Was Rittenhouse not convicted because ..."self defense"?...Why let go? I don't understand..

[Stuart G]

....Perhaps this is me, but some others think the same way...Why let go?

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. Why let go?

I do not understand

[Stuart G]

2. Why was he "not convicted of murder"?

[Ferrets are Cool]

3. That I do not have the answer to

other than a jury full of right wing nazi's.

[Stuart G]

4. I guess you are correct..."jury of right wing nazis"..& a very stupid, self serving judge..

[Polybius]

21. There were people of color on that jury

Doubt they are Nazis.

[Historic NY]

31. The black the Judge referred to.

[Ferrets are Cool]

48. Kin of Herman Cain?

[Polybius]

49. Or maybe they saw something most of us didn't

No idea.

[Gaugamela]

5. Because the jury decided he acted in self-defense. I can understand disagreement with

that finding, but I don’t understand “why let go?” Self-defense nullifies any homicide charge.

[Marius25]

14. They believed he shot in self-defense as one of the guys leaped at him

and tried to take his gun.

[Sympthsical]

6. The evidence pointed to it

The state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn't self-defense based on the evidence and testimony presented in the trial.

[Stuart G]

7. Thank You for a clear explanation of what the jury decided..Thanks again..

[Solomon]

47. And again... and again... and again...

[AlexSFCA]

8. Can someone explain how his life was threatened that he had to use lethal force

He killed two people and injured another one, what did these three people do or try to do exactly to him?

[LeftInTX]

10. His attorneys convinced the jury

The judge was horrible and suppressed evidence that could have convicted him. The prosecution was inept.

The jury was not convinced that he had the right to use lethal force, the jury just said he was not guilty of murder.....

[Hav]

11. What evidence was suppressed? (n/t)

[LeftInTX]

12. Judge said prosecutors could not call the victims, victims etc.

[Hav]

15. That's not suppressing evidence

that could have let to a conviction.
That's a standard this judge reportedly followed for years.

[Hav]

16. One was chasing him, got close

and allegedly got close to grabbing the gun. One attacked him with a skateboard and tried to get or push away Rittenhouse's gun, the third got shot after raising his gun.

[Stuart G]

17. Thank You...That makes the decision clearer for me..While I don't agree, it does make things clearer

Thanks again for the explanation...

[Tribetime]

18. By that time they were trying to stop an active shooter

[Hav]

28. And they had good reasons for believing that

That's why I think Grosskreutz wouldn't have been convicted had he shot Rittenhouse, especially after Rittenhouse raised his gun.

[Diraven]

38. Remember when everyone was saying on TV

That if kids see an active shooter in their school that they should all rush him at the same time to disarm him because he couldn't possibly shoot them all before they got him, instead of just hiding like sitting ducks and all getting shot one by one? Well, with this case as precedent now the school shooter can claim self-defense if that happens.

[GPV]

44. Yep

[BeerBarrelPolka]

45. Yes

I teach self defense tactics. It includes weapon disarms among a host of other things. What's interesting to me is some of the trump supporters I know are now telling me how they will not hesitate to shoot someone. Most of it is bluster for sure, but still I am confident that some will actually feel embolden to do it. Rittenhouse lives about 20 minutes from me.

[AlexSFCA]

20. are those witness based facts or just testimony by the defendant?

[Hav]

23. Witnesses, victim testimony + video footage

of several participants and the FBI.

[Polybius]

24. Two are on video (the skateboard and the pointed gun)

The other one is less clear.

[Progressive Jones]

25. They were trying to take down an active shooter who had already killed someone.

Any means necessary should have been used to do so. Huber, at the least, is a dead hero.

[VarryOn]

27. Evidence given at trial says the guy (Rosenbaum) has said he was going to kill him...

Apparently, he said it more than once.

[PDT69]

32. Did you not watch the trial?

The videos show pretty clearly what happened.

[Tomconroy]

40. It's all on video.

[Kaleva]

41. His life didn't have to be threatened in order to use self defense.

According to WI law, Rittenhouse just had be be in fear of great bodily harm. And according to WI law, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not in fear of great bodily harm. The video of Rosenburg chasing Rittenhouse and of the 2nd person hitting Rittenhouse with his skateboard after he had tripped and fallen while fleeing and of the third person's testimony that he had aimed his illegally carried handgun at Rittenhouse pretty much made it impossible for the prosecution to do that.

[Historic NY]

9. The good guy with the gun blinked

which means if your going through all the trouble to get a gun, for self-protection do just that. Don't become the victim.

[Devil Child]

13. Who was the good guy with the gun?

[Frasier Balzov]

26. Gaige Grosskreutz

Who apparently pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse in the belief he was an active shooter on a rampage.

[Devil Child]

29. Grosskreutz was carrying an illegally concealed handgun that evening

[Historic NY]

30. Oh but the shooter wasn't

Kenosha doesn't give a shit about permits...they had a fired whack job cop carrying the other day, they were treating him like a long lost brethren

[Historic NY]

37. But the guy the other day wasn't.

[Diraven]

39. His gun was legal

Because he was ruled to be hunting

[Kaleva]

42. The charge was dropped because he was carrying a gun that exceeded the minimum length.

[Stuart G]

19. Please, Please...read post 16 by Hav.. It explains a lot..

[H2O Man]

22. Because the prosecution

had not convinced the jury beyonf a reasonanle doubt. O yjomk he was guilty as sin. But the jury only evaluates the evidence that is allowed into court. I think the judge influenced the jury's decision.

[orleans]

43. heard a few lawyers & analysists on a few shows today

(in the car, listening to wcpt radio)
one guy said the prosecutor never should have led with the one guy who pointed his gun at the little shit. he said it set up for self defense right away, and juries remember the primary witnesses [i think he used the word primary--or something that sounded like that]

others discussing the case were saying the jury followed the rules they were told to--and that wisconsin gun laws suck; if you don't want this crap happening again then change the wisconsin gun laws

[Buckeye_Democrat]

46. He was convicted of nothing because the laws...

... of Wisconsin allowed it. The jury seemed to rule in compliance with those laws, in my opinion.

But it was still immoral behavior from Rittenhouse, just like it would be wrong for me to travel with a gun to some riot in Columbus OH after a football game because I was supposedly trying to help the police with a riot. It's probably LEGAL, but it would still be immoral behavior on my part.