Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty

[Raw Shark]

Law
Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted of all charges in the trial over killing 2 in Kenosha
Updated November 19, 20213:57 PM ET
Becky Sullivan


Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old who fatally shot two people during the unrest last year in Kenosha, Wis., has been acquitted of all charges in a criminal trial that divided the nation over questions about gun rights, violence at racial justice protests and vigilantism.

The verdict, delivered Friday, follows a highly-watched trial in which prosecutors struggled to overcome Rittenhouse's claim that he acted in self defense on the night of the shootings.

"He has a huge sense of relief for what the jury did to him today. He wishes none of this would have ever happened, but, as he said when he testified, he did not start this," said Rittenhouse's defense attorney Mark Richards, speaking to reporters outside the courthouse. "To say that we're relieved would be a gross misunderstatement."

In two weeks of testimony and evidence — led by a day-long turn on the stand by Rittenhouse himself — defense attorneys were able convince the jury of 12 that the night of Aug. 25, 2020, was filled with deadly peril for the then-17-year-old.

Jurors deliberated for roughly 27 hours over the course of four days before pronouncing Rittenhouse not guilty on all five counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The jury was also asked to consider lesser versions of several counts, but were not swayed.

"While we are disappointed with the verdict, it must be respected. We are grateful to the members of the jury for their diligent and thoughtful deliberations," said the Kenosha County District Attorney's office in a statement. "We ask that members of our community continue to express their opinions and feelings about this verdict in a civil and peaceful manner."

Prosecutors declined to give further comment.
A chaotic night of unrest in Kenosha turns deadly

Rittenhouse armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle on a night of unrest in Kenosha sparked by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man who was left paralyzed after an encounter with a white officer. Rittenhouse, who lived across the state line in Antioch, Ill., testified that he intended to act as a medic and help protect private property.

But the night spiraled out of control. In a series of chaotic encounters with protesters, documented thoroughly by photograph and video, Rittenhouse shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz, then 26.

During the trial, Rittenhouse said he feared for his life in all three cases. Rosenbaum, he said, had chased him and was grabbing for his rifle.

"Mr. Rosenbaum was chasing me. He said he was going to kill me if he got me alone. I was alone. I was running from him. I pointed it at him, and it didn't stop him from continuing to chase me," Rittenhouse testified.

Afterward, as he ran toward police, others, including Huber and Grosskreutz, began to chase him. Huber struck him with a skateboard, visual evidence confirms. Grosskreutz was holding a loaded Glock pistol, which, he admitted during cross-examination, was pointed at Rittenhouse, though he said that was unintentional.

The criminal trial ends with acquittal, but civil lawsuits could be coming

Prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse was responsible for creating those situations. He chose to bring a deadly rifle into a dangerous environment, they said, and chose to stay there even after being separated from a friend.

Rosenbaum was unarmed, they pointed out, yet Rittenhouse shot him four times, all as Rosenbaum was falling to the ground. Grosskreutz testified that he feared for his own life, given the presence of Rittenhouse's rifle, and was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, not kill him. Asked on the witness stand what was going through his mind during their encounter, Grosskreutz replied, "that I was going to die."

But prosecutors also made repeated missteps, prompting defense lawyers to request a mistrial on two occasions, the first over Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger questioning Rittenhouse's right to remain silent and a second over a drone video that prosecutors had inadvertently compressed when sharing it with defense lawyers.

In the end, jurors were ultimately persuaded by Rittenhouse's version of events.

"Some might have had concerns about the decisions that brought Mr. Rittenhouse to Kenosha that evening and how he reacted. However, unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn't reasonable and that he didn't believe that he needed to use deadly force to defend himself, then the only proper verdict is acquittal," said Chris Zachar, a criminal defense attorney based in La Crosse, Wis., who was not involved in the trial.

Rittenhouse could still be sued for damages in a civil trial, where the burden proof is lower than in criminal trials.

In a statement, Huber's parents, Karen Bloom and John Huber, said their son "would have his day in court" and that they were "heartbroken and angry" over the acquittal.

"Today's verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son. It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street," they said.
A lightning rod of a trial, broadcast widely across the U.S.

The case sparked passionate reaction by the American public since the moment Rittenhouse fired his rifle that night.

Nearly every aspect of the case touched on some of the country's most contentious fault lines: Second Amendment rights, self-defense, violence at racial justice protests, vigilantism and perceptions of how police and the justice system treat white people and people of color differently.

Supporters saw Rittenhouse as a champion of gun rights who bravely stepped in to protect a community from what they considered lawless riots. Opponents instead saw an irresponsible vigilante who came to Kenosha to play dress-up as a police officer — a "chaos tourist," as Binger put it.

