world

Acquitted and in demand, Rittenhouse ponders what's next

50 Comments
By MICHAEL TARM and AMY FORLITI

When he was acquitted of murder in shootings during unrest in Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse went from staring at possible life behind bars to red-hot star of the right: an exclusive interview with Tucker Carlson and a visit with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago capped by a photo of both men smiling and snapping a thumbs-up.

For Rittenhouse, a year of legal uncertainty over whether his claim of self-defense would stand up has given way to uncertainty over what’s next. He told Carlson, in an appearance that spiked the host’s ratings by some 40%, that he hoped to become a nurse or maybe even a lawyer. He planned to “lay low” but would for sure leave the Midwest.

Even as Rittenhouse figures out his next moves, fundraising continues on his behalf, ostensibly to retire legal bills from his trial but perhaps in recognition that he may face civil lawsuits over the shootings. Rittenhouse has hinted he may bring defamation claims of his own, and could seek possession of $2 million in bail money raised by his supporters.

And some marketing experts say Rittenhouse — at least for a short while — may be able to leverage his story into lucrative paid appearances and even a book.

“I wouldn’t go near it on a number of levels,” Ric Bachrach, CEO of branding and marketing company Celebrity Focus, said. “But somebody out there is going to want to tell his story.”

“He could easily secure a seven-figure book contract,” said Andrew M. Stroth, a former talent agent and an attorney in Chicago with no ties to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, he said, “could monetize his brand and potentially make in the millions.”

Rittenhouse could get the $2 million that was raised for his bail, though there is a legal battle for it. In Kenosha County, where he was tried, if a defendant is acquitted, the entire bail amount is typically refunded to whomever posted it, upon a judge’s order. The poster of the bail is not necessarily the defendant, said Rebecca Matoska-Mentink, the clerk of courts for Kenosha County.

Rittenhouse’s bail was posted by his former attorney, John Pierce, who said he has relinquished claim to the money. Mark Richards, Rittenhouse’s current attorney, said in a Friday filing it should go to his client. Fightback Foundation, the organization that raised the funds and transferred them to Pierce so bail could be paid, argues that the money should be refunded to the organization.

Other fundraising opportunities have opened up.

After his acquittal, GoFundMe lifted a ban on Rittenhouse fundraisers that had been in place as part of a policy blocking fundraising for the legal defense of someone accused of a violent crime. There didn’t appear to be any new fundraising efforts for Rittenhouse on the GoFundMe website.

But there are at least three efforts to raise money for Rittenhouse or his family on GiveSendGo, one of which has raised more than $625,000 — including thousands since his acquittal. It’s not clear how much an additional website, freekyleusa.org, has raised.

One email Tuesday from “Free Kyle USA,” sent under the name of Rittenhouse’s mother, Wendy, called his acquittal “a victory for the truth, for justice, and for every American’s God-given and unalienable right of self-defense.” It said funds would go toward case-related debts, legal bills and then toward a scholarship fund for Rittenhouse so he can graduate from college without debt.

He may not have to wait around for donations. Stroth estimated Rittenhouse could command a speaker’s fee on the lecture circuit of anywhere between $2,500 and $25,000 a speech.

Both Stroth and Bachrach said they would never seek to represent Rittenhouse, and that many speakers’ agents and publishers would consider him too toxic. But some who cater to conservatives could jump at the chance to sign him.

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was released from prison last year after then-President Donald Trump commuted his sentence, told reporters in August that money he earns sending personalized greetings via the Cameo app is “surprisingly lucrative.” A personal video greeting from Blagojevich costs $100 and messages for business use are $500.

Blagojevich also started a podcast, another possible option for Rittenhouse.

There’s also merchandise. “Free Kyle” T-shirts and other items that were sold online after the shootings were eventually dropped by the vendor after prosecutors criticized the sales. Acquittal might re-open that market.

In his interview with Fox News, Rittenhouse hinted that he was looking into possible libel lawsuits. “I feel like my life has been extremely defamed,” he said, adding: “I have really good lawyers who are taking care of that right now.”

It’s not at all clear whether Rittenhouse has a strong libel case. The threshold for proving libel is far higher for figures in the public eye and those charged with crimes, even if they were later acquitted.

And Rittenhouse could be open to some civil liability of his own.

