Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Themis]

While he may get off, I think it is clear from a legal standpoint he is guilty of murder. He cannot use self defense as an argument when he was actively breaking the law by having the gun. I also have not seen good evidence the crowd was trying to kill him, even though he may have perceived it that way. I don't think we should be calling them all looters when we have no good idea who was looting and who was just there to protest. These events to me seem to be worse because of Trump and those like him who are purposely trying to rile up both sides for political gain. This is the first president from either party I have seen do this.

[_ajax18]

While he may get off, I think it is clear from a legal standpoint he is guilty of murder. He cannot use self defense as an argument when he was actively breaking the law by having the gun. I also have not seen good evidence the crowd was trying to kill him, even though he may have perceived it that way. I don't think we should be calling them all looters when we have no good idea who was looting and who was just there to protest. These events to me seem to be worse because of Trump and those like him who are purposely trying to rile up both sides for political gain. This is the first president from either party I have seen do this.

I guess he's still alive which he wouldn't be had he not been armed and shot his attackers. I'd still rather be Kyle Rittenhouse than the guy who had his face kicked in to the point he was left unconscience. When BLM stops my car and tries to assault me for trying to use the road the mass incarceration count is going to get one inmate higher.

[_subgenius]

From what I can tell he was charged with Sexual Conduct with a Minor. https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections. ... ?ID=172556

A pedophile by definition is an adult who is sexually attracted to children but Rosenbaum was only 18 when he was charged with this crime. Unacceptable to say the least, but details matter when smearing the dead I would think. I keep hearing everyone say "pedophile" as if he had a long history of stalking and raping children.

A long history of stalking/raping is not how anyone defines pedophile. You nailed it with "adult who is sexually attracted to children", and Rosenbaum checks all those boxes. Ergo, the charge of pedophile is accurate and appropriate.
If you want to defend the 10 year exception of California's proposed law that provides registration exception a 22yo having sex with a 10yo, then start a thread for that stream of your intellect-absent; refusing-to-admit-you-were-wrong; and oh-my-lawd-you-are-defending-a-pedo-to-maintain-party-line posts.

[_subgenius]

While he may get off, I think it is clear from a legal standpoint he is guilty of murder.

that's not accurate, nor is it how our legal system works - especially since you will soon admit that you haven't seen all the facts/evidence. Simply bringing a gun to that "protest" is not proof of a person intending to kill someone. Otherwise, everyone else could be charged with attempt or conspiracy to murder.

He cannot use self defense as an argument when he was actively breaking the law by having the gun.

that's not how the law works. Even with bringing/possessing an illegal weapon does not exempt him from the right to defend himself. The gun issue would be a separate and it is entirely (and legally) possible to be innocent by self-defense but guilty on gun charge.
So, yes he can use that defense - unless you can prove that he brought the gun with intent to murder those whom were killed. (like if he had been attacked by a mugger on the way to kill someone and ended up killing mugger, he would not be guilty of murdering the mugger).

I also have not seen good evidence the crowd was trying to kill him, even though he may have perceived it that way.

This is why your original assertion os flawed. And "perceived" threat is a valid defense in many jurisdictions, do you know if its valid in Wisconsin?

I don't think we should be calling them all looters when we have no good idea who was looting and who was just there to protest.

valid point, but since you conflate every Republican and Trump rally as a racist event we can dismiss your hypocrisy of thought.

These events to me seem to be worse because of Trump and those like him who are purposely trying to rile up both sides for political gain. This is the first president from either party I have seen do this.

For +44 months you guys have littered this board with unfounded and emotional outbursts with the sole intention of inflammation.
Forgive me if i dismiss your claim here as absurd, juvenile, naïve, and drivel.

[_Gadianton]

To answer a few points made collectively:

No, Kyle's life was not in danger. Did he think it was in danger? Probably. And he'd already made a statement to a reporter to the effect that his gun was only for killing (in self-defense, of course). In other words, the gun wasn't there to scare off a thug or for firing warning shots. He feels threatened, he kills. And so it comes down to, how good is he at figuring out if he's threatened?

As Icarus pointed out, if the mob was trying to kill him, he'd be dead. Suppose instead of Kyle, it would have been veteran LE. Would veteran LE have turned around and killed a guy throwing a bag at him because somebody well behind him fired off a shot? (you know what I'm saying; non-partisan veteran LE) Well, what would veteran LE be doing there alone? Does Kyle get a handicap for lack of experience?

Certainly, the militia and the crowd were all about pushing each others buttons.

Years ago, I got called by the principle's office because my step-kid had hit another kid, and parents who saw it gave statements that it was unprovoked. My head was spinning. It wasn't possible. As I started to get the facts, the "victim" was a known multi-year bully who had been briefly suspended many times for attacking other students, and even attacking a teacher. But he was the pet project of a liberal principle, and a whole lot more.

He'd tormented my kid on purpose, to provoke a disproportional reaction in public. And his plan worked. It took a while, but I ultimately succeeded where all else failed, and got the kid suspended from that school permanently. Good thing my kid wasn't carrying lethal force! And so in these standoffs, the aim of both groups is to provoke the other into crossing the line, either so that they can justifiably return even greater force, or to get the enemy into legal trouble. Sure, I fully believe that some from that crowd tried to intimidate Kyle, just to get him to cross the line. Looks like it worked.

[Guest]

Why was the kid there in the first place and carrying a loaded AR-15? Surely a good prosecutor would push this question front and center when exploring the kid's intent. The kid will have to take the stand and the conversation he had with the reporter about his gun being there for killing will be put into evidence. Was he there to woop some ass and looking for a confrontation? It looks like it. Yet, a person intent on finding conflict, especially a 17yr old, can be overwhelmed, misinterpret what is happening, feel threatened and fire when less should have been the reaction. He might be guilty but able to reduce charges on an imperfect self-defense theory that just looks at subjectIve intent.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/defense ... f-defense/

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Red shirt guy bull rushed Rittenhouse after someone fired off their hand gun, and after he threw something at him and after being verbally abusive. Rittenhouse will not be convicted of murder.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[quote="Dr Exiled" post_id=1237483 time=1599501194 user_id=18909]
Why was the kid there in the first place and carrying a loaded AR-15? Surely a good prosecutor would push this question front and center when exploring the kid's intent. The kid will have to take the stand and the conversation he had with the reporter about his gun being there for killing will be put into evidence. Was he there to woop some ass and looking for a confrontation? It looks like it. Yet, a person intent on finding conflict, especially a 17yr old, can be overwhelmed and overreact to a charged situation and fire when less should have been the reaction. He might be guilty but able to reduce charges on an imperfect self-defense theory that just looks at subjectIve intent.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/defense ... f-defense/
[/quote]

Just take the 5th.

[_Themis]

I guess he's still alive which he wouldn't be had he not been armed and shot his attackers.

We don't see good evidence that they intended to kill him.

[_Dr Exiled]

Why was the kid there in the first place and carrying a loaded AR-15? Surely a good prosecutor would push this question front and center when exploring the kid's intent. The kid will have to take the stand and the conversation he had with the reporter about his gun being there for killing will be put into evidence. Was he there to woop some ass and looking for a confrontation? It looks like it. Yet, a person intent on finding conflict, especially a 17yr old, can be overwhelmed and overreact to a charged situation and fire when less should have been the reaction. He might be guilty but able to reduce charges on an imperfect self-defense theory that just looks at subjectIve intent.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/defense ... f-defense/

Just take the 5th.

Perhaps. That usually is a decision made at the close of the prosecution's case.