Kenosha

[ousdahl]

Didn’t he?

Or is it just cuz the “potential” that they could use the language?

Or did he just leave the burden on the defense to produce evidence those dudes were participating in looting or arson?

This article makes it sound like victim blaming all good with the judge. Might as well put the dead guys on trial!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle- ... index.html

[Mjl]

Didn’t he?

Or is it just cuz the “potential” that they could use the language?

Or did he just leave the burden on the defense to produce evidence those dudes were participating in looting or arson?

This article makes it sound like victim blaming all good with the judge. Might as well put the dead guys on trial!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle- ... index.html

The bolded is true

[ousdahl]

So, yeah, might as well put the dead guys on trial.

[ousdahl]

So if they really want to advance that as a defense argument, they will have to prove then that not only each guy was looting or burning or something, but also that Kyle had knowledge of as much?

And unless/even if a fire is some sorta direct threat to Kyle, is deadly force an appropriate response? What about if somebody stole something?

[ousdahl]

I wonder if any property owners will testify, either for or against.

If the gas station or wherever the first shooting went down’s owner speaks up like, yea I asked him to stand watch, or no I certainly didn’t want some pimply vigilante armed on my property, that might be interesting testimony.

[Mjl]

So, yeah, might as well put the dead guys on trial.

I mean, when the defense goes with self defense, isn't that always what happens, by definition?

[Mjl]

So if they really want to advance that as a defense argument, they will have to prove then that not only each guy was looting or burning or something, but also that Kyle had knowledge of as much?

And unless/even if a fire is some sorta direct threat to Kyle, is deadly force an appropriate response? What about if somebody stole something?

If they want to try to defend Rittenhouse by saying the victims were burning and looting, I would certainly hope they would lose

[ousdahl]

Yeah. Of course an argument of self defense is effectively putting the dead guys on trial.

But that argument generally hinges on whether those guys were some direct imminent threat to the defendant’s own life, not whether they stole a candy bar earlier that night.

The first guy he shot sounds the most damning, especially if infrared images indicate Kyle was the aggressor. Even if not, I dunno whether throwing a bag of groceries satisfies the elements of self defense.

The second guy ran up and hit him with a skateboard. So yeah that may be more in line with the self defense argument.

But - and I might be making this up and haven’t found any commentary on it yet either way - if Kyle is found guilty of the first murder, does that change the second argument? As in, is an argument of self-defense even available to a felon in flight?

And the third guy who he just injured with a shot to the arm - he had a gun, but also had his hands up. Again, burden is on the lawyers to satisfy or disprove the elements of the argument.

And the facts he was underage, unlawfully possessing an assault rifle, who traveled across state lines to an area under curfew. At face value, that just seems more in line with out looking for trouble, than just being the good keed he and lobster would like you to believe.

[Mjl]

Yeah, I assume that the first one will dictate the result of the other two. You'd think that trying to subdue an active shooter does not give that active shooter the right to kill.

[ousdahl]

Yea, that second dude took the whole “skate or die” thing a little too seriously

[sdoyel]

[Cascadia]

It's not uncommon for a judge to rule that "victim" can't be used in the trial. If a lawyer can use that word, it will be used every 10 seconds.

Not that it really matters, the chances of this kid not getting convicted is 0%.

[Overlander]

It's not uncommon for a judge to rule that "victim" can't be used in the trial. If a lawyer can use that word, it will be used every 10 seconds.

Not that it really matters, the chances of this kid not getting convicted is 0%.

No way, in the current state of our country, I could be confident at 0%.

OJ walks among us.

[Deleted User 89]

It's not uncommon for a judge to rule that "victim" can't be used in the trial. If a lawyer can use that word, it will be used every 10 seconds.

Not that it really matters, the chances of this kid not getting convicted is 0%.

No way, in the current state of our country, I could be confident at 0%.

sQuirts walk among us.

[Cascadia]

It's not uncommon for a judge to rule that "victim" can't be used in the trial. If a lawyer can use that word, it will be used every 10 seconds.

Not that it really matters, the chances of this kid not getting convicted is 0%.

No way, in the current state of our country, I could be confident at 0%.

OJ walks among us.

That was 26 years ago. This kid was filmed killing two people.

[ousdahl]

Yeah, OJ got off cuz one of the prosecutors said the N word or whatever.

This Kyle kid very well could walk. All it would take is one lobster on the jury. Too many Mericans have a boner for vigilantism, and buy into the good guy with a gun fetish. (ESPECIALLY when it’s a white guy against some perceived non-white threat)

Hell, even the fucking judge is inclined to call the victims rioters and looters instead of just calling them victims.

If Kyle and OJ have a parallel, it’s that they’re both high profile politically charged cases, about which most folks already made up their minds

[jhawks99]

How much time did that guy who killed Travon Martin do?

[ousdahl]

Oh come on bro, it’s not like Rittenhouse was running around with a bag of skittles

[Cascadia]

Not sure I see the relevance of the Trayvon Martin case. Unless the argument is all black people are the same. No video in that case, and the world has changed since then. In large part (unfortunately) thanks to that case.

[jhawks99]

This kid is not going to jail.