The man who was shot and wounded by Rittenhouse and the family of one of the two men killed are suing Kenosha officials. Neither lawsuit names Rittenhouse as a defendant, and it wasn’t immediately clear if claims would be filed against him. The standard of proof is lower in civil trials than in criminal ones.

As Rittenhouse weighs his next moves, many conservatives are rushing to tie themselves to him as a symbol of the vindicated right to self-defense.

Besides Carlson’s exclusive interview, the host has a documentary on Rittenhouse upcoming in December, with footage from an embedded camera crew. Trump talked up Rittenhouse’s visit to Mar-a-Lago on Sean Hannity’s show, complete with photo.

Some of the most conservative members of Congress — Reps. Madison Cawthorn, Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz — took to social media to dangle internship offers for Rittenhouse, though it’s not clear whether they were serious or if Rittenhouse even has an interest in such work. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a bill to award him the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Rittenhouse himself may need to move fast for the most gain from his story, Bachrach said.

Of Rittenhouse’s fame, he said: “I think it has a shelf life, but I don’t think it will ever go away.”

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


50 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a bill to award him the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Of course she did. Sigh.

4 ( +14 / -10 )

Trump talked up Rittenhouse’s visit to Mar-a-Lago on Sean Hannity’s show, complete with photo.

Trump = sad attention seeker trying to inject himself into the conversation.

Edit: If Trump cared about him so much why didn't he give some of that 100 million dollars that his PAC raised for him but he is too broke to pay his legal fees with?

2 ( +13 / -11 )

MTG had ‘introduced’ 16 bills this year. Guess how many have gone beyond the introduce stage. Zero. This will be no different. There is no chance this bill will pass.

She’s a troll, angry and attention seeking. Wasting time and taxpayers money just to further divide an already deeply messed up country.

Its sadly no surprise who is celebrating this tragedy and trying to make a hero out of Rittenhouse.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

She’s a troll, angry and attention seeking.

She won’t be next year November.

Wasting time and taxpayers money just to further divide an already deeply messed up country. 

As of right now, people are not blaming the GOP of wasteful spending on anything or even how the country is descending into complete chaos.

Its sadly no surprise who is celebrating this tragedy and trying to make a hero out of Rittenhouse.

The trial was really about the right to self-defense and not Rittenhouse per say. The kid is not a hero, he even said so, but the bigger question is, when someone threatens to physically harm you, do you have the right to neutralize the threat and the jury concluded after 25 hours of deliberation, you do.

-9 ( +10 / -19 )

A great legal victory for all Americans,

Donald Trump was right about this case from the beginning. Can't argue with that.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-defends-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting_n_5f4d71aac5b64f17e1419ba5

-7 ( +11 / -18 )

Rittenhouse has hinted he may bring defamation claims of his own

Yes, I hope he goes after CNN and others (including Biden). They didn't learn their lesson and had to pay millions to Nick Sandmann. What they did to Rittenhouse was much worse, so this could get interesting...

During the Tucker interview, Rittenhouse said:

"Mr. President, if I could say one thing to you, I would urge you to go back and watch the trial and understand the facts before you make a statement."

-7 ( +11 / -18 )

The kid is not a hero, he even said so, but the bigger question is,

Then we all 3 are in agreement and there needn’t be any time wasting about medals of honour.

She’s a troll, angry and attention seeking. 

She won’t be next year November.

She will. You criticize Biden for doing nothing in all those years in Congress. What has MTG done until now except fan flames? You think she’ll suddenly become useful next year? Delusion.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

--She’s a troll, angry and attention seeking. 

She won’t be next year November.

You mean MTG won't be an angry, attention-seeking troll next year November? Why not? Is she going to morph into Abe Lincoln once the GOP takes back the House?

the bigger question is, when someone threatens to physically harm you, do you have the right to neutralize the threat

Another big question is, if you see a 17-year-old kid wandering around the street with an AR-15, can you consider that kid to be a threat? How is anyone supposed to be able to figure out who the good guy with the gun is?

The kid is not a hero,

You're right about that. I just wonder why he's being treated as such in the magaverse. Your man Tucker described him as a young man who "tries his best to do the right thing at a time when almost no one else in the community is trying to do the right thing.” Sounds like the description of a hero, doesn't it?

