Airsoft Forums UK

Happy with the verdict. Thought it was heading towards a hung jury. 

Yes, with four days of deliberations I can only imagine the histrionics from the hold-outs.

The best bit was seeing CNN reporting "We can now reveal that Rittenhouse was staying with his father in Kenosha, and that the rifle was already here", while sweating bullets as they realise the potential costs of their "misreporting" of all the crimes that it turns out he didn't commit.

The dirty, dirty smear merchants did absolutely everything they could to lie about the facts, poison the jury pool, and ultimately to try and doxx and intimidate them.  I hope Kyle ends up owning all of their houses.

I really hope he sues all those smear merchants for running their fake narratives. The mainstream media needs to be held to account for calling him all the horrible things and flat out stating that he did things he didn't do. The "he brought the gun across state lines" is still being pushed by some, it's crazy.

Exactly. I'm not even that interested in the politics of it (Colonial matters), but the actions of the corporate media there and here in smearing him with blatant factual falsehoods is truly horrifying because it could happen to anyone.  Make no mistake about it, all of us here are ripe to be demonised as "gun nuts".

It seems blatantly clear that they tried with deliberate malice to deny him a fair trial on the facts, and to simply convict him in a kangaroo court of manufactured public outrage.

Now they're frantically backpeddling and disavowing their own lies, purely out of damage control.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouse-didnt-illegally-bring-043226324.html

It shouldn't have gone so far given how overwhelming the evidence was in his favour (but then, there was a lot of bullshit going around about it & still is even now). The memes were pretty good though:





https://imgur.com/gallery/4386htf

Crazy how many people still haven't read up on the facts regarding this trial.  I've been watching it on Court TV since day 1.  It's been an interesting trial for sure, some parallels with VCRA in regards to gift'ing a firearm to under 18's and the incredibly bad way the Wisconsin under 18 firearm law is written which led to one of the charges being dismissed.  

Indeed, Kyle's chum is still on the hook for buying the AR-15 on his behalf, then handing it to him.  Given the use to which it was put, I hope he comes out of it OK.

The under-18 law doesn't seem that complicated. No purchase under 18, but open carry at 16-18, long barrelled rifle or shotgun, and not hunting without a licence. (Shh, I'm hunting paedophiles).  The absolute cheek of the Fat Prosecutor when the judge asked "Was the barrel under 16 inches?", and he answered "We don't think it was appropriate." [BOOM, charge dismissed]

I have a strong suspicion that if the foreKaren had been poised to deliver any guilty verdicts that the judge would have declared a mis-trial with prejudice.  That's an interesting point, that judges don't have to be neutral, but fair.  It's a subtle distinction, but judges can and do issue bench rulings both on the letter of the law (the firearms charge), and (more rarely) direct verdicts based on the evidence presented.

Right, off to the WuTubes to snack on the spicy memes.

It's always interesting to see the facts before the court and compare them with the 'facts' as in the press.  

I doubt that this is the last time this case is subject to legal action though.  

dominic black's (Kyle's friend) trial will certainly be interesting if it doesn't get dismissed. Two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to someone under 18, resulting in death.  However those deaths were in self-defense...boooom.  I read somewhere the 15" under 16 law comes from boys going hunting with their dads and the under 15" was for the rising drug murders (pistols and Tec9's) in the 90's.  

It has been quite an interesting study of ‘media manipulation’ of the legal system .

first few days after the shooting I was scouring the web to find any posted clips of the incidents and in a very short time I’d found the three shootings from several different angles and all showing it was blatantly obvious it was self defense .

 1st shooting you can see the guy running at him with something raised in his hand as if to hit the kid .

The 2nd he smacked the kid over the head from behind with a skateboard and was about to strike him again .

and the 3rd you can quite clearly see the ‘victim’ starting to point his hand which is holding something as if he’s going to point a hand gun at the kid . So it was self defense but the media wanted a sacrificial offering to the BLM mob .

The worrying thing is the precedent it now sets for any other right wing nutjob to provoke a confrontation like this moron did then claim self defence again.  If he was black he would have been shot by the cops, that simple.  

I imagine that it will provoke a storm of CRT analysis.  

Assuming serious...

"right wing nutjob"

Mr Rittenhouse is going to become very rich from people telling and repeating that lie. I've seen not one shred of evidence that he's either right wing in any meaningful sense, or mentally unstable.  If you think you've seen otherwise, it's from people who are about to pay for it.

"to provoke a confrontation"

Was his presence sufficient to do that?  He was there (in the town where he lives with his father) demonstrably cleaning up graffiti, putting out fires, and rendering medical air.  The prosecution's witnesses all testified to that. 

He wasn't wearing any political symbols, or making any political statements, to the best of my knowledge.  Is putting out the fire started by an arsonist "provoking" them?

If the provocation was that he was (quite legally, as it turn out) armed, then that also applies to Gaige Grosskreutz who was carrying an (illegal) handgun, and who expressed regrets that he didn't execute Mr Rittenhouse with it.

"like this moron did"

He doesn't appear to have a particularly low IQ.  Is helping people an act of stupidity?

"then claim self defence again."

It was self defence, according to the jury. They took their time to think about it as well.

Do you subscribe to the prosecutor's rather startling theory that you can only defend yourself if you're unarmed?

"If he was black he would have been shot by the cops, that simple."

Rather a moot point, since I didn't see a lot of black teens there doing what Kyle was doing (cleaning up, putting out fires, medical air), and the police had abandoned the area.

If they hadn't, there would have been no need for decent people to have to defend it from mobs of arsonists and looters.

We have come to two very different views from the same set of facts, or else we're working from very different evidential bases.