Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Owen

Everything but tech support.
}

1252, 19 Nov 21

Not Guilty

Justice is done.

A US teenager who shot dead two men during racial justice protests has been cleared of homicide and all other counts after claiming self-defence.

}

1252, 19 November 2021

63 Comments

  1. Merlin

    Well, courtroom justice has been done. Street “justice” is still waiting for the sun to go down.

  2. jonnyv

    Ultimately I hope he just vanishes and I never hear his name again, but…

    Odds are he will be the next “Joe the Plumber” or George Zimmerman. For the next 2 years he will make his rounds at every Republican event. He will sell books, and the NRA will make some awful documentary on him.

    Then at some point in the future he will have a negative run in with the law. Because lets be honest, he isn’t the brightest bulb in the bunch, and my guess is that based on what I have seen of his family, it isn’t like he has a great base to start out at. At that point the Republican party will forget about him and his life and fame will spiral. Most places probably won’t hire him due to bad publicity. His life is probably royally screwed anyway.

    I hope that I am wrong about a lot of that. But??? Ugggh.

    He ILLEGALLY brought a firearm across state lines looking for trouble, on top of being underage. And when he found that trouble, he ended up killing 2 people.

    I am not shocked by the verdict, but I wouldn’t call it justice.

  3. Mar

    “He ILLEGALLY brought a firearm across state lines looking for trouble”
    That is just a total lie. He did not cross State lines with the gun. The gun was in Kenosha and never in Illinois.
    Stop watching MSNBC or CNN.

  4. Mar

    “but I wouldn’t call it justice.”
    Johnny, what you would call it?
    I don’t think you watched the trial, but you got your news from a liberal media outlet or social media.

  5. Mark Hoefert

    He ILLEGALLY brought a firearm across state lines looking for trouble, on top of being underage. And when he found that trouble, he ended up killing 2 people.

    Tell me without telling me you have not followed the details of the case,

    He did not bring a gun across state lines. So nothing ILLEGAL there.

    Looking for trouble? Looks like the trouble found him – especially the guy that liked to put his dick in little boy’s anuses. Leroy Nord devastated at the loss of life of such a fine character.

    Underage? For what? Not for having the gun. Not for “crossing state lines” – no age restrictions there – kids as young as 16 drive across state lines to go to Great America.

    Might have been a curfew violation, but it does not appear that the State went after people in violation of that – pretty much anyone that was out during the riots.

  6. jonnyv

    Mar. Stop watching Fox News. See how fun that is. I haven’t had cable in 12 years.

    Even if he didn’t bring it across state lines, he was underage and carrying a dangerous weapon and got the charges dropped based on what accounts to a loophole and muddy and conflicting wording in the state’s laws. I am not disagreeing with the judge’s decision to drop the charge, just that it is clearly a loophole in the law.

    So congrats on that. So you are clearly ok with any 17 year old walking around with an AR-15 then? Can’t wait for the inner city gangs to find out they just need a short barrel rifle and they are in the clear.

    I can’t wait until his buddy that gave him the gun is found guilty and serves more time than him.

  7. jonnyv

    Mark, the INTENT of the law is that a minor (under 18) is not to be in possession of a firearm. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
    He was let off on that based on a technicality. Pure and simple. He was not hunting, he was not under an adult’s supervision.

  8. Mar

    So, Johnny, you oppose juveniles to go hunting?

  9. jonnyv

    Mar, not at all. As long as they are actually hunting. WITH A VALID LICENSE. WITH GUN SAFETY CLASSES. UNDER ADULT SUPERVISION.

  10. Mar

    How come Johnny, why don’t you have the same anger towards the thugs who died and the other that almost had his arm almost blown off?

  11. Mark Hoefert

    I can’t wait until his buddy that gave him the gun is found guilty and serves more time than him.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that, or for Gaige “Lefty” Grosskreutz to get charged with carrying a concealed gun without a permit.

    I think Kenosha County DA’s ticket has been punched – they want this crap show to be over.

