American Politics / Current Events Thread

[Silent Hill | 276]

18 hours ago, avatar! said:

What a joke. Although he was not found guilty, things are far from over, and everyone knows he was absolutely looking for trouble! Or, are you trying to tell me that someone who goes heavily armed into a peaceful protest is doing so because they're friendly and helpful? It's funny you say Why everyone couldn't look at the evidence/testimony objectively is beyond me at this point. First off, let's be real. If you've ever served on a jury or been to a trail you know there is absolutely no such thing as being entirely objective. Secondly, the judge was also a POS who was clearly biased towards his fellow right-winger and I feel will likely have his career cut short, or so I hope.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-has-been-found-not-guilty-whats-next-bail-money-civil-cases/8653018002/

Congressman Jerry Nadler, D-New York, called for a federal review of the case Friday. He serves as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ," he tweeted. "Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/20/could-kyle-rittenhouse-be-sued-for-negligence/

A criminal acquittal doesn't preclude a civil lawsuit out of the same claims. First, the acquittal resolves only that guilt couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (requiring, say, a >90% confidence level); the standard for civil liability is preponderance of the evidence (which requires just >50%, or perhaps ≥50%, if the injury is easily proved and the burden is then shifted to the defendant to prove self-defense). Second, liability could be based on a negligence theory

What I'm saying is that there was no evidence or testimony that backs up any claim that Rittenhouse was "looking for trouble". That's far more of an opinion than fact at this point. He's on video stating his intentions that night and his actions throughout correlate with that intention. The gun was for self-protection and that's all it was used for. I personally wouldn't refer to him as "heavily armed" and if he were intentionally looking to harm people, he would have shot more people than just those who attacked him. The Prosecution tried to pivot at the end and paint him as a provocateur and couldn't do it. (And I see others have already commented on that night being a "peaceful protest".)

To your other point about the Judge, I'm not entirely sure he's a "right-winger" and didn't really see any display of bias towards either side. Seemed to rule pretty fairly and uphold the law(s) throughout the trial, which you admitted you didn't watch, so I assume you're just referencing other people's opinions on the Judge vs. drawing your own. 

The Jerry Nadler tweet is comical at best. For one, crossing state lines isn't a crime and is especially irrelevant when put into context. Secondly, Rittenhouse had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else and a lot of what was happening that night wasn't protected by the First Amendment. You know, the things that Rittenhouse and others were apparently attempting to deter (violence, arson, looting, etc.) Lastly, he says "looking for trouble" which no evidence or testimony was presented to back that up. It's just an opinionated talking point to try and place guilt. Anyone who actually watched the trial would know that the evidence/testimony strongly implied otherwise.

[Californication | 1,477]

20 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

1. What I'm saying is that there was no evidence or testimony that backs up any claim that Rittenhouse was "looking for trouble". 

 2. (And I see others have already commented on that night being a "peaceful protest".)

3. To your other point about the Judge, I'm not entirely sure he's a "right-winger" and didn't really see any display of bias towards either side.

3. Seemed to rule pretty fairly and uphold the law(s) throughout the trial?

 4. Secondly, Rittenhouse had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else and a lot of what was happening that night wasn't protected by the First Amendment.

5. You know, the things that Rittenhouse and others were apparently attempting to deter (violence, arson, looting, etc.) 

Apparently you didn't watch the trial either.

1. Kyle Rittenhouse threatened people with his gun. 

2. On direct questioning, the police and all of the people who testified did not mention violence except for Rittenhouse. There were guns being shot, but no one was hurt. 

Property was damaged. 

3.The judge has Trumps walk on song as his ringtone.

The judge ruled against a law that basically says kids can't have guns that

4. Rittenhouse didn't have a right to be there. There was a curfew and he violated it.

5. Rittenhouse says he was there to protect a business. The business had all of their cars moved because their cars were burned on a previous night and Rittenhouse was wandering around with his gun no where near the business.

 

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

2 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

I never did watch it, I followed it right along though. I certainly wasn't a fan of the judge asking for a veterans day ovation for the defense witness, that seemed a bit disturbing and pandering to the camera like a judge Ito. Most of the other incidents seemed blown out of proportion. Were there others I missed?

