Rittenhouse Trial - Not Guilty on All Counts

WaPo settled for about $250 million. He's 1/4 of the way to being a billionaire because of that case. CNN had to pay him $275 million as well. In total, it's reported he won about $800 million from all the lawsuits.

Correct! It was settled out of court for what all evidence points towards being a nuisance fee.

Citation, please.

@mattbbpl: Could have been settled for $1 or could have been settled for $10 million. Both parties kept confidentiality, but these suits do not come cheaply. Especially when lawyers are chomping at the bits.

Nah, the likely range is much narrower on both ends of the spectrum. Likely between $50,000 and $200,000.

@comp_atkins:

a 17 year old kid put himself in a dangerous situation he was NOT prepared for, panicked and killed 2 people. what prior experience did he have with dealing with angry, hostile adults? it was a very stupid thing to do, no doubt.

i don't think any of that matters much though once he feels his life is threatened.

Pretty much. I don't understand why so many folks have such a hard time with more than one thing being true at the same time.

Was it an incredibly bad decision to be there in the first place? YES.

If I was his father, would I be reaming him out for being there? YES.

Does he still have a right to self defense even if the first two statements are true? YES.

Should we maybe be pointing most of the blame at the people who are supposed to be the adults in the room? Like perhaps the police who should have been there instead of Kyle? Maybe the "Defund da police" people? Or gee, maybe the adult who chased after and tried to beat someone who was armed with a skatebooard? YES. YES. YES.

@mattbbpl: Who had that opinion?

I had this discussion with a couple lawyer buddies of mine shortly after the case. I mentioned it in passing and they corrected me - he had zero chance of winning the case and was paid something to A) make it cost less than what it would cost to litigate the case and B) allow Sandmann to save face and potentially continue to be in the Conservative limelight.

They said it would cost about a quarter mill to litigate, so the range is in the 50k to 200k range.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandmann-settlement-lawsuit/index.html

https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/washington-post-settles-250m-suit-with-covington-teen-nick-sandmann/

Take your pick or find your own. It looks like they gave him what they wanted and the only money they saved was saved by not paying lawyers to drag it out further.

Neither one of those indicate an amount of the settlement, or even conjecture on the amount.

@mattbbpl: LOL it's eoten. His links never say what he says they do.

If it helps, it looks like a couple of sources have spelled out essentially the same thing. The link below cites a number of attorneys with the same conclusion, although it estimates the cost of litigation at only $200,000 instead of a quarter million. I'm considering the two figures to be within the same ballpark.

Link

@mattbbpl: Lol, then cite them first and don't use their words as your own. If they suspect it's a nuisance fee, more power to them. I wouldn't be surprised either way, lawyers have their own circle of hell afterall.

@appariti0n: I agree with all your points. Honestly, I don't blame Rittenhouse for what happened. He was just a stupid kid following the rhetoric of some overpaid profesional-opinion-havers on TV. Opinion-havers that never did show up themselves, strangely.

In no way was I pawning it off as my own expertise. I was quite clear that they corrected me, in fact.

@mattbbpl: Yes, after followup. At the end of the day it's *all speculation*, and to bring back the original point, the last thing we need is more lawyers going after every single person--celebrity or not--who said something rude/controversial for publicity.

Man, if you're demanding that everyone on this board cite everything BEFORE a citation is requested lest it be taken as stealing their work, then you're fighting a losing battle. Hell, half the posters in this thread never cite a valid source for anything, LOL.

@mattbbpl: Nah, sounded like you had specific knowledge so I thought it was in a field you worked; which it's always enlightening to see actual good information instead of the usual hearsay/rabble rabble/copy paste mantra we see on the board.

He killed a convicted child molester that threatened to kill him. You lefties have a low bar for heroes.

You can blame him for going there in the first place but the same can be said for every protestor who goes to these things with a weapon. His victims include a convicted pedophile who is seen on video threatening to kill him. A repeat offender of domestic abuse( who traveled 40 miles to be at the protest) and a felon with an armed burglary charge. They were all looking for trouble and they found it. So although i fully agree anyone who goes to something like this will find nothing but trouble, his victims are only victims because they went looking for a fight and lost.

