Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
So after all this, is Rittenhouse going to move to a netrual country like Switzerland, like Serpico had to do now, or I am guessing something like that?
Pretty sure he's a hero to millions of Americans.
Amerians are odd.
Personally, I see Rittenhouse as being lucky that politics didn't pervert justice, rather than him being a hero.
I.E. I don't see him as a hero at all.
I see him as a stupid kid who got himself in a stupid situation.
I strongly suspect he would have been found guilty if the 2 people he killed were POC.
As you can see, unlike Uncle Joe, I don't have much faith in the American judiciary system when it involves "political" situations.
This is simply my *opinion*.
Ah! I'm over American politics and law
If only it was so easy...The U.S is like a superpower in the world or it was...who knows with what trump did. Its just th e thing is American politics effect the rest of the world...at least how it stands now. You can't be 'over' american politics since it effects the whole world.
I get the sentiment, but don't give in so far you don't vote.....there are a lot of peopele who might vote well, but they refuse the vote
Don't tell anyone, but I don't vote for any party, these days. Shhhh.
I don't specifically vote for party...a lot of the votes are just on if this or that will pass. That said with the shenanigans the republican party has pulled I will vote all democrat, not that I like the democrats but they are better than the fascists.
either way I cannot help thinking if you can vote it is very dishonorable not to vote..I mean I just think it is disgusting not to vote...not to say I am not open to hearing other perspectives but that is my perspective I think it is shameful not to vote if you have the option to.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
So after all this, is Rittenhouse going to move to a netrual country like Switzerland, like Serpico had to do now, or I am guessing something like that?
Pretty sure he's a hero to millions of Americans.
Amerians are odd.
Personally, I see Rittenhouse as being lucky that politics didn't pervert justice, rather than him being a hero.
I.E. I don't see him as a hero at all.
I see him as a stupid kid who got himself in a stupid situation.
I strongly suspect he would have been found guilty if the 2 people he killed were POC.
As you can see, unlike Uncle Joe, I don't have much faith in the American judiciary system when it involves "political" situations.
This is simply my *opinion*.
Ah! I'm over American politics and law
If only it was so easy...The U.S is like a superpower in the world or it was...who knows with what trump did. Its just th e thing is American politics effect the rest of the world...at least how it stands now. You can't be 'over' american politics since it effects the whole world.
I get the sentiment, but don't give in so far you don't vote.....there are a lot of peopele who might vote well, but they refuse the vote
Don't tell anyone, but I don't vote for any party, these days. Shhhh.
I don't specifically vote for party...a lot of the votes are just on if this or that will pass. That said with the shenanigans the republican party has pulled I will vote all democrat, not that I like the democrats but they are better than the fascists.
either way I cannot help thinking if you can vote it is very dishonorable not to vote..I mean I just think it is disgusting not to vote...not to say I am not open to hearing other perspectives but that is my perspective I think it is shameful not to vote if you have the option to.
I am a disgusting stinky skunk.
I think not voting is well within my character makeup.
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
ironpony wrote:
What I don't understand about this case, and situation is that it seems that politically, the republicans believe that Kyle defending himself against being assaulted is good, where as the a lot of the democrats do not believe so it seems.
I am neither of those two political idealogies I don't think when I say this, but I do not understand why democrats are for being pacifist when being assaulted, with the possibly of being killed from the assault. Why be pacifist, or what is with that idealogy exactly?
I am neither of those two political idealogies I don't think when I say this, but I do not understand why democrats are for being pacifist when being assaulted, with the possibly of being killed from the assault. Why be pacifist, or what is with that idealogy exactly?
Democrats are anti-gun and pro-pacifist. The ideology is that violence as a response to violence leads to more violence. There are obviously exceptions, but that ideology is the starting point.
Generally:
Democrats are for gun control.
Democrats oppose open carry.
Democrats oppose the availability of weapons such as the AR15.
Democrats favor diplomacy over war.
Democrats are less likely to believe spanking is appropriate punishment for children.
That may have been the case decades ago.
I really don't think it is True these days.
The adage:
"If you aren't a progressive under 30, you don't have a heart..."