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Bob FosseToday  08:15 am JST

Its sadly no surprise who is celebrating this tragedy and trying to make a hero out of Rittenhouse.

A tragedy? The acquittal of someone found not guilty by a jury of his peers?

The tragedy is the attempt by the Left to politicize this trial and to further broaden the racial divide, even though the defendant is white, as were the people who attacked him during that insurrection.

Rittenhouse set out to help people, but a lawless, out of control mob attacked him, even as he tried to run away.

Watching the videos of him protecting himself show such heroism from a 17 year old boy.

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

A tragedy? The acquittal of someone found not guilty by a jury of his peers?

As I said. It’s no surprise who is celebrating this tragedy and trying to make a hero out of Rittenhouse. He himself has said he isn’t a hero and supports BLM. I think he knows more about it than you do.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Well, he may need to raise a lot of money for his impending civil cases coming up. He may have been deemed "not guilty" in his criminal case, but that does not mean he is totally "innocent". In civil cases, the burden of proof will shift to the defense in trying to prove that his presence in Kenosha, carrying a gun, in now way contributed to the deaths of two men, and injury to one. He must prove in a civil court that those two men would have still died had he not been there in the first place.

In any case, I still can't get my head around the fact that there were so many other adults who were carrying guns there and they had the restraint and training not to shoot at any of the protesters, yet this kid (probably due to his lack of experience and skill with handling a gun in a situation such as that), did the damage he did, and yet is not going to be held in some way accountable for that fact.

I'm wondering how other legal gun-carrying citizens feel that even though they follow the proper restraint and rules in wielding a gun, and never use it so flippantly, or put their lives in a situation where it deems that they have to use it in so-called "self-defense" which is not proportionate, they are not deemed as "heroes". Yet, here this kid is getting all the glory for putting himself in a situation he neither had the experience, nor common sense to understand how to deal with a situation without resorting to the worst possible outcome.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

The kid brought a gun to a fight. Then someone got shot when he tried to defend himself. It seems that the legal judgement was correct based on American law, but it just exposes how broken American law is. The idea that someone can bring a gun to a place, then shoot and kill two people, and face no punishment... is a very American problem.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Lil Kyle, a slightly short, slightly round white boy decided to put himself where he shouldn't have been.

I personally don't think he is a white supremacist, but Boy Howdy, is he their little mascot!

Every White Nationalist in the country loves little kyle. It's no wonder that Faux "news'" Phu- Er, "Tucker" carlson would give him a fawning interview and do a behind the scenes special. (BTW, That Tucker when the judge rules that you violated attorney client privilege for your civil trials, Klye.)

So of course the orange buffoon would have to get in on the act because he cannot stand not being the center of attention. So he has Little Klye down to Treason Central for a thumbs up pic.

A quick but not comprehensive list of other people Trump has said are very good people.

MBS (Ordered the killing of a journalist in an embassy and then dismemberment with a bone saw)

Putin (To be fair, he probably became president because of him, So, what's a little poisoning among friends?)

Jeffery Epstien (Jeff has a lot of fun!)

Kim Jong Un (We fell in love!)

The convicted Charlotte organizers (Very fine people on both sides)

And the 1/6 insurrectionists (We love you, you're very special, go home in peace)

My point is this: Be careful the company you keep lil Kyle. Lr perhaps this IS the way you should go because you will never be accepted in polite society again.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

I actually feel quite sorry for him. He was obviously ignored by his parents - what responsible mother or father would say "OK" when their underage son said "I'm off to get an AR 15 and join a group pf Neo-Nazis roaming the streets of a city in another state enforcing vigilante justice"....

Now he's been coopted by the far-right hate machine - and held up as a saint...deified, as if in some sick cult....

And one year from now he'll be broke, ignored, and homeless....or maybe hawking pillows...

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

I actually feel quite sorry for him.

I feel sorry for him too - he was born into a society where this behavior is deemed acceptable.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

StrangerlandToday  09:05 am JST

The kid brought a gun to a fight. Then someone got shot when he tried to defend himself. It seems that the legal judgement was correct based on American law, but it just exposes how broken American law is. The idea that someone can bring a gun to a place, then shoot and kill two people, and face no punishment... is a very American problem.

You contradict yourself. And leave out a few facts.

