judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters'

LV426 said:
Kyle shot into the crowd first, then skateboard guy charged him...so when skateboard guy charged him, KYLE WAS ALREADY THE ACTIVE SHOOTER, and skateboard guy was the one acting in self defense.

That's what the video shows.

Kyle shot first, then skateboard guy charged him, then Kyle killed skateboard guy.

So Kyle was in Kenosha illegally, fired into the crowd, then killed the guy who was trying to stop Kyle, who was the active shooter.
Click to expand...

Kyle did not fire into the crowd.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
was he being threatened by the first person shot?
Click to expand...

The problem is that in order for this defense to work, Kyle first couldn't have been in WI illegally, and furthermore, Kyle would have to take the stand and testify that he felt threatened.

Do you think it's a smart legal strategy for the defense to put the defendant on the stand in a murder trial?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
was that first person committing a crime at the time he was shot?
Click to expand...

No, they weren't.

And for this defense to work, Kyle would need to take the stand and testify that he not only saw this person commit this act, but felt threatened when they did.

Any prosecutor is going to tear him to shreds on cross.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because they were a violent and bloodthirsty bunch of bullies who saw someone they could get away with beating to death
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Kyle had already fired his gun before skateboard guy went to subdue him.

If Kyle felt threatened, then he's gonna have to take the stand...no way does his attorney let him take the stand.
 
LV426 said:
The problem is that in order for this defense to work, Kyle first couldn't have been in WI illegally, and furthermore, Kyle would have to take the stand and testify that he felt threatened.
Click to expand...
it's not illegal to be in kenosha. don't bother trying to bring up the whole 'first illegal act makes self defense illegal'. you don't know the law and it's quite obvious

LV426 said:
Do you think it's a smart legal strategy for the defense to put the defendant on the stand in a murder trial?
Click to expand...
as a general rule, no..........hopefully the defense lawyer has witnesses that can testify to kyle being threatened.......
 
LV426 said:
What are you talking about?

Kyle had already fired his gun before skateboard guy went to subdue him.

If Kyle felt threatened, then he's gonna have to take the stand...no way does his attorney let him take the stand.
Click to expand...

and a reasonable jury is going to have to look at that video, the video showing a guy trying to smash his head in with a skateboard and another guy, ARMED with a handgun, trying to take his weapon from him.............will they reasonably assume kyle felt threatened with imminent danger or in fear for his life????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
agreed........we just differing viewpoints on the actions appearing in the video......


and you actually thought that was funny??????


any 'evidence' of association AFTER the events putting him on trial will never see the inside of a courtroom, providing that the judge doesn't want to see his decision overturned on appeal.

you should know better than this, but it's obvious that you're letting your emotions get the better of you on it
Click to expand...

I haven't analyzed the video like the conspiracy theorists. This will be very logically laid out in court; when all the facts are presented, that's when I'll look at it. Ergo, you are wrong since you don't know what my view is about the shooting except that I think Kyle is guilty of breaking the law in multiple instances. Maybe I'll be wrong and be happy you wouldn't bet me. :)

Yes. I can see why you wouldn't. :laugh:

C'est la guerre.

What do you think I'm becoming emotional about? You're clearly the excitable one along with several of the Lefties. Is that your inner Lefty screaming to get out?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it's not illegal to be in kenosha
Click to expand...

It is for a 17 year old from IL to be there with a gun, during curfew.


don't bother trying to bring up the whole 'first illegal act makes self defense illegal'.
Click to expand...

Well, that's because it does.

Kyle wasn't entitled to self-defense because he was the active shooter.

No one else fired a gun...just him.

And if he felt threatened, he'd have to testify to that on the stand, which his lawyer would never let him do because the prosecutor would eviscerate him and make him unsympathetic to the jury.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I haven't analyzed the video like the conspiracy theorists. This will be very logically laid out in court; when all the facts are presented, that's when I'll look at it. Ergo, you are wrong since you don't know what my view is about the shooting except that I think Kyle is guilty of breaking the law in multiple instances. Maybe I'll be wrong and be happy you wouldn't bet me. :)

Yes. I can see why you wouldn't. :laugh:

C'est la guerre.

What do you think I'm becoming emotional about? You're clearly the excitable one along with several of the Lefties. Is that your inner Lefty screaming to get out?
Click to expand...

so why don't you just tell us that because he was charged with these crimes, he's obviously guilty..............he wouldn't be there if he wasn't, am I right?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
1. it doesn't matter that he didn't connect. the attempt is all that is required
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming that the other guy lied. :thumbsup:

2. you asked about the handgun. the newscaster narrating says that it appears that gage has a handgun in his hand
Click to expand...

So you have no idea?

They were attempting to disarm him, not kill him. He was clearly a danger to everyone there.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
as a general rule, no..........hopefully the defense lawyer has witnesses that can testify to kyle being threatened.......
Click to expand...

So Kyle won't testify that he himself felt threatened, instead looking to outsource that perjury to someone else.

So now he has an even more impossible task: finding a credible witness who can testify to Kyle's state of mind.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
 
LV426 said:
It is for a 17 year old from IL to be there with a gun, during curfew.
Well, that's because it does.

Kyle wasn't entitled to self-defense because he was the active shooter.

No one else fired a gun...just him.

And if he felt threatened, he'd have to testify to that on the stand, which his lawyer would never let him do because the prosecutor would eviscerate him and make him unsympathetic to the jury.
Click to expand...

again, your emotions don't make fact. One can feel threatened even if that person doesn't have a gun.........you knew this, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top