Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

and in jail. And the crowd chasing him did not hit him, jump him, trip him or even try to touch him yet you say they "tried to kill him". At what point did this occur?

 

He was 17. Wisconsin law said you have to be 18 to be in possession of a gun like that.

 

That's NOT what WI laws says.
Anywhere.
Disagree?
Cite, copy, paste.

 

Wut?
You can't be serious.

 

Seriously, did you watch the video? Kyle was struck in the back of the head while running, then with a foot, then with a skateboard. Then a goon with a pistol charged in. Kyle was about a half a second away from likely death. How can you deny clear photographic evidence like this:





The photos and videos of the event are the reason Kyle will be exonerated.

 

Kyle defended himself against people pursuing him. He ran from trouble. Ergo, the pursuers were in the wrong here, and deserve what they got.

 

Hyper-partisanship does strange things to people.

 

The photo of the kick was taken while he had already shot one person and had his gun trained on another person. What would you have the crowd do? Oh he's just afraid and we should let him shoot people? If it had been a school shooting you would have called the guy in the white pants a hero fo r trying to kick the gun away. The third guy you claim has a gun tried to grab the rifle, again a heroic attempt. Where is that gun by the way. The child is going to spend a long long time in a psychiatric hospital.

 

Earlier you said "the crowd chasing him did not hit him, jump him, trip him or even try to touch him". Now you've been presented with evidence of it, you seem to acknowledge the truth - that they did indeed hit him and touch him. Good for you.

"that gun" was in the assailant's right hand. And it's not a "claim", it's a documented fact:


You haven't presented any evidence that he "tried to grab the rifle". How did you reach that conclusion? It looks to me, and it will look to a jury, like he intended to murder Kyle.

Seriously, watch the videos, these are some of the most clear-cut and well-documented self-defense shootings in history.

 

Why do you keep making up nonsense? The gun was pointed almost straight up in the air, not "trained on another person", when Lucky tried to kick / stomp Kyle.

 

This whole case rests on who the initial aggressor was. Was it the rioter with a criminal history or the kid who was cleaning graffiti and providing medical aid to the injured who happened to have a couple traffic violations? The second and third shooting were quite obviously self defense, there is no doubt that if the first shooting was self defense that the subsequent ones were as well. The video evidence there is clear.

 

And the state has the burden to prove it was Rittenhouse.

Unquestionably.

 

There's no evidence that Kyle was "the initial aggressor", but even if we were to grant the most generous assumption to the prosecution, that he did something unlawful and aggressive to provoke Rosenbaum's attack on him, he clearly withdrew and was attempting to de-escalate the situation by running away. That is enough, under Wisconsin law, to re-establish his claim to self-defense even if he were the initial aggressor:

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
939.48(1)(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

 

I posted this yesterday.- - post # 1123.
Oddly,. the "Kyle is a murderer!!!" crowd hasn't responded.

 

Yep. In EVERY VIDEO of Kyle, he's seen RUNNING AWAY from trouble. There's a legal concept for that, too, lol.

He's clearly innocent.

 

Great.

So, if Kyle is "innocent", I am Sure that The Courts will figure that out.

 

True. They finally figured it out for Zimmerman.

 

We both know, assuming this even goes to trial, you'll fully disagree with any verdict other than "guilty".

 

No, you can't claim self defense immediately following murder. That said, all evidence points toward a valid self defense claim.

 

This kid was a hero who stood up for what was right, his arrest and prosecution are political persecution and I'm sure he'll be found innocent.

 

I wish I had your confidence in the judicial system. There's a very good book called 'Blind Injustice' by Mark Godsey you should read.

 

It's in the video. Many stills throughout this thread. The kid with the skateboard has very clear intentions in the still: brain Rittenhouse.

 

I would let him continue to run to the 47 cops a block ahead, that everyone on that street knows were there (us video watchers don't see them until the end, when Rittenhouse tried to surrender). Rest assured the people who were there were aware of that presence, AND the fact that Rittenhouse was trying to make it to them.

If I had to bet, I would bet that those thugs chasing him knew where he was running, and were trying to PREVENT him from reaching the police. They need to be identifying anyone in that video who attempted to prevent Rittenhouse from reaching police, and arrest them.

 

I have read bits and pieces, but not the entire thing.

But yeah. A timely book.

In Blind Injustice, Godsey explores distinct psychological human weaknesses inherent in the criminal justice system—confirmation bias, memory malleability, cognitive dissonance, bureaucratic denial, dehumanization, and others—and illustrates each with stories from his time as a hard-nosed prosecutor and then as an attorney for the Ohio Innocence Project.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this Rittenhouse thing plays out.

 

It won't go to trial. He'll plead guilty but mentally impaired and be put in a hospital for the criminally insane for quite some time. Hopefully they'll be able to help him.