Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#3,851
#3,851
MontyPython said:
Seems everyone here has a short memory. Rittenhouse shot 4 times and killed a man initially in front of a gas station. He then ran up to the dude he shot, looked at him briefly, ran away, got on his phone and said, "I just murdered someone".

You're welcome to make the argument about the ensuing crowd that tried to detain him, but he shot the first dude in cold blood. PERIOD.

"Self defense" my ass.
Click to expand...
If bad takes were brains, you'd be a better poster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, Rickyvol77, MemphisVol77 and 11 others
#3,854
#3,854
MontyPython said:
Seems everyone here has a short memory. Rittenhouse shot 4 times and killed a man initially in front of a gas station. He then ran up to the dude he shot, looked at him briefly, ran away, got on his phone and said, "I just murdered someone".

You're welcome to make the argument about the ensuing crowd that tried to detain him, but he shot the first dude in cold blood. PERIOD.

"Self defense" my ass.
Click to expand...

Anything you’d now like to say?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and MemphisVol77
#3,857
#3,857
k-town_king said:
I have already seen all the actual video from the incident and read all of the reports.

He murdered someone with a firearm that was in his possession illegally. He then murdered and shot a couple other people.

Give him the chair.
Click to expand...
He got the chair. The acquittal chair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, NCFisher, NorthDallas40 and 6 others
#3,858
#3,858
LEO TERRELL: I'm very glad that justice prevailed. I think most objective lawyers felt that Kyle Rittenhouse had an affirmative defense of self-defense. I think these verdicts are correct. I think Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been charged. I think the prosecution basically made him an example of what happened last year.

And I think that outside noise – I'm very proud as a civil rights attorney because the outside noise did not intimidate, did not deter the jury from looking at the facts inside that courtroom. And this is a just verdict. The only people who would be upset are those who have a hidden agenda outside the rule of law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, SlipKidVol, NCFisher and 4 others
#3,859
#3,859
Vol8188 said:
You would still require some evidence. Seriously, what do they have? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Look, I’m not an Attorney. But with Civil it’s different.

The hurdles are different, the instructions are different, the thresholds are different. And I do not know enough to weigh the Plaintiffs case.

But here’s what I do know - All the Plaintiffs attorney has to do is convince a majority of the jurors that Rittenhouse is probably 51% responsible.
 
#3,860
#3,860
lawgator1 said:
No, in this context the only thing that would justify his waking around armed would be an imminent threat on people in his home.

Once we start having people making their own judgments about when they are justified in intervening like this, well, just think about that door and how widely you really want it opened.
Click to expand...

The people he shot were intervening; hell the prosecutor described them as vigilantes trying to stop what they believed was an active shooter (who for some reason was running away and not shooting anyone but I digress).

The people he shot were not reacting to an imminent threat on their homes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ernest T. Vol and txbo
#3,864
#3,864
85SugarVol said:
Look, I’m not an Attorney. But with Civil it’s different.

The hurdles are different, the instructions are different, the thresholds are different. And I do not know enough to weigh the Plaintiffs case.

But here’s what I do know - All the Plaintiffs attorney has to do is convince a majority of the jurors that Rittenhouse is probably 51% responsible.
Click to expand...

They’d have to convince the jury that he (Rittenhouse) was most likely the party at fault. But like I said, nothing suggests that.
 
#3,867
#3,867
85SugarVol said:
Look, I’m not an Attorney. But with Civil it’s different.

The hurdles are different, the instructions are different, the thresholds are different. And I do not know enough to weigh the Plaintiffs case.

But here’s what I do know - All the Plaintiffs attorney has to do is convince a majority of the jurors that Rittenhouse is probably 51% responsible.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading correctly Wisconsin law requires 5/6ths of the jury to agree in civil case; not just a majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#3,868
#3,868
lawgator1 said:
No, in this context the only thing that would justify his waking around armed would be an imminent threat on people in his home.

Once we start having people making their own judgments about when they are justified in intervening like this, well, just think about that door and how widely you really want it opened.
Click to expand...
Are you unaware that people are allowed to walk around open carrying? Or do you just ignore that part of the law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher, CagleMtnVol and 85SugarVol
#3,870
#3,870
Vol8188 said:
They’d have to convince the jury that he (Rittenhouse) was most likely the party at fault. But like I said, nothing suggests that.
Click to expand...
Key distinction here - they can BOTH be at fault. 51-49

I wish we had someone that does civil litigation to weigh in.
 
#3,875
#3,875
85SugarVol said:
Key distinction here - they can BOTH be at fault. 51-49

I wish we had someone that does civil litigation to weigh in.
Click to expand...

51-49 is their level of certainty that Rittenhouse was at fault. They just have to believe Rittenhouse was most likely the person at fault.

But the issue is there’s zero evidence to support that
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top