Which is why OJ could be found civilly liable and thus responsible for the wrongful death of victims even though a criminal jury found him not guilty. If your assertions were even close to correct, that civil verdict would not be possible.

It’s also why Rittenhouse never sued Whoopi Goldberg or anyoone else for defamation for calling him a murderer. And no, he cannot sue her in the future because the statute of limitations has run out.

Here you go clueless. This video from NBC shows Rittenhouse being violently attacked and clearly acting in self-defense, all caught on video. Gaige Grosskreutz had a hand gun pointed at Kyle's head, its all right there. www.nbcnews.com/video/romney...

That doesn’t correct my points that the verdict does not legally mean what you claim it means. In fact, you essentially admit it beciae now you are turning to the evidence to try and prove that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Rather than turning to any legal principles or holdings that …

a criminal verdict means that someone is innocent or that the verdict is binding on anyone other than the government Thanks for admitting that you are absolutely wrong that a “not guilty” argument means that the defendant is innocent,

You lunatics keep calling him a murderer, so show me the evidence. You can't, because you're an absolute liar. I showed you evidence to directly support my claims, they are undeniable. You are deflecting and clearly can't handle reality.

I didn’t call him a murderer. I pointed out the idiocy of claiimijg that a “not guilty” verdict equals “innocent.”

You sure seem upset that people are allowed to call Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer. Kinda weird since he murdered two people and tried to murder a third.

How interesting! That’s why the murderer Kyle Rittenhouse never sued an extremely famous media figure for calling him a murderer when he’s a murderer?

Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender, had just been released by a mental ward the day before the shooting, still had charges pending for assault. Huber strangled and suffocated his own brother in 2013, had a laundry list of felonies.

Watch the video, he was never the aggressor. All those who violently attacked him were violent convicted criminals, one was a child molester, another a wife beater who also spent time in prison for violent assaults against law enforcement.

Are you claiming then that he knew thos people’s personal history before he killed them and shot them for that reason? If so. that defeats your case for self-defense. If not, their personal histories are irrelevant to any discussion if he was guilty or not.

No, I never said that. Why are you lying, I stated no such thing. He did not know those who violently assaulted him.

What statement did I make? Can’t you read? I asked a question and then noted consequences depending your answer. And again if he didn’t know, then their past personal histories is irrelevant.

Your statement you lying trash bag: "Are you claiming then that he knew thos people’s personal history before he killed them and shot them for that reason?" I never stated anything like that, shut the hell up and stop putting words in my mouth.

That is a question, not a statement you dolt. Notice the question mark rather than a period or an exclamation mark? I am asking you if that was your claim, not stating that is what your claim was. That’s third grade English, FFS. How does the question mark not tip you off? You have to be a bot.

What does prior criminal status, unknown to the murderer Kyle Rittenhouse at the time, have to do with the murderer Kyle Rittenhouse murdering those guys?

You're the one making theses claims stupid, why don't you prove it! I posted evidence above that proves what actually happened. You have presented nothing to support your mentally deranged claims.

Says the guy that doesn’t realize that saying someone based upon disclosed facts is a “murderer” is an opinion. Or that Rittenhouse has an excellent defamation claim when he absolutely does not. Which is why he never sued anyone for it.

There is a huge difference between someone stating an opinion vs. stating something as a fact. These people are not giving an opinion that they think Kyle is a murderer, not what they stated. Rather they are claiming he is a murderer, and with no evidence to support it.

You don't have a right to intentionally lie about and spread baseless claims about others, the laws of this nation afford you no such rights. Its called libel clueless. Disclosed facts? You people are claiming he's a murderer, yet provided no evidence at all to support your claims.

It’s not an “intentional lie” to say express an opinion that he is a murderer. And everyone has a 1A right to express that. The law is very clear on that. It would be an “intentional lie” to claim that he was convicted by a jury for murder. But you can’t tell the difference between those …

Then tell him to sue me for libel.

You claimed he’s innocent of the murder I said he did. Then he has an excellent chance to sue me. After all, he can prove that he’s innocent just like you said he is (a thing he cannot do in criminal court for reasons already explained to you)

No, you claimed he's guilty of murder, I asked you to back up your mouth and show me the evidence to prove this. Why would you intentionally spread lies about others like this? That's exactly what you're doing here.

No I claimed he's a murderer. That's not being found guilty of murder. For example, Adolf Hitler, Orenthal James Simpson, and the English individual colloquially known as "Jack the Ripper" are all people who have never been found guilty of murder, ever. They are all murderers.

I mean, Rittenhouse did kill those guys, right?

People have a right to defend themselves from violence stupid.

Sure, sure. All people, right?

That's not an answer to the question you were asked.

*Justifiably kill.

I just showed you solid evidence that proves his innocence beyond any reasonable doubt. a jury agreed!

Why won’t he answer his question re: the victims’ personal history? You are very eager to bring them up but you refuse to answer questions about why they are relevant.

Victims? You mean the child rapist, wife beater, and the guy who strangled his brother? Those are the people Kyle shot. They were all violent convicted criminals stupid.

Are you claiming that Rittenhouse shot them for those reasons? Also, do you think a criminal can’t become the victim of someone else? As for “stupid,” you’re the moron who claimed that a “not guilty” verdict means innocence or that Rittenhouse has an excellent case to sue.

I am sad I’m blocked because I wanted to teach him that Kyle Rittenhouse is a homicide.

After all if he’s not a murderer he can just sue me and prove it. Should be easy

Tiktok fuckboy you can just let him know to sue me and he can prove he’s not a murderer then

Its morally bankrupt people like yourself who make this world an absolute misery for everyone else. I cannot comprehend the vile hatred that consumes you people.

That’s kinda soy of you lmao. Internet comments make things an absolute misery for you? Go outside touch grass.

Why would you say something like that? What the hell is wrong with you? I haven't done anything to warrant your behavior. Do you threaten and scream at random people in the street too?

You’re defending a murderer so yeah you have

Those are disputed facts. The factfinder in this case resolved that dispute one way. Others may resolve those disputes differently.

How do you dispute video evidence that clearly shows a chain of events that are undeniable? Kyle had a gun pointed at his head moron. You people don't even know what happened. You've been calling him a murderer since day one, all because deranged liberal media told you so. Pathetic trash.

Maybe the guy reasonably believed that his use of force was necessary to prevent an unjustified risk of death or serious injury to himself or others. Reasonable belief is a question of fact.

Kathryn, we know that the guy testified that … Oh wait he couldn’t testify as to his belief as to why he used force against Rittenhouse. Because he was dead.

So yeah, it’s not rocket science but it is the law.

If a juror after hewing all the evidence reaches the conclusion that they don’t know if the defendant did the crime or not. they have to vote “not guilty.” In many occasions after a trial, jurors have been interviewed and have said that’s why they voted “not guilty.”