@firedrakes: a convicted felon cant be a paramedic. Also why did he have a gun?

the 2nd guy he shot was a paramedic, this was the guy who hit Kyle over the head with his skateboard after chasing him down.

the 3rd guy was the guy who pointed his glock at kyle while kyle was tripped up on the ground and kyle shot him in the bicep as he was aiming at him. The 3rd guy was a convicted felon who shouldn't have had a pistol at all.

I think you mixed these 2 up as being the same person.

He is a white conservative, he can do whatever he wants.

yeah, should have just stopped at "white".

Or are you laughing because you have a victim complex?

I do blame him for going there in the first place when he didn't need to, which is the rationale that overrides all others in the determination of broader responsibility in the outcome of which HE enabled. This applies to all others (rioters included) who bring items of lethal potential to a situation where people are out of their minds with rage, but apparently this is fully acceptable behavior according to many ITT. This is not even considered nor questioned.

These post hoc rationalizations that attempt to justify Rittenhouse's actions by citing the criminal history of his victims just goes to show how incredibly weak the arguments are to try to excuse his initial actions that they need to be substantiated by the rap sheet of another which is entirely irrelevant to the issue. Those are irrelevant factors, but entirely predictable resorts after the fact to try to mitigate the imbecility of such irresponsible judgement Rittenhouse initially exemplified, judgement that got people killed.

Perhaps it's not the brightest of ideas to walk into a situation WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE WITH THOSE LOOKING FOR TROUBLE, assuring them they have the "right" to defend themselves. Because if we've reached that point, we're at the point of insanity and have lost all semblance of common sense and reasonability.

@mrbojangles25: He is in denial. The system has been rigged in his kinds favor forever. That cant be debated.

He was charged, and is being prosecuted... Badly, but they're still prosecuting.

Settlements out of court would very rarely settle for the asked money. Mediation happens and lawyers attempt to find a common ground. I've sadly had an extensive and severe case which was settled in mediation, and it was nowhere near the asking, as both parties often low/high-ball as much as possible initially. When I say serious, my legal fee was $77,000.

The system is rigged in kinds favor forever?

Again that rationale applies to every single protestor. Bringing up the rap sheet of the victims isn't a weak argument at all. Looking at their past actions they were all capable of violence. You wan't to talk about weak arguments? Look at the prosecution? Who have got absolutely obliterated.

One suspect was seen on video pulling a gun on rittenhouse before he was shot. The other hit him with a skateboard.. if rittenhouse got beat to death you would have claimed self defense and moved on. Thats the unbelievable insanity of the left. They believe they have the right to destroy your place of business, property and well being with no consequences. Should he have been there? No but neither should any of the people that attacked him. Once you attack and threaten to kill someone all bets are off. But if you are in a situation with people looking to hurt you an AR is a great thing to have. And instead of just leaving the businesses alone they decided to attack a kid with an AR. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

1. First off, someone running around with a gun is a threat. Sorry not sorry to you open carry folks, but unless you're in the woods hunting or at a shooting range or of some occupation (cop, soldier) that requires a gun, if you are armed you are a threat to people. I enjoy shooting a lot and I'm not anti-gun but if I am walking in my town and see someone with a rifle in their hands, I'm calling the police because that guy is a threat as far as I know.

And yes, I'm aware at least one of the protesters was armed, I don't think he should have been, either.

2. Police were overworked, I don't think it's them not responding because they don't want to, I think it is them not responding because they can't.

As for the people destroying property, I take issue with that obviously but I don't think it warrants a death sentence, either.

3. The thing is, it wasn't Rittenhouse's home or business. He wasn't defending anything of his. This is why I maintain it's vigilantism; he thought he saw bad guys and he went there to stop them.