I would suggest atleast watching the prosecutions case since you think he is not guilty based on news blurbs.

I'll paraphrase things I take issue with, but I am going to miss stuff and it isn't the same as watching.

So firstly, the judge gave Rittenhouse breaks multiple times:

- judge didn't allow the prosecution to speak about multiple things that could have helped the jury understand Rittenhouse's character and state of mind like:  a. Rittenhosuse pointed his gun at people earlier in the night, b. Rittenhouse threatened to kill somebody at one point. The jury never heard those things.

I watched a fair amount of the live trial and they did allow the testimony regarding the "guy in the yellow pants" who told Rittenhouse he had pointed his gun at him for being on top of cars earlier that night. Rittenhouse said that he sarcastically agreed in the moment while walking away to not cause a conflict. Whether you believe that or not is on you, but it was presented to the jury. Your other point about Rittenhouse threatening to kill someone I do not recall being discussed at all, in front of the jury or not. All I recall is testimony stating Rosenbaum was the one threatening to kill Balch and Rittenhouse earlier. 

-The judge did not allow the people murdered to be called victims

This was apparently a precedent already set in his courtroom regarding these types of cases. It was a self-defense trial and allowing those shot to be referred to as victims implies the defendant is guilty of a crime. That is for the jury to decide.

-The judge dismissed gun charges charges.

Wasn't it determined to be legal for Rittenhouse to open-carry a rifle at his age, under WI law? Regardless I believe it is a misdemeanor charge so I really don't see how that had much of an impact, if any, on the jury's verdict.

-When they set up the rules for how things could be explained to the jury, the judge was favorable to the defense including the way the gun was to be discussed

Can you elaborate on this?

Getting into the court arguments.

-Rittenhouse should not qualify for self defense based on the laws requirements. 

Which requirement of the WI law prevented him from acting in self-defense legally?

- Rittenhouse should not have been able to use deadly force because he did not exhaust all options. 

Honestly, what other options did he have in either scenario before he shot?

If the medic Gorsskruntz, wanted to kill Rittenhouse he could have stopped and shot him at any point. 

Irrelevant, Grosskreutz had a gun drawn and was advancing on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger after Grosskreutz feigned surrender and advanced again with the gun within inches of Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz drawing his weapon and chasing Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse told him he was going to the police didn't play in his favor either. 

The frame by frame clearly shows that Grosskruntz, who was trying to stop an active shooter, stopped and started backing away from Rittenhouse when he was on the ground. He tried to jump on Rittenhouse after pausing when he thought Rittenhouse was getting ready to shoot him. 

The video doesn't "clearly" show Grosskreutz state of mind (e.g., stopping an "active shooter"). It just shows him advancing on someone who's on the ground. Rittenhouse already didn't shoot him while he had his hands up and and he wouldn't have been shot had he not made another advance. You can't seriously expect Rittenhouse to just let Grosskreutz connect with or shoot him....

Now less clear to me, but the argument presented was that Grosskruntz never pointed the gun at Rittenhouse, the photo spread on social media was after Grosskruntz bicep was shot off and his arm fell holding his gun in the direction of Rittenhouse, but he could not use his gun.

The gun was pointed in Rittenhouse's direction and was within inches of his head/body. I'd say from Rittenhouse's perspective, that's enough to fear great bodily harm or death.

I really don't understand how a reasonable person (not the jury) could think this kid should not be in jail. I have heard zero arguments against these points. The defense did not have arguments against any of these points, they literally just said key words and talked in circles completly avoiding any of the points the prosecution made and demonized every person shot.

The simplest way it can be put is that Rittenhouse attempted to flee from each scenario and only shot those who posed a threat of great bodily harm or death, which gives him the right to self-defense under WI law. The prosecution had zero evidence/testimony that Rittenhouse was an aggressor or had no claim to fear his life was in danger. 

Just to show even further what a joke this trial is, Rittenhouse didn't even get charged for endangering the camera man that was behind Rosenbaum. The defense did the same thing they did with the other victims, they talked shit about the camera man.

