Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[YitzyS]

The prosecution brought a witness who testified that earlier in the night, Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he caught him alone.

They also brought a witness that said Rosenbaum was lunging for Rittenhouse's gun before he was shot.

Can I assume that was on cross-examination? Or was this somehow part of the prosecution?

[zh cohen]

Can I assume that was on cross-examination?

Nope, on direct.

Or was this somehow part of the prosecution?

He was trying to get the witness to say that Rosenbaum was falling before he was shot. The witness said "No, that is not my testimony" and said that he was lunging for the gun.

ETA:

Binger (Prosecutor) -
 “I mean, you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking at any point in his life. You have never been inside his head. You’ve never met him before. … So your interpretation of what he was trying to do or what he was intending to do or anything along those lines is complete guess work, isn’t it?”

McGinniss (witness) -
“Well, he said ‘f— you’ and then he reached for the weapon.”

[yuneeq]

I seen the first shooting. I don't know if a guy throwing a bag at you is self-defense. That is what the trial is about and the second shooting.

If it is your job does not matter. You have a right to try and stop someone you feel just shot an unarmed person.

Also if want to pull it is not your job are you willing to apply that to the defendant?

Go ahead and try apprehending. But if the defendant isn’t threatening you or anyone and you decide hitting him in the head and trying to kill him is called apprehending, that’s on you.

[yuneeq]

I mean the guy just shot a person

And your point is

[CountValentine]

Go ahead and try apprehending. But if the defendant isn’t threatening you or anyone and you decide hitting him in the head and trying to kill him is called apprehending, that’s on you.

You just saw him (in your view) kill someone in cold blood. Hitting him with a skateboard to try and neutralize (we hear that all the time) him would be reasonable.

[zh cohen]

You just saw him (in your view) kill someone in cold blood. Hitting him with a skateboard to try and neutralize (we hear that all the time) him would be reasonable.

I think there is an argument to be made that if the second guy had killed Rittenhouse, he would not be liable (if he thought he was stopping a random shooter).

But his intent does not change anything regarding Rittenhouse's liability. Just because Huber thought he was being a hero, doesn't take away Rittenhouse's right to self defense from a person that he reasonably thought was trying to kill him.

[aygart]

I think there is an argument to be made that if the second guy had killed Rittenhouse, he would not be liable (if he thought he was stopping a random shooter).

But his intent does not change anything regarding Rittenhouse's liability. Just because Huber thought he was being a hero, doesn't take away Rittenhouse's right to self defense from a person that he reasonably thought was trying to kill him.

You realize that you just created a loophole for a mass shooter to claim self defense?

[CountValentine]

You realize that you just created a loophole for a mass shooter to claim self defense?

Bingo!!!

[zh cohen]

You realize that you just created a loophole for a mass shooter to claim self defense?

Nope. My statement depends on Rittenhouse being acquitted on the charges of murdering Rosenbaum. If he was in fact a murderer, then your ability to claim self defense is very limited.

ETA: Every time I read the quoted post, it seems more and more ridiculous. A person does not lose their right to self defense just because someone else falsely believes that they are a murderer. If you can't see the difference between that and a person who actually did murder someone trying to claim self defense then...

[CountValentine]

Nope. My statement depends on Rittenhouse being acquitted on the charges of murdering Rosenbaum. If he was in fact a murderer, then your ability to claim self defense is very limited.

So we need two trials then? Second shooting results will depend on first trial results.
This is a whole case of worms you opened up. 

[yuneeq]

You realize that you just created a loophole for a mass shooter to claim self defense?

Fun fact: most mass shooters run away from their intended victims before they start their attack. They also try to kill as few people as possible.

[CountValentine]

Fun fact: most mass shooters run away from their intended victims before they start their attack. They also try to kill as few people as possible.

If the run away how do they shoot them? 
They want to kill as few as possible? They are doing a poor job.

I am sure you have a link for the fun fact?

[zh cohen]

So we need two trials then?

Nope, juries are capable of multitasking. They can be (and often are) instructed that they can only convict on second charge if they first convict on the first.

Second ... results will depend on first trial results.

Happens all the time. For example, the other officers charged in the Floyd case could not go to trial until Chauvin was declared guilty.

[yuneeq]

Suppose a very similar story happened, but instead of a teenager, it was an undercover cop in his place. Idiot #2 sees undercover cop killing idiot #1 without any context, attacks the cop, and gets killed as well. Does that change anything?

[CountValentine]

Nope, juries are capable of multitasking. They can be (and often are) instructed that they can only convict on second charge if they first convict on the first.

Not happening in this case.

Happens all the time. For example, the other officers charged in the Floyd case could not go to trial until Chauvin was declared guilty.

Could not or choose not to?

[CountValentine]

Suppose a very similar story happened, but instead of a teenager, it was an undercover cop in his place. Idiot #2 sees undercover cop killing idiot #1 without any context, attacks the cop, and gets killed as well. Does that change anything?

Good thing you are unbiased. 

[yuneeq]

Good thing you are unbiased. 

I am not claiming objectivity here. A simple yes or no would suffice

[CountValentine]

I am not claiming objectivity here.

Just came up with an interesting question. 

A simple yes or no would suffice

You change one thing it changes others.

[yuneeq]

Just came up with an interesting question.  :)You change one thing it changes others.

Change the word idiot with whatever you think you saw in the video, call them apprehenders. Is that yes or no?

[YitzyS]

Nope, juries are capable of multitasking. They can be (and often are) instructed that they can only convict on second charge if they first convict on the first.

Unless you have a judge like Eisemann had. During the whole trial, Count 3 was only convictable if there was a conviction on another count. But after the defense rested their case, the judge announced that he would allow a conviction on Count 3 even without a conviction on any of the other counts...