Didn't Rittenhouse claim he was in Kenosha to protect a car dealership?

[Ohioboy]

So why was his ass roaming around the streets? I'm pretty sure car dealerships stay in one spot. Did anyone ever ask this question during his trial?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

1. I think there were several car sales lots in the area owned by the same guy.

[Mad_Machine76]

2. Good question

but it all is sort of irrelevant to me since:
1. The Car dealership owners (I believe) denied that they asked him to "defend" them
2. Even IF the Car dealership owners somehow "deputized" him to "defend" them, Rittenhouse had no legal authority to do so and/or do what he did.

[LiberalFighter]

3. I doubt the dealership would had hired him without risking

their insurance company having a problem.

[Mad_Machine76]

7. I didn't think about that

but I don't think any company *in their right mind* would just have vigilantes patrolling their establishment for liability reasons alone.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Yep

[Bev54]

12. The owners of the dealership said on the stand they did not hire him

or ask him to protect their dealership. I have seen FB posts that said his family owned the dealership and that is also wrong. The dealership is owned by a family but not his.

[LiberalFighter]

14. That is what I thought about the ownership too.

There wasn't anything reported in the news that he was part of the family for the dealership. No mention of what or where his father was either.

[Botany]

4. It doesn't matter. The police and law enforcement saw him walking around with his "long gun" ...

... and never stopped him, I think the police even gave him water, and the fix was in as per the trial. What judge
doesn't know to turn off his or her phone in court? Playing Trump's theme song was no accident.

[sarcasmo]

5. The Kenosha dealership rebuked his claim, see below.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/09/03/kenosha-car-dealer-denies-he-asked-gunmen-protect-his-business/5705974002/

[Ohioboy]

9. Thanks for the link

Funny how the car dealership owner never asked for protection of his already burned out business, yet assholes were using his misfortune to have an excuse to carry around their beloved guns. I'm thinking the Kenosha police should be investigated.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. It was brought up during the trial

But it was also irrelevant to the self defense claim.

[Ohioboy]

10. In other words...

You can cause the problem that leads to self defense, but then get off because what you did to cause it becomes irrelevant later in court.

What a win for violent assholes. Just make sure you say you "feared for your life" after creating a volatile situation in which others feel threatened.

Sorry, but how Rittenhouse got off totally scot free, without even a gun charge, this is still bothering me.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

11. The prosecution tried for provocation

But the provocation they tried for was claiming Rittenhouse aimed his rifle at someone prior to being chased by Rosenbaum. The evidence to back it up was lacking and the person they claimed Rittenhouse aimed at was never called up to testify that it actually happened. His being there was never going to be seen as provocation legally as many others were there as well. If it wasn't provocative for the others, then its not going to be for him. He would have had to have actively provoked the attack, such as aiming his rifle at someone, for it to be provocation.
Also, the gun charge was dropped because, under Wisconsin law, he was carrying the rifle legally.

[Ohioboy]

13. I thought there was video evidence that he pointed his gun

From what I remember the defense never disputed that evidence. They did try to question whether zooming in on the video would alter the video.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. It's immaterial at this point.

The jury didn't find sufficient evidence to convict Rittenhouse of a crime. This doesn't mean Rittenhouse is a good person. It means Wisconsin law is fucking stupid and should probably be changed.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

17. Yep

The weapons charge would have stuck in most other states, but not Wisconsin.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

16. Prosecution showed the video and a still frame from it

The defense argued that zooming in would alter the image to where you could not determine what the video actually shows. Being that the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict, its not a stretch to see why a rather poor quality video and image didn't reach that level. The defenses arguments was basically to instill that doubt. It would have been far better to get testimony from the person whom the prosecution said the rifle was pointed at, but they didn't call him up, nor another witness, the man's wife, to testify.