Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[Yehuda57]

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. 

I would tend to agree to that as well in the truest sense of the word justice, though putting him in jail wouldn't be justice either.

I can live with both truths in my head. KR's behavior was morally wrong leading up to the shootings, but he was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with.

[aygart]

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

At this point I would have a hard toime seeing this as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why a prosecutor should be making sure to include some minor charge that an irresposible punk who put himself into this situation should not get off scott-free. Alas, prosecutors have a tendency to overcharge in there cases leading to way to many of them getting off the hook.

[CountValentine]

At this point I would have a hard toime seeing this as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why a prosecutor should be making sure to include some minor charge that an irresposible punk who put himself into this situation should not get off scott-free. Alas, prosecutors have a tendency to overcharge in there cases leading to way to many of them getting off the hook.

Remember the defense didn't object to some of the lesser charges. What does that tell you?

[aygart]

Remember the defense didn't object to some of the lesser charges. What does that tell you?

That they are confident of acquital.

[CountValentine]

That they are confident of acquital.

Say what? If they were confident they wouldn't give them an out with lesser charges.

[S209]

I can live with both truths in my head. KR's behavior was morally wrong leading up to the shootings, but he was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with.

This is probably the first thing I've seen on this thread that I absolutely agree with. He was dead wrong for putting himself in the position that he was in, and I think there should be consequences for his actions, but [he cannot be shown to not have been] acting in self defense at the time of the actual shootings.

[zh cohen]

Remember the defense didn't object to some of the lesser charges. What does that tell you?

That they had no legal grounds to object on (with regards to those charges).

[Yehuda57]

The judge still hasn't ruled on the defense's motion to dismiss, right? Can he wait until after the jury verdict, or is there a specific time frame he has to follow?

[zh cohen]

The judge still hasn't ruled on the defense's motion to dismiss, right? Can he wait until after the jury verdict, or is there a specific time frame he has to follow?

I believe I read that he can rule on it even after the jury's verdict. Not sure it would be very wise to do so...

[zh cohen]

This is why a prosecutor should be making sure to include some minor charge that an irresposible punk who put himself into this situation should not get off scott-free.

They tried that with the gun and curfew charge, but the judge dismissed them. To a lesser extent the "reckless endangerment" also could have served this purpose, but the judge told the jury that if shooting Rosenbaum was justified, then the endangerment of McGinnis charge falls too.

Alas, being an irresponsible punk is not yet illegal in this country.

[Yehuda57]

I am stuck on him using deadly force. I deliberated on three trials and I would not want to be on this one.
There is zero doubt he feared for his life. Would a reasonable person fear for their life in that situation?

Btw, that isn't the standard. Imminent bodily harm is.

[CountValentine]

Btw, that isn't the standard. Imminent bodily harm is.

Isn't there something about the amount of force you use. If the person is going to punch you I don't think you can kill him.

Remember shooting someone four times at close range with an AR15 is going to kill him. Shooting him once not so much.

ETA: 939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

[Yehuda57]

Isn't there something about the amount of force you use. If the person is going to punch you I don't think you can kill him.

Remember shooting someone four times at close range with an AR15 is going to kill him. Shooting him once not so much.

ETA: 939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

In his instructions, the judge detailed what "great bodily harm" could include, which was any organ or limb being severely injured or incapacitated. In that split second of each of the shootings, any reasonable person would have felt such a threat. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but that is the standard.

[CountValentine]

In his instructions, the judge detailed what "great bodily harm" could include, which was any organ or limb being severely injured or incapacitated. In that split second of each of the shootings, any reasonable person would have felt such a threat. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but that is the standard.

A reasonable person would not shoot someone four times at close distance with an AR15 unless the intent was to kill them. A reasonable person would have known the shot to the pelvis removed any threat.

I should mention according to the manufacture the effective rate of fire for the AR is less than one round per second. He shot indiscriminately. Is that what a reasonable person would do?

[zh cohen]

A reasonable person would have known the shot to the pelvis removed any threat.

Would a reasonable person know that in less than a second? Or is it just with the benefit of hindsight that we know that he incapacitated Rosenbaum on the first shot?

[CountValentine]

Would a reasonable person know that in less than a second? Or is it just with the benefit of hindsight that we know that he incapacitated Rosenbaum on the first shot?

A reasonable person would not fire 4 shots indiscriminately with an AR15. He never actually aimed the weapon. He just kept pulling the trigger resulting in two shots to the back with one being the kill shot.

