By Michael Tarm and Todd Richmond, AP
An Illinois man who shot three people during a protest over police brutality in Wisconsin last year was justified because the men confronted him and two of them tried to wrestle his gun away, a use-of-force expert called by the defense testified at a pretrial hearing Tuesday.
The expert, John Black, spent hours outlining the moments that led to Kyle Rittenhouse’s decisions to shoot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz, offering a preview of the defense team’s strategy when Rittenhouse’s trial begins next month. Black testified that video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and reaching for the teenager’s gun, Huber attacking Rittenhouse with a skateboard and trying to wrestle away his gun, and Grosskreutz running at him with a pistol in his hand.
“A citizen in that position, given those indicators, would it be reasonable for them to believe they were about to be assaulted?” Black said. “I would argue yes.”
Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he made the short trip from his home in Antioch, Illinois, to Kenosha on the night of Aug. 25, 2020, in response to a call from a Kenosha militia to help protect businesses from protesters. The city was in the throes of several nights of chaotic demonstrations sparked by a white police officer’s decision to shoot Jacob Blake, a Black man, during a domestic disturbance. The shooting left Blake paralyzed from the waist down.
Shortly before midnight, Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle in the parking lot of a used car dealership, killing him. Moments later, he shot Huber in the street, killing him as well. Seconds after shooting Huber he shot Grosskreutz, wounding him in the arm.
Prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with multiple counts, including homicide, attempted homicide and being a minor in possession of a firearm. Rittenhouse’s attorneys say he fired in self-defense. His trial is slated to begin Nov. 1.
Rittenhouse’s lead attorney, Mark Richards, is trying to persuade Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder to let Black testify at the trial. Schroeder allowed Black to speak at the hearing via Zoom in hopes that would help him make a decision.
Black testified that he studied bystander video of the three shootings extensively. He noted that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and threw a plastic bag at him before reaching for Rittenhouse’s rifle.
“Now the firearm is a potential weapon for both parties,” Black said. “Now we have a potential wrestling match.”
Bystander video showed that after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, he ran down the street. At one point he stumbled and a man came out of the crowd and kicked him in the face, Black said. Rittenhouse fired at that man but missed.
A moment later Huber hit Rittenhouse in the neck with a skateboard and tried to grab Rittenhouse’s rifle, prompting Rittenhouse to shoot him, Black said. Grosskreutz approached with his hands raised in an “I surrender” motion but he had a handgun in his right hand. He backed up before he stepped forward and lowered the pistol. Rittenhouse then shot him in the arm.
Black said Rittenhouse maintained control of his rifle throughout and didn’t just spray the crowd randomly with bullets.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger argued that Black is an expert in the use of force by police, not civilians. He also questioned whether Rittenhouse would have been justified in using lethal force if he hadn’t had a gun.
Black responded that he has taught civilian self-defense courses and that Binger was presenting a hypothetical situation. But if Rittenhouse hadn’t been armed with a gun, he may not have been justified in using deadly force, Black said.
Schroeder held off on deciding whether Black can testify at the trial until he hears testimony from a prosecution expert on the use of force. He scheduled an Oct. 25 hearing for that testimony.
The judge began the hearing by denying a defense request to drop the weapons possession charge against Rittenhouse. Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under age 18 from going armed, but Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that statutes actually prohibit minors only from carrying short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The only other prohibitions on minors possessing firearms lie in hunting statutes, and all they say is that children under age 12 can’t hunt with firearms, they said.
Schroeder said he might revisit the question later, calling the statutes unclear.
He also denied the prosecution’s request to bar the media from broadcasting or publishing images of witnesses’ faces during the trial. The prosecutor told the judge that some witnesses fear for their safety because it’s such a high-profile and contested case.
Richards said he didn’t know which witnesses Binger was referring to, but he pointed out that one prosecution witness has boasted on his social media accounts about being subpoenaed in the case.