Has seeming changed to:
"If you aren't a progressive under 30, you don't have a fist (or jackboot)."
The antifa movement has a lot to do with that, imo.
This "affliction" has affected Australia, also, btw.
Antifa is SEVERELY over-hyped compared to its actual prevalence and effect. I don't know of anyone who connects to Antifa, despite knowing a pretty disparate group of connections. I talked with at least one QAnon believer, someone who has been to an Oath Keepers event, BLM activists, etc. Antifa? Never met one, never read one. They were Trump's bogeyman, and I know they've been at protests, but they aren't significant, IMHO.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
So after all this, is Rittenhouse going to move to a netrual country like Switzerland, like Serpico had to do now, or I am guessing something like that?
Pretty sure he's a hero to millions of Americans.
Amerians are odd.
Personally, I see Rittenhouse as being lucky that politics didn't pervert justice, rather than him being a hero.
I.E. I don't see him as a hero at all.
I see him as a stupid kid who got himself in a stupid situation.
I strongly suspect he would have been found guilty if the 2 people he killed were POC.
As you can see, unlike Uncle Joe, I don't have much faith in the American judiciary system when it involves "political" situations.
This is simply my *opinion*.
Ah! I'm over American politics and law
If only it was so easy...The U.S is like a superpower in the world or it was...who knows with what trump did. Its just th e thing is American politics effect the rest of the world...at least how it stands now. You can't be 'over' american politics since it effects the whole world.
I get the sentiment, but don't give in so far you don't vote.....there are a lot of peopele who might vote well, but they refuse the vote
Don't tell anyone, but I don't vote for any party, these days. Shhhh.
I don't specifically vote for party...a lot of the votes are just on if this or that will pass. That said with the shenanigans the republican party has pulled I will vote all democrat, not that I like the democrats but they are better than the fascists.
either way I cannot help thinking if you can vote it is very dishonorable not to vote..I mean I just think it is disgusting not to vote...not to say I am not open to hearing other perspectives but that is my perspective I think it is shameful not to vote if you have the option to.
I am a disgusting stinky skunk.
I think not voting is well within my character makeup.
Voting is important though, I just cannot fathom why not to...seems insane.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Don't tell anyone, but I don't vote for any party, these days. Shhhh.
I don't specifically vote for party...a lot of the votes are just on if this or that will pass. That said with the shenanigans the republican party has pulled I will vote all democrat, not that I like the democrats but they are better than the fascists.
either way I cannot help thinking if you can vote it is very dishonorable not to vote..I mean I just think it is disgusting not to vote...not to say I am not open to hearing other perspectives but that is my perspective I think it is shameful not to vote if you have the option to.
Pepe isn't American, btw, so the play on words doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't vote at all.
The Trump Republican ethos has to be stamped out, IMHO. Trump only cares about Trump. He has no values besides what can increase his personal power, and its been disappointing to see so many Republicans fall into his camp. The changes in election rules in some states are downright frightening, as is the intense gerrymandering. We're not out of the woods yet, when it comes to potentially becoming an authoritarian country, and there could be unknown threats in that direction hiding in any politician, either side of the isle; we need to be vigilant.
I wish it wasn't so dang hard to understand what is really happening in the moment it is happening. As much as I disliked certain political turns of events in prior decades, I didn't see where we were headed. I didn't see that we were selling out the middle of our economy, allowing the income gap to widen, and wiping out the gains made by my parents' generation. Gains that everyone in my generation assumed were trends destined to continue. It's frustrating to look back on at my age. We don't get the peace of thinking we've built a better world for our children. A lot of people have the right to be angry, so it isn't surprising so many people are, but I don't believe that "angry" is the path towards workable and effective solutions.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
DW_a_mom wrote:
Antifa is SEVERELY over-hyped compared to its actual prevalence and effect. I don't know of anyone who connects to Antifa, despite knowing a pretty disparate group of connections. I talked with at least one QAnon believer, someone who has been to an Oath Keepers event, BLM activists, etc. Antifa? Never met one, never read one. They were Trump's bogeyman, and I know they've been at protests, but they aren't significant, IMHO.
