Still illegal. Yes it is illegal. Still illegal, and hopefully you are a better parent than that kid has.
The NYT article i read showed that he killed the first guy who was unarmed, and was running away when the guy who got shot in the arm fired his pistol in the air.
which article are you looking at?
I think it is this one.
This is true, but he was also lunging towards him. If he were to get the gun away, the shooter would likely have been shot.
It doesn’t appear this way in the video.
No he turned only after the first guy shot…
Hold
“While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.
Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.“
He is literally trying to run away and disengage from a mob when he hears the gunshot right behind him. He turns to see another pursuer lunging at him. Rotten house didn’t shoot first.
He shoots the first guy…Hold to see earlier footage of the first guy prior to being shot.
The other shootings happen after when he is being chased. After he has fallen, had someone try to stomp his head into the asphalt, been hit with a skate board, and has had a man with a pistol come out while he still is on the ground from falling.
A few things.
I would not ever want the kid charged with 1st degree murder. He is a dumb 17 yr old boy who was feeling his oats and overzealous in his beliefs (typical). I dont believe for a second that he seriously wanted or believed he would be shooting anyone that night.
He was illegally in possession of that rifle open carrying acting as a vigilante in another state. He sought out trouble, trouble did not come to him.
How do we know the person who lunged trying to disarm him didn’t hear the same gunshot and think it was that kid? We have no idea what the guy who was killed was going to do if he disarmed the kid, and its not clear if he was trying to disarm him or shove him. Does law allow you to shoot someone who makes a move to attempt to shove or disarm you?
If you kill someone in cold blood in a crowded room, can you claim self defense for mowing down a whole bunch of others as they try to disarm you?
This is the man who lunged at him and was the first shot. He was confronting the armed men earlier in the night. They didn’t rise to his provocation and simply asked other protesters to calm him.
Later Kyle Rittenhouse was separated by the rest of his group when the police wouldn’t let him re-enter the parking lot. Shortly after he is being chased by this man and at least one armed man.
See video.
Interesting fact. Though Rittenhouse was said to be protecting property, he also acted as a medic for the protestors…There is actually video of him in this role. Note the blue gloves. Kind of a mixed role.
If they can prove this it would help the prosecution’s case.
I think it is state to state on this one. It would be on the prosecution to prove you didn’t feel threatened for your life in many states. That is a tough thing to do unless the defendant admits to not fearing for their life. To me, an armed person would normally be rational to fear for their life or sever bodily harm if someone lunges towards them.
Im not sure how much more evidence you need. The kid drove across state lines, procurred an illegal weapon to open carry, and defied the curfew order to extra-legally confront rioters who he knew were going to be hostile to him.
If he had not illegally armed himself he wouldnt have been in fear of his life then huh? Does a person who fears for their life make a decision to drive to another state, illegally arm themselves with a high capacity assault rifle and then go running around to confront members of a hostile crowd? I certainly don’t think so. He sought out confrontation, and when he got it, he claims self defense?
Well I am not on the jury, but enough to be convinced.
About a 30 minute drive. It isn’t like he drove hours for this.
He is guilty of all of these things. No argument here.
We don’t know what he was thinking unless he makes an admission.
Likely not. Having a gun or knife can cause more violence in many cases. We don’t know if he would or wouldn’t be threatened.
We don’t know that this was his motive (he was helping protesters with first aid). He may have had good intentions and only gotten scared when confronted. He is 17. Most dudes are dumb as hell at that age.
I think there is a good probability that what you say is true about his motives, but that isn’t enough is all I am saying.
It is possible that the gun was what he thought would just make the situation safer, truly feared for his safety and fired in self defense. For him to be guilty of 1st degree murder they need to show these things are not true.
IMO, he will be convicted on the minor stuff and acquitted on the large stuff as it is just too hard to prove guilt in this case. If the kid has a good lawyer and hasn’t talked to the police at all, that helps him tremendously.
I see manslaughter as the right conviction for the first killing, but the 2nd and third shootings are interesting. Those are self defense for sure in my mind… but do you get to argue self defense at that point? Can a shooter keep on shooting because “i feared what the crowd would do to me”?
Don’t know. It somewhat comes down to what is decided on the first shooting. If it is self defense, then yes, you are justified based on what the crowd would do. There is an audible yell saying “get his ass”. IMO that has to meet the burden of proof of reasonably fearing death or sever bodily harm. A guy tried to stomp his face, and one was chasing with a gun.
1 Like
I see no conviction for any of the shootings.
1 Like
To repeat, he literally turned because one of them fired a gun behind him as he was trying TO RUN AWAY. He turns only to see a hostile person coming at him. A man who earlier had already tried to get into it with the group “shoot me n$&&a!” pushing his way up to the men. Otherwise, it’s telling that no bystanders were shot. Skateboard attacker, pistol man, guy right behind him lunging right after a pistol is fired. Kyle flat out stops shooting when the attack on him stops.
2 Likes
It’s not cut and dry that he had the rifle illegally.
1 Like
Ultimately it is the crap response to the rioting that has led to these situations.
2 Likes
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply
So, because he was hunting antifa, it was legal?
Wow.