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

That’s a complete fabrication. Not only have you displayed a complete lack of understanding of the law, you make up whatever else feels cool to you, like calling him an alcoholic gang member.
This entire thread is a tribute to the people who have tried to explain the law to you, only for you to stick your fingers in your ears and squawk nonsense.
Maybe it’s time you actually watch the vid.

 

Correct its not relevant because the Zimmerman case was in FL. HOW DO YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?
Furthermore in some hypothetical if Zimmermans case did happen in WI whatever privilege lost because Zimmerman was chasing WAS regained because he stopped chasing. HOW DO YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?
There was 4 min between when Zimmerman stopped chasing before Martin came back and attacked him. Are you saying there needs to be more then 4 min to qualify for "adequate notice"? lol

First If he did not have a problem with the pedo chasing him then why would he run? lol

Second stop your lies, the gun was aimed at the ground, that has been pointed out to you over and over.

also its irrelevant to the gun shot being when he turned around, I have made this point over and over, just because there was a second threat by someone shooting a gun does not mean the first threat magically goes away. HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?

If you really believe that Kyle loses his right to self defense from the first threat once a second threat shoots a gun, can you please post the law that backs up your claim. because so far your ideas have been a colossal failure when presented with actual laws.. so go ahead and post up the actual law that backs up this claim

 

Neither. I disagree with your comments and explained clearly why. I do not need to obfuscate your words. There is nothing complex about them. They are subjective declarations. I have assigned no motives or intent to you either.

You are just another individual with emotional political beliefs as to gun ownership, the role you perceive of the militia being a civilian enforcement agency and the role of civilians in enforcing law. No more no less.

 

Can this thread just die a natural death already?....

 

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away! i.e. the police can't always be their, and we saw plenty of examples during the summer of riots where they just stood by and allowed the destruction, so while I agree that Le should take the responsibility for LE, sometimes that can't or won't and it is left to the citizen..

 

Well then think about that Todd. Do you want that kind of responsibility is best served delegated to some 17 year old without proper training? Does that make common sense?

Surely we both saw a 17 year old out of his depth and there is something wrong when a society relies on a 17 year old to patrol the streets with an assault rifle.

Contrary to what all you Rittenhouse supporters think I believe there is a strong possibility myself he will NOT be found guilty of anything but misdemeanor charges for being underage with a firearm and illegally transporting it across state borders and will walk on the other charfes.

I say that because my personal experience as a prosecutor before juries is they very rarely find someone guilty without overwhelming evidence.

However I think in civil court when he is sued for wrongful deaths, that is where he will be found culpable of behaviour he knew or ought to have known would cause harm because in civil court the Plaintiffs of the deceased only need to prove on the balance of probabilities he did not handle his firearm safely and placed himself in a position of knowing he could be attacked and therefore have to use his gun . That would be sufficient to establish his recklessness for having engaged in wrongful deaths. Then it would switch to Rittenhouse to prove beyond reasonable doubt he acted safely which he would have a hard time doing.

So I think in the tort cases for wrongful death he is looking at civil liability but in the criminal proceedings he will probably walk on all but the misdemeanor charge and that has nothing to do with my opinions or yours just knowing how the rules of evidence work and what is required to be proven in court that I look at.

I do though know and state this I DO NOT KNOW ANY police officer who wants a civilian armed with a weapon heading into a hostile crowd. Not one. I am genuinely surprised these armed men were not told to disperse and back up and avoid the crowds. I think I heard it once.

The best solution to crowd control is to disperse and go home and engage in peaceful presentations not bring weapons of any kind and act like police. They have enough problems and if two people fight they have to arrest them both as a general rule. I doubt the police heard the civilian yelling Rittenhouse just shot someone. If they did they would have arrested him on the spot. I would like to think that is what happened. If they were told and heard he shot someone and let him walk that is a very serious police matter and a dereliction of duty. I would therefore hope its not the case.

I am not trying to tell you Americans how to do anything. I just think your democracy is a gift many people across the world will never have and to cherish that gift surely you guys need to want to do more than enforce the law with 17 year olds walking into crowds with assault rifles.

The rule of law which is the basic principle of US democracy does not just mean enforcing the law with power. It means enforcing it with proper lawful procedures and in a fair and orderly manner fully accountable and open to public and government scrutiny.