Eh, yes and no, and part of it is a very deliberate confusion/branding exercise by antifa themselves, as though that name has been around a long time, the group currently operating under it is better described as black bloc, a sort of loose coalition of left wing activists who in theory think that the situation is so dire that extreme measures are necessary, but in practice are a sort of left wing Fight Club. They've been around forever, I first encountered them more than 20 years ago when I was still in high school, as black bloc anarchists from Oregon committed most of the heavy vandalism and property damage at the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, which most of my friends at the time participated in. They are a real thing, and they are dangerous in their way, though their usual tactic is to do what they call "bull baiting" with the police, basically trying to harass them into overreacting, so they can get footage of the police beating people and then proceed with lawfare and media propaganda (this is a big part of the reason they don't like being filmed and will attack people who film them). They appropriated the "antifa" label in the Trump years, under the conceit that Trump was a fascist and thus fighting them made them antifa, but really they're better thought of as left wing anarchists who enjoy violence for it's own sake, not unlike the brawlers of the Proud Boys, who are much more explicitly a fight club with a touch of politics.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
DW_a_mom wrote:
I'm not fully buying it but it's complicated. Those comments fell into the realm of hyper-exaggerated messaging sparked (but sometimes departing) from a grain of truth that I find so misleading and distasteful in so much of today's news environment. Less reliable sources on all sides of the political isle do it. What the samples don't do is change the fact that Rittenhouse was a valid news character. Sandman never should have made the news to start with.
You don't think that calling someone a racist and a white supremacist without any evidence isn't defamatory on its face? I agree with you on Sandmann, that was truly ridiculous that it even became a story, but Rittenhouse wasn't exactly a public figure either, and these people viciously slandered him to their massive audiences. I saw you favored finding Alex Jones liable for spreading lies about the Sandy Hook families, so how is this different?
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
DW_a_mom wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Don't tell anyone, but I don't vote for any party, these days. Shhhh.
I don't specifically vote for party...a lot of the votes are just on if this or that will pass. That said with the shenanigans the republican party has pulled I will vote all democrat, not that I like the democrats but they are better than the fascists.
either way I cannot help thinking if you can vote it is very dishonorable not to vote..I mean I just think it is disgusting not to vote...not to say I am not open to hearing other perspectives but that is my perspective I think it is shameful not to vote if you have the option to.
Pepe isn't American, btw, so the play on words doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't vote at all.
The Trump Republican ethos has to be stamped out, IMHO. Trump only cares about Trump. He has no values besides what can increase his personal power, and its been disappointing to see so many Republicans fall into his camp. The changes in election rules in some states are downright frightening, as is the intense gerrymandering. We're not out of the woods yet, when it comes to potentially becoming an authoritarian country, and there could be unknown threats in that direction hiding in any politician, either side of the isle; we need to be vigilant.
I wish it wasn't so dang hard to understand what is really happening in the moment it is happening. As much as I disliked certain political turns of events in prior decades, I didn't see where we were headed. I didn't see that we were selling out the middle of our economy, allowing the income gap to widen, and wiping out the gains made by my parents' generation. Gains that everyone in my generation assumed were trends destined to continue. It's frustrating to look back on at my age. We don't get the peace of thinking we've built a better world for our children. A lot of people have the right to be angry, so it isn't surprising so many people are, but I don't believe that "angry" is the path towards workable and effective solutions.
Sure I meant more in the context of the U.S, not sure how all the voting works in Australia may not be the same. But if it is similar I still don't understand if they don't vote. But not sure if it would be the same as why people in the U.S would refuse the vote. But yeah it's just my opinion, what am I going to do force people to vote...? I figure most people could fight me off pretty easily so I doubt I'd try that.
