Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[CountValentine]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-begins-over-kenosha-shooting

[CountValentine]

Self defense, that will be a hard sell.

[Ergel]

Is the poll how you think the trial will come out? Or what you think based on the facts?

[CountValentine]

Is the poll how you think the trial will come out? Or what you think based on the facts?

When I made the poll it was with the assumption the trial would be decided on the facts.

[CountValentine]

The term "victim" is loaded but the other terms are not? Seems the judge already made up his mind.

In pretrial proceedings on Friday, as reported by the Washington Post, Schroeder determined that Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz cannot be referred to as "victims" during the trial because the term is "loaded." Instead, the three men can be referred to as "rioters," "looters," and "arsonists."

[Abebee]

Self defense, that will be a hard sell.

https://youtu.be/VpTW2AJE9MQ

[CountValentine]

https://youtu.be/VpTW2AJE9MQ

Insane!!!

[zh cohen]

, the three men can be referred to as "rioters," "looters," and "arsonists."

*In closing arguments, and only if the defense brings evidence that they were those things.

[CountValentine]

*In closing arguments, and only if the defense brings evidence that they were those things.

If prosecution brings evidence they were victims can they use that word in closing arguments?

[Yehuda57]

*In closing arguments, and only if the defense brings evidence that they were those things.

Also, this is standard in self defense cases. If you call them victims, that's already a presumption of guilt.

[CountValentine]

This is pretty much going to boil down to if you consider his actions reasonable.

[zh cohen]

This is pretty much going to boil down to if you consider his actions reasonable.

I think the question is actually who started it. It seems the prosecution is arguing that Rittenhouse started the fight. If that is the case, then regardless of whether his later actions were reasonable he would be guilty. You can't start a fight and then claim self defense.

[YitzyS]

Putting aside the intricacies of the law and what constitutes self-defense, I think that it's reasonable to say that a 17 year old should never have deliberately put himself in a position where he may have to shoot in self defense. Once he was being chased and heard a gunshot, however, I think he can't be faulted for shooting.

I equate this to a similar concept found in gemara called Ones Leyom Achron. If someone has a month to do something and he procrastinates until the last day, and then something out of his power happens to prevent him from doing it on day 30, is he to be faulted? He should've done it sooner, but the actual (in)action was not his fault.

[CountValentine]

Putting aside the intricacies of the law and what constitutes self-defense, I think that it's reasonable to say that a 17 year old should never have deliberately put himself in a position where he may have to shoot in self defense. Once he was being chased and heard a gunshot, however, I think he can't be faulted for shooting.

This kid should have never been there and should have never been carrying a gun. Lets not forget that was an illegal gun and it was illegal for him to carry it. He panicked and now individuals are dead. He can have his life ruined because he wanted to play Rambo.

[YitzyS]

This kid should have never been there and should have never been carrying a gun. Lets not forget that was an illegal gun and it was illegal for him to carry it. He panicked and now individuals are dead. He can have his life ruined because he wanted to play Rambo.

Are you arguing with me, or agreeing with me?

[CountValentine]

I think the question is actually who started it. It seems the prosecution is arguing that Rittenhouse started the fight. If that is the case, then regardless of whether his later actions were reasonable he would be guilty. You can't start a fight and then claim self defense.

Even if others started the fight it will still need to be determined if his actions is what a reasonable person would have done.

This will be even harder for the jury because you basically have two separate shootings.

[CountValentine]

Are you arguing with me, or agreeing with me?

Adding to it.

[as2]

I don't have all the facts, so my statement/question is more general, not case specific. Wouldn't all the circumstances (legal/illegal firearm possession, instigation etc.) only be applicable to the charges pertaining directly to them? Regardless of how you got there, if you act in self defense (assuming the person you are defending yourself against isn't defending themselves against you) the actual killing would be in self defense, and therefore not be murder, maybe at most manslaughter. Obviously you'd still end up with a gun charge or any other felony/misdemeanor charges you racked up.

[CountValentine]

I don't have all the facts, so my statement/question is more general, not case specific. Wouldn't all the circumstances (legal/illegal firearm possession, instigation etc.) only be applicable to the charges pertaining directly to them? Regardless of how you got there, if you act in self defense (assuming the person you are defending yourself against isn't defending themselves against you) the actual killing would be in self defense, and therefore not be murder, maybe at most manslaughter. Obviously you'd still end up with a gun charge or any other felony/misdemeanor charges you racked up.

I was just adding to why he should have never been there in the first place.
I would not think using an illegal gun in self defense situation would matter according to the law.
It might plant seeds to who he is and why he was there.

[as2]

I was just adding to why he should have never been there in the first place.
I would not think using an illegal gun in self defense situation would matter according to the law.
It might plant seeds to who he is and why he was there.

100%. I guess we'll see if that's how this plays out or now, and why.