. But how does that imply the cops and Kyle worked together to set the stage for Huber's death? A whole bunch of crazy things had to happen to create those circumstances (including Huber foolishly bringing a skateboard to a gunfight).
Click to expand...


ffs are you arguing with yourself?
 
dudalb said:
Rittenhouse went well beyond defeding property in what he did.
Frankly, his gettng off was a gross miscarraigne of justice.
As for his stupid video game, the guy should be keeping as low a profile as possible.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised, seeing the longer videos of how the events unfolded, that none of the protesters accidently burned anyone alive at those properties.
Torching cars and shops doesnt mean there isnt anyone inside. Imagine a mom/dad leaving a baby in the car to get supplies to protesters when the car is set on fire??? yikes!
They were LUCKY as all 'get out' that all the things they burned (without checking what was inside it) did not contain a helpless victim who would burn to death, especially a child.

If I was younger and saw it happen, I might go to try to defend those people too. (my issue is I hate guns so I might have been useless)
 
plague311 said:
Ultimately Kyle put himself in that position and I think Brainster is full of **** for thinking that this is a crackpot theory.

Kyle had no reason to be there, was breaking the law in real time using an illegally acquired gun on land that he was not requested to be on.

I'm going to swim in 2A nut hugger tears when Kyle is sued into oblivion and realizes that all his grandstanding over this event is going to come back and **** him financially for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

The only reason Rittenhouse got off was because the judge in the case was willing to become an accessory after the fact to murder. That judge had form for protrcting criminals based on their political ideology and should have been behind bars himself for a long time when the trial started.

If Rittenhouse had been given the benefit of a fair trial he'd never be getting out of the chokey.
 
They really should change the title of the thread to "Kyle Rittenhouse, acquitted of multiple murders from Kenosha BLM shooting".
 
Brainster said:
A whole bunch of crazy things had to happen to create those circumstances (including Huber foolishly bringing a skateboard to a gunfight).
Click to expand...

He didn't bring a skateboard to a gun fight, he brought a skateboard to a ******* protest. A bunch of miserable ***** turned it into a gun fight because they have little dick syndrome.

The cops weren't interested in administering the laws they were told to uphold. They are responsible and they did help set the stage. That much is clear.

Sherkeu said:
I'm actually surprised, seeing the longer videos of how the events unfolded, that none of the protesters accidently burned anyone alive at those properties.
Torching cars and shops doesnt mean there isnt anyone inside. Imagine a mom/dad leaving a baby in the car to get supplies to protesters when the car is set on fire??? yikes!
They were LUCKY as all 'get out' that all the things they burned (without checking what was inside it) did not contain a helpless victim who would burn to death, especially a child.

If I was younger and saw it happen, I might go to try to defend those people too. (my issue is I hate guns so I might have been useless)
Click to expand...

LoL what? It was a used car parking lot in a town that was under curfew where no one was supposed to be outside, what ******* supplies are they going to get? If some dumb **** left their kid unattended during the night, after curfew, in their car during a protest then...what?

Also, Rittenhouse wasn't ******* saving anyone, or protecting anyone from anything. Are you familiar with this case at all? Who are you thinking he was defending? Who, in the entire scenario, would YOU be defending? Everyone wants to play the superhero, but no one in the entire ******* town needed saving until Rittenhouse started shooting his gun. No one. ******* NO ONE else fired a shot, even the dumb asses that Rittenhouse was with didn't fire any shots.

Your entire statement here is completely mind boggling.
 
plague311 said:
Also, Rittenhouse wasn't ******* saving anyone, or protecting anyone from anything. Are you familiar with this case at all? Who are you thinking he was defending? Who, in the entire scenario, would YOU be defending? Everyone wants to play the superhero, but no one in the entire ******* town needed saving until Rittenhouse started shooting his gun. No one. ******* NO ONE else fired a shot, even the dumb asses that Rittenhouse was with didn't fire any shots.

