Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[CountValentine]

I deleted my post,

same 

[as2]

He claimed he grabbed the barrel. Is that supported by witness testimony or videos?

The specialist who was on the stand yesterday said that based on the shots and video he saw, there was a monition (implied towards the gun) prior to him being shot. I believe Gaige also mentioned he had grabbed for the gun, but I can be wrong. Lastly, the analyst who looked at the gunpowder and soot residue came to that conclusion (it may not have been irrefutable or 100% conclusive, so please don't take this as fact) as well.

[CountValentine]

The specialist who was on the stand yesterday said that based on the shots and video he saw, there was a monition (implied towards the gun) prior to him being shot. I believe Gaige also mentioned he had grabbed for the gun, but I can be wrong. Lastly, the analyst who looked at the gunpowder and soot residue came to that conclusion (it may not have been irrefutable or 100% conclusive, so please don't take this as fact) as well.

This is what I heard also. No one claimed he actually did grab the barrel as Kyle has claimed. Does that mean he lied, no. What it means to me is panic. He really is not sure in those critical moments.

[as2]

This is what I heard also. No one claimed he actually did grab the barrel as Kyle has claimed. Does that mean he lied, no. What it means to me is panic. He really is not sure in those critical moments.

While I don't think your assumptions aren't a possibility, they are just that, assumptions. I think they are no less possible than him actually grabbing the barrel. The issue here is a lack of witnesses/video evidence that would depict something that specific and in depth. Additionally, I'm curios if him grabbing the barrel, vs attempting to, would change the verdict.

[zh cohen]

What it means to me is panic.

You seem very married to this "Rittenhouse panicked" narrative.

[as2]

You seem very married to this "Rittenhouse panicked" narrative.

As you are to this "Rittenhouse acted in self defense" narrative. We all see it how we see it, don't we? I definitely have my opinions...

[CountValentine]

While I don't think your assumptions aren't a possibility, they are just that, assumptions. I think they are no less possible than him actually grabbing the barrel. The issue here is a lack of witnesses/video evidence that would depict something that specific and in depth. Additionally, I'm curios if him grabbing the barrel, vs attempting to, would change the verdict.

I going by the facts. No witness has said he "grabbed" the barrel. No video shows that. Kyle claimed he grabbed the barrel.

My assumption is he was in panic mode and is not sure.

Is that better? 

[CountValentine]

You seem very married to this "Rittenhouse panicked" narrative.

Everything IME points to that. That doesn't mean it wasn't self-defense.

[CountValentine]

For those that feel this never should have been brought to trial. You have two individuals dead, one serious wounded and 17 year old that should have never been there. No matter what side you are on this is for a jury to decide.

[YitzyS]

For those that feel this never should have been brought to trial. You have two individuals dead, one serious wounded and 17 year old that should have never been there. No matter what side you are on this is for a jury to decide.

-1. That's what an investigation is meant for. If the prosecutor feels that there was wrongdoing, only then is he supposed to seek an indictment.

[CountValentine]

-1. That's what an investigation is meant for. If the prosecutor feels that there was wrongdoing, only then is he supposed to seek an indictment.

What if they are not sure as in this case if it was self-defense or not?

[YitzyS]

What if they are not sure as in this case if it was self-defense or not?

I don't know the precise legal standard, but a DA cannot prosecute someone because he thinks they MIGHT be guilty.

[aygart]

-1. That's what an investigation is meant for. If the prosecutor feels that there was wrongdoing, only then is he supposed to seek an indictment.

Investigations can occur as a part of the grand jury process.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/grand_jury

[CountValentine]

I don't know the precise legal standard, but a DA cannot prosecute someone because he thinks they MIGHT be guilty.

I didn't say "might".
How about more chance than not? Let jury decide?
How about 50/50, let jury decide?

IMHO with the evidence they had this should be left to a jury.

[zh cohen]

Investigations can occur as a part of the grand jury process.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/grand_jury

Is that what happened here?

[as2]

I going by the facts. No witness has said he "grabbed" the barrel. No video shows that. Kyle claimed he grabbed the barrel.

My assumption is he was in panic mode and is not sure.

Is that better? 

Is Rittenhouse's statement not fact? (not the happenings, but the what he said is what he said) I believe the premise was that the barrel was grabbed and it's now being (dis)proven. I've heard nobody say otherwise to that claim so far, but I haven't seen everything.


Again, you can assume all you want, and I don't disagree that your assumptions are correct, I was just pointing this out, not intending to argue.

[YitzyS]

I didn't say "might".
How about more chance than not? Let jury decide?
How about 50/50, let jury decide?

-1.

This is not a dystopian country. We don't drag you in front of a jury unless we allege that you did an actual crime. If the jury agrees with the prosecutor, you get convicted. But unless a prosecutor is SURE that you are guilty, he may not bring you to criminal trial.

That is my understanding.

[as2]

-1.

This is not a dystopian country. We don't drag you in front of a jury unless we allege that you did an actual crime. If the jury agrees with the prosecutor, you get convicted. But unless a prosecutor is SURE that you are guilty, he may not bring you to criminal trial.

That is my understanding.

Precisely why you can't bring someone to trial without charges.

[CountValentine]

-1.

This is not a dystopian country. We don't drag you in front of a jury unless we allege that you did an actual crime. If the jury agrees with the prosecutor, you get convicted. But unless a prosecutor is SURE that you are guilty, he may not bring you to criminal trial.

That is my understanding.

What does "sure" mean.

[CountValentine]

Is Rittenhouse's statement not fact? (not the happenings, but the what he said is what he said) I believe the premise was that the barrel was grabbed and it's now being (dis)proven. I've heard nobody say otherwise to that claim so far, but I haven't seen everything.


Again, you can assume all you want, and I don't disagree that your assumptions are correct, I was just pointing this out, not intending to argue.

Ok one last time. 
No witnesses claimed the barrel was actually grabbed except Kyle.
Good?