"What comes to mind is the comment that, 'How do you stop an active shooter? Good guys with guns.' In this case, you've got Mr. Rittenhouse, who fires off four shots at somebody who's unarmed and then continues to shoot people," said Zachar. "Who's the good guy? Who's the bad guy in that scenario? No, nobody really knows."

For the past two weeks, the trial has commanded the nation's attention — thanks in no small part to the fact that nearly every minute of the proceedings has been broadcast widely on TV and livestream video. Everyone from LeBron James to Marjorie Taylor Greene weighed in before the verdict.

The White House released a statement from President Biden Friday saying that the verdict "will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included," but that "we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken." Biden urged people to refrain from violence and property destruction and said he had contacted Wisconsin's governor to offer "support and any assistance needed to ensure public safety."

I'd like to say that I am astonished, but I'm not. Thus begins the era in which it is A-Ok to murder protestors in America.

[Agent Fisher]

Having watched every minute of the trial, I'm not surprised. It was a pretty clear case of self defense. And that's before you get into the various times the prosecutors, Binger and Kraus, either attempted to question someone's constitutional right to silence, or to have an attorney, or provided evidence that was at different resolution than what they had. Plus the report that a local news station identified 'Jump Kick Man' who had come to the DA earlier in the year, offering to testify if his charges were dropped, but the DA did not disclose the identity of the person, which is another big no-no. At times it felt like the Prosecution was trying to lose this case. A high light was the star witness of the Prosecution, Grosskreutz admitting that he feared for Rittenhouse's safety after seeing someone try to kick his face in, or hit him in the head with a skateboard; and stating that it was only after Rittenhouse had lowered his rifle, and Grosskreutz had raised his pistol, pointed it at Rittenhouse and advanced on him, that Rittenhouse then re-raised his rifle and fired a single round at him, which took out his bicep and prevented him from killing Rittenhouse.

Was Rittenhouse an idiot for being there? Absolutely, a seventeen year old shouldn't have been out on those streets. But he was legally allowed to be there, and legally allowed to have possession of that rifle, just like all the other protestors and counter protestors who were there and armed. But just cause ht was there didn't give Rosenbaum the right to threaten to kill him and then charge at him.

[Jub]

Having watched every minute of the trial, I'm not surprised. It was a pretty clear case of self defense. And that's before you get into the various times the prosecutors, Binger and Kraus, either attempted to question someone's constitutional right to silence, or to have an attorney, or provided evidence that was at different resolution than what they had. Plus the report that a local news station identified 'Jump Kick Man' who had come to the DA earlier in the year, offering to testify if his charges were dropped, but the DA did not disclose the identity of the person, which is another big no-no. At times it felt like the Prosecution was trying to lose this case. A high light was the star witness of the Prosecution, Grosskreutz admitting that he feared for Rittenhouse's safety after seeing someone try to kick his face in, or hit him in the head with a skateboard; and stating that it was only after Rittenhouse had lowered his rifle, and Grosskreutz had raised his pistol, pointed it at Rittenhouse and advanced on him, that Rittenhouse then re-raised his rifle and fired a single round at him, which took out his bicep and prevented him from killing Rittenhouse.

Was Rittenhouse an idiot for being there? Absolutely, a seventeen year old shouldn't have been out on those streets. But he was legally allowed to be there, and legally allowed to have possession of that rifle, just like all the other protestors and counter protestors who were there and armed. But just cause ht was there didn't give Rosenbaum the right to threaten to kill him and then charge at him.

So why didn't he get nailed for transporting a weapon across state lines?

[Agent Fisher]

Cause he didn't. The weapon was purchased by his best friend, under a trust, to be held by the friend until Rittenhouse was 18 years old, at which point he could legally posses it, and it would then be transferred to him. While it does sound like a straw purchase, it's the same sort of idea of if you're a parent and you purchase a firearm for your teenage child to use at the range, or when hunting. They don't own it, but they can legally posses it at certain times, and once they turn 18 and there aren't any other legal restraints on them owning it, the weapon can be then tranferred, free and clear.

The fire arm was purchased in Wisconsin, and except for that night, and a trip to the range, it never left the gunsafe of the friend's step-dad, who lived in Kenosha. So the meme that went around, of 'Kyle's mom dropped him off at a protest with a rifle' is false. Rittenhouse was in Kenosha from the day before, when he worked his job as a lifeguard, spent the night at his friends house, day of the shooting when and cleaned graffiti and then a friend of his friend called and asked for help defending a business from looting or arson.

EDIT: Edited a couple grammar mistakes.

