Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[zh cohen]

That is one side. The other side it would of been reasonable for Kyle to believe they were trying to stop him from shooting another unarmed man.

I am referring to the second person shot.

Right, but in order for Rittenhouse to get off, self defense has to be a reasonable assumption for him to make, not the only assumption he could make.

The fact that another person could look at it differently doesn't change anything legally. As long as he saw it that way, and he was not unreasonable to do so, his self defense claim stands (at least as far as that requirement goes).

[CountValentine]

Right, but in order for Rittenhouse to get off, self defense has to be a reasonable assumption for him to make, not the only assumption he could make.

The fact that another person could look at it differently doesn't change anything legally. As long as he saw it that way, and he was not unreasonable to do so, his self defense claim stands (at least as far as that requirement goes).

The four elements of self-defense are (1) unprovoked attack, (2) necessity, (3) proportionality, and (4) reasonable belief.

Was the second attack unprovoked?
Was either response proportional?
This is one big web.

[Yehuda57]

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1457778539504144386

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1457778539504144386

It is unfortunate that prosecutors have a tendency to overcharge in these cases

[as2]

After watching more footage and listening to more of the trial, I haven't seen much regarding the second shooting, but I would say it definitely appears that the first and last shooting were in self defense. My opinion, based on what I think I saw. There also appears to be serious negligence as nobody seems to have been charged other than Rittenhouse, when there were undeniably others involved who committed crimes, some even admitting to them on the stand. I know there is a rumor of corruption within the police department there (not sure of that is conspiracy or legitimate) but take that with a mountain of salt or do your own research. One thing that keeps coming out more and more though, is how disgusting the people he shot, were. These were people that many people would happily wish death upon, yet when they face it as a political incident, they make theses individuals their saints. Not new, but still just as concerning.

[neveryou]

I know there is a rumor of corruption within the police department there (not sure of that is conspiracy or legitimate) but take that with a mountain of salt or do your own research.

The mayor, DA and the detective are all related

[CountValentine]

After watching more footage and listening to more of the trial, I haven't seen much regarding the second shooting, but I would say it definitely appears that the first and last shooting were in self defense. My opinion, based on what I think I saw. There also appears to be serious negligence as nobody seems to have been charged other than Rittenhouse, when there were undeniably others involved who committed crimes, some even admitting to them on the stand. I know there is a rumor of corruption within the police department there (not sure of that is conspiracy or legitimate) but take that with a mountain of salt or do your own research. One thing that keeps coming out more and more though, is how disgusting the people he shot, were. These were people that many people would happily wish death upon, yet when they face it as a political incident, they make theses individuals their saints. Not new, but still just as concerning.

What crimes are you talking about? And what crimes were admitted to on the stand?

[neveryou]

What crimes are you talking about? And what crimes were admitted to on the stand?

The witness ccw had expired and he was walking around with a concealed weapon

[CountValentine]

The witness ccw had expired and he was walking around with a concealed weapon

The defendant was carrying an illegal bought gun and illegally carrying. Are they part of the charges?
ETA: He was charged with the possession.

[neveryou]

The defendant was carrying an illegal bought gun and illegally carrying. Are they part of the charges?
ETA: He was charged with the possession.

You asked what crimes were committed that werent charged and I mentioned the witness that was on the stand today and you tell me about the defendant

[CountValentine]

You asked what crimes were committed that werent charged and I mentioned the witness that was on the stand today and you tell me about the defendant

How can he be charged with something he mentioned today? He might be charged after this.

[neveryou]

How can he be charged with something he mentioned today? He might be charged after this.

It sounded like everybody already knew that his ccw had expired
He said that at that time he didn't realize that it was expired

But hey I never knew that's a valid excuse to not be charged with a crime

[ah giten]

What crimes are you talking about? And what crimes were admitted to on the stand?

He also chased after Kyle and threatened/ pointed the gun, as he admitted today.

Until today he was just trying to help with medical. And he was just WALKING IN THE SAME DIRECTION as Rittenhouse.

[CountValentine]

He also chased after Kyle and threatened/ pointed the gun, as he admitted today.

