Current Events > The Kenosha shooting from a lawyer's standpoint.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/NSU9ZvnudFE


---

All that matters is if they can prove who initiated aggression. I'd they can prove Rittenhouse was attacked first, and it looks like they can, then he cannot be convicted of murder.

not a lawyer but driving from OUT OF STATE to pick a fight with protesters with a deadly weapon seems premeditated

Poop2 posted...

not a lawyer but driving from OUT OF STATE to pick a fight with protesters with a deadly weapon seems premeditated

Doesn't sound like he picked a fight though. All evidence I've seen suggests he was attacked.

RadiantAdolin posted...

All that matters is if they can prove who initiated aggression. I'd they can prove Rittenhouse was attacked first, and it looks like they can, then he cannot be convicted of murder.

No impartial jury especially in Wisconsin would call shooting someone that threw a plastic bag at you then shooting people that tried to stop you self defense.

---

Poop2 posted...

not a lawyer but driving from OUT OF STATE to pick a fight with protesters with a deadly weapon seems premeditated

The guy with the skateboard lived just as far away as Kyle. And the guy with the pistol who got shot, lived 50 minutes away.

---

Malcrasternus posted...

The guy with the skateboard lived just as far away as Kyle. And the guy with the pistol who got shot, lived 50 minutes away.

How many people did they murder

RadiantAdolin posted...

All evidence I've seen suggests he was attacked.

Someone threw a plastic bag with a Gatorade bottle at him

Is shooting really a fair response?

---

Irony posted...

No impartial jury especially in Wisconsin would call shooting someone that threw a plastic bag at you then shooting people that tried to stop you self defense.

Video evidence clearly shows several people running after him, with one shouting "get his ass!"

---

Irony posted...

No impartial jury especially in Wisconsin would call shooting someone that threw a plastic bag at you then shooting people that tried to stop you self defense.

At 6:26 in the video you see the plastic bag with something clearly solid inside of it.


---

superXY posted...

Video evidence clearly shows several people running after him, with one shouting "get his ass!"

Apparently that was after he fired at someone

---

superXY posted...

Video evidence clearly shows several people running after him, with one shouting "get his ass!"

That was after he shot the first person. It's in the video

---

littlebro07 posted...

Apparently that was after he fired at someone

And according to the person who interviewed him beforehand, the person he shot was attempting to grab his rifle.

---

Irony posted...

No impartial jury especially in Wisconsin would call shooting someone that threw a plastic bag at you then shooting people that tried to stop you self defense.

This. He may be able to get out of 1st degree murder charges, but he's not getting out of this unscathed. Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state, so he'd have to try really hard to justify this.

---

superXY posted...

Video evidence clearly shows several people running after him, with one shouting "get his ass!"

Yes. Because he had already shot someone.

---

Irony posted...

No impartial jury especially in Wisconsin would call shooting someone that threw a plastic bag at you then shooting people that tried to stop you self defense.

The Daily Caller reporter who tried to provide medical aid to Rosenbaum said that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, and then someone else shot a gun, which caused Rittenhouse to turn around and shoot Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum lunged for his rifle.

---

Irony posted...

No impartial jury especially in Wisconsin would call shooting someone that threw a plastic bag at you then shooting people that tried to stop you self defense.

McGinniss told investigators that he didnt hear the pair exchange any words but he saw Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, trying to grab Rittenhouses gun when he was shot. Rosenbaum died from multiple gunshots that hit his right groin, left hand, left thigh, and back, perforating his right lung and liver, according to the Milwaukee Medical Examiners Office.

(pulled that from a daily beast article - so take it with a grain of salt - that gamefaqs won't let me post because of length restrictions, but searching "what was thrown at Kyle" found it easily)

Its pretty cut and dry self defense. He was harassed, left and was pursued, attacker tried to grab his gun and got shot. The crowd then started chasing and attacking him, and he defended himself. Saying stupid shit trying to make it sound like he was shot over a thrown plastic bag just hurts your credibility.

I believe there is enough evidence at this point that Kyle attempted to remove himself from the situation by running away and only fired when all other options were exhausted.

---

I believe that since he was in possession of the firearm (intentionally) illegally, Wisconsin self defense laws do not apply.

<img src="">

<img src="">

---

All the arguments used in defence of this terrorist are pretty much verbatim what was used to defend the lynchers in the Arbery shooting.


---

ZMythos posted...

I believe that since he was in possession of the firearm (intentionally) illegally, Wisconsin self defense laws do not apply.

