(no message)
But children can walk the streets with an AR -15?
It is also illegal to riot, loot, and burn private property.
It was only a matter of time before some immature cop wanna be would put himself into an untenable situation and make stupid decisions. This would not happen if Governors, mayors and city councils actually made their policemen do their jobs and the court system did not practice catch and release against rioters and anarchists.
If only there were detectable patterns...
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I have a feeling Lin Wood will do a fine job.
(no message)
Will be interesting to see how his defense goes. Seems likely that he was violating the law standing there with his gun. But, will that turn a series of self-defense events into something other than self-defense? I honestly don't know.
I saw an interview tonight with a witness to the first shotting, and watched the video. Rittenhouse only fired after someone else fired first. The first shooting took place in a parking lot of a building he was protecting (he was interviewed by media before the shooting went down). He was showing his medical kit, and then his gun, saying he brought it just in case he was attacked.
Retaliation is not self defense, meaning one does not get to punch their wife in the face when she shoves you or changes the channel.
A jury trial is a jury trial is a jury trial. The accused only needs one to hang it.
This case will plea. 17 year old, IQ likely around 80, possible mental health issues,
When the stakes are life imprisonment, the self defense claim better be really fookin strong. Not the case here.
The kid has to justify three separate shooting decisions.
He attempted to disengage after the first one, but he was pursued, and only fired again in self defense after being attacked again.
You are arguing it is a slam dunk for political reasons. It will be interesting to watch, though, as I said before.
(no message)
Rittenhouse was on the other side of a car when the shots rang out. Pop. Pop-pop-pop-pop.
Then Rittenhouse runs around the car and circles back to the guy he shot. A witness was administering aid. Rittenhouse dials 911, then runs off. He is chased, the rest is on video.
The witness was interviewed. He said another guy shot, but he couldn't see if he was directly firing at Rittenhouse or not. He said Rittenhouse fired back. He said Rittenhouse ran around the car, and when he saw that the witness was administering aid, Rittenhouse called 911, and then left. The witness worked on the injured guy, and then carried him to a hospital nearby with 3 others. At least, that is what he said in the interview.
to reflect on that.
(no message)
How many bullet casings recovered from shooting scene that were fired from other firearms?
You might want to confirm the existence of such evidence before committing to a justification defense.
I would not have done what he did. I think it was stupid to put himself in a position to do what he did. I've acknowledged that he probably broke the law just by standing there.
But, having said that, I don't think each encounter was as cut and dry as you do. Did he forfeit his right to self defense by standing there violating the law? Maybe. But maybe not.
I have acknowledged there are facts that help your side, and there are facts that help his side (not my side). You are posting here solely as a politician, not as a lawyer.
You asked, "How many rounds were fired at Rittenhouse?" I don't know. In the first contact, one, according to the witness...the guy who ended up giving aid to the guy Rittenhouse shot, while Rittenhouse dialed 911 for his shooting victim.
You asked, "How many bullet casings recovered from shooting scene that were fired from other firearms?" Who knows. Maybe you should wait to find that out before committing. If none, maybe revolvers were used.
You said, "You might want to confirm the existence of such evidence before committing to a justification defense." Sounds like a good strategy for me. How about you do that before committing to a prosecution strategy?
(no message)
“The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.“
Oh, and btw:
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
when it comes to the 2nd and 3rd shootings. The first shooting at the used car lot is the one where he may have a problem in my opinion.
He does not appear to have a "self defense" defense, particularly with the second two shootings as he was a fleeing felon being chased by good people trying to apprehend him for the first killing. See the Wisconsin statute that I posted in reply to Baron.
Although a good trial lawyer will of course sprinkle in self defense, the strongest case is that Kyle was an impressionable well intended 17 year old, who was following his President's "law and order" instructions, reinforced by the Kenosha Police giving him water bottles and thanking Kyle for his armed presence. Hence, the very same Government cannot now prosecute the lad because he panicked amidst the discord.
Now that’s rich. One of the “good people” tried to bash his head in with a skateboard and the other “good person” was going to shoot him with a hand gun. Rittenhouse’s attorney will most definitely claim self defense.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
That video is in line with the witness interview I saw, who was rendering aid to the first guy hit. Pop. Pop-pop-pop-pop. The first pop was from the guy who was shot (before he was shot). The succession of pops that followed were Rittenhouse's shots. At least, that is according to the witness interview that I saw. If his testimony stands up, it helps Rittenhouse.
I think the most concerning shoot (from his legal defense perspective) is the third one...was he really in reasonable fear for his own life? Maybe. But, in general, his behavior looks pretty good in that video...turns himself in after that.
Thanks for showing that. Shows some fairness on your part that you are willing to show video that doesn't help your advocacy.
Very early in the investigation. Always possible that new evidence will emerge to assist a justification defense. That will be a steep hill given that video footage.
Not sure a judge will even give a self defense instruction on all three shooting decisions by the lad. There has to be a factual basis.
If the case goes to trial, voir dire will be critical. Prosecutors will seek hard cold fact finders.
Defense counsel will seek jurors like you and Tampa, who endorse the shooting of unarmed people who had the gall to either confront or attempt to apprehend Kyle, but never presented the type of imminent threat that would justify the use of deadly force.
In other words, if an aggressive drunk asshole is trying to start a fight with you at a tailgate, it is unlawful to shoot him dead with your AR-15. I provide you with this advice as it does not appear you understand when deadly force is permitted.
You mischaracterize my position.
(no message)
(no message)