[Jub]

I guess what I'm looking for is how going out with a specific intent to use a firearm to defend property can ever count as self-defense regardless of what happens after that point. Shouldn't there be a reasonable actor clause in here somewhere that kiboshes all of this?

EDIT: I was unaware of exactly the situation with the firearm in question. It still seems shady as fuck, but just this side of legal.

[Agent Fisher]

I guess what I'm looking for is how going out with a specific intent to use a firearm to defend property can ever count as self-defense regardless of what happens after that point. Shouldn't there be a reasonable actor clause in here somewhere that kiboshes all of this?

The problem is, and this is something I had to deal with as an Armed Security Guard in so much that someone might make the claim of me using a firearm to defend property, is that he can claim he was there to deter arson or looting, but did not intend to shoot anyone actively harming property, he had the rifle to defend himself. I had the same thing, I had a firearm on my hip, and was sometimes called to incidents where I had to deter or defend property. The gun was never used to defend property. And Rittenhouse can claim he didn't either. That's why he can point and show all the times he didn't shoot at people lighting cars on fire or throwing rocks through windows. It was only once he was in serious physical danger did he use the rifle, first pointing it at Rosenbaum as he was charging at him, which was after Ziminski fired a round into the air about 30 feet away, and then a few seconds later once he was chased into a cluster of parked cars, causing him to slow to maneuver through, which allowed Rosenbaum to close the rest of the distance and based on the physical wound evidence of stippling and powder burns, put his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle, at which point Rittenhouse fired.

EDIT: I was unaware of exactly the situation with the firearm in question. It still seems shady as fuck, but just this side of legal.

Yes, it's definitely one of those gray areas, where it depends on how you argue it... It would be better if they had paperwork written up for the trust, but since the rifle itself is not a National Firearms Act regulated item, such as a full auto weapon or a silencer, you techicnally don't require an actual written trust. It's essentially the same way I got my first shotgun, my parents bought it for me as a gift, so they bought it, but it was then transferred to me once I received it.

[Jub]

The problem is, and this is something I had to deal with as an Armed Security Guard in so much that someone might make the claim of me using a firearm to defend property, is that he can claim he was there to deter arson or looting, but did not intend to shoot anyone actively harming property, he had the rifle to defend himself. I had the same thing, I had a firearm on my hip, and was sometimes called to incidents where I had to deter or defend property. The gun was never used to defend property. And Rittenhouse can claim he didn't either. That's why he can point and show all the times he didn't shoot at people lighting cars on fire or throwing rocks through windows. It was only once he was in serious physical danger did he use the rifle, first pointing it at Rosenbaum as he was charging at him, which was after Ziminski fired a round into the air about 30 feet away, and then a few seconds later once he was chased into a cluster of parked cars, causing him to slow to maneuver through, which allowed Rosenbaum to close the rest of the distance and based on the physical wound evidence of stippling and powder burns, put his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle, at which point Rittenhouse fired.

The point of difference is that you were hired to be there and presumably trained to do a specific job; you didn't show up for shits and giggles and leave bodies behind. There needs to be a distinction between the two cases.

-----

On a slight aside, does anybody know if Rittenhouse's defense would hold up if this same event had taken place in Canada? We can handwave things so that carrying the rifle would be a legal thing for Rittenhouse to do as I'm more interested in if his other actions would be legal under our laws.

[Agent Fisher]

*looks at state required training and laughs at the idea of being trained* I mean, I was trained, but that was cause I ended up knowing a few friends at relatively high end security company so I got hired on. The company was owned and operated by a trio of former police officers and had a real good training program to make sure that people were prepared for what they might encounter, and assigned people to relatively safe districts if they weren't prepared for rougher areas, and had a rather large number of guards working each night, so you always had two or three guards showing up on more high risk type calls.

But as for him being showing up for shits and giggles, he was part of a group that was asked to be there by the owners. Should he have been there? Like I said, no, he's a seventeen year old kid. But he was legally allowed to be there, and he was legally allowed to have that rifle, and despite the Prosecution trying ot make a blurry image that none of the other video feeds that night picked up, Rittenhouse being there with his rifle was not legally provocation for Rosenbaum to charge him and try and attack him. Now, the three others who Rittenhouse either shot at or shot, they weren't the villains (especially since previous criminal acts don't matter) that night, just like Rittenhouse wasn't the hero. But Rittenhouse was running towards the police to surrender himself to them, told Grosskreutz that, but the crowd attacked him, he was still legally allowed to defend his life.


As to the Canada question? A few defense attorneys I follow on twitter are from Canada and they all believed Rittenhouse was not-guilty, but I'm not sure if they ever gave what a ruling might be under Canadian laws.

