Kyle will be judged, as not guilty, thoughts.

[JohnDB]

When the Judge has to get off the bench so he can sit 2 feet away from a giant 4K television to make a determination if this blurry picture proves provocation by Kyle just so the prosecutor can argue it for closing arguments...

The jury isn't going to buy it either.

This just isn't going to go the Prosecutor's way.

The lesser charges also aren't going to work because if the first charge is found "not guilty" there isn't any grounds left for the lesser charge of reckless endangerment.

Especially with the gun charges erased...

 

[BackAgain]

1) Kyle will walk. I probably AGREE (Now on 11/11). In My Opinion from watching the Trial.

2) Not enough evidence, and I truly NOW (11/11) believe Kyle was stupid to go to Kenosha, but he did, he found himself in that 3am spot (not really 3am) and reacted, and reactions have consequences.

3) The young man put himself in a position he could have easily avoided. (by not going)
But he didn't, and that has consequences.

4) I truly believe he was scared, but, he put himself in that position.

5) He killed a man, FACT, at the gas station. FACT. Self defense, Sure (Maybe) . But, he DID kill a man.

6) True or Not? On # 5. (not on Self Defense, but on the FACT that a man was Killed by Kyle.)

7) Then, he got chased for killing that man.
Why was there a chase down the street, because he previously killed a man, Self Defense or not.
Because he killed a man at the gas station.

My Conclusion: I think Kyle will be Acquitted, or some type of Mistrial.
I Don't think this (upcoming acquittal) will be incorrect, I truly NOW believe that he went there for ONE PURPOSE, and it ENDED DIFFERENTLY.

Putting all Politics aside, can you discuss ANY of the 7 talking points.

He did not “have” to be there. True but not a point of significance. He had a RIGHT to be there. By contrast, the rioters may have had a right to “be there,” but not to engage in much of their criminal behavior.

Because of the Riots, there was a decided absence of traditional law enforcement. People of and in that community,therefore, had an even more important right to be there and to combine in self defense to protect property, and people and to provide things like first aid to injured people.

Should Rittenhouse have been armed? Debatable. Maybe not. But under the circumstances, the law of necessity cannot be too easily or validly dismissed. With normal law enforcement out of action, being armed seems rather prudent.

Of course a man died. Two died in fact. And? It’s not like he’d be on trial for homicides if some of the rioting mob hadn’t died at his “hands.”

He wasn’t chased by anyone in “self defense.” He was chased in reaction — maybe. But their reaction was do to Rittenhouse’s resort to self defense. If it was self defense for them, they would be retreating FROM him not pursuing him. While threatening him.

I suppose I haven’t answered all of the OP questions. But it’s a start.

 

[BackAgain]

One more reply: I am not an expert on predicting the future. It is even a tougher thing to do usually when it involves a guess about the future determination of a criminal trial jury, especially on a trial engulfed in hype, press, great exposure, public discord and racial tension. (At it’s core, this is not actually a case involving racial justice. But perceptions about racial injustice formed a significant basis for the riots, so it can’t be overlooked, either.)

The case facts are terrible for the State. The prosecutor was awful at his job in this trial. The defense was consistently on point and elicited hugely helpful information from two different significant prosecution witnesses.

Based on all of that, and more, I will hazard a guess. Putting aside the final weapons charge count, I cannot believe the prosecution overcame their burden of proof. I therefore guess that the verdict is much more likely to be “Not Guilty” on the first three counts.

i am not sure that juries never “compromise.” The lesser included counts now allowed are thus a potential problem for the defendant. I can’t quite decide whether the jury will or won’t improperly compromise. So some conviction seems possible.

I am really up in the air on that final weapons count. It wouldn’t even require “compromise” to convict the defendant on that one.

Hedged: 3 acquittals and one conviction. Also, a firm maybe on some compromise lesser count convictions.

next up? Appeal issues.

