Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[CountValentine]

Huh? Where do you get that idea from?

The videos?

[as2]

Video doesn't show it. He made a lot of statements that night that are not true.
I don't see you jumping on him for being a liar like you did with others. 

Link? Every video I've seen the individual he shot seemed to be a threat to him. Was he justified in shooting them? I don't know, but there is no question that him believing he needed to, isn't crazy.


I don't believe he "made a lot of statements that are not true", but I definitely am giving him some leeway in dodging questions being that he knows every thing he says will be turned against him personally. Gaige being dishonest has no personal bearing on anyone other than Rittenhouse.

[zh cohen]

The videos?

Like the one of him talking to Grosskreutz and telling him that he's going for the police?

[zh cohen]

He made a lot of statements that night that are not true.
I don't see you jumping on him for being a liar like you did with others. 

Key words are "that night." My concern is when people lie when being questioned by the police or in court.

[Mordyk]

He was definitely threatened.   Prosecutor is acting like there were peaceful protests all around.  And oh well there was a fire. Not that the fire was caused with intent to destroy. And not like everyone around him would hesitate to kill him with their bare hands.

I know we need prosecutors but man is this one pretty ugly

[as2]

He was definitely threatened.   Prosecutor is acting like there were peaceful protests all around.  And oh well there was a fire. Not that the fire was caused with intent to destroy. And not like everyone around him would hesitate to kill him with their bare hands.

I know we need prosecutors but man is this one pretty ugly

As stated above, it's about the verdict you want, not the truth. 

[CountValentine]

As stated above, it's about the verdict you want, not the truth. 

The truth is he killed two people.
Was it really necessary to use that amount of force?
You just shot someone, have an AR pointed at the guy, the guy has a gun and still doesn't shoot you. If anyone had a right to shoot someone it was him but he did not.

Let me ask you this. If they individual would have shot and killed KR would that be a slam-dunk case for self-defense?

[as2]

The truth is he killed two people.
Was it really necessary to use that amount of force?
You just shot someone, have an AR pointed at the guy, the guy has a gun and still doesn't shoot you. If anyone had a right to shoot someone it was him but he did not.

Let me ask you this. If they individual would have shoot and killed KR would that be a slam-dunk case for self-defense?

Lol that was a freeze frame and it was pointed at his feet at best, exactly where a rifle would be pointing by default when you have possession of it while laying/sitting. Kyle actually called him on that at the time, and he ignored it. Additionally, Kyle waited for him to aim said gun at him before he shot. Sounds calculated, not panicked. Either way, distorting truths in the case is what it is, regardless of whether he is a murderer or a hero. I didn't see the defense misconstruing their testimony the way the prosecution was.   


And to your last question, no, I don't believe any of this is slam dunk. Doesn't change my above statement thought.

[CountValentine]

Lol

Why is your post starting with "lol". Is it that funny what I am saying. Or are you mimicking another poster?

I didn't see the defense misconstruing their testimony the way the prosecution was.   

Your posts make it perfectly clear how you see things.

And to your last question, no, I don't believe any of this is slam dunk.

Fair. Would you feel as strongly this would be self-defense as you do for KR?

[zh cohen]

Let me ask you this. If they individual would have shot and killed KR would that be a slam-dunk case for self-defense?

Not sure. He approached Kyle, not the other way around. There is an argument that he was the initial aggressor. However the fact that he thought he was stopping a murderer would weigh to his benefit (morally, if not legally).

[CountValentine]

Not sure. He approached Kyle, not the other way around. There is an argument that he was the initial aggressor.

He said he was going after an active shooter. That is not what a reasonable person would think?
ETA: Ok you added to it.

[as2]

He said he was going after an active shooter. That is not what a reasonable person would think?

He also said Kyle never did shoot him until he had his gun pointed at him. I don't believe anyone thought there was an active shooter, because there were shots going off all night, as multiple people testified.

[as2]

Why is your post starting with "lol". Is it that funny what I am saying. Or are you mimicking another poster?Your posts make it perfectly clear how you see things.Fair. Would you feel as strongly this would be self-defense as you do for KR?

The lol was because you are doing exactly what the prosecution did with that still image. My following statements explained.


I'm not sure where you're going with you're second statement, but I have definitely formed an opinion after watching close to a day's worth of court footage.


If I believed the evidence backed it up, I would feel this way about anyone involved in anything.

[zh cohen]

He said he was going after an active shooter. That is not what a reasonable person would think?
ETA: Ok you added to it.

The question is if that offers legal protection if you turn out to be wrong.

[CountValentine]

He also said Kyle never didn't shoot him until he had his gun pointed at him.

He had a gun pointed at him and never shot. KR was shooting people with a gun or not.

I don't believe anyone thought there was an active shooter, because there were shots going off all night, as multiple people testified.

The guy on the stand stated he thought it was an active shooter.

[CountValentine]

The lol was because you are doing exactly what the prosecution did with that still image. My following statements explained.

You can explain why it was pointing at him but doesn't change the fact it was pointed at him.

I'm not sure where you're going with you're second statement, but I have definitely formed an opinion after watching close to a day's worth of court footage.

I am not going anywhere with my statement. I am stating you already decided this case.

[YitzyS]

My takeaway from today: You may not shoot someone in self-defense until you are dead.

[CountValentine]

My takeaway from today: You may not shoot someone in self-defense until you are dead.

I hope you don't own a gun.

[as2]

He had a gun pointed at him and never shot. KR was shooting people with a gun or not.The guy on the stand stated he thought it was an active shooter.

He was approaching Kyle while Kyle was in a disadvantaged position. His pointing the gun at Kyle while approaching makes a pretty solid case for self defense.

You can explain why it was pointing at him but doesn't change the fact it was pointed at him. I am not going anywhere with my statement. I am stating you already decided this case.

I don't believe it was consciously pointed at him. The fact that you can freeze a frame mid swing where the barrel is pointed towards his feet in my option is not the same.


I will say I have formed an opinion based on the evidence I've seen, but I have not decided this case by any means. You are stating a falicy. If I wanted, I could have formed the same opinion of you when you were stating opinions PRIOR to any real evidence. Some people are open to seeing more, even if they have an option, and I'd consider both of us that type of person.

[as2]

My takeaway from today: You may not shoot someone in self-defense until you are dead.

Indeed. If not legally, than in the general sense. If the law don't get you, the mobs will. Obviously this is a bit facetious, but still holds some truth.

I hope you don't own a gun.

Why? Seems he would be more responsible with it than almost anyone in the world.