  12. Mar

    “wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that, or for Gaige “Lefty” Grosskreutz to get charged with carrying a concealed gun without a permit.”
    Add in a felon with a gun.

  13. jonnyv

    Mar, I can see this both ways. From the protester’s view, you have someone running with a rifle that has just shot someone. Your plan is to disarm the person who you think is dangerous before they shoot someone else. You know… something a hero would do.

    From the 17 year old bonehead’s perspective. He just shot someone, arguably in self defense. And now he is fleeing and your adrenaline is probably going nuts. People are chasing you and you don’t know their intent.

    I do think that Rittenmoron was shooting in what he thought was self defense. But, he also put himself in that position. He went to a RIOT with a AR-15, when NO ONE asked him to. He was UNDERAGE and INEXPERIENCED. He is dumb. If he was truly just there to help, he would have just brought his first aid pack and not something that has the capability to end someone’s life.

    And as for the men that he killed. Rosenbaum (the first victim) was mentally unstable and had just been released for a suicide attempt. He was also a child molester and scum. He ultimately was the catalyst for the situation.

    Huber was none of those things. All he had was some old domestic issue with a brother. By almost all accounts, he was a very upstanding citizen and person.

    And Grosskreutz was using his gun to take try and stop someone whom he thought was an active shooter. You know, the NRA wet-dream of a hero and his gun.

  14. jonnyv

    Woops. Hit submit before I was done….

    While Grooskreuez IS a felon, he was there to provide assistance to protesters. Ultimately he should NOT have had a gun. But it doesn’t seem to be an issue with this crowd as to whether you should or shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm.

  15. Merlin

    Responsibility for the entire affair falls squarely on the dimwitted politicians of Kenosha for abandoning the streets to the rioting mobs in the first place. Had law enforcement been allowed to enforce the law the mobs would have been at least somewhat constrained. The vigilante wannabes would not have been drawn into the leaderless vacuum. Rittenhouse is a consequence of their exceedingly poor decision making. Those clowns shouldn’t be let off the hook.

  16. Mar

    Johnny, Grooskreuez pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and that is when he was shot.
    And didn’t Huber hit Rittenhouse with his skateboard? If that is the case, that’s using deadly force
    But again, you are more ticked off at Rittenhouse but you are giving the rioters a pass.
    If the were no riots, then Rittenhouse would have no one to shoot at.

  17. Mar

    I might add, if Jacob Blake didn’t act like a complete jackals, we would never have been in this situation.

  18. jonnyv

    Mar. You are not looking at it from the protester’s perspective. You just saw someone running away from a shooting with a gun. People are yelling, “That’s HIM. He’s the shooter!”

    Huber pushed his GF away and went after the shooter without knowing the situation. His instinct was to protect. He was trying to disarm a shooter with a skateboard.

    None of these people are without fault. They were all at a protest that had potential to get dangerous.

    I am not ticked off at Rittenmoron. He is a dumb kid, raised in a dumb family. Pretty simple. I actually feel sorry for him, because I don’t see anything good coming out of this for him in the future. But it is hard to feel sorry for a kid that while out on bond, flaunts himself in a bar with a shirt that says, “Free as F*CK” and then takes photos while flashing a prominent white power sign with a bunch of racist Proud Boys. A GOOD PARENT would not let him put himself in that situation after the incident, purely for optics. But nope… mommy dearest doesn’t seem like she has a great head on her shoulders either. Where was she when her underage son was bringing a gun to a protest? With family like this, I don’t see the sun shining on this kid’s future.

  19. Mar

    You are right,I don’t look it from the rioters point of view.
    As far as I am concerned, those who destroyed property, tried to hurt or kill cops and those who attacked Rittenhouse, I have no sympathy for them.
    I don’t think Rittenhouse is a hero. But he had to do what he had to do, which is to save his life.
    But I will say this, you put on a better prosecution than the Kenosha ADA.

  20. dad29

    As usual, JonnyV hasn’t a clue.

    The FIRST rule when carrying a lethal weapon is “Avoid the conflict if at all possible.” That’s why Kyle ran away, dumbass.

