Jury Verdict Declares That Kyle Rittenhouse Is Not Guilty On All Counts
After four days of deliberations in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse as part of the Kenosha, Wisconsin shootings, it was announced at 1:02 p.m. EST that the jury had reached a verdict. With one part of the charges previously thrown out by the judge, which was about the legal aspects of Rittenhouse having said weapon in his possession, there were still five counts left to go.
The jury came back and delivered a "not guilty" on every charge. Before and during the trial there were several people pointing to things that they suggest would make the trial end in this result, and what happens next is yet to be seen.
If Kyle Rittenhouse did not have a weapon to defend himself, this was going to be his fateThis trail represents all of us; whether we truly have the right to keep & bear arms & a right to defend ourselves with those arms #KyleRittenhouseIsInnocent pic.twitter.com/GYXtoMiP5e
— Melissa Tate (@TheRightMelissa) November 17, 2021
After the verdict was announced, political party lines and talking points were quickly posted on Twitter, with the common themes of racism, assault, white supremacy and attacking those of opposing stances weighing heavily in the minds of both sides of the spectrum.
I knew it. Kyle Rittenhouse is proof that white people can still break the law, carry illegal weapons, shoot and kill people, and get away with it in America by shedding tears and claiming self-defense.
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) November 19, 2021
Kyle Rittenhouse found NOT GUILTY!!!!YOU NEVER LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE!!!!THE END!!!!
— Graham Allen (@GrahamAllen_1) November 19, 2021
You know damn well that if Kyle Rittenhouse were Black he would have been found guilty in a heartbeat--or shot dead by cops on the scene.
— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) November 19, 2021
The verdict is right and just but Kyle Rittenhouse never should have been on trial at all. Now the media will go to work, like the demons they are, to ensure that Kenosha burns because they did not get their blood sacrifice.
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 19, 2021
SUE THEM ALL, KYLE. EVERY LAST ONE. #KyleRittenhouse #NotGuilty pic.twitter.com/j7EUcfscUs
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) November 19, 2021
Possibly the most important observation of the verdict was how much of a discrepancy there is between things like homicide versus other crimes, like drug use, which many consider minor.
In fairness, Kyle Rittenhouse only killed two people. It’s not like he was smoking weed.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) November 19, 2021
Share Pin
TheOtherRightSide
Well the whole murder of 2 people aside and wounding 1, didn't they drop the weapons charge not because he wasn't guilty of it, but because they thought they'd have a better chance of getting a murder charge?
Like it is illegal to cross state lines with a gun and especially be a minor doing it, and from what I read he did do all that, but the prosecution thought the jury wouldn't t do a murder charge and a technicality.
There's civil suits with some legs for him and the Kenosha police department on their way. Will be interesting to see how those play out.
Concerned Troll
No, they dropped the weapons charge because the statute they charged him under said in black and white that it didn't apply to 16+-year-olds with long-barrel rifles. He didn't take it across state lines, and if he did, that probably would have been a federal charge, tried separately.
Phhase
Evidence overwhelmingly points to not guilty. But I can't deny, being white probably helped.
El Zez
cuck
RemChi
You have no idea who is on the jury. YOu have no idea their ideology, their race, their political views. You have no idea. I have no idea.
hipnox
As someone who lives on a different country, this whole trial has been like watching a court drama written by aliens and filmed on another planet.
A minor picks up a rifle, goes to another state to join counter protesters, gets into a confrontation, shoots 3 people, kills 2, and people from all around the country are vouching for his innocence.
What did he expect was going to happen when he showed up to a potentially violent protest wearing a combat vest and open carrying a loaded assault rifle?
Why was he there?
What business has a minor to do on a protest like that?
What authority does he have to decide what is right and what is wrong when in some states he isn't even old enough to vote?
What was he expecting to do with that gun in the first place?
If you intentionally go to a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun you are pretty much expecting to use it.
Just a complete mess, all around.
Xtal
Your conceptualization of the event is erroneous.
1) No gun ever crossed state lines in Rittenhouse's possession; this is why Dominick Black, Kyle's friend, is/was being changed for supplying the weapon within the state.
2) He didn't join counter-protesters; he was there (with others) to dissuade rioters, from previous nights, from vandalizing the area, which the Kenosha PD had failed to do as well as provide medical assistance to anyone who was hurt.
3) He did not aggress.
4) He was not wearing a combat vest
5) He had a semi-automatic long-gun (assault rifle is an ambiguous term) which he is legally allowed to open carry.
6) There was no question of authority in this situation; when attacked he had every right to defend himself with lethal force if necessary.
7) Open carrying is meant to dissuade others from aggression because if you see someone is armed you are less likely to attack them or what they are protecting.
> If you intentionally go to a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun you are pretty much expecting to use it.
This is absolutely incorrect as to point 7.
Just about all of this can be confirmed either from court documents/witness testimony/videos from the night in question.
Pokejoseph64
Yeah I’m American and I just don’t get what was he thinking
hipnox
See this? It's logic like this, opinions like this. This "rationalization" that completely gaslights the actual issues that happened here.
This right here is a perfect example of why this whole thing feels alien to me.
Basically, everything you said is 'technically correct' yet address none of the issues I brought up. It's basically an "Ackchyually" response that adds nothing of value.
1 – No gun ever crossed state lines..
HE crossed state lines. What business does he have going to another state for something like this?
2 – He didn't join counter-protesters; he was there (with others) to dissuade rioters…
In a state that's not his own, open carrying an assault rifle that isn't his, as a show of force against an already aggitated group that.
3 – He did not aggress…
You and I clearly have different definitions of the word aggress. I would consider an armed civilian flashing a rifle as show of force an act of aggression.
4 – He was not wearing a combat vest…
He was wearing something that looks like a combat vest to the untrained eye, which is the only thing that mattered in that situation
view the rest of this conversation →