Any person reasonable or not, would have seen him crumble after the first shot.

[Yehuda57]

A reasonable person would not fire 4 shots indiscriminately with an AR15. He never actually aimed the weapon. He just kept pulling the trigger resulting in two shots to the back with one being the kill shot.

Any person reasonable or not, would have seen him crumble after the first shot.

It happened in less than a second. I honestly can't wrap my brain around this line of argument. Countless videos you've seen of cops shooting, even when 100% justified, show more than 4 shots and way more than 1 second. By the time his brain will have registered that JR is crumbling, all 4 shots have happened already.

Should he be prohibited from owning a gun that fires that fast? I would say yes. But that isn't what he is being charged for.

This is pretty much where I stand
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/

[CountValentine]

It happened in less than a second. I honestly can't wrap my brain around this line of argument.

Should he have known that a direct hit like that from an AR15 would have neutralize the threat?
What if he was able to get say 8 shots off in a second. Would he be justified to shoot him eight times?
He knew when he pulled that trigger for the third and forth times he was shooting him in the back.
So here is where I am confused. Are you saying he was pulling the trigger so fast he didn't have time to stop? That he did not know on the third and forth that R was falling to the ground and the shots were not going to hit him in the back?

Look the media portrayed this kid as a cold blooded killer and that was BS.
The defense portrayed this kid as someone who shot R because he was lunging at him and grabbing his gun, again BS. Both of these were disproved by the evidence. 

Hopefully the jury will look at the evidence. The ME testimony seems to be where both sides agree but are trying to spin it there way.

[Yehuda57]

Should he have known that a direct hit like that from an AR15 would have neutralize the threat?
What if he was able to get say 8 shots off in a second. Would he be justified to shoot him eight times?
He knew when he pulled that trigger for the third and forth times he was shooting him in the back.
So here is where I am confused. Are you saying he was pulling the trigger so fast he didn't have time to stop? That he did not know on the third and forth that R was falling to the ground and the shots were not going to hit him in the back?

Look the media portrayed this kid as a cold blooded killer and that was BS.
The defense portrayed this kid as someone who shot R because he was lunging at him and grabbing his gun, again BS. Both of these were disproved by the evidence. 

Hopefully the jury will look at the evidence. The ME testimony seems to be where both sides agree but are trying to spin it there way.

It's not any set number of shots I would go by. You can hear from the sheer speed in the audio that it was a single burst of shots. If he was justified in shooting the first bullet, he was justified for all 4. There was no pause to reaim, move, or reevaluate. It was part of the initial shot. Every split second of this story has been slowed down and rehashed beyond reason.

Should he have more knowledge and training for the weapon he is carrying? I think so (but I also think he should not have been there with any weapon at all). Did he have time to think about how lethal a single bullet from an AR15 is in between shots? No. Would he have been able to process that JR was falling? I think not. Even if I'm wrong, there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt.

IMHO, it can't be proved either way whether JR grabbed the gun or not. Or in other words, there is reasonable doubt.

As for the lunging, the defense's version of him being shot lunging based on the bullet's path makes more sense to me, or at the very least, reasonable doubt.

I just don't see a way you convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. And again, I don't think he's a good guy in this story. And we both agree he is certainly not the villain he was made out to be. KR needed someone like this: https://youtu.be/YiEWqRmBSb8

[aygart]

It's not any set number of shots I would go by. You can hear from the sheer speed in the audio that it was a single burst of shots. If he was justified in shooting the first bullet, he was justified for all 4. There was no pause to reaim, move, or reevaluate. It was part of the initial shot. Every split second of this story has been slowed down and rehashed beyond reason.

Should he have more knowledge and training for the weapon he is carrying? I think so (but I also think he should not have been there with any weapon at all). Did he have time to think about how lethal a single bullet from an AR15 is in between shots? No. Would he have been able to process that JR was falling? I think not. Even if I'm wrong, there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt.

IMHO, it can't be proved either way whether JR grabbed the gun or not. Or in other words, there is reasonable doubt.

As for the lunging, the defense's version of him being shot lunging based on the bullet's path makes more sense to me, or at the very least, reasonable doubt.

I just don't see a way you convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. And again, I don't think he's a good guy in this story. And we both agree he is certainly not the villain he was made out to be. KR needed someone like this: https://youtu.be/YiEWqRmBSb8

This is really what it comes down to. There has been so much doubt thrown at the prosecution's case that I don't see how they can convict under a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the jury has seen sop much more detail than I have.