    Then one of your innocent little babies FIRED A HANDGUN while chasing Kyle. Not very smart.

    Rittenhouse showed far better trigger discipline, aim, and effectiveness than most cops do, and most members of the military, too. The only people he shot were people who were attacking him.

    By the way, CITIZENS defend each other’s rights when Governments fail. The Kenosha Government failed, as did Evers, and he did his duty.

    Yes, it was DUTY. But you wouldn’t understand that.

  21. dad29

    By the way, JonnyV: your demi-hero Grosskreutz has a conviction for slapping the crap out of his grandmother. Wanna re-consider your admiration for this POS?

  22. MjM

    JV regurgitates the leftist lie:” He ILLEGALLY brought a firearm across state lines looking for trouble“

    How ironic that you claim Rittenhouse “a dumb kid, raised in a dumb family ”, a “bonehead”, and ”isn’t the brightest bulb.”

    Project much?

    JV rolls on as the real dim bulb: “ Huber was none of those things. By almost all accounts, he was a very upstanding citizen and person.”

    “By almost all accounts”…..

    2018:

    940.19(1) Battery Misd. A Dismissed on Prosecutor’s Motion
    Modifier: 939.62(1)(a) Repeater
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse

    2 947.01(1) Disorderly Conduct Misd. B Guilty Due to Guilty Plea
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
    Modifier: 939.62(1)(a) Repeater

    2012:

    1 941.30(2) 2nd-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony G Charge Dismissed but Read In
    Modifier: 939.63(1)(c) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse

    2 940.235(1) Strangulation and Suffocation Felony H Guilty Due to Guilty Plea
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse

    3 940.30 False Imprisonment Felony H Guilty Due to Guilty Plea
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
    Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

    4 940.19(1) Battery Misd. A Charge Dismissed but Read In
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
    Modifier: 939.63(1)(a) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

    5 947.01(1) Disorderly Conduct Misd. B Charge Dismissed but Read In
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
    Modifier: 939.63(1)(a) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

    6 947.01(1) Disorderly Conduct Misd. B Charge Dismissed but Read In
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse

    The rest of your ramblings can be tossed in the sewer, along with your ignorance, as useless supposition.

    Not to mention immaterial.

  23. MjM

    Daddio nails it: “ Rittenhouse showed far better trigger discipline…”

    …than Lt. Byrd, Alec Baldwin, and ADA Binger (who should be charged with a felony) combined.

  24. jonnyv

    Typical, you can’t defend Rittenmoron so you attack the victims. Of which none of that was known when they were killed.

    Please continue to bring up irrelevant facts about the victims history. Deflection is a great way to debate the subject.

  25. Jason

    >Typical, you can’t defend Rittenmoron so you attack the victims.

    No need to defend Rittenmoron (speaking of attacks…) – he was acquitted on all charges.

    >Please continue to bring up irrelevant facts about the victims history

    Please continue to share lies from the MSM, such as he brought the gun across state lines and what the “INTENT” of the law is. You haven’t brought a fact to the table yet JV. Just like always.

  26. Jason

    Hey jv, I bet you support Jerry Nadler’s statement today asking the DOJ to “review the not guilty verdict”. Does he think the Clerk of Courts got it wrong when reading it from Juror 54? What a fucking piece of shit from New Jersey.

  27. Mar

    Another fact wrong from Johnny: “Can’t wait for the inner city gangs to find out they just need a short barrel rifle and they are in the clear.”
    Actually, it would be illegal to have a short barrel gun. He was acquitted because he had a long barrel gun.

  28. Mar

    Oh, and Johnny, the “victims” were rioters, not protestors.

  29. MjM

    JV’s bulb grows dimmer by the minute: “ you can’t defend Rittenmoron so you attack the victims. ”

    No, we are just documenting what an idiot you are for belching such stupidly as, “ he was a very upstanding citizen and person” a year AFTER the rap sheet was well known.

    And I’ll defend Rittenhouse’s right to defend himself all f’n day long while you champion perverts, abusers, and granny smackers.

    No doubt you fit right in with them.