Schroeder said he wasn’t sure if he has the authority to censor the media. He added that he has presided over other cases that he described as more “tense” than the Rittenhouse proceedings.
Many conservatives have flocked to support Rittenhouse, calling him a patriot for seeking to stop violent protests, making him a symbol for gun rights and raising $2 million for his bail. Others, including some liberals and activists, portray him as a domestic terrorist and say he made a volatile situation worse by bringing a rifle to the streets of Kenosha.
Both the prosecution and the defense asked Schroder for permission to send questionnaires to potential jurors to detect bias, but Schroeder denied the requests last month, saying he’s afraid most people won’t fill them out and that recipients would discuss the case with family and friends and form opinions.
If Rittenhouse is guilty of the crime of possessing a firearm while underage, would than a claim of self-defense then be denied (illegal act committed to facilitate a legal act)?
Self defense is a natural right and one of the main purposes for the Second Amendment which specifies “…the right to keep and bear arms…” not necessarily firearms.
As such, while his possession of the rifle might or might not be technically a crime in Wisconsin and there is also some question about the purchase of the rifle, those issues are separate from whether or not the use of that rifle to defend his life was justified.
If he had been with someone else who legally possessed a rifle but was put out of action by the attackers and Kyle had picked up that rifle to defend himself he would still have “technically” been in violation of being a minor in possession of a rifle. He would STILL have been justified in defending himself and others with that rifle.
As I understand it the weapons charge is irrelevant to the self defense claim. Even with a convicted felon the right to possess the weapon and the right to use it in self defense are completely unrelated.
Basically exactly right. I mean, a 6-year old carrying an AR-15 attacked under the same circumstances would have just as much cause and liberty to defend in the same way as Kyle. Of course, that still leaves the weapon charge open, at least in this scenario.
“a 6-year old carrying an AR-15 attacked under the same circumstances would have just as much cause and liberty to defend in the same way as Kyle.”
A six-year old is cute, and, well….a six-year old.
Were I wanting to prosecute Rittenhouse to the fullest, I would get a conviction on the gun charge first, the go after the self-defense argument. Thus, Rittenhouse is already a criminal when he enters trial on self-defense (both acts were part of a single event). Thus, I could present the jury with the image of a bad guy trying to wiggle out of a second crime.
There are many people who, if trapped into jury duty, would recognize the two acts as being different, but mostly such types don’t sit on juries (well, I would sit on a jury because I got nothing else to do, and could stand a little pocket money for jury duty).
I worked a case like this once; convicted felon blows other convicted felon away with a 20 gage shotgun during a attempted home invasion.
Living felon got hit with federal felon in possession of a firearm but nothing else as the homicide was clearly an act of self defense.
No. if its valid self-defense then its valid self-defense. He didn’t commit an illegal to commit an illegal act of self-defense.
The law is a little unclear as to him being able to posses the weapon so that still needs to be worked out. But the self defense its self, it does not matter what he used for self defense and if he could legally possess it or not. If he had a baseball bat and used it for self-defense he would have been charged the same as he is now for homicide except he would not have the “a minor in possession of a firearm” charge.
The only thing here that does not make this self defense, by letter of law, is the political nature of the case. If he had been, say, standing outside, for instance, without a gun and got attacked this way then came upon a gun laying on the ground and used that he would not have been charged with anything and it would have been self defense.
The prosecution is going along with the political climate here. They are contending, basically, that if he had not been involved with the “militia’ and reported with arms that he would not have attracted the attackers in the emotionally charged and volatile atmosphere but because he did he created the situation – and that’s why this is not a self-defense open-n-shut thing because for self-defense you can not have created the situation. In other words, he should not have been in the area to begin with but because he willingly went there armed he created the situation.
Ah, yes: the always-populer argument that his metaphorical skirt was too short. Bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see how it works out for them.
…if he had not been involved with the “militia’…
Last I checked, a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state, so I don’t see how participating in one would constitute creating a situation.
Boom! You beat me to it. Perfect reply, if I do say so myself.
