What should be the correct legal verdict in the Rittenhouse case?

[Scratch]

@Paul_Thomson

Not if he’s found innocent by the jury. It will all have been a very good life lesson for him in a couple of years.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Scratch

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should

And just because it involves risks doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.

[Scratch]

@Paul_Thomson

just because it involves risks doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.

When it comes to possibly putting your minor child in danger…you shouldn’t.

[Camp]

When he cleared up why he was in Kenosha…the cases was over.

Why wasn’t it clear from day 1 his father lived in Kenosha.

Full Aquittal.

Kyle sues for damages.

What we learned about Kyle Rittenhouse's life from his testimony

[Scratch]

@Camp

Why wasn’t it clear from day 1 his father lived in Kenosha.

Was he protecting his fathers house or business? Was he even in the same neighborhood?

[Paul_Thomson]

@Scratch

When it comes to possibly putting your minor child in danger…you shouldn’t.

Are you equally opposed to Biden putting minors in danger by encouraging illegal immigration?

Are you equally opposed to the Dems putting minors in danger by requiring children to be vaxxed?

[GWH]

Child services should take her now 18 year old son away from her.

[Camp]

Doesn’t matter. Connection was there. Family.

[zantax]

@Camp

When he cleared up why he was in Kenosha…the cases was over.

Why wasn’t it clear from day 1 his father lived in Kenosha.

Full Aquittal.

Kyle sues for damages.

What we learned about Kyle Rittenhouse's life from his testimony

He should be able to put Young Turks out of business given they were calling him a racist and white supremacist for some unknown reason.

[WuWei]

@enki

Kyle is a minor, or at least he was when his mother dropped him off in a riot zone with access to an AR-15.

Why isn’t she getting more heat for endangering her son?

Seems like a severe parental negligence on her part.

Did she “drop him off in a riot zone with an AR-15”?

[Smyrna]

@Paul_Thomson

Not if he’s found innocent by the jury. It will all have been a very good life lesson for him in a couple of years.

These are two different subjects. Had the mother acted in the best interests of her son’s safety, this event would have never occurred. Since it did, the jury will decide. I agree though, it’s a great life lesson.

[Scratch]

@Paul_Thomson

Are you equally opposed to Biden putting minors in danger by encouraging illegal immigration?

Are you equally opposed to the Dems putting minors in danger by requiring children to be vaxxed?

Start a thread on those situations…We’re talking about Rittenhouses mother putting HER minor son danger.

[WuWei]

This thread is about which legal outcomes are appropriate. Stop telling people to “start another thread” when you’re just as off topic.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Hexenbiest

I am not a lawyer, seems the argument for self defense I have seen in Wisconsin is as follows

939.48
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.

So the way I interpret this is did Kyle Rittenhouse shoot the three people because he felt he could be killed or receive a beating.

From my perspective it would seem the tricky part of any self defense plea is depending upon the situation at what point is it fair for someone to believe that the intent of the aggressor (so to speak) is to inflict harm? In other words a person testifying on the behalf of the “aggressor” could claim that their intent was to just get in the person’s face or in this case to simply disarm Rittenhouse.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Samm

This is not really a Second Amendment issue. It’s a self-defense justified homicide issue.

One of the things I was curious about was whether it was relevant if the gun belonged to the person or not and if the Second Amendment had any bearing on that?

[Eagle-Keeper]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Eagle-Keeper

This is not my area so I was wondering first, are there differing legal distinctions between self-defense and self-defense with a gun?

Not exactly, but “self-defense” generally requires a proportional response. There are different levels of force allowed, depending on the circumstance. For example, you can’t kill someone because you were afraid they were going to punch you.

So is there such a thing as “excessive self-defense” (not sure how to word it) in such cases?

[Eagle-Keeper]

@zantax

Has to do with whether his action was shocking and provoking enough that a reasonable person would be acting in self defense to stop him. Grasping at straws. What the prosecutor is trying to do at this point is goad the judge into a mistrial so he can blame it on the judge when Rittenhouse gets off instead of it being his fault.

So your view would be a justifiable case of self defense?

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Paul_Thomson

@Scratch

When it comes to possibly putting your minor child in danger…you shouldn’t.

Are you equally opposed to Biden putting minors in danger by encouraging illegal immigration?

This discussion is better suited for this other thread:

An immigration policy those on the Left should support

So as far as we can tell there’s no end in sight for everyone in the world seeking asylum to make the dangerous and arduous trek to our border. The truly ironic thing about this is that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said not to come this way. Nonetheless here they still come? Furthermore, it is also the case that few if any want to go anywhere else: The only proposal I’ve heard from those on the Left is to “invest” in those countries that people are fleeing from. The problem with this appr…

[Smyrna]

He acted in self defense is the only logical verdict.

[PAmoderate37]

@Smyrna

He acted in self defense is the only logical verdict.

I think I agree with this. I am glad they showed the actual court room events on TV. It seems most people who want him convicted fall back to he shouldn’t have been there and he shouldn’t have had a gun to begin with. While both may be true, neither should get you convicted of murder.