Your entire statement here is completely mind boggling.
Click to expand...

I havent seen it in a while, but...
I saw footage of the first guy (who went after Kyle) being held back by his 'side' because he was instigating a fight at the scene. He was acting super crazy. I saw him - in other footage- holding a heavy chain as a weapon.
This was evidently (now known) to be along with a bag of his belongings from being institutionalized, from which he was just released.
THIS is the guy that did the crazy charge to Kyle.... who ran away!
But the dude kept chasing.
He got what he deserved IMO.
I think it ended up he was a pedophile, but that didnt matter in that moment, on that day. Just a bit of icing on the "violent stupidity" cake.
 
Some people are going to admire wee Karl Rottenmouth no matter what. If he gets hit for huge penalties, they can break open their piggy banks to help him out.

Or not. We'll see.
 
Brainster said:
Evidence for the highlighted? I saw the video of him leaving the area with his hands up as the cops came into the area rapidly.
Click to expand...

Here:
Video of police allowing Rittenhouse to pass, even as people were shouting that he had just shot people, was widely circulated and cited by those who say he got preferential treatment because he is white.
Click to expand...

And here:
This time, police attended to the injured while the gunman kept walking – backward now, inching toward authorities at the end of the street as onlookers flagged him to police.

"Hey, he just shot them! Hey, dude right here shot them! Dude right here shot all them down there!" someone is heard saying.

With blue gloved hands in the air and the gun around his chest, the brigade member who was thanked at the start of the night was given safe passage past police. He was not stopped and cuffed, but was allowed to exit with only this warning: "You with the long gun – don't come down here. This is closed."
Click to expand...

And here:
In the second video, taken Tuesday night, Kyle Rittenhouse, a white 17-year-old, approaches officers shouldering an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle after allegedly shooting three people. Rittenhouse raises his arms in a gesture that appears to be surrendering, or possibly signaling that his hands are not on his weapon. Witnesses shout: "Hey, he just shot them! Hey, dude right here just shot them!"

Four armored vehicles, lights flashing, pass Rittenhouse, and several police cruisers can be seen nearby. No one stops Rittenhouse.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have evidence that the police were unopposed to Rittenhouse and others, and so maybe you make the argument that the cops were derelict in their duty. But how does that imply the cops and Kyle worked together to set the stage for Huber's death? A whole bunch of crazy things had to happen to create those circumstances
Click to expand...

The police aided and abetted Rittenhouse and other right militia types that were there. They weaponized them against the protesters. That goes beyond mere dereliction.

This happened all out in the open. None of it is a secret. That you want to to call that a"crackpot theory" feels desperate.

(including Huber foolishly bringing a skateboard to a gunfight).
Click to expand...

Haha... it's funny funny because Rittenhouse killed Huber with help from the police.
 
dudalb said:
Rittenhouse went well beyond defeding property in what he did.
Click to expand...

Because he was defending himself at the time not property.

Frankly, his gettng off was a gross miscarraigne of justice.
Click to expand...

How? Should he have gone to jail for defending himself against people who were attacking him or should he have just let himself get beaten/severely injured/killed?


In terms of the civil suit, I don't think Rittenhouse should be found responsible for anything. He didn't force Huber to attack him with a skateboard, and I think the idea there was some kind of conspiracy is reaching. The state, however, should absolutely be found liable for Huber's death. They were the ones that allowed the situation in Kenosha to degrade to such a point that a bunch of civilians on Facebook decided to do something about it.
 
Wildy said:
Because he was defending himself at the time not property.



How? Should he have gone to jail for defending himself against people who were attacking him or should he have just let himself get beaten/severely injured/killed?


In terms of the civil suit, I don't think Rittenhouse should be found responsible for anything. He didn't force Huber to attack him with a skateboard, and I think the idea there was some kind of conspiracy is reaching. The state, however, should absolutely be found liable for Huber's death. They were the ones that allowed the situation in Kenosha to degrade to such a point that a bunch of civilians on Facebook decided to do something about it.
Click to expand...