Oh, actually you said it…
Of course certain prosecutors, judges and jurers probably don’t view the Constitution as I do (as written), so caveat emptor.
You took that little bit out of context.
it wasn’t participation, it was his response to the call from the militia to show up armed that led to him being there.
…if he had not been involved with the “militia’… he would not have gotten the call and would have had no reason to be there. According to him his only reason for being there was the call from the ‘militia’
Booger, I could see your point IF he had never been part of the militia AND the militia had not put out a call for help. In that case he would have injected himself into a volatile situation. Or if the police had everything in hand, in which case the militia would not have needed to get involved. I will concede however that I am talking about America ~1791. I am afraid that America in 2021 has drifted a very long way from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Your last paragraph is exactly right, and what anyone criticizing Rittenhouse has been doing for over a year. It’s such a remarkably clear cut case of self defense that they can’t argue against his actions themselves, so they argue that he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Of course, “this honest, law abiding citizen had absolutely no business being where he was and therefore his otherwise legitimate claim of self defense is invalid” is an argument with a DEEPLY racist history behind its use. It’s worth pointing that out to the leftists when they say it
Let me check the Constitution/Bill of Rights (2nd) for age.
.
.
.
.
.
NOPE.
It really terrifies the Left when the civilian owned AR 15 is used to stop criminals.
“8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/
Yes but that just too damn bad.
my favourite is the church massacre in Springbranch Texas. Media have made much of the fact the murderer used an AR pattern rifle, but gone silent on two irrefutable facts in the case: first, on two or more occasions lazy Air Force desk jockeys whose assigned DUTY it was to report the killers three felony charges, and later conviction, and his Dishonourable Discharge from the Air Force, totallying FOUR disabling entries on the guy’s FBI/NICS file, with WOULD have prohibited hispurchasing the rifle he used to kill. Second, that it was a neighbour, hearing the gunfire, went home and got HIS OWN Ar pattern rifle, returned, and fired ONE ROUND.. which ended the in-progress massacre.
Background checks ONLY work when the disabling information is posted in the system. And AR pattern rifles can indeed be used for evil.. AND they can and are used to stop evil in progress.
If he, as a minor, is to young to have a firearm, how can you charge him as an adult for using it? A minor could be jailed in Juvenile Hall until he is an adult and then let go, maybe with some sort on probation officer to report to once a month or so for a year or even 2?
If he was acting as part of a militia guarding a business, the other members really should have accompanied him to his car or ride home, but that is me being a monday morning quarterback.
I sincerely hope and pray he gets off all charges here, but this is so politized that he will end up a felon with time served, ruining his life forever.
I’ve read the Wisconsin statutes under which he is charged eith “minor in poasession”. Several issues: first, there are VERY clear carve-outs that exempt those sixteen and over in most circumstances, this one included.Second, he initially possessed that rifle on PRIVATE PROPERTY< with permission of the property owner, which makes it no matter his age. He was chased, literally driven off the property, at which point he faced a decision: drop the gun and run, ost certainlybresulting in the chaser's subsequent taking possession of the rifle, or run with the gun, which he did.
I see no way any JUST court will end up charging him with illegal underage possession. It was not HIS choice to be forced, under threat of imminent violence, to leave the private property. He was persude villently which is WHY he did not remain on the private property.
I've seen a VERY thorough treatment of this issue writte up by Dean Weingarten over at Ammoland. Go there and search for it. He is a very detailed guy, nd does a very clear dissection of Wisconsin gun law relating to this.
*Breaking* –
Arlington active-shooter, reports have a description of the suspect, and it’s not an “angry white male”…
“and say he made a volatile situation worse by bringing a rifle to the streets of Kenosha”
I suppose the guy with the pistol about to shoot a “kid” on his back didnt make things worse though. Idiots.
Notice in the extensive video analysis of the incident shortly after it occurred even the NYT admitted that someone else fired a pistol at about the same time as Kyle shot the first attacker. Speculation was that Kyle may have heard the shot and believed someone was shooting at him.