How did the defense "talk shit" about McGinniss? Pretty sure Rittenhouse was cleared of that charge because he wasn't aware that McGinniss was ~5-6ft directly behind Rosenbaum. It's tough to say that Rittenhouse should have either known McGinniss was there or not have shot Rosenbaum (allowing him to connect) just because someone MAY have been directly behind him, in the potential line of fire. That was a tough charge to stick. 

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

2 minutes ago, Californication said:

Apparently you didn't watch the trial either.

1. Kyle Rittenhouse threatened people with his gun. 

Addressed in my other post to you

2. On direct questioning, the police and all of the people who testified did not mention violence except for Rittenhouse. There were guns being shot, but no one was hurt. 

And? It's irrelevant. Like Rittenhouse couldn't defend himself because nobody else was shot that night.

Property was damaged. 

3.The judge has Trumps walk on song as his ringtone.

LOL how long has that song been around? Anyone who likes that song is pro-Trump now?

The judge ruled against a law that basically says kids can't have guns that

Addressed in my other post to you

4. Rittenhouse didn't have a right to be there. There was a curfew and he violated it.

Pretty sure they couldn't 100% prove that curfew was in effect that night. 

5. Rittenhouse says he was there to protect a business. The business had all of their cars moved because their cars were burned on a previous night and Rittenhouse was wandering around with his gun no where near the business.

Rittenhouse bounced between two CarSource locations and there was plenty of testimony around him being part of a group that was asked to be there by the owners. (Cars were still on the lots too, not that its relevant) Regardless, him "wandering" around doesn't prove shit, especially murderous intent. 

 

 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

The judge based the weapons charge on a case from the early 90's the interpretation seems like an outlier and apparently has been pushing by the gun lobbies.

It's relevant in that Rittenhouse broke the law with the gun, with the curfew, and shows that he was reckless.

Rosenbaum's threats were only reported by Rittenhouse and I believe one of Ritenhouses's associates which doesn't mean that it happened. And even if Rosenbaum did make threats he had no means to carry them out.

The whole Grosskreutz pretending to surrender is silly. That doesn't make sense.

For McGiniss look at the stuff the defense put on their "power point" They called him something and they basically said he put himself in a situation where he could be shot by a gun so it was his fault.

It's irrelevant whether Rittenhouse knew McGiness was there he was using ammo that could go through someone and a long distance so he was putting many people in danger. The charge they argued was reckless something I think.

And again, this still all goes back to the main problem that nothing was causing an immediate threat to Rittenhouse's life. You can imagine whatever scenarios you want, but that is not how the law is laid out. You have to exhaust all options. 

I think the prosecution made a pretty good argument that Rittenhouse did the same thing we all have done in COD. He found a safe area between a couple cars, stopped running, and when Rosenbaum got close he shot him. That version was shown to be reasonable from the FBI footage.

 

[Driftwood | 209]

I’m guessing @Californicationwould be happy to see the the full weight of the doj weaponized against Rittenhouse...

You people have your verdict.                  The trial was fair.                                       
the judge was, in most part fair.

[Silent Hill | 276]

10 minutes ago, Californication said:

The judge based the weapons charge on a case from the early 90's the interpretation seems like an outlier and apparently has been pushing by the gun lobbies.

Ok, its still a law so.... let's just hypothetically convict him of that misdemeanor and call it a wash. 

It's relevant in that Rittenhouse broke the law with the gun, with the curfew, and shows that he was reckless.

Sure, convict him of of the "questionable" law for underage possession like stated above and curfew (which everyone was breaking so anyone else could be considered "reckless" - Grosskreutz too since he shouldn't have legally had his pistol concealed). Still doesn't impact the primary charges. 

Rosenbaum's threats were only reported by Rittenhouse and I believe one of Ritenhouses's associates which doesn't mean that it happened. And even if Rosenbaum did make threats he had no means to carry them out.

Rittenhouse and Balch, who had just met that night. Did they have the same intentions?, sure but associate is a bit strong and you seemed to only use to try and disprove their testimony. Its fine if you don't believe them but a couple other people also stated that Rosenbaum was erratic and confrontational throughout the night. He was also on video angrily confronting people saying "shoot me n****". Add the fact that he was on medication for mental issues and it becomes easier to believe Rittenhouse/Balch/others in their testimony. 

