Kyle Rittenhouse

[thetragichippy]

This is going to be an interesting trial, and the Twitter comments will not disappoint…..here is one guy that thinks you must be at least grazed by a bullet before you can use lethal force…..
 

“No shot grazed his body so therefore he had no legal right to self defense..... he felt like he was being attacked but he actually wasn't until he starting running...  feelings are not upheld by the law”

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

This is going to be an interesting trial, and the Twitter comments will not disappoint…..here is one guy that thinks you must be at least grazed by a bullet before you can use lethal force…..
 

“No shot grazed his body so therefore he had no legal right to self defense..... he felt like he was being attacked but he actually wasn't until he starting running...  feelings are not upheld by the law”

I am really not sure where people come up with their conclusions. Obviously different states have different laws and different requirements such as should you be required to retreat if it’s possible? I am sure that maybe even a majority of the people commenting have absolutely no clue what their state law says or in this case, the state law where you do not live. Even if they do they make up scenarios in their own mind as to what would be legal and not going by the letter of the law. 

Yes, this should be entertaining. Hopefully it will be not guilty

[bullets13]

I don't see how anyone can look at the footage and not determine that he acted in self-defense.  He was retreating at all times, and was attacked by all three of the people he shot.  My question is this: he was committing a crime at the time by carrying the rifle.  Does that negate the self-defense charge?  

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I don't see how anyone can look at the footage and not determine that he acted in self-defense.  He was retreating at all times, and was attacked by all three of the people he shot.  My question is this: he was committing a crime at the time by carrying the rifle.  Does that negate the self-defense charge?  

According to Wisconsin law I believe he was committing a misdemeanor because he was under 18 years old. I don’t know if that negates self-defense, it should not but you can never tell with a state law or what a DA will try to convince the jury to believe. If he was committing a crime that caused the attack on him, I believe that probably negates it. Like if he was breaking into someone’s house and they attacked him and he used deadly force, it would be unlawful because he cannot use a deadly force to further a criminal act. On the other hand if he was smoking marijuana which is also a misdemeanor and someone tried to kill him, does he have the right to self defense or would he lose it simple because he’s committing a misdemeanor that has nothing to do with the attack?

I believe that him unlawfully carrying a rifle does not negate the right to self-defense but you could never tail about another state.

 

[SmashMouth]

33 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

tail

Another misspelling... 🤣

[tvc184]

7 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Another misspelling... 🤣

  Voice recognition…. 

And no matter how many times I proofread it, I usually have to go back and make corrections. For some reason it is easier to see once it has been posted. I will leave it for dramatic effect…. 😂

[SmashMouth]

Lol. I get so excited about my smart ace post, I usually forget to proofread. Lol.

[thetragichippy]

40 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Lol. I get so excited about my smart ace post, I usually forget to proofread. Lol.

He’s pretty smart….he lets everyone proofread it for him😂

[tvc184]

23 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

He’s pretty smart….he lets everyone proofread it for him😂

Testing……

I was reading a thread in another forum and the fight was, Waving HIPPA rights.

I did not but I want to start out saying to begin with, you had two misspellings in your title. 

[SmashMouth]

24 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

He’s pretty smart….he lets everyone proofread it for him😂

Lol. You’re right. 

[SmashMouth]

Just now, tvc184 said:

Testing……

I was reading a thread in another forum and the fight was, Waving HIPPA rights.

I did not but I want to start out saying to begin with, you had two misspellings in your title. 

Waiving

HIPAA

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

According to Wisconsin law I believe he was committing a misdemeanor because he was under 18 years old. I don’t know if that negates self-defense, it should not but you can never tell with a state law or what a DA will try to convince the jury to believe. If he was committing a crime that caused the attack on him, I believe that probably negates it. Like if he was breaking into someone’s house and they attacked him and he used deadly force, it would be unlawful because he cannot use a deadly force to further a criminal act. On the other hand if he was smoking marijuana which is also a misdemeanor and someone tried to kill him, does he have the right to self defense or would he lose it simple because he’s committing a misdemeanor that has nothing to do with the attack?

I believe that him unlawfully carrying a rifle does not negate the right to self-defense but you could never tail about another state.

 

Kind of a weird one.  As I said, I see it as self defense, but I could see the prosecution arguing that he instigated the attacks by bringing a rifle to a “peaceful protest.”  Not my belief, but I can see them saying it, combined with the argument that it was illegal for him to have it.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

Kind of a weird one.  As I said, I see it as self defense, but I could see the prosecution arguing that he instigated the attacks by bringing a rifle to a “peaceful protest.”  Not my belief, but I can see them saying it, combined with the argument that it was illegal for him to have it.

If they get away with that, the prosecutors should be indicted. 

[baddog]

Had he been armed with Molotav cocktails, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Had he been armed with Molotav cocktails, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Thank you. 

[thetragichippy]

I'm no expert but I think it was a good day for Kyle based on the few hours I watched.

[tvc184]

7 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I'm no expert but I think it was a good day for Kyle based on the few hours I watched.

I did not see any of it but I hope so. Had this been locally, I don’t think he would have been indicted.

[thetragichippy]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I did not see any of it but I hope so. Had this been locally, I don’t think he would have been indicted.

It is streaming on YouTube live.  I think the defense had a great opening, with video and pictures. The defense also made the prosecutions first witness, his friend, backpedal on testimony and statements he gave the FBI.  Of course, I may be biased since I think he is innocent as well

[PAMFAM10]

This will be interesting 

[thetragichippy]

23 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

This will be interesting 

I've been watching/listening to the trial. It is very interesting. The Judge has been very colorful and pretty hard on the prosecution for trying to admit things he felt was not within the laws/rules on the court.  So far, admittedly bias, I don't think the State is very convincing.  

[tvc184]

Nate the lawyer and former police officer sums up the first week….

 

[tvc184]

Case closed!!!

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Case closed!!!

lol. AGREED!

[tvc184]

4 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

lol. AGREED!

I know what they are going to try to do. With 2 first with murder charges, who really cares about an aggravated assault?

I think they’re closing argument it’s going to be that we are stuck with the witnesses we were given but that does not negate the first to murder charges.

I took time to read just a little bit of Wisconsin self-defense law last night. It is similar to Texas law in that it says a reasonable belief by the person using self-defense. It does not matter so much what happened but what was your thought process and would a person in your position think that it was reasonable.

Hopefully the defense attorney is smart enough to use the prosecution case against them. The prosecution has spent time trying to portray Rittenhouse as an inexperienced kid. Instead of hurting him, I think that plays into his reasonable belief. It would be much easier to make the case against a trained police officer or maybe member of the military to say, they have had training and know exactly what they were doing. There is no reason for them to panic. Here you have a scared 17-year-old kid who is you by your own case, claimed as inexperienced but you want him prosecuted as if he was a trained swat team member.

In other words, what is the reasonable belief of a trained shooter or self defense expert as opposed to the reasonably inexperienced 17-year-old?

[tvc184]

I have not looked up this part of the Wisconsin law but I read a comment that in  Wisconsin you can  open carry a firearm but not concealed. The guy that got shot by Rittenhouse had a handgun and I don’t think it was exposed until he got on top of Rittenhouse and pointed it at him. That would mean the so-called victim was guilty of a crime and instead of Rittenhouse being indicted for shooting him. It should have been that guy that was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon…. Assuming the comment I read about Wisconsin firearm laws was true.

Prosecutorial misconduct?