Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[as2]

It was after what he called 0 shot which was the first shot. There was no lunging for the gun or grabbing the barrel when he was shot the first time.

His pelvis was shattered. Of course he is going to go down from that. That is why the threat was over at that point.

He asked him if he had to have forward momentum prior to the first shot, in order to have gotten to where he did between shot 0 and shot 1.

[CountValentine]

He asked him if he had to have forward momentum prior to the first shot, in order to have gotten to where he did between shot 0 and shot 1.

We all know he was running at that point.
So the defense is saying he was first shot when he was moving forward and upright, then that momentum kept moving him forward? Ok I agree.
So they are admitting for the first shot he was not lunging or grabbing the gun?

Remember the Dr agreed only to the momentum.

[as2]

We all know he was running at that point.
So the defense is saying he was first shot when he was moving forward and upright, then that momentum kept moving him forward? Ok I agree.
So they are admitting for the first shot he was not lunging or grabbing the gun?

I think seeing the trajectory of the bullet wound is the only way to know if he was lunging or not, but forward motion is indicative of it, but as you said, not conclusive.

[CountValentine]

I think seeing the trajectory of the bullet wound is the only way to know if he was lunging or not, but forward motion is indicative of it, but as you said, not conclusive.

The Dr put the bullet wounds, trajectory of the bullet and the video to say what happened in his expert opinion.

[as2]

The Dr put the bullet wounds, trajectory of the bullet and the video to say what happened in his expert opinion.

Correct, and he still didn't give a conclusive answer as to whether he was lunging, hence the above mentioned questions. Those were the last questions both sides asked in an effort to prove he was/wasn't lunging. I'm not sure he even needed to be lunging to justify a shot, but it sure would help.

[CountValentine]

Correct, and he still didn't give a conclusive answer as to whether he was lunging, hence the above mentioned questions.

100% wrong for the first shot. Dr testified he was upright 26:40.
This is extremely important because at this point when he shot him, R was not lunging but upright, he was not grabbing the gun and he never touch either the gun or KR.

[Yehuda57]

Being shot "in the back" that you keep bringing up is also a misnomer, as it is phrased that way to imply he was shot with his back toward KR and no longer a threat. It was in the back because of the angle, and the defense concedes he was technically no longer a threat after the first shot.

If Aroldis Chapman threw a fast ball at the same time as KR's first shot, the ball would just be hitting the catcher's mitt as he's firing the 3rd and 4th kill shots.

[as2]

100% wrong for the first shot. Dr testified he was upright 26:40.
This is extremely important because at this point when he shot him, R was not lunging but upright, he was not grabbing the gun and he never touch either the gun or KR.

I stand corrected, I missed that. Does that rule out reaching though? Regarding making contact with the gun, nobody could conclusively say he never touched it. Even the Doc made sure to clarify that he couldn't say that conclusively. The muzzle was never tested (not sure why?) but that is where any DNA would have been.

[CountValentine]

Being shot "in the back" that you keep bringing up is also a misnomer, as it is phrased that way to imply he was shot with his back toward KR and no longer a threat. It was in the back because of the angle, and the defense concedes he was technically no longer a threat after the first shot.

His back was toward him. Instead of the common upright position he was horizontal. KR only seen his back when he fired the third and forth shot.

IMHO you don't get to claim self-dense when you reckless pull the trigger 4 times as fast as you can without even aiming.

[as2]

His back was toward him. Instead of the common upright position he was horizontal. KR only seen his back when he fired the third and forth shot.

IMHO you don't get to claim self-dense when you reckless pull the trigger 4 times as fast as you can without even aiming.

As to your second point I have to disagree. 4 shots in under a second is rarely considered overkill. One of the first things you learn about using a gun defensively is to shoot until the threat is eliminated. He stopped shooting before he even hit the floor, I'd say that pretty reasonable and I think 99/100 would have done the same.

[zh cohen]

without even aiming.

You've made this claim a few times, can you explain? Do people usually hit what they want to hit four times out of four when they don't aim?

[CountValentine]

I stand corrected, I missed that.

You missed an extremely important part.

Does that rule out reaching though?

No but it is not what the Dr laid out.

[CountValentine]

You've made this claim a few times, can you explain? Do people usually hit what they want to hit four times out of four when they don't aim?

In the hand and nicking the head at less than 4 feet. At that range ever shoot should be center mass but you are all the gun experts. With an AR15 only one center mass is all that is needed to stop the threat.

[as2]

You missed an extremely important part. No but it is not what the Dr laid out.

And I owned up to it. While significant, I don't think it's extremely important. It changes very little IMO. It definitely would make things clearer, but like I said before, not sure any of that was necessary to claim self defense.

The Doc seemed to make sure not to conclusively state anything about the actual reaching/grabbing, he left that to interpretation of his other findings that were conclusive. The defense took it as proof he reached, the prosecution took it as proof he did nothing.

[CountValentine]

As to your second point I have to disagree. 4 shots in under a second is rarely considered overkill. One of the first things you learn about using a gun defensively is to shoot until the threat is eliminated. He stopped shooting before he even hit the floor, I'd say that pretty reasonable and I think 99/100 would have done the same.

I have no idea where you are getting your info from.
No expert with an AR15 can shoot 4 shots in under a second effectively. Never once during the 4 shots did he actually aim the AR15. All he did was point and pull the trigger as fast as he could. Everything shows a complete state of panic.

[as2]

In the hand and nicking the head at less than 4 feet. At that range ever shoot should be center mass but you are all the gun experts. With an AR15 only one center mass is all that is needed to stop the threat.

The guy shooting wasn't a gun expert...I'd argue that if someone is running for what they believe is their life, and trying to shoot someone coming from behind them, while still running, I definitely can hear how they didn't hit center mass.

[as2]

I have no idea where you are getting your info from.
No expert with an AR15 can shoot 4 shots in under a second effectively. Never once during the 4 shots did he actually aim the AR15. All he did was point and pull the trigger as fast as he could. Everything shows a complete state of panic.

I'd say inexperience more than panic, but what's wrong with panic? If he feared for his life, that wouldn't be inconsistent. I'm not sure if you're playing to the irresponsible gun owner angle, or that he's guilty. What point are you trying to make? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just feel like we are talking on different points.)

[CountValentine]

And I owned up to it. While significant, I don't think it's extremely important. It changes very little IMO. It definitely would make things clearer, but like I said before, not sure any of that was necessary to claim self defense.

The defense claimed as KR did he shot because he felt his life was in danger. Part of that was that R was lunging and grabbing the gun when he shot him. That is 100% false. Would a reasonable person have shot R at that point 4 times. I say no.

[CountValentine]

I'd say inexperience more than panic, but what's wrong with panic? If he feared for his life, that wouldn't be inconsistent. I'm not sure if you're playing to the irresponsible gun owner angle, or that he's guilty. What point are you trying to make? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just feel like we are talking on different points.)

The point I have been trying to make from the beginning is this is complex and you need to see everything. 90+% of the posts from everyone have been to show self-defense. I took the other side so it wouldn't be an echo chamber.

[as2]

The defense claimed as KR did he shot because he felt his life was in danger. Part of that was that R was lunging and grabbing the gun when he shot him. That is 100% false. Would a reasonable person have shot R at that point 4 times. I say no.

I definitely wouldn't say 100% false. Nobody conclusively said that he was not reaching or grabbing for the gun. Nobody said conclusively to the contrary either. I would say your second point is where many will differ in opinion from each other. I do believe the jury, and many others would say yes.