As for the rest, I mean not in those exact words but when I was in 8th grade I saw that stuff coming, I just buried it deep down when no one listened to me and hoped maybe I really was wrong.....well Nope I wasn't wrong. Just took longer than I figured it would. For sure people are rightfully angry....I mean it is hard not to be angry when us millenials just want to afford to live lives and we get called entitled because at age 35+ we're sick of living with room-mates. Luckily me and my boyfriend can afford our own place but for single people...like damn what are they to do seems its either room-mates or keep living with parents.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I'm not fully buying it but it's complicated. Those comments fell into the realm of hyper-exaggerated messaging sparked (but sometimes departing) from a grain of truth that I find so misleading and distasteful in so much of today's news environment. Less reliable sources on all sides of the political isle do it. What the samples don't do is change the fact that Rittenhouse was a valid news character. Sandman never should have made the news to start with.
You don't think that calling someone a racist and a white supremacist without any evidence isn't defamatory on its face? I agree with you on Sandmann, that was truly ridiculous that it even became a story, but Rittenhouse wasn't exactly a public figure either, and these people viciously slandered him to their massive audiences. I saw you favored finding Alex Jones liable for spreading lies about the Sandy Hook families, so how is this different?
Hm, I can't deny its a good question. Perhaps its just that I've given up on trying to reign in the slanderous characterizations connected to key action figures in current news stories. I'd rather steer people away from the "news" sources that use them. The media in your clip looked like sites I try to avoid giving an ounce of attention to. If a source is going to speak in those terms, it's a bad source, and I'm not afraid to tell friends that if they post clips. There isn't a single person whose actions make the news who isn't subject to it. If you kill people as Rittenhouse did, you have to accept you will make the news and there will be controversy. I see most of the Sandy Hook families as being strictly victims in all sense of the word, and the attacks continued long after the news story stayed relevant. Some parents from Sandy Hook have chosen to be activists, and they presumably know what that subjects them to, but not all. It's a gray line though, isn't it? Well, we can each only do our best.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Off Topic
Sweetleaf wrote:
As for the rest, I mean not in those exact words but when I was in 8th grade I saw that stuff coming, I just buried it deep down when no one listened to me and hoped maybe I really was wrong.....well Nope I wasn't wrong. Just took longer than I figured it would. For sure people are rightfully angry....I mean it is hard not to be angry when us millenials just want to afford to live lives and we get called entitled because at age 35+ we're sick of living with room-mates. Luckily me and my boyfriend can afford our own place but for single people...like damn what are they to do seems its either room-mates or keep living with parents.
Yeah, I've gotten an earful from my kids, now in their early twenties. Lots of anger about the financial side and about the destruction of the planet side. Both my kids have health issues that neither my husband or I had; they inherited so much of the worse of everything. It's fortunate that their desire to save the planet means they are also super thrifty. My son would rather not own a car, even though he will need one soon (he wants to have his bike be his main transportation; if he rents an apartment near a car rental place he can rent a car for quite a few days a month for the same price as car payments and insurance; we'll see if that set up can be created for him). My daughter is big on used clothing so as not to consume new resources. The resourcefulness and values of the younger generations are admirable in many ways. It's good that the "more, bigger, better" mindset that surrounded me growing up is dispersing.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
cyberdad wrote:
Scary and unfortunate, but our legal system isn’t supposed to think about all the ways outside groups might subvert society because of how one case gets decided. Each case has its unique facts.
Even scarier to me is that Both WI and federal lawmakers are using this opportunity (and others) to make the laws worse, not better. Violence isn’t freedom. Giving the upper hand to one school of thought isn’t Democracy.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
DW_a_mom wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I figured not all the charges would stick, but no charges and he walks free I felt was a stretch of imagination...But I guess the nightmare became true.
Same here. I thought at least a lesser version of one the "reckless" charges ...
It is disappointing to see that you are both indulging in what amounts to "victim blaming" here...
Given the jury determined his actions were not "murder" (actual or attempted), nor "reckless" (nor, for that matter, any of the lesser included items for which he was also on trial for), this would suggest his actions were indeed "self defence". This, then, suggests that your comments are endorsing the punishment of the victim of a number of assailants for what happened to those assailants following their initial use\attempted use of force against him - It is true that what they received was worse than the gave (although it isn't known if it was worse than what they intended), but had they not initiated their attacks upon him, there is no evidence that they (or anyone else) would have received any harm from him.