Then if you watch the video above you will notice that AFTER Kyle shoots the man with the pistol and turns to walk TOWARDS the police, you can plainly hear the sound of five or six gunshots in the distance.
Kyle was not the only person armed in that vicinity, or firing his weapon, he was just the only one who got rounds on target.
nor did the punk wielding a weapons grade skateboard.
Have you looked up close at those “longboards” currently popular on the streets? Those are far more lethal than any billy club and than most cricket or baseball bats. Having taken one strike with one of those, no wonder he aimed and fired when the clown rared back and started another swing at him. They are heavy enough to easily crask an skull wide open. KYle wisely decided “no thatks, I’ll take a pass on that one”.
Antifa know about alternative weapons. Look how many are carrying a milk shake. Pour in quick set cement powder and it is a hand or thrown weapon while looking innocent to the left-leaning camera crews.
As well a bike locks (where’s the bike?), and very sturdy sticks to hold up the placards.
If you’re going into a war zone a rifle isn’t a bad thing to bring. At a minimum.
FREE KYLE …. 🇺🇸
Lock up BIDEN,
Just put Biden back in bed, put him in restraints, and put the bed rails up.
Straw purchased firearm, underage for firearm ownership, crossed state line to play Rambo & killed people.He had no reason to be there. Hope the little twit goes to jail for a long time.
And I hope a hate-filled twerp like yourself gets cancer and dies alone… 😉
firearm lawfully loaned by a Wisconsin State resident who lawfully owned it. Legal in that state. Ownership never transferred nor intended to be.
the same WI statute under whichhe is charged has clear exemptions/carveouts for those between 16 and 18, and in exactly the circustances Kyle was in.
He did cross state lines.. his Father and other good friends live in Kenosha, his residence in Illinois is 15 minutes away from the scene of these incidents, and he had crossed state lines for valid reasons. No more a big deal than when I ride my bicycle accross the 205 bridge from vancouver into Portland. Non event.
He killed ONLY the three that wewre very obviously in the process of killing or inflicing serious bodily harm upon HIM, and trying tot ake away the lawfully possessed firearm which he was carrying. For lawful purposes.
Don’t wanna get shot Don’t assault a dude with a rifle and try to take away his rifle. TWO valid reasons to fire.. self-defence, and to prevent the firearm from falling into hands of someone who is likley to use it for evil. Note, as well, all three of those he shot were felons, thus “disabled’ from possession of all firearms. ALast one was not killed, only injured, so I hope HE is facing charges of armed assault, felon in possession, etc.
Maybe there will be justice and the lone survivor will die of complications.
Yeah, the inanimate object made things worse. Not the Molitovs or the wife-beater, pedo and serial larcenist chasing him through the streets.
That’s like saying the wallet in your pocket is the reason you were mugged. I thought the left was against victim blaming? Sorry, that’s the old left. Before they all suddenly became proto-fascist statists.
“She was wearing a short skirt.”
Someone needs to point out the fact that the police are civilians to this numbskull district attorney.
Yes, yes, someone should point that out. Then they can explain that ‘shall not be infringed’ means ‘shall not be infringed,’ that AR does not stand for ‘automatic/assault rifle,’ that ‘.9mm’ is really, really small, that Abortion-on-demand-for-any-reason-or-no-reason-at-all-right-up-to-and-maybe-just-a-little-bit-after-birth is murder, and that it is unConstitutional to force people to wear BidenBras, carry internal passports, and get injected with experimental drugs against their will.
In the meantime, most folks will accept that a bunch of uniformed, armed, regimented, paramilitary folks with military ranks such as ‘sergeant,’ and ‘lieutenant,’ and ‘captain,’ given special powers of detention and arrest by government entities, along with several other ‘perks’ and distinctions, aren’t exactly your run-of-the-mill ‘civilians.’