100% correct.
 
lionking said:
I agree with you here. That Rittenhouse was found not guilty due to self defence is not a crackpot theory.
Click to expand...

I usually enjoy this joke format, but to make it work, you need to connect it to something that was at least implied. Your usage here is a complete non sequitur. I’m going to give you a B- for effort, but overall execution is, unfortunately, an F.
 
Wildy said:
In terms of the civil suit, I don't think Rittenhouse should be found responsible for anything. He didn't force Huber to attack him with a skateboard, and I think the idea there was some kind of conspiracy is reaching. The state, however, should absolutely be found liable for Huber's death. They were the ones that allowed the situation in Kenosha to degrade to such a point that a bunch of civilians on Facebook decided to do something about it.
Click to expand...

Rittenhouse was breaking multiple laws at the time he shot those men. Those men were also breaking the law, but they're dead now. I would be shocked if Rittenhouse doesn't get hit with a judgement. I can't see in what world it would be possible for Rittenhouse to have no responsibility in these killings.

He was somewhere he wasn't legally allowed to be and if he hadn't been there then these shootings wouldn't have happened. It's that simple. That's responsibility.

Sherkeu said:
I havent seen it in a while, but...
I saw footage of the first guy (who went after Kyle) being held back by his 'side' because he was instigating a fight at the scene. He was acting super crazy. I saw him - in other footage- holding a heavy chain as a weapon.
This was evidently (now known) to be along with a bag of his belongings from being institutionalized, from which he was just released.
THIS is the guy that did the crazy charge to Kyle.... who ran away!
But the dude kept chasing.
He got what he deserved IMO.
I think it ended up he was a pedophile, but that didnt matter in that moment, on that day. Just a bit of icing on the "violent stupidity" cake.
Click to expand...

I love seeing people revel in the death of another person. Really shows you what kind of person they really are, right before they generally deny being that type of person.

The footage you saw was long before the engagement and if it's the footage I remember, Kyle wasn't even there. It was long before their encounter at a gas station.

Other than that you really stuck to playbook. You brought up his criminal past, and mental health status. You made sure to draw him as someone that shouldn't even be allowed to live, so this is ok. After all, "violent stupidity" cake, whatever the hell that **** is supposed to mean. Good take, right wingers would be proud.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Yes, you have evidence that the police were unopposed to Rittenhouse and others, and so maybe you make the argument that the cops were derelict in their duty. But how does that imply the cops and Kyle worked together to set the stage for Huber's death? A whole bunch of crazy things had to happen to create those circumstances (including Huber foolishly bringing a skateboard to a gunfight).
Click to expand...

They don't need to work together in the sense that they plotted something.

This isn't a criminal conspiracy. To find them both liable they both would have to have proximately caused the death. Their doesn't have to be any sort of plan or understanding between them. More like they combined to cause a problem than they hatched some scheme.

The cops can be accused of failing to protect the public from danger. Rittenhouse can be accused of being that danger. That's enough to sue both of them in the same case.
 
JayUtah said:
How would this far against Castle Rock v. Gonzalez?
Click to expand...


They are alleging this is different because the police were involved and made things generally less safe rather than just not do anything at all.

Which is something they could do without an agreement. From the opinion there is a mix of federal and state law claims in there against various defendants and departments so a lot of different legal standards.

Of course, it would make sense to include some sort of actual conspiracy in there is any grounds to think it happened because discovery is a thing and who knows if a cop told one of these guys to feel free to do what they'd like and it's on a recording somewhere or something like that.
 
I wonder, if this goes to court will they allow evidence that was not permitted in the criminal trial?

One of the "questionable" aspects about the criminal trial is that the judge did not allow a video of Rittenhouse talking about shooting people coming out of a store because he thought they were "looting" (despite no evidence of such) to be entered into evidence. If the judge in the civil case lets it in, it might put him at a lot more jeopardy than he was in the criminal case.
 
plague311 said:
Rittenhouse was breaking multiple laws at the time he shot those men. Those men were also breaking the law, but they're dead now. I would be shocked if Rittenhouse doesn't get hit with a judgement. I can't see in what world it would be possible for Rittenhouse to have no responsibility in these killings.