All parties were legally entitled to be there, and only one had an illegal weapon (Mr Grosskreutz), so blaming (or suggesting punishment is due) a victim for doing what they (and the jury) believed they had to do in order to preserve their own life from the attacks of others seems rather insenstive - I'm not saying any of the people involved deserved to die for their actions, but it was THEIR choice to act as they did which was the direct cause of what occurred to them.
DW_a_mom wrote:
There are rumblings that some jurors may have been afraid of the groups backing Rittenhouse. Do you think that is possible?
There were also rumours that some jurors may have been afraid of the same group who Mr Rittenhouse's assailants were members of\supporters of, as well. Do you think that is possible?
I don’t think he went there intending to kill people, but I also believe he lacked the maturity to carry that much fire power.Like giving the keys of the SUV to a 10 year old, nothing good can come of it.
I don’t think he deserved a murder charge ,but he didn’t deserve to walk free either.
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
Pepe wrote:
Had Rittenhouse killed 2 POC, I don't think he would be free now.
Considering how the protest was triggered by one POC being shot in the back seven times by a police officer (who remains in the force), I think if Rittenhouse was a POC he would very likely have met a more immediate and deadly fate before firing a single shot.I thought a statement in the closing arguments of the defense was pretty shocking but I guess it just reflects the saddening situation with gun regulation in the USA:
"Other people in this community have shot people seven times and it's been found to be OK, and my client did it four times in three-quarters of a second to protect his life."
Ah, Ok - so that's alright then. "Only" four shots and two deaths vs. seven shots and one paralysis.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
Quote:
A jury fully acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse on Friday, bringing a close to the high-profile and often tense trial that reflected America's deep political polarization.
Rittenhouse, 18, who was not charged with murder, faced charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide for fatally shooting two men and injuring a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse was also charged with reckless endangerment of two additional men.
The teenager pleaded not guilty to all five counts and testified that he acted in self-defense, saying the men he shot were attacking him. He was acquitted on all counts.
In the aftermath of Friday's verdict, a flurry of responses and reactions to the ruling restated longstanding myths and misinformation surrounding the trial and Rittenhouse's actions on August 25, 2020.
Insider debunked six such myths.
[...]
Unclear: The people Kyle Rittenhouse shot were protesters
Gaige Grosskreutz, a then-27-year-old EMT who survived being shot by Rittenhouse, testified during the trial, telling the jury that he frequently attended demonstrations as a volunteer medic and chose not to affiliate with any particular side. He said he had gone downtown the night of August 25, 2020 — and dozens of other nights that summer — to provide medical aid to anyone in need, regardless of political affiliation.
The motives of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, were less clear that night. Rosenbaum was seen in a number of videos not protesting but causing destruction, setting fires, tipping over a Porta Potty, wielding a chain, and at one point even shouting the N-word. Rittenhouse's defense attorneys characterized Rosenbaum as a "rioter," and even the lead prosecutor said in his closing statement he would have prosecuted Rosenbaum for arson had he not been fatally shot.
Rosenbaum's fiancée told The Washington Post in 2020 that he wasn't there as a rioter or a looter. Just hours before the protests, Rosenbaum had been released from a hospital following psychiatric care for a suicide attempt.
"Why was he there? I have no answer. I ask myself that question every day," she told the outlet.
Huber's girlfriend told the New York Post that she and Huber, 26, were protesting that night. She disputed the defense attorney's characterization of Huber as a "rioter" or "looter." Huber's great aunt, Susan Hughes, also testified at Rittenhouse's trial, saying Huber knew Jacob Blake personally and was upset by his death.
Myth: Rittenhouse went downtown on August 25 to answer a 'call to arms' put out by a Kenosha militia group
A "Kenosha Guard" militia group on Facebook did issue a "call to arms" ahead of the violence on August 25. But the tech company later confirmed that Rittenhouse had not been a follower of the flagged page.
Rittenhouse testified that he and Black went downtown because they were invited to guard the Car Source, a Kenosha car dealership, during the unrest and were under the impression they were going to be paid.
The China brothers who own the dealership denied this under oath, but multiple other witnesses testified against them, backing Rittenhouse's version.