  30. Mar

    Dumbest comment if today or week: Tensions escalated dramatically in Portland, Oregon where a riot was declared after a group of about 200 protesters began hurling objects at police officers and damaging city buildings, cops said.
    Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell told KOIN that it is “reasonable to expect there will be some type of reaction to the verdict.”
    Why is it reasonable to riot and damage buildings and trying to hurt or kill cops?

  31. jonnyv

    Maybe I will just stick my head in the sand and ask for a recount over and over. That seems to be the Republican way. And when the numbers still come back against me, believe that it was “stolen”. That is what the right does, correct???

    Mar, when Rittenmoron showed up that night he was no better than any other rioter or protester. He was part of the problem. He was an underage idiot with a hero complex, bringing a deadly weapon to a riot. Every decision he made leading up to the incident was wrong.

    He better keep milking that money from suckers, cause with the civil suits most likely coming, he is gonna need it.

  32. Jason

    >He was part of the problem. He was an underage idiot with a hero complex, bringing a deadly weapon to a riot. Every decision he made leading up to the incident was wrong.

    I agree with you. Yet he was found not guilty of all the supposed crimes that have you foaming at the mouth. Unless you think bad judgement is a crime now. In which case you better uncover Juror 54 and explain it to them, because they and eleven others reject your idiocy.

    >He better keep milking that money from suckers, cause with the civil suits most likely coming, he is gonna need it.

    No doubt they are being discussed, but any honest lawyer would pass on a case. The Not Guilt on All Counts is a tough hurdle to overcome to get money from him.

  33. Jason

    >Maybe I will just stick my head in the sand and ask for a recount over and over. That seems to be the Republican way

    As I said earlier, that’s now Jerry Nadler’s way, and countless thousands of Gun Fearing liberals are calling for a federal trial now. So your ilk is actually worse that those you hate. Be proud jv, be proud.

  34. Mark Hoefert

    Wow, I used to think Nord was the stupidest commenter on this site. At least he has been smart enough to sit this one out.

    He better keep milking that money from suckers, cause with the civil suits most likely coming, he is gonna need it.

    You know shit about legalities, but I do agree that he will be milking money from suckers. Facebook, Twitter, CNN, MSNBC, GoFundMe, et al at this moment are (or should be) drawing up offers with NDAs & payments to Rittenhouse. Lots of receipts to pull. Smart lawyers know that there is big coin to be made pulling the short hairs on those enterprises.

    People who had Facebook and Twitter posts deleted for saying things like “Kyle is innocent” will be engaged by attorneys who are talking class action suits.

    Facebook will especially be taking it up the butt, Rosenbaum style. Deleted fund raisers for Kyle’s bond fund while allowing BLM bond fund raisers.

  35. dad29

    Maybe I will just stick my head in the sand and ask for a recount over and over

    Rumor has it the prosecutors requested mail-in jury ballots. That’s the Democrat way, after all.

  36. Mar

    I do agree Rittenhouse has a hero complex but he also has some training to back it up. He has firefighting, EMS and police training.
    And I disagree that he was no better than the rioters.
    He wasn’t burning down buildings, throwing things at cops, attacking other people.
    He only attacked when there was great serious harm against him, actual harm.
    But if you have a beef with the verdict, take it up with the District Attorneys. My guess is they went to clown school thinking it was a school of law.

  37. MjM

    JV doesn’t realize: “ Maybe I will just stick my head in the sand…”

    It’s obviously been there for quite some time. No need to reinsert.

  38. Le Roi du Nord

    “He was acquitted because he had a long barrel gun.”

    No, that isn’t true.

  39. Mar

    And Stolen Valor Le Roi starts off with a lie.
    Yes, he was moron.
    On the misdemeanor count.
    Even the DA admitted this.
    G Go back under the rock you have been hiding under, Pervert Boy Le Roi.

  40. Le Roi du Nord

    Wrong again, mar. The charge of possessing by a minor was dismissed because of a poorly written statute. He was not acquitted of that charge. Or don’t you know the difference between acquittal and dismissal?