Feel free to come up with some catchy title, somewhere between ‘civilian’ and ‘military,’ if you like; I’m afraid that ‘civilian’ just doesn’t realistically apply, although it is technically correct.
‘Tis a strange and wonderful time in which we live.
I just call us “private citizens” if I’m in a conversation where I need to distinguish between police and non police *shrug*
So, like, police are then ‘public citizens,’ or what? At least, you admit that there is a hierarchical distinction between ‘civilians’ who are not police and ‘civilians’ who are. Some won’t.
Violence begets violence! The left apparently doesn’t know that!
Nah see, check it out: Rittenhouse has the wrong political opinions, so therefore he’s actually in the wrong even though his actions were ostensibly defensive and moral. And the three fascists who tried to kill him have the right opinions, so therefore their actions, while ostensibly offensive and immoral, were actually legitimate. In other words, they were right to try to kill him and therefore he was wrong to defend himself.
I would ad a /sarc tag but I don’t actually think this is that sarcastic. They won’t admit it of course and may not even be aware of it themselves, but I genuinely believe that a sizable portion of the left truly do think this way. It’s the only possible explanation I’ve been able to figure out for how anyone can make the laughably, irrefutably incorrect claim that Rittenhouse is guilty.
I mean, this is the same group that stands fully behind the idea that our speech is violence and their violence is speech. It goes way beyond simple hypocrisy and into the territory of a belief that one side is righteous in using offensive violence for political reasons because their goals are just, whereas the other side is not because their goals are not. And if the righteous use offensive violence to punish the wicked (I.e. cops using offensive force to track down and apprehend a rapist), the wicked are wrong to defend against it (I.e. in the above scenario, the rapist would be in the wrong if he fired on the men trying to catch him)
Some people have been pointing this out from day one. What the Wisconsin legislature may have intended to write in their statutes and what they actually wrote in their statutes may be two entirely different things. And per the latter, it was not unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess a rifle.
He might skate on the short barreled rifle.
The argument will be what constitutes a short barreled rifle. If they say its carbine length then Kyle’s up sht crick.
it is time to remove all liability lawsuit constraints against wrongful prosecutors.. this was clearly a persecution for political reasons…a democrat anti gun crusader as a prosecutor..this prosecutor needs to be flipping burgers at a house of ill repute…
Hey, someone needs to contact Rittenhouse’s defense attorney! I watched that video and noticed something absolutely critical: if you listen carefully, you can hear someone say, “Get that dude!” Then you hear someone say, “Get his @ss!” And then a few seconds later (at the 13 second mark of the video), you can hear someone say, “Skateboard him!”
That has to be pivotal evidence for the defense. A crowd is chasing him. Someone yells to get him, someone yells to get his @ss, and someone else yells to skateboard him. If that doesn’t establish a reasonable fear of imminent grievous bodily harm or death (which legally justifies a response with deadly force), I don’t know what does.
“And then a few seconds later (at the 13 second mark of the video), you can hear someone say, “Skateboard him!””
Oh, that will be featured in the trial… 😉
To be fair, if Kyle’s representation is missing stuff like that there’s no help for him anyway.
Are our resident antifag morons not up yet today?
You missed ol’ Bob at 11:53. He’s standing in for Derpian and Minor69er, but he’s not very good at it. Obviously scrub-team quality.
I don’t understand the prosecutor’s complaint that the expert is an expert in police use of force. That is ridiculous. The standard for use of deadly force is the same for both LEO and nonLEO alike.
Mark N.,
I am having a hard time understanding why the prosecutor is prosecuting Kyle in the first place.
The videos make it very clear that multiple people attacked Kyle in multiple locations–all the while that Kyle was trying repeatedly to retreat or turn himself over to police.
I can understand why a prosecutor would have charged Kyle initially. With all of the available video of the event at this point, it seems like a pretty open-and-shut case of legally justified self-defense.
Because he tried to stop rioters from destroying his bosses buisness with an assault rifle, wound up killing two and wounding another.