 

[JohnDB]

I am really up in the air on that final weapons count. It wouldn’t even require “compromise” to convict the defendant on that one

Nope...watch the last of the court proceedings on Friday... about maybe halfway through. The judge got no arguments from the prosecutor but lots of well reasonable arguments (based on case law) from the defense.

Meaning that Kyle will not be found guilty of the gun charges.

 

[westwall]

It wasn’t common to all the riots. I cannot find a single thing for that on Kenosha. I tried all kinds of words in searches. That is why I’m asking you. Now I’ll grant when it comes protests and demonstrations (of all kinds, including rightwingers) police are loathe to be too heavy handed because of free speech rights, and I agree in general with that. That is not telling them to “Stand down”. But when it becomes a riot, and you have a curfew you need to enforce it…they have all the rest of the day to protest. Clear them out at curfew, don’t invite outside unaccountable militias to the party.

If the curfew were enforced, and all the outsiders told to go home for the night, no one would have died.

The judge aludes to it when the prosecutor whined that it was just a little arson.

The judge says, "just because people lived below 6th street doesn't mean they are free game for arsonists" those arent his exact words, but they are the gist of what he said.

 

[Batcat]

1) Kyle will walk. I probably AGREE (Now on 11/11). In My Opinion from watching the Trial.

2) Not enough evidence, and I truly NOW (11/11) believe Kyle was stupid to go to Kenosha, but he did, he found himself in that 3am spot (not really 3am) and reacted, and reactions have consequences.

3) The young man put himself in a position he could have easily avoided. (by not going)
But he didn't, and that has consequences.

4) I truly believe he was scared, but, he put himself in that position.

5) He killed a man, FACT, at the gas station. FACT. Self defense, Sure (Maybe) . But, he DID kill a man.

6) True or Not? On # 5. (not on Self Defense, but on the FACT that a man was Killed by Kyle.)

7) Then, he got chased for killing that man.
Why was there a chase down the street, because he previously killed a man, Self Defense or not.
Because he killed a man at the gas station.

My Conclusion: I think Kyle will be Acquitted, or some type of Mistrial.
I Don't think this (upcoming acquittal) will be incorrect, I truly NOW believe that he went there for ONE PURPOSE, and it ENDED DIFFERENTLY.

Putting all Politics aside, can you discuss ANY of the 7 talking points.

You can kill a man in legitimate self defense and it is legal In this nation.

From what I watched of the trial it would seem to me that if the jury convicts Kyle of murder it is due to fear that the mob will burn the city to the ground.

 

[BackAgain]

The judge aludes to it when the prosecutor whined that it was just a little arson.

The judge says, "just because people lived below 6th street doesn't mean they are free game for arsonists" those arent his exact words, but they are the gist of what he said.

I have it on good authority that it was mostly peaceful arson.

 

[JohnDB]

Link to Wisconsin laws on self defense:

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

There's more to it than this but this is the first chapter...if you want to understand the provocateur argument then follow the link.



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

 

[Coyote]

The judge aludes to it when the prosecutor whined that it was just a little arson.

The judge says, "just because people lived below 6th street doesn't mean they are free game for arsonists" those arent his exact words, but they are the gist of what he said.

That has nothing to do with your claim of the mayor telling the police to stand down. Try again.

 

[westwall]

That has nothing to do with your claim of the mayor telling the police to stand down. Try again.

Yeah, it does. The mayor said to make a line, below that line do nothing.

 

[Winco]

Well look at that.

Not Guilty on all counts.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This kid travelled across state lines with an illegally obtained gun supposedly to defend someone else's property.

He was a pudgy 17 yr old with no martial arts training. He didn't bring a baseball bat. He didn't bring a club. He brought with him an illegally obtained assault rifle.

An assault fifle has one purpose. To kill people. He went to "defend property" clearly with the intent of killing people and he procedded to do exactly that. He didn't have the ability to do anything BUT shoot people with a deadly weapon.

He may well get off...but we all know he intended to kill people that night

Boggles the mind that you believed the BULLSHIT you just spewed.

You lefties make fools of yourselves every time you try to pretend your up to date on current events