<img src="">

<img src="">

Ding ding ding

---

ZMythos posted...

I believe that since he was in possession of the firearm (intentionally) illegally, Wisconsin self defense laws do not apply.

You believe incorrectly. That would literally be unconstitutional.

ZMythos posted...

I believe that since he was in possession of the firearm (intentionally) illegally, Wisconsin self defense laws do not apply.

Oh damn

2a might have fucked him depending on how they handle the whole "dipshit traveled across state lines to go where he shouldn't have been"

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

All the arguments used in defence of this terrorist are pretty much verbatim what was used to defend the lynchers in the Arbery shooting.

Except for the part where they're nothing alike and even assuming he's guilty of murder, it still isn't terrorism?

RadiantAdolin posted...

You believe incorrectly. That would literally be unconstitutional.

Can you elaborate?

---

To clarify further, "engaged in criminal activity" does not mean unlawful possession as a minor.

ZMythos posted...

I believe that since he was in possession of the firearm (intentionally) illegally, Wisconsin self defense laws do not apply.

<img src="">

<img src="">

He covers that at 11:40 in the video. Which, funny enough, is the same clock time posted in the top image, so, lol.

---

RadiantAdolin posted...

To clarify further, "engaged in criminal activity" does not mean unlawful possession as a minor.

I believe that this becomes irrelevant when he traveled across state lines.

From what I know, that makes it a federal issue, where it does become a criminal activity.

---

StarReaper13 posted...

Can you elaborate?

You cannot just lose your right to self defense. What those laws are referring to is if you're engaged in blatant criminal activity and someone attempts to apprehend you in direct relation to it, you cannot claim self defense.

In this case, he wasn't engaged in blatant criminal activity that would cause people to assault him - the people he shot very likely had no clue that he was even a minor, assuming they even knew the laws about open carry. While he was committing a crime, it has no relation to their attack on him.

StarReaper13 posted...

I believe that this becomes irrelevant when he traveled across state lines.

From what I know, that makes it a federal issue, where it does become a criminal activity.

It doesn't. Its relevance is in the idea that his unlawful possession had nothing to do with why people were attacking him, as they didn't know that he was a minor or from out of state.

I definitely think they overcharged him. I mean, he definitely did a number of illegal things that night that he's gonna serve time for but I don't think they're going to get him on first degree homicide.

---

ox0shadow0xo posted...

This. He may be able to get out of 1st degree murder charges, but he's not getting out of this unscathed. Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state, so he'd have to try really hard to justify this.

Watch the video

---

Null_Mime posted...

He covers that at 11:40 in the video.

Yes but it sounds like he doesn't have the full context of WI state law when he asserts that even though the kid broke the law it was still self-defense.

Sure you can argue that he was, at the time of the shooting, defending himself. But you can just as easily argue that he was provoking others into attacking him with a gun he was illegally carrying, both of which would nullify the self-defense protections as per the sections of state law posted.


---

Theres an image of one of the shooting victims, a guy whos kneeling on the ground holding a pistol with part of his arm blown off from the kids rifle.

One of the descriptions said that the guy is a felon who shouldnt even have a gun & was the one who started the chaos by threatening the kid & shooting rapidly into the air.

But I dunno about that. Whats definitely clear though is that he was left with a nasty big hole almost severing his arm. Like jesus ****ing christ such massive damage from a single shot.

---

__aCEr__ posted...

I definitely think they overcharged him. I mean, he definitely did a number of illegal things that night that he's gonna serve time for but I don't think they're going to get him on first degree homicide.

Honestly, they're unlikely to get him on anything except maybe assault on the final guy, who didn't die. From what I understand, while that guy had a gun out, he was attempting to approach peacefully, and got shot in the arm. I could see the jury going either way in that case, probably leaning towards not guilty because of the circumstances surrounding it.

ox0shadow0xo posted...

This. He may be able to get out of 1st degree murder charges, but he's not getting out of this unscathed. Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state, so he'd have to try really hard to justify this.

Watch the damn video. He is a lawyer. He goes into depth about this. Damn armchair lawyers are worthless. The main question is about how the chase began. Did kyle do something aggressive or the first guy do something aggressive?

ZMythos posted...

Yes but it sounds like he doesn't have the full context of WI state law when he asserts that even though the kid broke the law it was still self-defense.

Sure you can argue that he was, at the time of the shooting, defending himself. But you can just as easily argue that he was provoking others into attacking him with a gun he was illegally carrying, both of which would nullify the self-defense protections as per the sections of state law posted.