I believe despite the sheer constant negative news, the majority of the time the police do just that, they properly enforce the law. Because its so difficult for them and power can be so easily abused, surely we need to respect that and make sure the best possible people for the job are protecting the public.

 

here you go https://www.theepochtimes.com/estat...ds-off-approach-to-public-safety_3993276.html

 

That 17 year old.. yes, I'd trust him to have my back

BTW.. our democracy.. or should I say our Republic is over, probably has been for decades, what Pres Trump did was expose it for all of us. We will now go back to having our choice of preselected globalist.. with a seemoing choice of Rep or Dem.. tho' it makes little difference any more, they are all corrupt and do not want to give up their cash cows..

I'll keep voting, just to let them know I haven't quit. The future, as always, is in the hands of God.

 

No, Trump was the SOURCE of the assault on our DEMOCRACY.

You can't limit it to just our form of government as a whole.

No form of government involving democracy would have been safe against Trump.

And, he has continued that assault through today, as he continues to assault and promote assault on democracy.

 

Well y'all fixed that by stealing the vote, as you have for years, but democrat really had to outdo themselves to get rid of Pres Trump. We are first, a Republic, because , as has been demonstrated, a straight deomocrasy can be perverted... I wish it ruly it was one citizen, one vote

 

Pedo. Sure sign of weakness. Pathetic.

 

There was an evidentiary hearing in Kyle's self defense case earlier this morning:

 

Interesting. I'm impressed with this judge. I believe he'll ensure a fair trial.

 

I listened until they moved onto other cases. My takeaways:

1) Judge DENIES prosecutor's motion to include teenage fistfight video / incident in trial evidence, saying "I am virtually certain that if I were to admit this type of evidence, it would be grounds for a reversal if there were a conviction."

2) Judge DENIES prosecutor's motion to include photo of Kyle signaling "OK" in bar with alleged Proud Boys in trial evidence, saying "I would be expect to be reversed if I did that." Mentions that the first time he saw the "OK" sign was on a can of Chef Boyardee. He (correctly in my opinion) noted that there's no evidence of Kyle Rittenhouse having any connection to / affiliation with / membership in the Proud Boys at the time of his self defense shootings. Prosecutor acknowledges that he can't prove there was any connection at all between Kyle and the Proud Boys on August 25th or before.

3) Judge did not provide a definitive ruling on defense's motion in limine to exclude the issue of the use of stimulus check to purchase the firearm. He said he'd decide during the trial, largely related on how fast the trial is moving, but he didn't see much probative value in it.

4) Judge DENIES defense's motion to admit Rosenbaum's criminal pedophilia past at trial. This is not surprising: dead pedo's history of pedophilia will not be discussed at trial. During this bit, the defense highlighted that the prosecution's witness, Richard McGinnis stated that the dead pedo was indeed "going for Kyle's gun" when he was shot. Also, the judge shut down the prosecutor's claim that the dead pedophile only threw a "plastic bag" at Kyle. Prosecutor conceded that there was some unknown object inside the plastic bag. Defense said there was evidence that dead pedo had taken a metallic chain off a trailer earlier in the evening and that perhaps that was in the bag.

It's also very clear that the defense will be arguing self defense, not insanity or any of the other more colorful theories that have been proposed in this thread.

The defense hinted several times that Kyle may testify at trial.

All in all, it seemed like a bad day for the prosecution, but that's not surprising, to me at least.

 

I'm a bit surprised that the defense had not reviewed all the video footage of the incident. Apparently the FBI has infra-red surveillance where there were some words spoken between Kyle and his attacker at some point previously. Without audio I'm not sure to what extent that could advance the prosecution's case. It seems the judge essentially neutered the prosecutions ability to try and frame Kyle as a vigilante looking for trouble. I'm not sure what the prosecution has left. Video of the attack itself appears to be pretty clear self-defense.

 

More followup (because the hearing continued after an interlude where other cases were discussed):

Judge is going to schedule another hearing to review the use of force experts' credentials / testimony.

Judge DENIED prosecutor's motion seeking a list of donors to various defense funds for Kyle.

Judge withheld a final decision, but said he had a "bias towards refusing receipt of the evidence" on the prosecutor's motion seeking to include the CVS video at trial. "At this point, if I had to make a decision ... I would deny the admission of this evidence".