Other people brought guns to that insurrection. And people getting shot when someone uses self defense can only occur of that person has a firearm, so no big surprise there.

And you are right that the judgment was correct based on American (and English) law. So your comment but it just exposes how broken American law is doesn't make sense. If the legal judgment is correct, then how is the American law broken in that case?

And American laws allow someone to bring a gun to certain places under certain circumstances.

What the American problem is, criminals who bring guns to a fight or places. That's the real problem of this Rittenhouse story. And thankfully, justice was served for them.

-4 ( +11 / -15 )

As the afterglow of this travesty of justice fades, it will gradually dawn on Rittenhouse that the enormity of what he did will determine for ever his life journey which will become a hard climb up an ever steeper slope skirting the abyss with a precipice on either side. Karma is pitiless. His only salvation will be deep contrition and a life of payback dedicated to doing good works.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

You contradict yourself. And leave out a few facts.

And yet you didn't go on to show anywhere I contradicted myself. Nor provide any facts relevant to my point that I had left out.

And American laws allow someone to bring a gun to certain places under certain circumstances.

Yep. Unlike civilized nations.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Nice deflection.

so when is the attempted murder trial for the convicted felon who pointed his gun at Kyle? You seem to be concerned about people having guns who aren’t “supposed to” and all.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

so when is the attempted murder trial for the convicted felon who pointed his gun at Kyle?

Ask the prosecutors. I don't know to the details. Nor do I subscribe to your American binary mindset whereby every member of the other team somehow owns every action of the other team. It's so.... childisly American.

You seem to be concerned about people having guns who aren’t “supposed to” and all.

Yeah, the people aren't supposed to have guns. If god wanted people to have guns he would have grown them on trees.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Bottom line is this: Had my child come to me to ask me if they could go to a riot armed with a rifle, I would say a definite no. I as a parent have a duty and obligation to not put my child in harm's way. While he may have had a right to 'defend' himself, he had no right being there in the first place. Placing guns in stupid people's hands is foolhardy. No good can come of it. He now has to live with the guilt of such actions.

It's like going to Africa and coming across a lion in their own habitat, and you decide to shoot the lion in self-defense because they are simply defending their home. Had you not been there, there would have been no need for 'self-defense'. Simple as that.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

missray,

You may be right about the civil cases.

In any case, I still can't get my head around the fact that there were so many other adults who were carrying guns there and they had the restraint and training not to shoot at any of the protesters,

They weren't being chased across a carpark, cornered and lunged at, being swung at with skateboards or having Glocks pointed at them by the protesters.

*yet this kid (probably due to his lack of experience and skill with handling a gun in a situation such as that), did the damage he did, *

He never fired at anyone who wasn't attacking him. Rittenhouse refrained from shooting Grosskreutz until Grosskreutz had actually pointed his (illegally possessed) Glock at Rittenhouse.

and yet is not going to be held in some way accountable for that fact.

He was tried in a court of law and found not guilty.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

He was tried in a court of law and found not guilty.

It was a legal verdict, but it certainly exposes the barbarianism of American law that someone that allows someone to bring a gun to a fight, shoot and kill someone, and not have any legal culpability.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

missrayToday  10:19 am JST

Bottom line is this: Had my child come to me to ask me if they could go to a riot armed with a rifle, I would say a definite no. I as a parent have a duty and obligation to not put my child in harm's way. While he may have had a right to 'defend' himself, he had no right being there in the first place. Placing guns in stupid people's hands is foolhardy. No good can come of it. He now has to live with the guilt of such actions. 

It's like going to Africa and coming across a lion in their own habitat, and you decide to shoot the lion in self-defense because they are simply defending their home. Had you not been there, there would have been no need for 'self-defense'. Simple as that.

This can be said about every and any situation. "Had" . . . . or "If only" . . . .

So, had everyone from the parade stays home, no one would have been hit by that SUV.

The Africa analogy--what is that relevant too? The lion you state, was in its own habitat. The mob at the insurrection, well, at least a few of the people who got shot, were not in their own habitat.

Simple as that.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

Strangerland,

I agree with that. The combination of carry, stand your ground and self-defence laws is a recipe for disaster, and this verdict will only exacerbate it. The Trayvon Martin case in Florida is another example. Unfortunately, the court can only rule on the application of the laws that exist.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The kid is not a hero, he even said so...

