Rittenhouse Trial

[PT Car Washer]

Looks like they were responsible.

The victims never killed anyone. Only Kyle.

So? What’s your point? He confronted deadly force with deadly force.

He admitted he got scared and fired his weapon and killed two unarmed persons. If he hadn't been there and hadn't had a deadly weapon, he would not be standing trial.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

The victims never killed anyone. Only Kyle.

He admitted he got scared and fired his weapon and killed two unarmed persons. If he hadn't been there and hadn't had a deadly weapon, he would not be standing trial.

First, you have no idea if those felons had ever killed anyone or not.

Secondly, because he was there and had a rifle, it was ok for him to be attacked?

 

[PT Car Washer]

First, you have no idea if those felons had ever killed anyone or not.

Secondly, because he was there and had a rifle, it was ok for him to be attacked?

He also had no idea who the persons he killed were. He had no legal right to be there with a weapon. He put himself in a terrible position. I don't believe he will face life in prison, but he is guilty of killing those two young men. You can not deny that fact.

 

[PT Car Washer]

First, you have no idea if those felons had ever killed anyone or not.

Secondly, because he was there and had a rifle, it was ok for him to be attacked?

There is a reason society does not allow 17 year olds to walk around with a deadly weapon. They do not have the maturity to make life or death decisions. He put himself in this situation. Sorry but he must pay a price.

 

[Box Ox]

He admitted he got scared and fired his weapon

Of course he was scared. Who wouldn't be in that situation?

killed two unarmed persons

He killed a guy who had threatened to kill him twice that night before running him down and lunging for his rifle, which he did manage to get a hand on before he was shot. And he killed a guy who was beating him in the head with a skateboard. Think someone couldn't kill you by opening up your skull with a skateboard?

He also had no idea who the persons he killed were.

So?

He had no legal right to be there with a weapon. He put himself in a terrible position.

There is a reason society does not allow 17 year olds to walk around with a deadly weapon.

Yep. So? He does deserve to face weapon charges.

I don't believe he will face life in prison, but he is guilty of killing those two young men.

Of course he killed them. We just disagree on why.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

He also had no idea who the persons he killed were. He had no legal right to be there with a weapon. He put himself in a terrible position. I don't believe he will face life in prison, but he is guilty of killing those two young men. You can not deny that fact.

"Guilt" implies he's done something wrong. He may have put himself in a questionable position, but who says he had no legal right to be there?

 

[Box Ox]

There is a reason society does not allow 17 year olds to walk around with a deadly weapon. They do not have the maturity to make life or death decisions. He put himself in this situation. Sorry but he must pay a price.

Seems Kyle had the maturity to correctly shoot the guy who grabbed his gun after having threatened to kill him twice, the guy who had a gun pointed at his head and the guy hitting him in the head with a skateboard.

Sure, he shouldn't have been there. But that's not the question when it comes to the homicide charges. Was he defending himself or not?

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Yep. So? He does deserve to face weapon charges.

I'm not even sure of this, there are states in which you don't have to be 18 to posses a rifle. I'm unfamiliar with Wisconsin.

 

[Box Ox]

I'm not even sure of this, there are states in which you don't have to be 18 to posses a rifle. I'm unfamiliar with Wisconsin.

I looked up the charges. It's a misdemeanor. He does deserve that one.

EXPLAINER: What charges does Kyle Rittenhouse face?

Kyle Rittenhouse faces multiple charges for shooting three men, killing two, during a protest against police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020

abcnews.go.com

"POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting.

The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars."

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

If he hadn't been there and hadn't had a deadly weapon, he would not be standing trial.

She deserved to be raped because she dressed like a slut. You radicals have some very twisted minds.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I looked up the charges. It's a misdemeanor. He does deserve that one.

EXPLAINER: What charges does Kyle Rittenhouse face?

Kyle Rittenhouse faces multiple charges for shooting three men, killing two, during a protest against police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020

abcnews.go.com

"POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting.

The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars."

I would hold off on that.
The laws are vague and the judge hasn't yet instructed the jury on how to interpret them.

 

[Box Ox]

I would hold off on that.
The laws are vague and the judge hasn't yet instructed the jury on how to interpret them.

I probably need to be educated on how else that law might be interpreted. Kyle was 17 and possessed a firearm.

 

[Babagounj]

Here is what really is going at this trial;
The prosecutor knows he is losing this case , so he is intentionally trying to get a mistrial.
So the government can start over and try again. ( and put all the blame on the Judge )
The defense sees what the state is doing and counters with a call for a mistrial with prejudice ( means the case is over- no refiling of charges nor a new trial )
The Judge is in a bind, yes he could declare a mistrial because he knows the state has really screwed this case. But he wants the jury to decide.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I probably need to be educated on how else that law might be interpreted. Kyle was 17 and possessed a firearm.

I thought the judge had already thrown out the charge for vagueness of the law, but I guess I heard wrong. What I understand is that there is an exception for long barreled guns.

 

[Box Ox]

I thought the judge had already thrown out the charge for vagueness of the law, but I guess I heard wrong. What I understand is that there is an exception for long barreled guns.

Ah, I see:

Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped

Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again, unsuccessfully, to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped.

www.kenoshanews.com

"The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.

According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I probably need to be educated on how else that law might be interpreted. Kyle was 17 and possessed a firearm.

There are sub paragraphs that reference other laws, some of which are ambiguous and sometimes seem to contradict themselves.

It's needlessly complicated.
I would agree he broke the intent of the law, but sometimes that's not what matters in a legal sense.
.

The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse & Why No Necessity Defense – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Here is what really is going at this trial;
The prosecutor knows he is losing this case , so he is intentionally trying to get a mistrial.
So the government can start over and try again. ( and put all the blame on the Judge )
The defense sees what the state is doing and counters with a call for a mistrial with prejudice ( means the case is over- no refiling of charges nor a new trial )
The Judge is in a bind, yes he could declare a mistrial because he knows the state has really screwed this case. But he wants the jury to decide.

If the prosecutor continues on this line, resulting in a mistrial, he would be disbarred. I'm sure he's grasping at straws and pushing the envelope to get something allowed, but he surely doesn't want a mistrial.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

 

[vantexan]

He also had no idea who the persons he killed were. He had no legal right to be there with a weapon. He put himself in a terrible position. I don't believe he will face life in prison, but he is guilty of killing those two young men. You can not deny that fact.

He's guilty of defending himself against great bodily harm, not murder. I'm about 100% certain he will be found not guilty of murder. Apparently in your mind if he hadn't been armed and had tried to put out that fire then whatever happened to him would have been justified.

 

[oldngray]

Here is what really is going at this trial;
The prosecutor knows he is losing this case , so he is intentionally trying to get a mistrial.
So the government can start over and try again. ( and put all the blame on the Judge )
The defense sees what the state is doing and counters with a call for a mistrial with prejudice ( means the case is over- no refiling of charges nor a new trial )
The Judge is in a bind, yes he could declare a mistrial because he knows the state has really screwed this case. But he wants the jury to decide.

Prosecutors could be barred from re-trying Rittenhouse if prosecutors intentionally caused mistrial: Expert

Wisconsin prosecutors could be barred from re-trying Kyle Rittenhouse if a defense motion for a mistrial is granted and the court rules that prosecutors intentionally caused the mistrial, according to legal experts.

www.foxnews.com