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

Didn't have to. Police made zero effort to detain him.

 

At some point they made an effort to arrest him, since he's in jail now. Because he turned himself in and didn't resist arrest and cooperated, lol.
And it's likely that they did NOT know for a fact that he had just shot three people.
He had no warrant for his arrest. He was not acting in a threatening manner to the police.

 

If that's what it comes down to, this won't even make it to trial.

There's a half dozen videos taken before the shootings and exactly zero of them showing anybody with a gun acting aggressively except those in the BLM crowd.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse just prior to shooting and killing two people.

 

good thing for him he was not doing "non-lethal" would be dead otherwise..

 

Had the child not illegally brought a gun he'd still be alive and not in jail and two other people would be alive that are no longer.

 

It is possible they could still be dead for attacking some other non-rioters.

 

Either way - the people chasing him acted outside the law.
If I punch you and run away, you chase me, shoot me, and kill me, you go to jail for murder 2.
As such, once I de-escalate, and you re-escalate or initiate a new conflict, I can act in self-defense.

 

No. Why would it. Did the police see him break the law?

 

How do you know this?
Wasn't he chased by, and then fell in front of, three people, of which at least one had a gun, and another an ad hoc deadly weapon?

 

The people were chasing him because he just shot someone. Not long ago people here were defending shooting a man who had trespassed, that the armed *******s had every right to chase him with guns but now it's not OK to chase someone who had just shot someone????

 

He would not have been chased in the first place HAD HE NOT SHOT SOMEONE and then ran.

 

False. That logic clearly avoids dealing with the first chase.

Try again.

 

People were shouting to the police that he had just shot some people, plural.

 

Had he not had the gun he would not have been chased at all. This is not rocket science.

 

Great. And Kyle was arrested and is now in jail.

Apparently he didn't pull a knife on cops or threaten them, so it went down pretty uneventfully.

 

Chasing someone merely because they have a firearm is not a defense.

Sorry. Every American has an obligation to de-escalate. Which is what Kyle did by running away, as the videos prove.

 

Ok...? So?
Had they killed Rittenhouse, they would be charged with murder; had they attacked an injured him, they would have been charged with assault.

 

So, no. the police did not see him break the law.
There's your explanation.

 

You avoided my questions.

 

And?

You think I carry a stun gun around with me in case I get car jacked? Lol

 

There were lots of people with guns. I saw videos of rioters with guns.

Were they all being chased?

Or was just the one kid being chased by the guy we all saw on video trying to start a physical altercation before any of this went down?

 

Not so much.
Whatever happened in the initial confrontation, Kyle ran away. He was then chased. Shots rang out and the man who chased him died.

Under WI law, provoking a fight removes your ability to claim self-defense.
938.48 2(a)
(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
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

HOWever, that ability to claim self-defense resets once you withdraw:
938.48 2 (b)
(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.

And so, unless Kyle committed some act that falls under 2(a) after the first guy started chasing him, 2(b) means - regardless of what happened before he was chased - he has the right to act in self defense; as the burden is on the state to prove Kyle did NOT act in self-defense, the state must prove this to be the case.

 

He did not illegally bring a gun. Nothing he did was illegal at all. He was there legally, the gun was given to him legally.

 

He IS still alive. Having the gun saved his life from the angry mob tried to kill him.