All heroes say that.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

You mean MTG won't be an angry, attention-seeking troll next year November?

Actually, all the name calling of this woman is not bothering for her. When she becomes part of the majority next year she’s going to have the final laugh and that’s another reason why you see a lot of Dems not seeking re-election.

Why not? Is she going to morph into Abe Lincoln once the GOP takes back the House?

I see

Another big question is, if you see a 17-year-old kid wandering around the street with an AR-15, can you consider that kid to be a threat? How is anyone supposed to be able to figure out who the good guy with the gun is?

Ok, the trial is finished, they went through that and the jury were supposed to rule on the facts of, was the use of deadly force in a self-defense trial justified and the jury after 25 hours of deliberations felt it was, case closed. Now it’s time for Kyle to go after everyone that defamed him and get paid.

You're right about that. I just wonder why he's being treated as such in the magaverse.

Not Magaverse (whatever that is) more about this was a huge win for the right to self-defense, absolute huge win.

Your man Tucker described him as a young man who "tries his best to do the right thing at a time when almost no one else in the community is trying to do the right thing.” Sounds like the description of a hero, doesn't it?

Well, given the fact that his intentions were noble even though it was actually the wrong thing to do in that fashion, and the fact that he wanted to help a friend to defend his shop is in fact, a very noble thing given the crazy circumstances surrounding the summer riots of last year.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

They weren't being chased across a carpark, cornered and lunged at, being swung at with skateboards or having Glocks pointed at them by the protesters.

That is because they exercised good judgment not to incite others to attack them, even though they were also carrying guns. Those other gun-carrying people said so themselves that this kid stood out by being alone and acting nervous and funny.

> So, had everyone from the parade stays home, no one would have been hit by that SUV.

How is that remotely relevant? Are you saying that the SUV had every right to be there mowing down people? No. The SUV had no right to bust through a barricade. Just like Kyle had no right to place himself in a situation like that in the manner that he did and not expect to be met with resistance.

You don't go up to protesters waving around your gun and expect that others won't take offense to that. He should have known that shooting dead one person will cause others to deem him an active shooter and do everything they can to take him down before he kills others. Maybe in Japan, bystanders will simply run away from an attacker. But in America, most Americans would help others out, or try to take down someone attacking them.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

That is because they exercised good judgment not to incite others to attack them....

that this kid stood out by being alone and acting nervous and funny.

so this is how he "incited" someone to attack him? I didnt see anything that he was "waving" his gun around either.

Its odd how we had a whole trial and an acquittal and people still saying "racist murderer" and defending the pedo, woman beaters and violent felons who attacked him.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

missrayToday  11:16 am JST

That is because they exercised good judgment not to incite others to attack them, even though they were also carrying guns. Those other gun-carrying people said so themselves that this kid stood out by being alone and acting nervous and funny. 

They exercised good judgment in chasing someone across a car park, swinging a skateboard at someone's head, pulling s gun on someone, threatening to kill someone without being provoked?

Two of them are dead, one was shot in the arm---good judgment?

How is that remotely relevant? Are you saying that the SUV had every right to be there mowing down people? No. The SUV had no right to bust through a barricade. Just like Kyle had no right to place himself in a situation like that in the manner that he did and not expect to be met with resistance. 

I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of your lion in Africa analogy..

US law says Kyle was within his legal rights to be where he was.

You don't go up to protesters waving around your gun and expect that others won't take offense to that. He should have known that shooting dead one person will cause others to deem him an active shooter and do everything they can to take him down before he kills others. Maybe in Japan, bystanders will simply run away from an attacker. But in America, most Americans would help others out, or try to take down someone attacking them.

The protesters were waving their guns around--two days before Kyle even arrived there. That was ok for them to act like that?

And the court proved Kyle was not an active shooter--despite what some insurrectionists claimed.

The court decision is very basic and easy to understand. I don't know why you are arguing against what was already decided in a court of law.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

That is because they exercised good judgment not to incite others to attack them, even though they were also carrying guns.

Even if they had, they'd have been protected under the same self-defence law Rittenhouse was.

Those other gun-carrying people said so themselves that this kid stood out by being alone and acting nervous and funny.