The system cant have that.
Serious question:
It sounds like the prosecutor is arguing that Kyle did not have a reasonable fear of imminent grievous bodily harm or death in the first encounter where the short dude had thrown something at Kyle and then chased him into the used cars for-sale lot. And that prosecutor’s claim apparently rests on the fact that the short dude did not have a visible weapon in hand when he accosted Kyle.
The indisputable facts are:
Short dude threw something at Kyle and chased Kyle.
Kyle retreated to a used car for-sale lot.
Short dude had no visible weapons in hand.
Kyle had a rifle in hand.
Once Kyle was cornered, he turned to face the short dude pursuing him.
Short dude then lunged at Kyle and grabbed Kyle’s rifle.
Kyle then shot short dude with Kyle’s rifle.
Kyle disengaged as soon as short dude collapsed.
Now for the question:
Did those facts/events legally justify Kyle to use deadly force? Based only on the fact that both of them were similarly matched in size, strength, and speed and short dude had no visible weapons in hand, NO. What about other considerations? Even though short dude had no visible weapon in hand, would it be reasonable to conclude that short dude had a concealed weapon which he planned to deploy against Kyle? (Why else would short dude be pursuing someone with a rifle!) Similarly, would it be reasonable to conclude that short dude intended to take Kyle’s rifle and use it against Kyle? If the answer to either of those questions is, “yes,” doesn’t that legally justify Kyle to use deadly force in self-defense?
Qualifier: remember that you have to answer those questions with a reasonable person’s mindset in the exact circumstances where that encounter occurred and in the same amount of time.
If someone tries to take your firearm, that action is prima facie evidence of intent to use it against you, and inherently justifies your use of deadly force in self-defense in response to said action.
Chip,
Thank you for your reply. How authoritative/reliable is your statement that someone trying to take your firearm is prima facie evidence of intent to use it against you?
I am not trying to be difficult. And your answer seems entirely reasonable to me. I am curious to know if that is a well-established legal principle.
Of course the usual caveats apply: neither you nor I are attorneys and our comments on this forum are our opinions and not legal advice.
I’m not a lawyer, but I could also imagine another aspect of that that could be argued: for an apparently unarmed person to physically accost someone who is visibly carrying a firearm is an extremely illogical decision, and one that the vast majority of people wouldn’t make. Given the substantial risk to, and low odds of success for, the attacker, one of the only reasons for his actions that make any sort of sense would be that he was feeling such a high degree of malice that it override self preservation
Red in CO,
That is another interesting angle–the attacker is basically on a suicide attack mission.
I think the pivotal element which will ultimately lead the jury to return a not-guilty verdict will be the fact that Kyle was consistently attempting to flee and not engage anyone–he only engaged people when they had overtaken him and were literally in contact with him with credible intentions to maim/murder him.
It does not matter how justified Kyle was he’s going to be found guilty on all or almost all charges.
Justice is dead and the mob must be appeased.
He has more of a chance than Chauvin did, not least because (unlike Chauvin) he *actually* did nothing wrong.
Hey Bob…If Kyle had skateboarded across state lines and used the board to hit someone attacking him would you feel better?
With proper training Kyle Rittenhouse has proven you don’t need to use the full auto setting on your auto loading rifle.
All American children should be similarly instructed.
America has a hero, his name is Kyle Rittenhouse.
“Schroeder said he might revisit the question later, calling the statutes unclear.”
That’s called “void for vagueness.” Either a criminal statute prohibits specific behavior or it doesn’t. If you have to “think about it” then it doesn’t by default.
Free Kyle. Except the “Illinois man” phrase. At 17 you’re technically not.
Tells you everything you need to know about this “impartial” judge’s approach, doesn’t it.
Libera law bastardizations aside, I don’t see how one can make it illegal for a 17 year old to have a gun. The Second Amendment states what it states about a well-regulated militia. US code, chapter 12, defines a militia member as:
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, Kyle, as a presumtive member of an unorganized militia, being 17 years old, is protected by the Second Amendment. He therefore has the right to keep and bear arms.
