Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

Oh well I feel that this tragedy was politicized before Kyle was driven to the republican side of it. But I feel it is the democrats fault since they chose to politicize it in the media first it seems, it's there fault for choosing to be his enemy, and thereby pushing to the republican side. If you choose to make enemies, those enemies could then team up with one's other enemies as a result, if they have no friends.

If democrats chose not to politicize the tragedy at all, then Kyle would have nothing to capilitize on afterwards.

Looks like a pretty normal reaction to being acquitted after having been on trial for your life to me.

One thing I learned from watching the trial, Kyle keeps being hailed by the media as a white supremist, yet not only were the three people he shot white, but he was helping protect a business, that was owned by none-white people. How could some people possibly believe he was a white supramist if he was helping non-white friends of his in a riot situation...

Morally, however, we are free to find it repugnant that he could profit while two lie dead.

Some people are really, really, really, stupid.

I think its hard to say, personally, but it seems lately that anything newsworthy is going to force itself into one polarized box or the other. I'm not sure anyone can prevent it anymore. I'm not sure any single side is to blame anymore; its just become the unfortunate dynamics of our society.

But how do the democrats and republicans decide which side to take? What if they both coincidentally take the same side, since it's a 50/50 chance? Do they just see who takes the opposite side first then as a result if they feel they cannot agree?

At the moment if it's evil then you got the republican's attention.

I had been wondering about their focus on the Left's words\plans\actions...Thank you for explaining it.

At the moment if it's evil then you got the republican's attention.

From the Associated Press . . .

The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing.

The Journal Sentinel reports Dominick Black, 20, was charged in November 2020 with two counts of delivering a dangerous weapon to a minor, resulting in death. The two counts related to Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, the protesters Rittenhouse fatally shot the night of Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha.

Black was 18 when he purchased the rifle for Rittenhouse at a hardware store in Rusk County in May of that year. At 17, Rittenhouse was too young to legally purchase the weapon.

In August 2020, Rittenhouse used the rifle to kill two people and wound a third during protests in Kenosha. In November, a jury found him not guilty, based on his claim of self-defense.

Black was the first prosecution witness at Rittenhouse’s trial, but the status of his own charges were up in the air after Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed to throw out one of the charges against Rittenhouse — that he unlawfully possessed a firearm as a minor. The defense convinced Schroeder that an exception in the law allows 17-year-olds to possess rifles and shotguns, or at least left the law too vague to be enforceable.

On Friday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger filed a proposed plea agreement. It suggested Black would plead no contest to a pair of citations, and pay a $2,000 fine, and the felony counts would be dismissed.

A hearing is scheduled Monday morning. Schroeder could reject the deal, or dismiss the original felony counts based on his ruling about the minors-with-firearms law in the Rittenhouse case.