Myth: Kyle Rittenhouse is a self-identified white nationalist
The civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing the Blake family, falsely described Rittenhouse on Friday as a "self-declared white nationalist." But Rittenhouse has never publicly identified as a member of any extremist group.
After he pleaded not guilty to the initial charges in January 2021, prosecutors said Rittenhouse went to a bar in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where he posed for photos with members said to be of the Proud Boys while flashing a "white power" hand signal.
His legal team said Rittenhouse did not know who the men were or what group they were affiliated with and was unfamiliar with the hand symbol's meaning.
The judge noted that the prosecution did not find any evidence of his affiliation with a white supremacist group in phone records or social media history, and as Michelle Mark previously reported, ruled the trip to the bar was not relevant to the 2020 shooting.
Rittenhouse, 18, who was not charged with murder, faced charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide for fatally shooting two men and injuring a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse was also charged with reckless endangerment of two additional men.
The teenager pleaded not guilty to all five counts and testified that he acted in self-defense, saying the men he shot were attacking him. He was acquitted on all counts.
In the aftermath of Friday's verdict, a flurry of responses and reactions to the ruling restated longstanding myths and misinformation surrounding the trial and Rittenhouse's actions on August 25, 2020.
Insider debunked six such myths.
[...]
Unclear: The people Kyle Rittenhouse shot were protesters
Gaige Grosskreutz, a then-27-year-old EMT who survived being shot by Rittenhouse, testified during the trial, telling the jury that he frequently attended demonstrations as a volunteer medic and chose not to affiliate with any particular side. He said he had gone downtown the night of August 25, 2020 — and dozens of other nights that summer — to provide medical aid to anyone in need, regardless of political affiliation.
The motives of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, were less clear that night. Rosenbaum was seen in a number of videos not protesting but causing destruction, setting fires, tipping over a Porta Potty, wielding a chain, and at one point even shouting the N-word. Rittenhouse's defense attorneys characterized Rosenbaum as a "rioter," and even the lead prosecutor said in his closing statement he would have prosecuted Rosenbaum for arson had he not been fatally shot.
Rosenbaum's fiancée told The Washington Post in 2020 that he wasn't there as a rioter or a looter. Just hours before the protests, Rosenbaum had been released from a hospital following psychiatric care for a suicide attempt.
"Why was he there? I have no answer. I ask myself that question every day," she told the outlet.
Huber's girlfriend told the New York Post that she and Huber, 26, were protesting that night. She disputed the defense attorney's characterization of Huber as a "rioter" or "looter." Huber's great aunt, Susan Hughes, also testified at Rittenhouse's trial, saying Huber knew Jacob Blake personally and was upset by his death.
Myth: Rittenhouse went downtown on August 25 to answer a 'call to arms' put out by a Kenosha militia group
A "Kenosha Guard" militia group on Facebook did issue a "call to arms" ahead of the violence on August 25. But the tech company later confirmed that Rittenhouse had not been a follower of the flagged page.
Rittenhouse testified that he and Black went downtown because they were invited to guard the Car Source, a Kenosha car dealership, during the unrest and were under the impression they were going to be paid.
The China brothers who own the dealership denied this under oath, but multiple other witnesses testified against them, backing Rittenhouse's version.
Myth: Kyle Rittenhouse is a self-identified white nationalist
The civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing the Blake family, falsely described Rittenhouse on Friday as a "self-declared white nationalist." But Rittenhouse has never publicly identified as a member of any extremist group.
After he pleaded not guilty to the initial charges in January 2021, prosecutors said Rittenhouse went to a bar in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where he posed for photos with members said to be of the Proud Boys while flashing a "white power" hand signal.
His legal team said Rittenhouse did not know who the men were or what group they were affiliated with and was unfamiliar with the hand symbol's meaning.
The judge noted that the prosecution did not find any evidence of his affiliation with a white supremacist group in phone records or social media history, and as Michelle Mark previously reported, ruled the trip to the bar was not relevant to the 2020 shooting.
Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-didnt-illegally-bring-043226324.html