And no, not ACAB. I don't care how you feel about law enforcement on the larger scale (I certainly have issues with it), but individual cops are generally good people that want to do good. So no, not all cops are bastards.

4. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think I could kill someone over material items. It's just not worth the cost to my soul.

I suppose I can understand people wanting to do so, however, especially someone that has put their life into their business but then again I think they have insurance for these things that cover damages plus your inventory.

------

Honestly, this kid is just an idiot, but the real people to blame here are the media. They've whipped people into such a frenzy, have sensationalized things to such an extreme degree, it is insane. People literally think their cities are burning down around them when it's just some dumpsters and a few businesses. Again, pretty shitty thing to do, but not worth grabbing your gun over and shooting people.

No doubt Rittenhouse was sitting at home for months just eating this shit up, listening to the same folks talk about the threat these people allegedly present to the world, and then he heard "riots" were happening where his dad lived and suddenly he had his excuse to do what he perceived as some good.

Would be really curious to know what Rittenhouse read, watched, and listened to in the months leading up to this.

Rittenhouse had a gun and a fire extinguisher with him; he should have just left the gun at home if he wanted to help.

First off, no, just because someone has a gun doesn't make them the threat. Not in the eyes of intelligent people, not in the eyes of the law either. Therefor someone simply having a gun doesn't give you the excuse to attack that person, then claim you felt threatened anymore than I can walk up to you, punch you in the face, and claim I felt your hairstyle was threatening to try to get off the charges. People are allowed to carry guns in this country for defense. Get over it.

Second, why do you think police were overworked that night? I thought those were peaceful protests.

Your third point, it doesn't matter if it was Rittenhouse's home or business, that has nothing to do about whether or not Rosenbaum attacked him. It has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand, and he didn't kill 2 people to defend property, they were both killed in defense of himself. I have no idea why the **** you're going on about whether or not people are allowed to kill over material items when that's not even remotely close to what happened. He was being physically assaulted by grown men.

And absolutely the media is a problem. But not because you think they somehow radicalized Rittenhouse into committing some crime he never actually committed, but because they've been feeding misinformation from the start and people like you eat that shit up and keep them in business. Firstly, they blatantly lied about the Jacob Blake incident claiming he was unarmed, and even reporting he was killed by police. And since then they've been intentionally misleading people about who the aggressors that night actually were.

If Rittenhouse is an idiot for listening to the media, grab a mirror.

I lol'd at that. How idiotic.

That's what happens. Zooming on an image needs interpolation, which can dilute said image.

they were claiming the opposite. that apple's pinch and zoom feature has an AI attached to it that will add new detail as it sees fit. i don't think that is how it works ( at least i never seen new details added to any image i've ever zoomed in on on my wife's ipad )


take the two images. one would be the original, where each pixel is one box and represented by an rbg value for that single pixel.

then zooming to create the larger one just APPLIES those same logical RGB values across multiple physical pixels in the zoomed version. it isn't putting new pixels in with completely new information.

@lundy86_4: Just for show.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Why did you edit my post? I said his kinds favor.

@comp_atkins said:

they were claiming the opposite. that apple's pinch and zoom feature has an AI attached to it that will add new detail as it sees fit. i don't think that is how it works ( at least i never seen new details added to any image i've ever zoomed in on on my wife's ipad )

take the two images. one would be the original, where each pixel is one box and represented by an rbg value for that single pixel.

then zooming to create the larger one just APPLIES those same logical RGB values across multiple physical pixels in the zoomed version. it isn't putting new pixels in with completely new information.

I agree that there is interpolation which replicates pixel count in order to provide an image. Still, the image becomes less clear, and modern TVs use AI upscaling. IIRC prosecution complained that a 4K TV would better display the image, which is incorrect as I believe it was stated as a lower than 4K image. I believe they argued Rittenhouse brandished the weapon prior, but what I saw was indiscernible.

I’ve expressed about as much as I care to on this topic, so this will probably be my final post on it.