[Coop D'etat]

You can't say for certain what a verdict would be out of jurisdiction, but there's no legal reason self-defense wouldn't be a possible defense for Rittenhouse under the same circumstances in Canada. The rule would be whether he reasonably believed that force or threat of force is being used against him, that the purpose was to defend himself, and that response was reasonable under all the circumstances. With the recent SCC ruling in Khill, there's more emphasis that the entirety of the accused conduct is to be considered. The legality of the weapon itself wouldn't enter much into that analysis though, the emphasis is on whether if any weapon is used, was its use reasonable at the time. The defense offered in that trial would have been available in a Canadian court.

Generally speaking, Canadian law is close to traditional English common law on self-defense. The difference in self defense law between Canada and the US is the legality of owning and caring weapons.

On the case in general, media coverage has been a nightmare and pretty heavily biased against the defense on what they are reporting. This has lead to a lot of people who reasonably should know better publicly utterly beclowning themselves on the subject

[Rogue 9]

But as for him being showing up for shits and giggles, he was part of a group that was asked to be there by the owners.

Then the owners perjured themselves, as they testified that they did not ask him or anyone else to guard their business.

[Agent Fisher]

But as for him being showing up for shits and giggles, he was part of a group that was asked to be there by the owners.

Then the owners perjured themselves, as they testified that they did not ask him or anyone else to guard their business.

I am absolutely certain they did. I'm also certain they did so to avoid legal liabilities of asking a bunch of armed individuals to guard their car lots. There's pictures and videos of the brothers talking with Rittenhouse and others earlier in the night at a different Car Source location, and then a picture of them at the Car Source that I think was the initial shooting location. Their testimony was a shit show of the inventory manager having no idea how many cars were lost, and then in a video of the day after the shooting, getting interviewed and stating a loss of a 137 cars, which he then gave a total number of damages under oath as 400,000. Which ends up being around 3 grand a car. But also in an interview the previous year put the damage more around 2.5 million.. There's also the question of how, if they didn't ask the people to get guard the car lot, how did Rittenhouse have his cell phone number. Also testimony of state and defense witnesses says the Car Source brothers drove them from one of the car source lots to the other.

Nothing will come of it, as it's the prosecutors office that would follow up on perjury charges, but if they file charges on them, it makes Binger look even worse for potentially suborning perjury.

[Gandalf]

I'm not surprised by the verdict. But the most interesting part of this is looking at US POC communities online, and how many are talking about arming up over this in an organised way, using the arguments in this trial as precedent.

Interesting times ahead.

[Zaune]

I'm not surprised by the verdict. But the most interesting part of this is looking at US POC communities online, and how many are talking about arming up over this in an organised way, using the arguments in this trial as precedent.

Interesting times ahead.

"Interesting" is not the word I would use, and I absolutely hate the fact that the rest of your post makes me feel vaguely better about this whole mess.

And if this seems somewhat at odds with some of my previous comments on this topic, the fact that I believe that there comes a point when the definition of "self-defence" includes retaliation doesn't mean I want to see it come to that.

[MKSheppard]

Their testimony was a shit show of the inventory manager having no idea how many cars were lost, and then in a video of the day after the shooting, getting interviewed and stating a loss of a 137 cars, which he then gave a total number of damages under oath as 400,000. Which ends up being around 3 grand a car. But also in an interview the previous year put the damage more around 2.5 million.

How can we say "insurance fraud"?

The insurance companies will be interested.

[MKSheppard]

But the most interesting part of this is looking at US POC communities online, and how many are talking about arming up over this in an organised way, using the arguments in this trial as precedent.

Interesting times ahead.

Everyone missed the trial that concluded elsewhere.

Basically SWAT in Florida tries raiding a black man; it ends...poorly.

https://www.wptv.com/news/region-indian ... -swat-raid

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Fla. — An Indian River County man on trial in connection with a deadly 2017 SWAT raid in Gifford was found not guilty of five of the six charges Friday.

Andrew Coffee IV was charged with second-degree murder of his 21-year-old girlfriend and three counts of attempted murder of law enforcement after the raid led to an exchange of gunfire.

He was also acquitted of shooting or throwing a deadly missile.

The sheriff's office claimed Coffee IV fired shots first at deputies during an early-morning search warrant for narcotics at his Gifford home four years ago.

According to an arrest affidavit, SWAT team members returned fire into the bedroom. However, Coffee IV claimed deputies fired first.

Fearing for his life, Coffee IV told investigators that he fired two or three rounds. The sheriff's office maintained it announced its presence.