  41. Mar

    Oh my, you just doubled down on lying and being stupid.
    The ADA agreed that the law didn’t apply to that charge.
    Come on Stolen Valor Le Roi, keep.on doubling down on stupid.
    He was acquitted on t hat charge and it was dismissed. Both are the same. He was not guilty.
    Come, keep on shoeing how stupid and uneducated you are.
    In the meantime, again tell us more about your military service.

  42. Mar

    Like your hero, Senile Joe Biden, you had a colonoscopy and they put that hose up your ass, all they found was your brain. All 5 brain cells.

  43. Le Roi du Nord

    No mar, he was not acquitted on that charge, as he wasn’t tried for it. it was dismissed. You can’t be acquitted, nor convicted, on a dismissed charge. I’m surprised that a highly educated guy like you doesn’t know that.

  44. Mar

    Darn, you are so stupid Stolen Valor Le Roi.
    They are both the same thing because the charge was dismissed during the trial.
    I guess you are quadrupling on stupid.
    I never knew that IQ numbers can be in the negative, but certainly you have a negative IQ.

  45. Mar

    “He ILLEGALLY brought a firearm across state lines looking for trouble, on top of being underage. And when he found that trouble, he ended up killing 2 people.”
    Umm, no. The gun was not in Illinois, the gun was in Wisconsin .
    There is no evidence he brought the gun over state lines.⁸

  46. Le Roi du Nord

    No mar, they aren’t the same thing. And no matter what names you call me, nor what false accusations you make, will make you correct.

  47. Mar

    Well, Pervert Boy Le Roi, who supports the former Milwaukee who likes watching babies being raped and cl and claims to falsely claims to.be in the military, you just showed. Your stupidity us beyond belief.
    And yes, being an uneducated moron, being acquitted and found not guiltily is the same thing.
    Just because with your oatmeal for brain says it is not true, the facts say differently.
    And seriously, this is what you want to g and your on?
    Johnny V at least admitted he was wrong, you just j I st want to troll and show how stupid you sre.

  48. Mar

    Definition of a acquittal “free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.
    .And this was during the trial.
    Why do you act like a troll?

  49. Le Roi du Nord

    There you go mar, providing your own proof of your false claim.

    BTW: Since the charge in question was dismissed by the judge, the defendant was no longer on trial for it. Hence, the jury made no verdict of “not guilty” on that dismissed charge per your example above, “free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty”.

  50. Mar

    Stolen V along, are you really that stupid or just acting like a troll.
    Either way, you really are pathetic.

  51. Le Roi du Nord

    There you go again mar, compensating for your failures by calling me names and making false accusations.

  52. Mar

    Hey, I am not the one who claimed you were in the military when you were not.
    But again, are you really that stupid or just trolling?

  53. Tuerqas

    Le Roi, the technicality you are running on is paper thin and pretty pointless. While sure, there is a paper difference between dismissed and not guilty, Mar is more correct. If a charge is dismissed, it means that the law does not apply so the defendant is indeed not guilty of breaking said law. He does not have to be officially found not guilty in court, because he is already not guilty.
    In fact, you could take it one more step towards Mar’s position and state that the charge should never have been brought up if it did not apply, also meaning the defendant is not guilty. While not guilty is not the same as dismissed so they are not fully interchangeable, dismissed has the same outcome/meaning as not guilty. If a law does not apply to you, you are not guilty of a charge made against you towards breaking that law. It is actually one step above not guilty, not below.

  54. Tuerqas

    All dismissals are court admissions of ‘not guilty’. (I know, that is all I had to say:)

  55. Le Roi du Nord

    “All dismissals are court admissions of ‘not guilty”

    Not necessarily true. mar claimed he was acquitted, “He was acquitted because he had a long barrel gun”, which is not the same as a dismissed. Heck mar even provided the proof that his initial claim was in error.