Is that a valid reason to attack him? The first guy, Rosenbaum, was seen in videos setting fires, tipping over a Porta-Potty, and shouting the N-word.  Not hard to see who would have been the aggressor, there. Hint: probably not the guy seen earlier scrubbing graffiti off a high school.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Is Mr. Rittenhouse not guilty of a crime? Yes. I agree that he is not guilty of a crime.

Is Mr. Rittenhouse completely innocent? No. He is most definitely not innocent. I feel that even though he may have in some way had a right to defend himself, he is still liable in the deaths of two people, and in injuring another.

This is the dilemma facing the criminal justice system in America. To what extent can self-defense be applied. If Mr. Rittenhouse can claim self-defense, then too can the victims claim self-defense in trying to stop him from shooting more people. It goes both ways.

One thing I'd like to question is this. What would the outcome have been, had Mr. Rittenhouse been black?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

He shouldn't have been there with his AR-15 and ammo. I say this as a longtime gunowner and advocate for gun ownership. But seems the states of Illinois and Wisconsin don't see a problem with a 17 year old bringing a military style assault rifle across state lines to a demonstration and by doing so, ending up shooting people. The others at the demonstration should also not have been allowed to bring firearms. I disagree with this verdict but lay the blame on the these midwest State legislatures that don't do anything about their "Wild West" attitude towards firearms posession and carry. Over the past decades the NRA has brainwashed gunowners into believing that any restriction on gun owmership, posession or carry, no matter sensible in order to maintain a safe society, is an infringement on the individual's right to bear arms.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Blacklabel:

Just the other day you were saying that a woman driving a car was responsible for her six year-old daughter in the back seat being shot dead because her mother flipped the bird to the shooter, who had cut in front of her on the highway. No other way he could have responded, apparently. Now you’re claiming (like every St. Kyle of Kenosha fan here) that carrying a gun to a riot is somehow not an inflammatory action likely to draw attention to you and that the men killed by St. Kyle deserved it anyway because they had criminal records. Sounds to me as if as far as you’re concerned pretty much any gun-loving American “hero” can fire a gun at whoever, wherever, and there’s an excuse for him, as long as he’s on the right side of politics and/or the gun control argument as you see it.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

peterlToday  11:56 am JST

Is Mr. Rittenhouse not guilty of a crime? Yes. I agree that he is not guilty of a crime.

Is Mr. Rittenhouse completely innocent? No. He is most definitely not innocent. I feel that even though he may have in some way had a right to defend himself, he is still liable in the deaths of two people, and in injuring another. 

Is there a court decision saying he is not innocent? Or is that just an opinion? Fine if it is just an opinion.

This is the dilemma facing the criminal justice system in America. To what extent can self-defense be applied.

The extent to what self-defense can be applied was illustrated in that trial. It is a very basic legal concept thst goes back to English law.

If Mr. Rittenhouse can claim self-defense, then too can the victims claim self-defense in trying to stop him from shooting more people. It goes both ways. 

It doesn't go both ways. Rittenhouse was protecting himself. The "victims" were trying to injure him; not to protect others.

One thing I'd like to question is this. What would the outcome have been, had Mr. Rittenhouse been black?

That is a question, but the wrong question for this case. The better question is, What would the outcome have been if Rittenhouse had been black, and if the three people he shot were also black?

If a black defendant used deadly force to defend himself from severe injury or death against three black insurrectionists, the black defendant would be not guilty, under the current laws.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

missray,

*You don't go up to protesters waving around your gun and expect that others won't take offense to that. *

That would be brandishing and, in Wisconsin, falls under the 'negligent handling or operation of a dangerous weapon' category of crimes. In other states, it's something like unlawful use of a weapon. If there was evidence of Rittenhouse doing that, he'd likely have been charged with it.

The one gun charge he did face was dropped (unreasonably, I thought) before jury deliberations.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

When she becomes part of the majority next year she’s going to have the final laugh and that’s another reason why you see a lot of Dems not seeking re-election.

The template again. Sure, sure.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The kid is not a hero, he even said so...

All heroes say that.

I’m not a hero. Thank you.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

One thing I'd like to question is this. What would the outcome have been, had Mr. Rittenhouse been black?

