Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[zh cohen]

Could not or choose not to?

Could not be tried before Chauvin. Chose not to be tried at the same tine in the same trial.

[CountValentine]

Could not be tried before Chauvin. Chose not to be tried at the same tine in the same trial.

What were they being charged with?

[zh cohen]

What were they being charged with?

IIRC helping/not stopping Chauvin.

[CountValentine]

IIRC helping/not stopping Chauvin.

That is a little different.
In this case AFAIK he can be convicted on any of the charges not dependent on the other charges.

[zh cohen]

That is a little different.
In this case AFAIK he can be convicted on any of the charges not dependent on the other charges.

Right, because he has to show that in each case his claim of self defense (which includes several factors) is valid. Even if he is acquitted on the charge of killing Rosenbaum, he still would have to prove (or at least introduce reasonable doubt) that he had all of the factors of self defense in killing Huber.

For example, if he did not have a reasonable fear that Huber was going to kill/severely injure him, then he has no claim to self defense in killing him, regardless of what happened with Rosenbaum.

However, showing that he was acting in self defense in the Rosenbaum shooting does support the "Innocence" factor of his later self defense claims

[CountValentine]

Remember it is not what he thought but what a reasonable person would have thought.

That is why I said this is basically two trials for the different shootings.

[zh cohen]

Remember it is not what he thought but what a reasonable person would have thought.

Right. But what a reasonable person in Huber's place would think is different than what a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's situation might think.

[CountValentine]

Right. But what a reasonable person in Huber's place would think is different than what a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's situation might think.

Huber or anyone else are not charged or on trial.

[zh cohen]

Huber or anyone else are not charged or on trial.

Right. This conversation was about whether the question of whether Huber thought he had a good reason to attack Rittenhouse would affect Rittenhouse's claim to self defense.

It was the prosecution that tried to bring up Huber's motivation (by asking his aunt about a past incident where he saved someone.) The defense (successfully) objected, in part by saying that they should then have the right to bring up Huber's violent past.

[aygart]

a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's situation

Ah. A reasonable teenager who walked into a crowd with a semi-automatic rifle and just killed someone. Something is wrong with that picture

[avromie7]

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298

I'm not following the case enough to take sides, just posting.

[Kobe Bryant]

I'm not following the case enough to take sides, just posting.

Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly didn't shoot until a gun was pointed at him, one of his attackers just admitted in court. (DiscloseTV)

[aygart]

Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly didn't shoot until a gun was pointed at him, one of his attackers just admitted in court. (DiscloseTV)

This testimony is definitely favorable to the defense, but the way they are salivating over it that it should cause an automatic acquittal is ridiculous since it does not tell us what happened with the victims who are dead.

[as2]

This testimony is definitely favorable to the defense, but the way they are salivating over it that it should cause an automatic acquittal is ridiculous since it does not tell us what happened with the victims who are dead.

Agreed. It does tell a lot about what happened earlier. Set's precedence. If you saw this guys social media activity over the last month, you probably wouldn't believe it.

[CountValentine]

This testimony is definitely favorable to the defense, but the way they are salivating over it that it should cause an automatic acquittal is ridiculous since it does not tell us what happened with the victims who are dead.

Was this the first shooting or the second one?

[as2]

Was this the first shooting or the second one?

The last. The one person who survived.

[CountValentine]

The last. The one person who survived.

So when did he pull out his gun and point it at him (Kyle)? After he (Kyle) shoot the first two people?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/gaige-grosskreutz-says-he-feared-for-his-life-before-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-him-during-kenosha-unrest/ar-AAQsFBa?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

“That was never something I was trying to do,” Grosskreutz said, choking back tears during emotional testimony. “At that moment I was trying to preserve my own life. Trying to take the life of another is not something I am … capable of doing. … That’s not why I was out there.”

[as2]

So when did he pull out his gun and point it at him (Kyle)? After he (Kyle) shoot the first two people?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/gaige-grosskreutz-says-he-feared-for-his-life-before-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-him-during-kenosha-unrest/ar-AAQsFBa?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

“That was never something I was trying to do,” Grosskreutz said, choking back tears during emotional testimony. “At that moment I was trying to preserve my own life. Trying to take the life of another is not something I am … capable of doing. … That’s not why I was out there.”

I'm not sure how it played out outside of this specific incident. From the testimony I saw, it was solely addressing Gaige's (3rd person shot) interaction with Kyle. He originally played it as he was defending himself, but ultimately testified to only being shot after he pointed his gun at Kyle. He approached Kyle who was sitting on the ground with his rifle aimed down, and as Gaige approached Kyle, Gaige put his hands up, then proceeded to draw his pistol at which point Kyle blew off his bicep. I'd recommend watching the actual trial footage, as I don't articulate things well, and every media outlet is twisting it for their agenda right now.

[CountValentine]

I'm not sure how it played out outside of this specific incident. From the testimony I saw, it was solely addressing Gaige's (3rd person shot) interaction with Kyle. He originally played it as he was defending himself, but ultimately testified to only being shot after he pointed his gun at Kyle. He approached Kyle who was sitting on the ground with his rifle aimed down, and as Gaige approached Kyle, Gaige put his hands up, then proceeded to draw his pistol at which point Kyle blew off his bicep. I'd recommend watching the actual trial footage, as I don't articulate things well, and every media outlet is twisting it for their agenda right now.

Ok so basically he shot the first two without a gun being pointed at him and for all we know never seen a gun at that point.
The guys in the video I think are drinking kool-aid for getting so excited. 

[aygart]

Ok so basically he shot the first two without a gun being pointed at him and for all we know never seen a gun at that point.

Where do you see one way or another about that?