And if Rosenbaum "had no means to carry threats out" (e.g., unarmed) then what do you think he was going to do when he caught up with Rittenhouse? (He lunged for his gun for a reason). Idiotic to risk losing control of your gun just because the guy wasn't already armed with a deadly weapon (as we know now with the benefit of hindsight - Rittenhouse did not at that time necessarily)

The whole Grosskreutz pretending to surrender is silly. That doesn't make sense.

Sense or not, its on video. He was advancing, Kyle aimed towards his direction, Grosskreutz put his hands up (gun in hand), Rittenhouse didn't shoot, Grosskreutz dropped his hands and stepped towards Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse shot him in the arm. That's exactly what happened within those few seconds.

For McGiniss look at the stuff the defense put on their "power point" They called him something and they basically said he put himself in a situation where he could be shot by a gun so it was his fault.

It's irrelevant whether Rittenhouse knew McGiness was there he was using ammo that could go through someone and a long distance so he was putting many people in danger. The charge they argued was reckless something I think.

Just skimmed through the defense questioning of McGinniss and see no PPT or statement on why it was McGinniss's "fault" that he was behind Rosenbaum. I do recall them asking Rittenhouse if he was familiar with the possible trajectory of FMJ ammo, which he claimed to be ignorant of all the differences. 

And again, this still all goes back to the main problem that nothing was causing an immediate threat to Rittenhouse's life. You can imagine whatever scenarios you want, but that is not how the law is laid out. You have to exhaust all options. 

Again, what option did Rittenhouse have when he ran away from Rosenbaum, turns around once he hits a bottleneck, and Rosenbaum is within mere feet, lunging at him? 

I think the prosecution made a pretty good argument that Rittenhouse did the same thing we all have done in COD. He found a safe area between a couple cars, stopped running, and when Rosenbaum got close he shot him. That version was shown to be reasonable from the FBI footage.

LOL the argument about video games is/was weak af. A totally irrelevant hail mary. 

Rittenhouse legit runs away after Rosenbaum pops out from behind a couple cars on the lot, gets to a bottleneck between cars and a partial wall, turns around and Rosenbaum is lunging at him. Per video and testimony from McGinniss. Not sure why you're trying to spin that has he ran to a "safe area", turned around, took aim and let loose on Rosenbaum. That is so dishonest its laughable. 

 

 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

The curfew was for people under 18.

Grosskreutz had a carry permit - it expired. 

Rosenbaum was confrontational as were other people who complained about having guns pointed at them by people on the ground as well as by people on the roof who had lasers which were interpretted as gun sights.

Again I don't think Rosenbaum threatened him - there is no hard evidence of that. And based on what the prosecution states the requirements are for deadly force, that's not enough.

Grosskreutz had multiple opportunities to shoot Rosenbaum - he didn't.

Defense went after the reporter during closing.

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

The curfew was for people under 18.

Got it, convict him with being out after curfew then.

Grosskreutz had a carry permit - it expired. 

Exactly - illegal and a bit "reckless".

Rosenbaum was confrontational as were other people who complained about having guns pointed at them by people on the ground as well as by people on the roof who had lasers which were interpretted as gun sights.

Nah, I don't buy for a second that Rosenbaum was only confrontational because people pointed guns at him. (And the folks on the roof were at a Car Source location, not the gas station where Rosenbaum was filmed being aggressive). That's a cheap (and devoid of evidence) defense to downplay Rosenbaum's demeanor. 

Again I don't think Rosenbaum threatened him - there is no hard evidence of that. And based on what the prosecution states the requirements are for deadly force, that's not enough.

It's fine you don't think that, but multiple people corroborated and he's on video being aggressive/hostile. He's also on video chasing Rittenhouse while yelling "F*** you!" and lunging for his gun before being shot.
There's more in favor than against it.  

Who claimed Rittenhouse was able to shoot Rosenbaum because of his earlier threats? They definitely played a factor in Rittenhouse fearing for his safety but the law allowed him to shoot when Rosenbaum got close enough to lunge for his weapon after aggressively chasing him. 
 

Grosskreutz had multiple opportunities to shoot Rosenbaum - he didn't.