We learned today (at least I did) that the FBI has infrared video from a circling fixed-wing aircraft of the incident, that includes some footage prior to what we've seen previously. I'm not sure the prosecutor's "go ask the FBI for it" attitude meets their discovery obligations. They already got dinged for that earlier in the hearing: "the witness addresses are somewhere in the 400+ pages of discovery. You go find it" and the judge shut that **** down right away. "You will give them the addresses by Monday at 5:00 pm."

November 1st is the trial date.

 

I agree with this, particularly in the discussion of the CVS video. The judge laid out his view that Kenosha was in a lawless state that night, and that it was a much different scenario than the CVS situation. He mentioned a couple of times how it would not have done Kyle any good to call 911 because the authorities were overwhelmed, for example.

 

Here is how it usually works.The judge weighs whether the evidence, in this case any words spoken are probative. Probative is a fancy assed word fordirectly relevant to proving criminal intent to kill in this case. Do the words lend to meaningful proof of the intent of Rittenhouse's behaviour is what the judge would ask. I have not heard those words. The judge weighs the probative value-how important it is that these words can establish intent to kill weighed against the words being so inflammable as to prevent anything but an emotional angry type reaction clouding rational analysuis. You want the jury to base its impression of what the intent is on rational analysis not knee jerk heat of the moment screaming. However I doubt in this case the words would have been indication of guilt or intent because if they in any way indicated intent I just could not see the Judge tossing them out.

My guess is the words were inaudible, garbled, or so inconclusive as to have been considered lacking in any probative value.

Now a Judge can do that and the prosecutor could appeal such a finding if they believe they can argue its crucial in establishing the intent... so I am going to guess it may not have been on point or audible but again I am guessing.

Hard to know. I will tell you this. The prosecutor has a very difficult task proving a deliberate intent to murder.

It is only in the civil proceedings for wrongful death the families of the deceased will have a much easier argument showing unreasonable and unsafe behaviour.

So I would be surprised if he is found guilty of anything but gun charges, i.e., bringing a gun across state and being underage which are misdemeanors where he might only get probation or a fine. If a jury does hear or see evidence convincing them of deliberate intent not panicking or clumsy behaviour they could find him guilty or ask the judge for instructions whether they can consider another conviction on what is called an "included" offense something not specifically he was charged with but necessarily was proven he did as part of the shootings.

 

he didnt bring the gun across state lines.. and not sure how the civil case will work.. not like a 17 year old has deep pockets or anything so why bother.. I could see them going after the city instead for not providing adequate police protection i guess.

 

I honestly don't get how you're still getting the basic facts of this wrong.

You're putting way too much effort into arguing a case you've clearly put very little effort into understanding.

 

Kyle is a hero!

Great job Kyle!

Righteously defended himself, but because he did it with a gun and because the terrorists he killed were BLM/Antifa the left is angery with him and willing to put him in jail for hte rest of his life.

Truly disgusting, but I have confidence he will come out on top, unlike the terrorists who attacked him.

 

if the murders had taken place in illinios where rittenhouse resided I may accept a plea of self defense

had the victims that rittenhouse killed went to illinios to destruct property and protest and threaten innocent lives

then yes ritttehouse could claim self defense

the way it is now,

rittenhouse loaded a high powred rifle and drove across a state line for the purpose of being a vigilante

had he stayed home like the millions of other teenage kids the night he killed 2 and wounded one
most likley he would be enrolled at a collage this time of the year

instead he is a defendant for murder

the kids parents should do more time that kyle

 

Why? What difference would it have made if it had happened in Illinois rather than Wisconsin?

Why? What difference would it made if it had happened in Illinois rather than Wisconsin?

Does a person forfeit their right to self defense when they cross a state line?

The bolded statement is false. You do not even understand the basic facts of this case.

 

This is pretty ****ing dumb. I agree that Rittenhouse is an ******* for driving across state lines so he could wave his gun at a bunch of blacks. But that doesn’t mean he forfeited the right to self defense. If he was in danger and it was not provoked, then he should walk. But if we find out he threatened the crowd that rushed him by saying something to the effect of “I’m gonna shoot all you ******s cause I hate blacks!” then his claim of self defense should fail.

 

you know he could literally walk across the boarder into WI from where he lives right? he lives 3 min from the Wisconsin boarder.

And why do you lose your right to self defense in another state again? whats the logic behind that?