Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[YitzyS]

I think the prosecution mostly conceded that it was reasonable to fear for your life.
What they're really focusing on was, is it right that he showed up in the first place with a gun, and does that forfeit your right to claim self defense. They stressed active shooter, which is someone everyone would agree can't claim self defense.

IINM, they are claiming that he POINTED the gun first at Mr. Ziminsky, which was provocation, and he forfeits his right to self-defense, even from Mr. Rosenblum, because Rosenblum was provoked when he saw the gun pointed at Ziminsky.

They made a pretty good point that the threat was over after the first shot that shattered R's pelvis. In KR corner is the 4 shots were in a short period of time.

They stressed that point but it seems to me that they didn't put too much stock in the jury being convinced by it, because it is very conceivable to think that four bullets in less than a second was not unjustified, as he didn't have the bearings (nor did he have to) to realize that the threat was neutralized already.

[CountValentine]

Sounds like his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could be wrong but if the threat was over after the first shot then the third or forth shot which was the kill shot were not self defense. Would need to read the jury instructions.

[YitzyS]

I could be wrong but if the threat was over after the first shot then the third or forth shot which was the kill shot were not self defense. Would need to read the jury instructions.

Did he need to have the clear-mindedness to know that the threat was already neutralized after the first shot?

[CountValentine]

Did he need to have the clear-mindedness to know that the threat was already neutralized after the first shot?

Shooting someone at close range with an AR15. The person goes down immediately. Should a reasonable person know the threat was over?

It is like being in boxing match and you catch the guy with a solid left hook. As he is going down you hit him again in the back of the head, reasonable?

[YitzyS]

Shooting someone at close range with an AR15. The person goes down immediately. Should a reasonable person know the threat was over?

It is like being in boxing match and you catch the guy with a solid left hook. As he is going down you hit him again in the back of the head, reasonable?

I never shot such a gun, but I have a few points to say in his defense:

1. He never shot a person before. He does not necessarily know how many shots it will take.
2. He may have thought he missed.
3. His self-defense reflex may have caused him to repeatedly push the button for most of a second. It may be unprofessional, but it's not unreasonable.
4. It may not have registered in his head that he neutralized the issue, given the chaotic nature of the event.
5. I'm just writing this to test if you are really reading this list.
6. A mixture of the above.

[CountValentine]

I never shot such a gun, but I have a few points to say in his defense:

1. He never shot a person before. He does not necessarily know how many shots it will take.
2. He may have thought he missed.
3. His self-defense reflex may have caused him to repeatedly push the button for most of a second. It may be unprofessional, but it's not unreasonable.
4. It may not have registered in his head that he neutralized the issue, given the chaotic nature of the event.
5. I'm just writing this to test if you are really reading this list.
6. A mixture of the above.

It seems to me he was reckless then.

[YitzyS]

It seems to me he was reckless then.

Most people who carry guns never shot people with them, and are not fully prepared to stay calm and cool when the extremely rare situation comes up that they are expected to shoot a person. Is that reckless?

[CountValentine]

Most people who carry guns never shot people with them, and are not fully prepared to stay calm and cool when the extremely rare situation comes up that they are expected to shoot a person. Is that reckless?

You should know what your gun is capable of. He was not aware what the gun or the ammo could do.
Reckless IMHO but don't get me started!!!

What ever the jury comes back with I won't have a problem with.

[aygart]

I could be wrong but if the threat was over after the first shot then the third or forth shot which was the kill shot were not self defense. Would need to read the jury instructions.

This sounds like a hard sell to be beyond a reasonable doubt

[Yehuda57]

It's not a short period of time, it's less than a second. For him to stop and take stock would be long after the 4th shot in such a high pressure situation. If he was justified in taking the first shot, he was justified for all 4. No way to process that JR was hit in the pelvis and immobilized until after the 4th shot. You've clearly passed the reasonable doubt bar a long time ago.

The only thing the prosecution can claim is that he was a provocateur and forfeited his right to self defense.

That's why they're trying so hard to find a clip of him raising his gun. But they have nothing, let alone enough to pass reasonable doubt.

I'm surprised the defense didn't push this, but provocation that negates your self defense privileges needs to be actions against the law. If he had broken the law by being there with a gun, or raising the gun, he would have been charged for those misdemeanors. All the misdemeanors were dropped. They were left with nothing.

He didn't break the law, he was in imminent danger. He was allowed to defend himself with deadly force.

[zh cohen]

You should know what your gun is capable of. He was not aware what the gun or the ammo could do.
Reckless IMHO but don't get me started!!!

This sounds like you are having a hard time getting past the "moral" decision you made regarding Rittenhouse (that he's an idiot) to get to the legal question

[zh cohen]

There is no "hung jury" option in the poll

[CountValentine]

This sounds like you are having a hard time getting past the "moral" decision you made regarding Rittenhouse (that he's an idiot) to get to the legal question

This isn't a moral question. It is reckless to own a weapon and not know its capabilities. It doesn't matter who you are.
There is a reason I said I would not want to be on this jury. There is no bad guy here.

[Yehuda57]

This isn't a moral question. It is reckless to own a weapon and not know its capabilities. It doesn't matter who you are.
There is a reason I said I would not want to be on this jury. There is no bad guy here.

That's not the standard for guilt in this case

[Yehuda57]

That's not the standard for guilt in this case

In other words, that is your morality speaking. And I'm inclined to agree with you! But that's not the charge he is facing. It wasn't even mentioned by the prosecution.

[CountValentine]

That's not the standard for guilt in this case

It goes to if a reasonable person should have known the threat was over. How many shots would a reasonable person have fired?

There is something in the jury instructions about the amount of forced used. Don't recall what it was.

[CountValentine]

Arguing the case is pointless. I wonder how some would feel if the jury decided it wasn't self defense.

[CountValentine]

There is no "hung jury" option in the poll

I was going to put "based on political position". 

[Yehuda57]

Arguing the case is pointless. I wonder how some would feel if the jury decided it wasn't self defense.

So is arguing sports, politics, and almost everything else in GD, JS, etc.

I would think justice was not served, and it would be nothing new or surprising.

[CountValentine]

I would think justice was not served, and it would be nothing new or surprising.

I can see someone making the argument that a kid with an AR15, injecting himself in a dangerous situation he had no business being in. Killing two and injuring one, getting off "free as fk" would not be justice being serve.