Coffee IV told investigators that he didn't know it was deputies because they did not announce who they were.

His girlfriend, Alteria Woods, who was also at the home, was shot 10 times and died during the gunfire.

A grand jury previously exonerated the officer and deputies who fired their weapons during the incident.

However, a jury on Friday found Coffee IV guilty of possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon.

His attorney Julia Graves said her client can face up to 30 years in prison. They plan to ask for time served and appeal that guilty verdict.

"We were ecstatically happy with the first verdicts of the five counts of not guilty on the most serious charges that could cause him to spend the rest of his life in prison, so he was happy about that. We were happy about that," Graves said. "We knew there was going to be an issue by the possession of the firearm by a convicted felon because that's why we stipulated that he was in possession and stipulated he was a convicted felon, but we were hoping for the duress and necessity and self-defense on that."

[Coop D'etat]

I think this point needs to be emphasized. People are acting like utter idiots about this case and I'm pretty sure its because their getting incredibly bad information about the details of the case and mutually reinforcing each other without any kind of external corrective. People who are actual experts on criminal law and trials, even those that are ideological allies, aren't getting listened to at all in favour of warping the matter through an ideological lens to get the interpretation decided upon ahead of time and damn the inconvenient details. And now everyone is on social media, showing their ass.

Like congratulations, Democrats are acting exactly the way you look down on Republicans for acting.

[Jub]

I think that given the facts the trial did go the correct way. I just don't like that the law allows for these sorts of actions to be legal. I hope Rittenhouse gets the counseling he needs for what was probably a life-changing series of events, but I also think he and everybody else defending car lots are complete morons who should have stayed home.

[Broomstick]

I was listening to some statements from Rittenhouse's lawyers today. Rittenhouse was already receiving therapy for PTSD prior to being put on trial, and continues with same. He is also planning on moving away from the Antioch/Kenosha area due to both threats on his life and to get away from the scene of the trauma. Rittenhouse apparently has plans to study nursing.

Let's hope the young man puts the rest of his life to constructive use.

I didn't get a chance to listen to the entire trial (I was able to listen to some of it at work when my duties permitted) but it seems that Rittenhouse did not break any laws, even if some definite rules-lawyering went on in regards to firearm ownership.

I strongly suspect that, aside from how Rittenhouse got into the situation, when it came to the point of the actual shooting, all parties involved likely felt threatened and it became a multi-party stand-off where everyone could have made an argument for self-defense. It was certainly not a good situation for anyone. Yes, "everyone should have stayed home" would have avoided two deaths and various other injuries.

This is why I'm largely inclined to move away from chaotic situations and crowds, before things get violent and out of control. But that's me, a small-statured female who, on top of it all, is now middle-aged. I'm not sure my mindset maps well onto a 17 year old male, or vice versa.

I would also agree that there need to be some changes in laws regarding weapons, but then, I've been arguing that for years.

[GuppyShark]

It's been a really interesting litmus test for people who are sane or just saying things they think I want to hear or confirm their beliefs.

[His Divine Shadow]

I think that given the facts the trial did go the correct way. I just don't like that the law allows for these sorts of actions to be legal. I hope Rittenhouse gets the counseling he needs for what was probably a life-changing series of events, but I also think he and everybody else defending car lots are complete morons who should have stayed home.

He'll probably become a republican political candidate in the future and use this to help him get elected. I doubt he will ever loose a nights sleep over this.

[Broomstick]

I guess the reports the kid is suffering PTSD are just overblown, then?

Not that that excuses anything, but I think Rittenhouse is suffering, even not as badly as his victims and/or their families. He had his day in court and was acquitted. Like I said, I hope he uses the rest of his life for something constructive.

[Agent Fisher]

He's studying to be a nurse. I hope he continues on that path, avoids politics and lives a life of service to others.

[Gandalf]

He'll probably become a republican political candidate in the future and use this to help him get elected. I doubt he will ever loose a nights sleep over this.

Even if he doesn't apply for office, he could probably do the speaking tour rounds like that angry couple who stood out on their lawn last year.

[Broomstick]

Yes, he could. I'm hoping he doesn't. We'll see, in time.

[Elfdart]

I think that given the facts the trial did go the correct way. I just don't like that the law allows for these sorts of actions to be legal. I hope Rittenhouse gets the counseling he needs for what was probably a life-changing series of events, but I also think he and everybody else defending car lots are complete morons who should have stayed home.

He'll probably become a republican political candidate in the future and use this to help him get elected. I doubt he will ever loose a nights sleep over this.

He's got two offers to be a congressional staffer on Capitol Hill. But then, Matt Gaetz is always looking out for teenagers, isn't he?