Again, what's your point? Like Rittenhouse shouldn't have shot when Grosskreutz was within a couple feet  advancing towards him, gun in hand, just because Grosskreutz could have shot him before that moment? It's absurd to believe that Rittenhouse, at that moment, should have just let him continue his advancement under the assumption that he meant no harm because he hadn't already shot Rittenhouse.

Defense went after the reporter during closing.

Watched it again and he did say that Rittenhouse didn't know he was there, McGinniss put himself in that position by openly running towards Rittenhouse/Rosenbaum, and under the law, if Rittenhouse was proven to have acted in self-defense, he's not responsible for McGinniss in that situation.
I guess I don't really see that as "going after him" or misleading the jury somehow.

 

 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

That's funny. 

So Grosskreutz is carrying a gun and had an expired permit - meaning he went out of his way to obey the law at one point and was given the right by the govt. to carry and he screwed up by not checking the expiration date and you call that reckless.

Rittenhouse - a child, who needed to find someone else to buy an automatic weapon for him because he wasn't allowed to because it was against the law, points the gun at different people throughout the night, put himself in a situation he could not handle and murders two people - not reckless?

And again, the right to defend yourself with deadly force is only allowed if you have exhausted all other options. Rittenhouse ran, took positon in a defensible area, and shot an unarmed person when they got close.

The point about the defenses attacks on the reporter is that they are baseless. The prosecution made the same claims against every person that a charge could be made against Rittenhouse for.

A charge for endangering the reporter or anyone else in the range of Rittenhouse's gun, that he was illegally carrying, shooting etc. should have been a no-brainer. That shit is indefensible. 

And outside of this trial the fact that this ridiculous shit can become precedent is even scarier. You know that after they killed that woman with a car a couple years back conservatives went around the country making laws for it to be harder to prosecute someone who murders someone with a car? 

To think it should be legal to go out in public and do these things is a little sick.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Californication

[Californication | 1,477]

@Kguillemette

Here's Jacob Blakes family from this morning essentially agreeing with what I said yesterday.

https://www.democracynow.org/2021/11/22/jacob_blake_kyle_rittenhouse_verdict_not

 

 

 

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

@Californication I understand that much of the sentiment is that if it were a black person's trial it would have gone a lot differently. And largely I agree. But I would also argue that that would be unjust as I remain unconvinced that what Rittenhouse did that night was a crime. Sending a not guilty(note I specifically did not say innocent) person to jail is completely wrong and against what America is all about and should should ever strive to be. I would be very concerned if we start convicting people based on hypotheticals and "affirmative action" for lack of a better term. 

I stand by that this is nothing like the trial of the Rodney King incident that saw those cops who beat a surrendering man within inches of his life while being filmed walk free after a not guilty verdict. I find it impossible to come to the conclusion that the police officers may not have committed a crime. I can not say the same thing about Rittenhouse.

 

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

@Californication

Double post

Edited November 23, 2021 by Kguillemette

[Californication | 1,477]

55 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

@Californication I understand that much of the sentiment is that if it were a black person's trial it would have gone a lot differently. And largely I agree. But I would also argue that that would be unjust as I remain unconvinced that what Rittenhouse did that night was a crime. Sending a not guilty(note I specifically did not say innocent) person to jail is completely wrong and against what America is all about and should should ever strive to be. I would be very concerned if we start convicting people based on hypotheticals and "affirmative action" for lack of a better term. 

I stand by that this is nothing like the trial of the Rodney King incident that saw those cops who beat a surrendering man within inches of his life while being filmed walk free after a not guilty verdict. I find it impossible to come to the conclusion that the police officers may not have committed a crime. I can not 

 

If Rittenhouse was a black person he would have been convicted if not shot.

Rittenhouse clearly commited multiple crimes. 

The irony is that you are a perfect example of what the problem is, you can't even tell that a crime has been committed, 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Californication

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

2 hours ago, Californication said:

If Rittenhouse was a black person he would have been convicted if not shot.

Rittenhouse clearly commited multiple crimes. 