  56. Tuerqas

    But yet, it was basically the same thing because all acquittals result in, wait for it…dismissals.
    My take is that you picked the wrong terminology to fight in the first place. You are splitting the wrong hair. A dismissal is a result of a court finding or a judge or jury verdict. Every negative result is a dismissal. Every not guilty verdict results in dismissing the charges. Every time a charge is thrown out it results in a dismissal. In both cases charges are dismissed as a RESULT, so your tiny and bad point isn’t really even valid. The prosecution tried to get Rittenhouse convicted on a charge based on a barrel length. The court dismissed that charge based on their interpretation before it got to trial. They later dismissed other charges based on a verdict of not guilty. All charges were dismissed based on either inapplicability in some way or a not guilty verdict.

    Your whole contention, every comment on this post, I believe, is on the point that Mar was wrong for stating that a certain charge was acquitted not dismissed. And while there is a difference that is no difference there because the result is the same, you too are wrong because the charge was not dismissed based on dismissal was it? Pre-court dismissals are just the results of legal interpretation. The dismissal was based on court interpretation of the alleged broken law. So if you had split the right hair, you would have said the barrel charge dismissal was not based upon acquittal which does refer specifically to judge or jury verdicts, they were dismissed based on court interpretation of the law in question. You chose apples to oranges for your false proof that Mar used one wrong word on one tiny detail.
    I know what is next, let’s agree to disagree, right?

  57. Jason

    Funny how Leroy will breathlessly be the last word freak on a semantics argument, and yet rather than discuss anything with you or I or Owen or Dad, he will disappear – or he will complain that the replies are too “wordy” and too much effort to even read – let along reply. Hallmarks of a Boomer internet Troll, nothing more.

    >I know what is next, let’s agree to disagree, right?

    Not when he think’s that he’s got mar by the short hairs… his Boomer OCD Pride won’t allow that.

  58. Le Roi du Nord

    Geez j, it wasn’t that long ago that you were whining that I always had to get in the last word. Now you are whining that I didn’t. Nothing will ever make you happy.

    T:

    No it isn’t ” basically the same thing”. Even mar admitted that with, “Definition of a acquittal “free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty”.

    If words don’t mean anything, why use them? Why have dictionaries?

  59. Jason

    >it wasn’t that long ago that you were whining that I always had to get in the last word.

    And here you are doing it again. Ironic and it also proves my post 100% infallible, boomer troll.

  60. Tuerqas

    “No it isn’t ” basically the same thing”. Even mar admitted that with, “Definition of a acquittal “free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty”.

    If words don’t mean anything, why use them? Why have dictionaries?”

    Says the guy who both did not read my whole comment or look at the dictionary before commenting, or at least did not understand either one. Using language incorrectly is exactly what you are doing, what liberals do a lot, really. If words don’t help them, libs change the meanings and then try again.

    Mar’s words are not even incorrect. HIs words: “He was acquitted because he had a long barrel gun.”

    Definition of acquittal by Google dictionary: “a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.”
    Definition of acquittal by Merriam Webster online: “The meaning of acquittal is a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process.”

    Good ole’ Mirriam Webster specifically states that acquittals can be reached from verdict or other legal process, such as court judgement that the law did not apply in the first place and threw it out. Where did you get your definition such that you thought you had anything at all? Mar was wrong only if he ever agreed with you. There are three basic steps in the legal process: Charge, judgement and result. So you had that part wrong too. You were comparing a judgment with a result, an apples to oranges comparison. Dismissals are the results of court judgments, court judgments are not the results of dismissals. Contrary to your misunderstanding step 2 is not interchangeable with step 3. However, it turns out that due to the meanings of words, acquittals and dismissals are both considered results and are fully interchangeable.

    Jason,
    LR no longer has Mar by the short hairs due to reading comprehension so which do you wager, no more commentary here or we can just agree to disagree?

  61. Jason

    >no more commentary here or we can just agree to disagree?

    If he comes back – IF – it will be to nit-pick something like “Merriam Webster” isn’t a real dictionary or that mar thinks Adrian Hernandez is a murderer or that Trump was happy we didn’t lose any airports to the british during the Revolutionary War. You know, his only fall backs when his boomer pride can’t take another hit.

Submit a Comment

Pin It on Pinterest