Until today he was just trying to help with medical. And he was just WALKING IN THE SAME DIRECTION as Rittenhouse.

I guess you missed the part where he said he was going after an active shooter.

[YitzyS]

I guess you missed the part where he said he was going after an active shooter.

This is Rittenhouse's trial, and the only thing that matters (today) is how Rittenhouse acted and perceived things. Anyone else's motive or thought process is completely non-relevant, and in fact, it even can distort the jury's vision wrongly.

We can have a separate thread to debate if those who tried to stop Rittenhouse were heroes of villains, and whether this was an avoidable or unavoidable tragedy. But today the jury must only see things from Rittenhouse's perspective, and to determine if he was justified in his actions.

Whether the witness thought he was going after an active shooter, or if it 'just wasn't me to shoot someone', is completely irrelevant as a sentiment.

[CountValentine]

This is Rittenhouse's trial, and the only thing that matters (today) is how Rittenhouse acted and perceived things. Anyone else's motive or thought process is completely non-relevant, and in fact, it even can distort the jury's vision wrongly.

We can have a separate thread to debate if those who tried to stop Rittenhouse were heroes of villains, and whether this was an avoidable or unavoidable tragedy. But today the jury must only see things from Rittenhouse's perspective, and to determine if he was justified in his actions.

Whether the witness thought he was going after an active shooter, or if it 'just wasn't me to shoot someone', is completely irrelevant as a sentiment.

I think you missed what was being discussed. We are discussing why others were not charged.

Now to your point. What Rittenhouse's perspective was does not matter if the jury finds it was not reasonable. He can be 100% convinced in his mind it was self-defense. If they jury finds that is not reasonable he is toast.

My question is does the defense have to prove the 4 elements of self-defense?

[YitzyS]

I think you missed what was being discussed. We are discussing why others were not charged.

Sorry, I jumped in in middle of the conversation and I missed that.

Now to your point. What Rittenhouse's perspective was does not matter if the jury finds it was not reasonable. He can be 100% convinced in his mind it was self-defense. If they jury finds that is not reasonable he is toast.

That's true, but I think (IMO as a legal novice) that you are saying it wrong. If he thought it was self-defense, even unreasonably, then he theoretically should not go to jail. But we as a jury are supposed to infer that he DIDN'T do it for self-defense if we think it's unreasonable to make an inference that he did.

My question is does the defense have to prove the 4 elements of self-defense?

I didn't think about this enough to come to a conclusive opinion on this.

[CountValentine]

Sorry, I jumped in in middle of the conversation and I missed that.

NP as this is JS.

That's true, but I think (IMO as a legal novice) that you are saying it wrong. If he thought it was self-defense, even unreasonably, then he theoretically should not go to jail. But we as a jury are supposed to infer that he DIDN'T do it for self-defense if we think it's unreasonable to make an inference that he did.

Just want to make sure everyone understands that just because he believes he acted in self-defense the jury still has to decide in the action was reasonable. To put it another way would a reasonable person feel that was self defense.
I as a reasonable person would have not shot the person but could still feel it was my right (self-defense) to do so.

I didn't think about this enough to come to a conclusive opinion on this.

Don't want an opinion on this one. I want what the law is. 

[aygart]

That's true, but I think (IMO as a legal novice) that you are saying it wrong. If he thought it was self-defense, even unreasonably, then he theoretically should not go to jail. But we as a jury are supposed to infer that he DIDN'T do it for self-defense if we think it's unreasonable to make an inference that he did.

If he killed someone because he was unreasonably thought it was self defense then he needs to be locked up for other reasons.

[CountValentine]

Don't want an opinion on this one. I want what the law is. 

Think I found it.

Objectively Reasonable Fear of Injury or Death
The defendant cannot claim self-defense unless a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would believe that self-defense is necessary to avoid injury or death. If the defendant honestly but unreasonably believes self-defense is necessary under the circumstances, a claim of imperfect self-defense may reduce the severity of the offense (State v. Faulkner, 2010). However, the defendant is still guilty of a crime, albeit a less serious crime.

If he killed someone because he was unreasonably thought it was self defense then he needs to be locked up for other reasons.