Rittenhouse found NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!

[Morvandium]

Being found not guilty as a matter of the law means it was not a criminal act, none of his actions were criminal.
[...]
I'm sorry to hear that you went through whatever you did, and it for sure gives you a unique perspective. I would wish only the best for both you and Rittenhouse.

The only OJ similarity that I was trying to point out was that civil action will follow and drag on for years, regardless of a jury verdict or how good of lawyers you have.

I think we're splitting hairs definitions and phrasing, but, let's dive in! In self defense cases, your statement may be correct, but it isn't always. Wisconsin Chapter 939 lists 8 defenses to criminal liability. (Note that "criminal liability" specifically means these defenses DO NOT shield any level of civil liability.) This does not mean the actions aren't a crime, but it does mean that an actor committing the offense is not (or is less) criminally liable. Note that the 8 defenses listed don't all eliminate liability, as some only reduce it.

Thus, acquittal does not automatically mean there was no criminal act, it means there's no criminal liability for the defendant. It means the defendant is not legally responsible (guilty) for a particular violation of law that may have taken place. It can be because the elements of the crime were not proven (including either the accused's actus reaus (actually committing the act) or mens rea (intent)), or someone found not guilty could also be considered excused (good, extra-legal reason or criminally insane), or they could be justified (legally allowed to commit the crime -- self defense falls in here, as do most times when police kill people), or it could be jury nullification (the jury ignored trial law and the criminal statutes, and acquitted the defendant without legal reasoning). With the exception of jury nullification, Chapter 939 lays out details of how the defenses are implemented in WI code. With many potential avenues to reach acquittal, I hope you can see how acquittal ("not guilty") doesn't equate to the lack of a criminal act existing.


** update edit **
Rittenhouse's case has been updated, and regarding the above discussion of criminal/non criminal act being a legal statement made by the verdict, and I think something is clearer. I do not believe Wisconsin juries indicate WHY they chose not guilty on a charge. They only answer the question "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." (WI law does provide at least one place this is different, and that's "Guilty Not Guilty By Reason of Mental Disease or Defect" disposition.) The official record of Rittenhouse case can be found at
https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.htm...de=details
and it contains no reference to "by self defense" in the verdict. In this case, the official, legal record, does NOT indicate the reason, just that he was found not guilty, and thus the verdict cannot be the legal basis to conclude no legal infraction occurred, only that the defendant was not guilty of the charged offense. While the defendant may have made the argument, the jury did not (and does not) indicate that was their reasoning in any official manner to the court.

This may not be how it is done in other states, but it seems to be how WI does it.

** end update edit **

Please, don't wish me the best -- I doubt I deserve it. Want to know what I learned all those years ago? Trust nobody, but try to understand them and their motives. Authority figures will lie if it suits them, from teachers to cops to everyone. Some will be cruel and enjoy hurting you, and others will think they're doing the right thing. People that are happy achieve it at the expense of others suffering, sometimes without realizing. Unless someone dies for you, trusting them is a mistake. Only the dead can be trusted, and not even all of 'em. The world is a terrible place we're sentenced to suffer for life, unless we have the courage to leave early. That's my perspective. I doubt it's unique.



Looking forward at some news coverage of Racine, it appears that some left-wing protesters are starting to take to heart the lessons of being armed--saw some AR-15s in the crowd of anti-Kyle protesters yesterday. Imagine how different the BLM protests would have been like last summer if they'd all been openly carrying. Bet those people who drove their cars into protests would think twice if they knew they'd get lit up. I've said for a long time that liberal protesters would be allowed to march with less interference if they armed themselves the way right wing protesters do. Wonder if we're gonna find out. I'm not looking forward to gunfights in the streets next summer as armed groups of right wing and left wing protesters find things to clash about. Mark my words, it is coming. For years I've worn a ballistic vest whenever in counties over certain population densities as a rule of logic. Might bump it up to III+ plate if stray rifle rounds are going to be a common possibility, too. But, geeze, that's not concealable in the summer and my back is not gonna like that.