Because there is no justification for a minor to use an illegally-possessed weapon to shoot into a crowd of people.
judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters'
- Thread starter zymurgy
- Start date
Because there is no justification for a minor to use an illegally-possessed weapon to shoot into a crowd of people.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I don't know. With all the hate voicemail and death threats coming from militant white supremacists/Trumpers, I think the jurors would want to keep their part privat.
There is no defense lawyer out there who is willing to put their defendant on the stand in a murder trial where the defendant has already confessed to killing two people and maiming a third.
But I hope he does because that shit would be must-watch TV.
He should get life in prison with no parole, in solitary confinement.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Obviously the circumstances need to justify it. Remember the cop who shot the housewife running toward him? How did that go down for him?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what other guy are you referring to?Thank you for confirming that the other guy lied.
be honest, you really didn't watch the video, did you? the narrator clearly states that it appears the third attacker has a handgun in his hand. other news outlets lightened shots of that video showing a handgun in his hand.
so you can read minds now?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Gee, you're harsh. What should Bill Clinton have gotten for sexually harassing and raping women?
His age will be factored in as well as both his actions and the actions of people on both sides of the divide. His friends are facing their own charges...I'm not sure their status or charges.
I suspect Kyle could be looking at 5-15 years then get early parole per the rules.
AH! "Trying to take his weapon from him."
NOT trying to kill him, as you said before.
So now you've shifted your argument from Kyle felt threatened for his life, to Kyle felt threatened for his gun.
So then he wasn't acting in self defense if those people were trying to disarm him, which is what you just said right here. FULL CONTEXT.
I think we're done now, right? I mean, you just gave the whole game away with this sentence...he didn't feel threatened for his life, he felt threatened for his gun.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're all over the map, boyo.........you must have really been rattled about being shown all of your wrongness
No, I see a mature me...somewhat less than at my prime.
In my prime, I had no problem looking into mirrors. And I still do not.
This is me at age 78. Click on it to enlarge it.
This is me at age 83.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that is only your feels, it's not law..........there can be justification, you just don't agree with it
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if there is already a confession, why is there a trial? face it, you don't agree with the laws but can't bring yourself to accept that it is law
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ask his partner who testified that the only threat he faced was from his partner....
Not if the Defense says this:
So he wasn't in imminent danger nor was his life at stake if those guys were just simply trying to disarm an active shooter, which you just confessed he was.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
This one is what I was referring to:
So post the video in question. Give me the time mark. Appearance can be deceiving. Few people in the past has been shot because they "appeared" to draw out their guns when they were really cell phones.
I don't need to. You can clearly see them and listen to their testimonies already on Youtube.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ROFL, don't be such a moron..you know damned well what I wrote and now you're just sputtering angry and it's obvious.........if someone is trying to take my gun, I have a reasonable fear that it will be used against me.......ask any cop about their feeling when their weapon is trying to taken from them
I think you're the emotional one here because you just said earlier that those victims were "trying to take his gun" from him, not trying to kill him, like you were trying to say they were earlier.
So you just fucked up your argument for yourself by stating that these guys were trying to disarm him, not kill him, so therefore Kyle wasn't acting in self-defense when he shot those people.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, your 'feels' doesn't override the actual laws...........just admit that you have your mind made up and are unable to be objective because of your politics
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Good luck. Which of those activities warrants a street execution?
clearly dementia - you are old and gross.
and smoking is for losers - way to be a loser Frank