Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[as2]

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.

So do you think it was self defense at the end of the day? As soon as I started watching the trial I realized I took the media bait, and this was far less simple than I thought. I only formed an opinion after I had seen a lot of the evidence. I believe most people would agree it's self defense at this point.

[CountValentine]

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.

Did you watch the video? There are stills at the exact time of the first shot.
The defense missed this big time. They should have asked does the video show him lunging or grabbing for the gun when shot the first time. The worse they could have got was "I couldn't tell" like he said with the second shot.

[CountValentine]

So do you think it was self defense at the end of the day?

I honestly don't know.
If I was on the jury I would be sending out questions. 

I would have a hard time deciding what is a reasonable person in this situation.

Would you agree KR actions leading up to the shooting is not what a reasonable person would do? If so then we can't use him as reasonable person for the shootings. That doesn't mean a reasonable person would not have done exactly what he did.

[as2]

I honestly don't know.
If I was on the jury I would be sending out questions. 

I would have a hard time deciding what is a reasonable person in this situation.

I think that because you aren't a "reasonable" person. You have experience and knowledge, you even have age over many. Some of us simpletons don't think this is that far from what a typical person would do given the circumstances. But I hear your point, and I respect it. I understand it.

[CountValentine]

I understand it.

That is all I can ask.
See edit part.

[CountValentine]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/kyle-rittenhouse-prosecution-scored-major-points-in-their-closing-arguments/ar-AAQLVUc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

This is what I see as a strong point as you might have guessed. 

"The prosecution scored major points in closing arguments by emphasizing that each of the four shots Rittenhouse fired to kill Joseph Rosenbaum had to be in self-defense," DeSimone said.

"Once Rittenhouse's shot fractured Rosenbaum's pelvis, there was no threat to Rittenhouse at all. The defense's excuse that the bullets were fired rapidly is no excuse and Rittenhouse's lawyer really lost an opportunity by barely mentioning 'reasonable doubt.'

[as2]

That is all I can ask.
See edit part.

I definitely don't think everything he did was a "best decision" on his part, but to properly comment, you have to specify which part you are referring to. Going to Kenosha? Bringing a gun? All of it? Specifically his encounter with Rosenbaum?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/kyle-rittenhouse-prosecution-scored-major-points-in-their-closing-arguments/ar-AAQLVUc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

This is what I see as a strong point as you might have guessed. 

"The prosecution scored major points in closing arguments by emphasizing that each of the four shots Rittenhouse fired to kill Joseph Rosenbaum had to be in self-defense," DeSimone said.

"Once Rittenhouse's shot fractured Rosenbaum's pelvis, there was no threat to Rittenhouse at all. The defense's excuse that the bullets were fired rapidly is no excuse and Rittenhouse's lawyer really lost an opportunity by barely mentioning 'reasonable doubt.'

I think many don't see it that way, especially with the shot being so close together. Again, I heard your point and see where your coming from, but I disagree and I think the jury will as well. I'm sure there is some legal peramiters for it in a more cut and dry case though.

[momo]

Unlike some in this conversation, i have taken rudimentary and some not so rudimentary gun classes. And in all the classes, the instructor instructs to shoot until the threat is neutralized, That doesn’t mean shoot once and then check, it means shoot until you are certain that the threat is neutralized. Now I’m sure that you have taken these classes as well, and from the way you are talking it seems like you may be an expert. As an expert you should be held to a higher standard, as a citizen with a gun, he was well within what a citizen with a gun is taught.

[CountValentine]

Unlike some in this conversation, i have taken rudimentary and some not so rudimentary gun classes. And in all the classes, the instructor instructs to shoot until the threat is neutralized, That doesn’t mean shoot once and then check, it means shoot until you are certain that the threat is neutralized. Now I’m sure that you have taken these classes as well, and from the way you are talking it seems like you may be an expert. As an expert you should be held to a higher standard, as a citizen with a gun, he was well within what a citizen with a gun is taught.

Did they teach anything about stopping power of the gun/ammo you are using? Maybe something along the lines of using hollow point in a home instead of FMJ? Then explaining that hollow point has higher chance of jamming?

How about just pulling the trigger as fast as you can without even aiming but just pointing? You can't do this then claim he was just shooting until the threat was neutralized. It shot while he was falling to the ground and stopped before he hit the ground. At what point did he realize the threat was neutralized?

[CountValentine]

I think many don't see it that way, especially with the shot being so close together. Again, I heard your point and see where your coming from, but I disagree and I think the jury will as well. I'm sure there is some legal peramiters for it in a more cut and dry case though.

This would be questions I would ask the judge. Are the 4 shots considered one shot or each an individual shot? If it is that each shot is individual then does each one have to meet the requirements of self defense. If he said each an individual shot and each one must meet the self defense requirement then I would have no problem deciding self defense does hold up for the 3rd and 4th shot.

[YitzyS]

[momo]

Did they teach anything about stopping power of the gun/ammo you are using? Maybe something along the lines of using hollow point in a home instead of FMJ? Then explaining that hollow point has higher chance of jamming?

How about just pulling the trigger as fast as you can without even aiming but just pointing? You can't do this then claim he was just shooting until the threat was neutralized. It shot while he was falling to the ground and stopped before he hit ethe ground. At what point did he realize the threat was neutralized?
[/I don’t understand how you have an issue here. All 4 shots hit the person that he was targeting. This isn’t shooting at a range this is a real life situation without the luxury of sitting back and analyzing each shot. In the moment, what he did was totally within his rights. As to when he realized, i would assume after the 4th shot, otherwise why didn’t he keep shooting. I’m also not aware of any law that says you may only use certain types of ammo, other then nj, where hollow points are illegal.
Eta, they may have gotten into ammo in the rudimentary classes. I don’t recall.

[CountValentine]

The shots are important and that is why I would ask the judge for clarification. You need to decide by the instructions he gives you about what the law is.

[CountValentine]

Everyone jumps on the media about this case. What is interesting is the legal experts (not talking heads) both right/left wing networks have on. They are for the most part fair. Even the ones that feel it was self defense point out what areas could be a problem.

[as2]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1460816537812668425?s=20

[drosenberg88429]

Judge would be a walking dead man if he throws out case. A lot safer for him to wait on a verdict from jury, which may give him opportunity to avoid having to rule on motion.

[as2]

Judge would be a walking dead man if he throws out case. A lot safer for him to wait on a verdict from jury, which may give him opportunity to avoid having to rule on motion.

I hear that. Although, I do get the vibes from this judge, that he doesn't really care what people think.

[Yehuda57]

I hear that. Although, I do get the vibes from this judge, that he doesn't really care what people think.

He does care, and has said as much outright.

[CountValentine]

The chance of him granting the motion is 0 to none. 

[Yehuda57]

The chance of him granting the motion is 0 to none. 

Agreed, for all the media criticism, he errs on the side of presenting to the jury.
I'm just wondering why he wouldn't rule on it before sending it to the jury.