—————

Yes, mentioning the rap sheet is a weak argument when it’s used in the attempt to justify Rittenhouse’s overall discretion to pick up a lethal implement and travel to a heated situation when he had the option to stay home (or go there unarmed). It only holds weight when viewed within the context of self-defense absent all other considerations, which is the legal myopia he is (more than likely) going to be acquitted under.

“But if you are in a situation with people looking to hurt you an AR is a great thing to have.”

An accurate statement when viewed in a vacuum that examines nothing but the potential afforded to one to protect their safety, but in the broader context of exercising prudence towards that safety when you were afforded plenty of opportunity to avoid that situation in the first place, it’s a moot point. People wouldn’t have been looking to hurt you had you exercised some sense and restraint and never placed yourself at risk in the first place. This is a foundational premise in the exercising of personal responsibility, and everyone seems to be completely ignoring/belittling it which has frustrated me (a bit too much).

In the realm of greater accountability, the responsibility of that criminal rioter‘s actions are secondary to the choice of the individual that enabled them to manifest into deadly result by that individual whereas it had not existed previously. Especially when that individual was fortune enough to have been in a position of privilege and safety prior to observe and ponder the implications and ramifications of their actions. I find it ludicrous to then cry victim when after that privilege in being able to know better, they go anyway. And yes, one could come back and argue that Rittenhouse didn’t start the riot, so the ultimate higher accountability lay with those who did. But this isn’t a topic about broken windows, dumpster fires, and property damages. It’s about the loss of lives, and in that, it was Rittenhouse who elevated the potential ceiling of lethality by bringing a weapon into it he had no right to use and who wore it explicitly, inviting the inflammation of already extremely potent circumstances……all for nothing more than because he wanted to posture as an authority and to feel important.

It was admirable he wanted to help, and I truly believe he desired to. But he could’ve achieved that without a rifle…….but then he wouldn't have had the chance to flaunt it, which I also think was a massive factor in his decision to go. He was a naive, impressionable, immature kid who probably thought he would garner automatic respect simply by virtue of being slung, which is a very juvenile mind frame to hold in understanding guns, but it’s how children tend to view their power. People ended up dead. It was sheer stupidity, and while I agree he is probably justified in self-defense given the evidence I’ve seen, I’ll forever consider him an absolute dope who unnecessarily got people killed in his broader judgement. Nobody can defeat the point that if the rifle had not been brought there, they would still be alive, even had they done the exact same things to Rittenhouse that people are using in the justification of his actions.

At least you can admit it wasn’t smart to go there, which is more than others have been capable of. It’s nice to hear.

Apologies for the length.

And people are still trying to blame Rittenhouse for Rosenbaum chasing him. Again, this is like trying to blame a rape victim for wearing a short dress.

What?

A whole word vanished from my post. It didn't just magically disappear.

Again, what. I would tread lightly if that you're seriously suggesting a moderator is editing your post. You've also questioned replies to your post "that wasn't there" after you deleted it as if you're under the impression moderators/staff do not have access to post and edit history. Very bizarre. If you didn't do any subsequent edit, even though your account clearly did, then I will forward this to administrator staff so they can do follow-up on account access/integrity and I recommend changing your password.

What do you mean by "his kind" and "rigged"? Elaborate.

Rigged, The Judge ad the jury members are being threatened, and the police in Kenosha and preparing for riots if Rittenhouse is acquitted. This is how the mob wants justice. Next it will be skip the trial and go right to the hanging.

Hey that's the justice Rittenhouse used and you applaud. Shouldn't have double standards there Jim.

Didnt know what this was all about so I had to google the story

This is my take on the matter:

Sure, he was probably defending himself BUT he was rather stupid in going to a left wing riot with a auto-rifle in hand. He was just looking for trouble and was an idiot and should suffer the consequences by carrying a firearm he had no jurisdiction to use. He's not completely inocent on this matter

I agree with one caveat, had the police been available to protect the citizens and property it would have not had to have left up to citizens to protect property and other people.