The irony is that you are a perfect example of what the problem is, you can't even tell that a crime has been committed, 

I don't want to go in circles here, but I am unconvinced he did not act in self defense. It's been reported that Rosenbaum reached for the barrel of his gun. The gentleman that had his bicep shot drew a gun of his own. It was reported that after the shooting, Rittenhouse was walking towards police(perhaps to surrender or get help?) when he was charged by Huber. Would everyone still be alive and/or unharmed if Rittenhouse never pulled the trigger? I think it's reasonable to think Rittenhouse felt he wouldn't survive if he hadn't. And if it was determined that Rittenhouse had legal grounds(or at least non-criminal) to be there with that weapon, then it seems your issue is with the current law l, not Rittenhouse. 

In other words, I feel I have reasonable doubt a crime was committed in this case.

You may feel that I can't tell a crime has been committed and I am an example of the problem. I think the problem is that you are example of someone trying to find something that isn't there.

I'll give you the last point until something else happens in the world I want to react to.

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Kguillemette
Softened language. Rereading it felt much hasher than meant it the first time I wrote it.

[Californication | 1,477]

New footage from Rittenhouse shooting.

Spoiler

 

 

[Driftwood | 209]

I know people want to avoid this...

Joseph Rosenbaum Criminal Record

Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender and he was on the Wisconsin sex offender registry for an Arizona child molestation case. His record was over the top even for the typical insane people defending him. He faced 11 charges in the case that landed him as a sex offender and they were amended in a plea deal. According to online court records provided by Heavy.com, Rosenbaum received 10 years in prison in 2002 for sexual contact of a minor, and then was sentenced to 2 years, 6 months for sexual contact of a minor related to the same 2002 incident

 

His death was ruled justifiable!

anybody still defending him... is an advocate for pedophilia.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Driftwood

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

@Driftwood Come on now. It's common knowledge the dude had a very checkered past. Nobody here is defending Rosenbaum the human being, but are defending that he had the right to be where he was and doing what he did that night. Let's not stoop to accusing people of being people of being pedophila advocates.

[Driftwood | 209]

When you advocate on behalf of a pedophile...

 

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

4 minutes ago, Driftwood said:

When you advocate on behalf of a pedophile...

 

I'll finish with this. I really hope you aren't referring to other forum members here. Both @avatar! and @Californication have many world viewpoints I would strongly disagree with. That being said, I would never call either of them uninformed. They are both ready and willing to back their opinions up with sound sources and hard facts. In fact if you were to read back far enough in this thread and the previously locked one in everything else, you'll find me conceeding arguments or even changing my opinions based on things they have said and evidence they have presented. 

But yeah, pedophilia is bad. I sincerely hope we all agree on that. Now can we drop this?

 

[Driftwood | 209]

Not pointing the fingers @ anybody,

and I don’t believe everyone does know about rosenbaum’s past...            I didn’t until recently.        
 Granted i have not tracked this thread or its parent, 
I stumbled in here in a very bad fucking mood.

 

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

10 minutes ago, Driftwood said:

Not pointing the fingers @ anybody,

and I don’t believe everyone does know about rosenbaum’s past...            I didn’t until recently.        
 Granted i have not tracked this thread or its parent, 
I stumbled in here in a very bad fucking mood.

 

That's fair. We all have bad days!  Im sorry to hear that. I just hope we all can get along. Not being able to get along is why the parent thread was locked, and I really didn't want it to happen again. I like reacting to major political news here and reading other people's opinion, you know?

[Silent Hill | 276]

9 hours ago, Californication said:

If Rittenhouse was a black person he would have been convicted if not shot.

Only because I know how much you like loosely-related examples to try and prove a point: https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640#

Your extreme confidence that it would have played out differently if he were a another race is pure speculation. (I'll go ahead and speculate that if Rittenhouse were black, you'd be singing a different tune)

Rittenhouse clearly commited multiple crimes. 

Clearly, he did not, no matter how much you think he did. 
 

 

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

Very satisfying guilty verdict right there.

[Tulpa | 3,517]

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiQWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm55dGltZXMuY29tLzIwMjEvMTIvMDUvdXMvcG9saXRpY3MvYm9iLWRvbGUtZGVhZC5odG1s0gFFaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMS8xMi8wNS91cy9wb2xpdGljcy9ib2ItZG9sZS1kZWFkLmFtcC5odG1s?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Bob Dole dies at 98.

So Jimmy Carter is the last one from the 1976 and 1980 elections.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Tulpa