“But if Rittenhouse hadn’t been armed with a gun, he may not have been justified in using deadly force, Black said.”
WHAT?
So he is saying an unarmed Rittenhouse could NOT use deadly force against Grosskreutz as Grosskreutz came at him with gun? There is an “expert” the defense does not need.
No, the expert said that the first dead guy grabbing the gun is what justified lethal force. If you remove the gun from the equation it’s definitely harder to get to the same conclusion.
A good lawyer would have that witness’ answers polished up better before trial, but we’ll see.
FREE KYLE…, 🇺🇸
The reason this happened to Kyle and no one else that day is because he looks so young. Looking like a child and holding a gun can really mess with the mind of an aggressor – especially someone already deranged – like the dude who rushed him first. Everyone else shot was trying to mob him.
It really is crazy how a case like this even ends up this far. Aside from maybe a weapon violation, everyone with a brain would have behaved in like manner to Kyle, who was placed in a no win scenario. Hope this DA loses their next election, and this case…
Shouldn’t even be a question brought to a jury. The prosecutions case on each shooting should be thrown out before it even gets there. I’m not here calling him a patriot for being dumb enough to put himself in that situation but he’s no murderer.
Recently in Chicago prosecutors declined to file charges against a bunch of black gang members arrrested after a shootout that left several other gang members dead.
The prosecutors explained that the men were engaged in “mutual combat.”
Seems like that would surely apply to Rittenhouse’s case.
I mean, if we’re going to make a travesty of the law, it should apply equally to all people, right?
Oh, wait, I forgot that the goal of making a travesty of the law is to *not* apply the law equally to all people.
Since I wasn’t there, I can’t know everything that went on.
But from the footage I have seen, this young man showed reserve in defending himself.
We could argue whether or not he should have been there.
But he did not fire on anyone until attacked and pressed.
His last attacker is very lucky to only lose some bicep. He raised his hands and then drew a Glock. Kyle had good reaction speed and probably saved his own life.
@uncommon_sense October 7, 2021 At 06:30
“Red in CO,”
“I think the pivotal element which will ultimately lead the jury to return a not-guilty verdict will be the fact that Kyle was consistently attempting to flee and not engage anyone–he only engaged people when they had overtaken him and were literally in contact with him with credible intentions to maim/murder him.”
Determined Prosecutor – “Personages and entities of the jury…The then armed defendant, at the time of the murder, was 17; underage for legally possessing a firearm in our state. Not only that, the illegally armed defendant was not in his home town, but had crossed state boundaries to be at the scene of the crime. Had the armed defendant not crossed into our state, he could not have been at a volatile location, where public order was being disrupted.
If the illegally armed defendant had not been at that volatile location, the then armed defendant would not have been in any danger at all; and the murder would not have happened. In short, the armed defendant voluntarily, and intentionally put himself and others at risk of life, and took one. The armed defendant now claims protection of self-defense to evade punishment for his intentional and voluntary act of being illegally in possession of a firearm, in a location the defendant would have easily avoided had he not crossed into our state to intimidate people with his gun.
The armed defendant, evidenced by his presence in a state not his own, and illegally in possession of a firearm, had every intention of shooting someone that night. Indeed, his presence precipitated the murder that he would have us believe was a legitimate act of self-defense.
The defendant was out of place, illegally armed, eager and ready to shoot someone that night. The defendant accomplished his dream: shooting and killing a citizen of our state. Murder – mission accomplished.”
All said, the cops shouldn’t have been told to stand down and let the rioters loot peoples livelihoods. Then we wouldn’t have needed 17 year olds there in the first place trying to do the cops job.
Unless this ‘expert’ has a track record with what juries have thought of his opinions in past trials, pretty good chance overall Killer Komando Kyle is goin’ to prison.
Comments are closed.