Would have claimed self defense and found not guilty like Andrew Coffee IV who actually shot at police yet was neither killed nor convicted of shooting police.

Self defense isn’t racist.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

OssanAmericaToday  12:00 pm JST

He shouldn't have been there with his AR-15 and ammo.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This was not an issue in the case though.

But seems the states of Illinois and Wisconsin don't see a problem with a 17 year old bringing a military style assault rifle across state lines to a demonstration and by doing so, ending up shooting people.

He did not bring the rifle across state lines to a demonstration. The gun was already in Wisconsin.

If there was a problem similar to what you describe it would be that one of the people Rittenhosue shot, Gaige Grosskreutz, brought a gun across state lines to the demonstration.

The others at the demonstration should also not have been allowed to bring firearms.

Right. But the issue in this case was not about bringing firearms anywhere. It was about the right to use deadly force in self-defense of oneself.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Lets reward a murderer. That is totally Hollywood.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

One thing I'd like to question is this. What would the outcome have been, had Mr. Rittenhouse been black?

Ask Andrew Coffee, he is black and was found not guilty on the same day as Rittenhouse was.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Peter14Today  12:26 pm JST

Lets reward a murderer. That is totally Hollywood.

Who would that be? Rittenhouse wan't even charged with murder.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

The jury has deliberated and returned a verdict.

Dont like it?

The door is on the left….

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Both Rittenhouse and the bubbas here suffered from the worst form of white privilege. They were not cops. Nobody asked for their help. But because they were white and entitled, they decided to Rambo up and insert themselves into a situation and found the trouble they were looking for.

Little Kyle got off because the letter of the law made a defense plausible from the legal standard and the logical question of “Who made you a cop?” was not legally relevant.

The bubba triplets didn’t get off because they tried to chase down a person who had done nothing to them and also because there was video.

But in neither case were they empowered to act as law enforcement or asked to serve in that capacity.

White privileged incarnate.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

RegBilk:

It doesn't go both ways. Rittenhouse was protecting himself. The "victims" were trying to injure him; not to protect others.

Oh, but it does go both ways. Mr. Rittenhouse fired first, killing one man. Yes, he may have felt threatened by that man he shot and thus that can be considered self-defense. We agree on that.

But then, after having fired that shot, the other protesters, some who were unarmed, around him felt threatened by Mr. Rittenhouse because he had the gun and he was the only one to fire a shot. So, those protesters can go ahead and claim self-defense in trying to stop Mr. Rittenhouse from firing at more people.

After all, if someone fires a weapon at or near where you are standing, even if you're not the intended target, you can consider yourself to being threatened by that shooter. If a shooter shows the ability to shoot once, then he or she can shoot again.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

That Americans are able to able to walk around freely while armed to the teeth is something I probably will never understand. Nevertheless, Rittenhouse was going about his business in accordance with the law. If you do not like that, do not hate on Rittenhouse; campaign to have the law changed.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Lets reward a murderer. That is totally Hollywood.

The jury thought differently.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

America’s liberal elites are broken. They are now totally deranged and detached from reality. That’s become brutally clear in the past 24 hours. While we all knew it was coming, the collective media and political meltdown over the acquittal of 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse has revealed a ruling class so warped, so unprincipled, so governed by partisan prejudice, that it essentially lives in a parallel universe.

A wonderful quote from Spiked regarding the Rittenhouse case. Food for thought?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If there was a problem similar to what you describe it would be that one of the people Rittenhosue shot, Gaige Grosskreutz, brought a gun across state lines to the demonstration.

..... But the issue in this case was not about bringing firearms anywhere. It was about the right to use deadly force in self-defense of oneself.

After Rittenhouse shot and killed the first (unarmed) man, and then ran away, bystanders understandably saw him as an active shooter. Wasn't Grosskreutz one of the fabled 'good men with a gun' trying to protect the streets from the likes of Rittenhouse, who was running in the street waving a weapon around? What would the reaction have been if Grosskreutz had shot and killed or incapacitated the kid? Would he be the hero? Would he have been acting in 'self-defence'?

Maybe Americans can make sense of this verdict, but from the sensible side of the world all we can see is a kid can take a firearm to a protest, shoot an unarmed man and then two others, claim 'self-defence' - and get away with it.

It's crazy. totally crazy and incomprehensible.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites