Kyle Rittenhouse. Murder or Self Defence?

[Wonderfulspam]

First-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years.

Firstly, The defendant caused the death of the victim; and
Secondly, the defendant caused the death by criminally reckless conduct; and
Thirdly, the circumstances of the defendant’s conduct showed utter disregard for human life.
The term cause means the defendant’s act was a substantial factor in producing the death.

That's interesting, I wonder how it fits with self defence.

[Vertigo Swirl]

When is the trial of the those accused of murdering the black jogger?  I suppose that was self-defence as well.

[Wonderfulspam]

When is the trial of the those accused of murdering the black jogger?  I suppose that was self-defence as well.

No that was blatant murder.

I saw that one, he was racially profiled by Rednecks who never told him they were making a citizens arrest based on his skin colour & jogging.

[Wonderfulspam]

The defence rested today, closing arguments begin Monday 3pm GMT.

[Wonderfulspam]

This is telling.....

"I don't wanna be one of those cops that, like, I don't wanna be one of those people who lives with PTSD the rest of my life".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ojlHncNvM

[Wonderfulspam]

US jury can consider Rittenhouse provoked deadly violence: Judge

The judge in the United States murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with killing two people during racial justice protests last year, has ruled he would allow the jury to consider that Rittenhouse had provoked one encounter.

The ruling on Friday is a boost for prosecutors because it opens the door for them to argue that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, which would raise the bar for Rittenhouse’s argument that he was ambushed and acted in self-defence.

“It’s the jury’s case and I think they should make the critical decisions,” Judge Bruce Schroeder said on Friday. “My decision will be to submit the case to the jury with the provocation instruction and you can argue the strength or lack of strength of the evidence.”

Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation, they are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defence. So if the prosecution can argue Rittenhouse was the aggressor, it could raise the bar for the defence.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/12/us-jury-can-consider-whether-rittenhouse-provoked-deadly-violence-judge

[Wonderfulspam]

I've been binge watching the trial from the start again, there are many aspects of the evening that Rittenhouse's associates are very unclear about & sometimes they contradict each other completely in their sworn testimony.
It's clear they are lying their butts off in places. It's impossible to make an accurate timeline or ever know where they all are.

I've also slowed down some of the video & audio clips whilst viewing but I still can't place Rittenhouse in the gas station at the same time that Rosenbaum is telling someone off screen not to point a gun at them.

I did hear him in a gas station clip, when I used headphones on full whack, distinctively asking people if they need medical, but he is never on screen during that clip.

I still can't prove it, but I'm pretty certain Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at some protesters from the roof of car source in the hours preceding the first shooting, there is supporting evidence someone was on the roof with a laser sight.

According to Dominic Black, Rittenhouse's friend who got him the gun, some unknown guy in their group who he'd never seen before & left early that night had a big laser pointer pen he was pointing at people!!!

(No one else mentions this unknown guy though)

If the jury cotton onto this then things could get interesting.

I'm beginning to think he won't be walking.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Interesting that you seem to have changed your opinion once you’ve heard all the evidence.  It does make a difference doesn’t it?  Knowing ALL the available facts I mean.

[barrier]

No that was blatant murder.

I saw that one, he was racially profiled by Rednecks who never told him they were making a citizens arrest based on his skin colour & jogging.

Has that started, I saw a nearly all white jury had been elected .


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59167085

[Wonderfulspam]

Interesting that you seem to have changed your opinion once you’ve heard all the evidence.  It does make a difference doesn’t it?  Knowing ALL the available facts I mean.

I haven't heard all the evidence though, multiple potentially key witnesses were never called.

Anyway, looking again at the footage & circumstances of the shootings.

The first shooting could well be self defence,(if the jury don't consider provocation, but with excessive use of force, he fired 4 shots)

The second shooting, because the gun was strapped to Kyle's body the chances of the 2nd decedent actually removing said gun were lowered, so he may not be justified in that shooting.

The 3rd shooting appears reasonable defence still, as the assailant was stepping toward Rittenhouse with a gun pointing towards to his head, having fake surrendered, although this might depend on the reasonableness or otherwise of the prior shootings.

[Wonderfulspam]

Has that started, I saw a nearly all white jury had been elected .


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59167085

Yes, it is underway, probably into 2nd or 3rd week now.

I haven't watched any because it seems an obvious case of murder.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes, it is underway, probably into 2nd or 3rd week now.

I haven't watched any because it seems an obvious case of murder.

It will be interesting if the jury doesn't agree...

[Vertigo Swirl]

I haven't heard all the evidence though, multiple potentially key witnesses were never called.

Anyway, looking again at the footage & circumstances of the shootings.

The first shooting could well be self defence,(if the jury don't consider provocation, but with excessive use of force, he fired 4 shots)

The second shooting, because the gun was strapped to Kyle's body the chances of the 2nd decedent actually removing said gun were lowered, so he may not be justified in that shooting.

The 3rd shooting appears reasonable defence still, as the assailant was stepping toward Rittenhouse with a gun pointing towards to his head, having fake surrendered, although this might depend on the reasonableness or otherwise of the prior shootings.

Wasn't the third shooting of a paramedic, or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

[barrier]

Yes, it is underway, probably into 2nd or 3rd week now.

I haven't watched any because it seems an obvious case of murder.

It won't work like that.

[Wonderfulspam]

Wasn't the third shooting of a paramedic, or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Yes he was an EMT but wasn't on official duty, don't think he was employed as one at the time, he would travel to protests to protest & help, he is also part of a Far Left group, he was carrying an unlicensed concealed pistol. He has been granted special witness privacy rights called Marcy's Law, which have never been used in a case before.

He believed he was taking down an active shooter & he kind of was.