Yeah, you can't really claim his lawbreaking was provoking when they had no way to know he was breaking the law.

Abiz_ posted...

Watch the damn video. He is a lawyer. He goes into depth about this. Damn armchair lawyers are worthless. The main question is about how the chase began. Did kyle do something aggressive or the first guy do something aggressive?

This is the part I want to hear, as I can't seem to find a clear source. I don't believe the guy initially chasing him would've done something as stupid as grabbing the gun without provocation, but there's always the possibility I'm wrong, as well as the question of whether the provocation was enough to nullify self defense.

i haven't studied the videos all that closely, but didn't skateboard guy run up on him after he'd already shot somebody else

people want to say skateboard guy committed assault, but couldn't the argument also be made he was defending other people in the vicinity from this lunatic on the streets open carrying a rifle like a fucking asshole who'd just shot somebody

---

Mecha Sonic posted...

i haven't studied the videos all that closely, but didn't skateboard guy run up on him after he'd already shot somebody else

people want to say skateboard guy committed assault, but couldn't the argument also be made he was defending other people in the vicinity from this lunatic on the streets open carrying a rifle like a fucking asshole who'd just shot somebody

I agree you could defend the skateboard guy, but what's really going to matter is Kyle's view of events. Whether or not they find the first shooting to be self defense, it's blatantly clear that Kyle believed it was, and that the crowd going after him was extremely aggressive and he is justified in feeling threatened enough to fire.

Mecha Sonic posted...

i haven't studied the videos all that closely, but didn't skateboard guy run up on him after he'd already shot somebody else

people want to say skateboard guy committed assault, but couldn't the argument also be made he was defending other people in the vicinity from this lunatic on the streets open carrying a rifle like a fucking asshole who'd just shot somebody

Correct. Dude had already shot someone. Skateboard guy was well within his rights to beat the fuck out the guy.

---

Stand your ground and right to self defense are 2 different things entirely.

If there's anything I've learned about the internet is that nobody that has already made up their mind that he is a terrorist is gonna take anything Colion Noir said in the OP seriously.

They don't want to see that Kyle kid go to jail; they want to see him get lynched.


---

Lysandear posted...

How many people did they murder

Not sure. I do know that one of them molested a kid though so, even if he never murdered anyone, I can't say I'm gonna cry too much for the dead pedo. Maybe I'm just heartless...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Correct. Dude had already shot someone. Skateboard guy was well within his rights to beat the fuck out the guy.

Except A) that isn't how the law works AT ALL and B) the first guy he shot is looking very much like self defense

Mecha Sonic posted...

i haven't studied the videos all that closely, but didn't skateboard guy run up on him after he'd already shot somebody else

people want to say skateboard guy committed assault, but couldn't the argument also be made he was defending other people in the vicinity from this lunatic on the streets open carrying a rifle like a fucking asshole who'd just shot somebody

Almost like that "good guy with a gun stopping mass shootings" that I always hear gun nuts talk about

---

Grischnak posted...

Not sure. I do know that one of them molested a kid though so, even if he never murdered anyone, I can't say I'm gonna cry too much for the dead pedo. Maybe I'm just heartless...

That's been proven false IIRC.

iPhone_7 posted...

Theres an image of one of the shooting victims, a guy whos kneeling on the ground holding a pistol with part of his arm blown off from the kids rifle.

One of the descriptions said that the guy is a felon who shouldnt even have a gun & was the one who started the chaos by threatening the kid & shooting rapidly into the air.

But I dunno about that. Whats definitely clear though is that he was left with a nasty big hole almost severing his arm. Like jesus ****ing christ such massive damage from a single shot.

5.56 at muzzle distance can be pretty nasty. You're talking about a round going 3000 fps.

Imagine if he had a .300 blackout or a .308, dude woulda lost his arm.

---

Also if first degree is off the table, Homicide by negligent handling is open and shut on the kid. A class G Felony in Wisconsin (10 years in prison and up to $25,000 fine)



Reading the fine print:

In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon; 2) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and 3) the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being.

---

situations like this are why open carry is a bad fucking idea

---

ZMythos posted...

Also if first degree is off the table, Homicide by negligent handling is open and shut on the kid. A class G Felony in Wisconsin (10 years in prison and up to $25,000 fine)



Reading the fine print:

Except nothing he did constituted criminal negligence. Or honestly, from the sounds of it, even non-criminal negligence. Having the gun as a minor is NOT criminal negligence, criminal negligence would be if he had accidentally or recklessly shot someone.