It looks like the jury is giving it thought.

Dutch Uncle said:
IMO the right of self-defense, under Wisconsin law, was the determining factor: "Did Kyle Rittenhouse have a reasonable fear for his life each and every time he pulled the trigger?".

The jury had reasonable doubt as to whether he did or didn't. The right of Self-Defense, under Wisconsin law, has been affirmed as the reasonable belief of the person shooting in self-defense.

The fact he put himself there was irrelevant as was the fact he endangered others while defending himself.
Click to expand...

Well, they had to determine whether they thought he had provoked the attack as well. The law doesn't just say you get to shoot folks if you believe they are going to kill you, it says you can defend yourself legally if you had not provoked the attack. Had they determined that he had provoked these people to attack him the verdict would be different.
 
Micawber said:
I would vote to convict only of second degree murder.

the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions.-Justia def.
Click to expand...

right, because one should sit there calmly while an enraged mental moron chases after him with an intent to kill him...........you idiot
 
Damocles said:
Well, they had to determine whether they thought he had provoked the attack as well. The law doesn't just say you get to shoot folks if you believe they are going to kill you, it says you can defend yourself legally if you had not provoked the attack. Had they determined that he had provoked these people to attack him the verdict would be different.
Click to expand...

Or if the jury had been allowed to know he celebrated those deaths with the proud boys and took pictures with them



Or that he chased a girl down to punch her some more
 
Damocles said:
Well, they had to determine whether they thought he had provoked the attack as well. The law doesn't just say you get to shoot folks if you believe they are going to kill you, it says you can defend yourself legally if you had not provoked the attack. Had they determined that he had provoked these people to attack him the verdict would be different.
Click to expand...
I think there were at least one or two who knew that he provoked the attacks. They just knew that the others would not be moved, and they had plans for the weekend.

Thanksgiving being right around the corner and all.
 
Damocles said:
Well, they had to determine whether they thought he had provoked the attack as well. The law doesn't just say you get to shoot folks if you believe they are going to kill you, it says you can defend yourself legally if you had not provoked the attack. Had they determined that he had provoked these people to attack him the verdict would be different.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Despite the Prosecution's video and late provocations accusation, the jury didn't agree beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Althea said:
I think there were at least one or two who knew that he provoked the attacks. They just knew that the others would not be moved, and they had plans for the weekend.

Thanksgiving being right around the corner and all.
Click to expand...

there wasn't a single witness that testified to rittenhouse provoking an attack.......
 
Althea said:
I think there were at least one or two who knew that he provoked the attacks. They just knew that the others would not be moved, and they had plans for the weekend.

Thanksgiving being right around the corner and all.
Click to expand...

If true then they betrayed their oaths instead of hanging the verdict.

As it was, this was a long verdict. I'm sure they gave all the evidence its due and decided they could not convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The biggest irony is that Kyle's friend will do time for their parts. LOL
 
SmarterthanYou said:
evince said:
So murder is your only response

Good to know
Click to expand...
do you think your life is less valuable than the one trying to attack or kill you?
Click to expand...

Show of hands who agree that if a person or group of people are attacking you and that you are in fear of your life, you can open fire on them?

Especially if they are attacking with weapons like skateboards, fence posts, flag poles and chemical weapons?

th_smiley-raising-waving-hand.gif
 
Althea said:
I think there were at least one or two who knew that he provoked the attacks. They just knew that the others would not be moved, and they had plans for the weekend.

Thanksgiving being right around the corner and all.
Click to expand...

^Butthurt lying lib.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
If true then they betrayed their oaths instead of hanging the verdict.

As it was, this was a long verdict. I'm sure they gave all the evidence its due and decided they could not convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The biggest irony is that Kyle's friend will do time for their parts. LOL
Click to expand...
Wasn't it you who mentioned something about 'Friday' the other day?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Show of hands who agree that if a person or group of people are attacking you and that you are in fear of your life, you can open fire on them?

Especially if they are attacking with weapons like skateboards, fence posts, flag poles and chemical weapons?

th_smiley-raising-waving-hand.gif
Click to expand...
I see what you did there
 
SmarterthanYou said:
as you seemed quite fond of saying, that would be for the jury to decide, not you..........just like you believed the jury would send him away for 10 to 15 years.......and you were wrong, you would be wrong with your assessment of you saving the world from an active shooter..........

kyle wasn't the instigator.............or are you too traumatized at being proven wrong to accept that part yet?
Click to expand...

Exactly. What's the problem with that? How many times have I posted "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" so far?

IMO, the verdicts indicate that the right of self-defense was paramount over all other laws. Kyle certainly was not guilty of provoking anyone with his presence and associates beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm good with it. Kudos to Wisconsin for having such strong self-defense laws.

Why would I be traumatize for being wrong? Are you saying you've never been wrong?

I do find it extremely interesting that the Wisconsin right of self-defense supersedes the rights of others to be endangered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top