He was somewhere he wasn't legally allowed to be and if he hadn't been there then these shootings wouldn't have happened. It's that simple. That's responsibility.
Click to expand...

We're back to this again huh? It didn't matter in the criminal trial and I doubt it's going to matter in the civil one as well.

One of the legal questions in this suit will be whether Rittenhouse's actions led to the wrongful death of Huber. We all know Rittenhouse was responsible for Huber's death, even he says so, the jury will have to decide whether Rittenhouse killing a man who was trying to bash his skull in with a skateboard was a wrongful death or not. You seem to think that the answer to this question is "yes" based on the fact Rittenhouse was violating a curfew order, which seems nonsensical to me. If that were the case then Huber, who was violating the same order, can't have been killed wrongfully because he was somewhere he wasn't legally allowed to be and if he hadn't been there then he wouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse and gotten himself killed for it.
 
Wildy said:
How? Should he have gone to jail for defending himself against people who were attacking him or should he have just let himself get beaten/severely injured/killed?
Click to expand...
He was defending himself because of a situation that he himself created. He wasn't sitting at home watching TV when he was attacked, and bravely grabbed the first thing he had available to defend himself. He deliberately purchased a gun (an item that many/most people recognize is a dangerous item that has the ability to kill) and put himself in an area where confrontation was extremely likely.
 
Segnosaur said:
I wonder, if this goes to court will they allow evidence that was not permitted in the criminal trial?

One of the "questionable" aspects about the criminal trial is that the judge did not allow a video of Rittenhouse talking about shooting people coming out of a store because he thought they were "looting" (despite no evidence of such) to be entered into evidence. If the judge in the civil case lets it in, it might put him at a lot more jeopardy than he was in the criminal case.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The reason why it wasn't allowed in, and was forcefully explained during the trial when Binger tried to introduce it, was because there wasn't any relevance to the case at hand. You'd have to explain how Rittenhouse talking **** about shooting "looters" is relevant in the death of someone who wasn't doing any looting.

We're also looking at a lower standard of evidence here since this is a civil trial. Would you really need to go to the effort of getting this video in as evidence when you've got a whole criminal trial with some pretty solid evidence that you can draw from?

I suspect that Rittenhouse may only really be in this suit in order for Huber's family to get better evidence to show the negligence of the government in this.
 
Segnosaur said:
I wonder, if this goes to court will they allow evidence that was not permitted in the criminal trial?

One of the "questionable" aspects about the criminal trial is that the judge did not allow a video of Rittenhouse talking about shooting people coming out of a store because he thought they were "looting" (despite no evidence of such) to be entered into evidence. If the judge in the civil case lets it in, it might put him at a lot more jeopardy than he was in the criminal case.
Click to expand...

This court isn't bound by the earlier court's evidentiary rulings.

Also this case is different in ways that would ensure more evidence would come in. He's not a criminal defendant and this isn't limited to breaking criminal law. Nor is he the only defendant. So almost assuredly more stuff gets in.
 
Wildy said:
We're back to this again huh? It didn't matter in the criminal trial and I doubt it's going to matter in the civil one as well.
Click to expand...
Different factors fall into play here.

First of all, the burden of evidence is difference in a civil trial as compared to a criminal trial (criminal cases require 'beyond all doubt', civil cases involve 'preponderance of evidence', a lower burden of proof.)

Secondly, he will have a different judge and a different jury trying the case. A different judge may let in different evidence. A different jury might be more willing to rule against him.

Thirdly, lawyers can learn. They can see what went wrong in the criminal trial and adjust their strategy accordingly.

Remember, OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty in a criminal trial, but lost a later civil trial, so the situation is certainly not without precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom