well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less. We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear.
The video is clear. You are ignorant if you think there isn't a significant portion of people arguing in bad faith so they can use it as a political weapon. The DA and the charges are clearly political. The blog you posted started with a massive factually inaccurate statement.
Its not an attack on you unless you are the idiot that wrote the blog...
The rest of your post reads like some "my truth" facebook enlightened-centrism BS.
well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less. We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear.
The first guy who gets shot is chasing the kid. He then tosses something at the kid. The kid is retreating the entire time prior to him shooting the 1st guy. That is all entirely clear by anyone who honestly looks at the video. The kid isn't chasing anyone.
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control. Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently. For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides. Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step. Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control. Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently. For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides. Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step. Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
People he killed had already established themselves as dirt bags and criminals. The kid may too be a dirt bag and a criminal but up until now there was nothing in his history to support that.
well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less. We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear.
The first guy who gets shot is chasing the kid. He then tosses something at the kid. The kid is retreating the entire time prior to him shooting the 1st guy. That is all entirely clear by anyone who honestly looks at the video. The kid isn't chasing anyone.
He also tried to take the kids rifle. That will get you shot!
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control. Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently. For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides. Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step. Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
How so? a speeding Violation .. the other Kyle Rittenhouse that had the drug rap sheet was 10+ years older than the one in Kenosha...
well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less. We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear.
The first guy who gets shot is chasing the kid. He then tosses something at the kid. The kid is retreating the entire time prior to him shooting the 1st guy. That is all entirely clear by anyone who honestly looks at the video. The kid isn't chasing anyone.
He also tried to take the kids rifle. That will get you shot!
That's what the eyewitness says, you can't see that on the video tape but the guy who eventually gives first aid to the 1st guy who gets shot says that he was trying to grab Rittenhouse's gun.
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control. Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently. For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides. Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step. Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control. Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently. For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides. Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step. Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
How so? a speeding Violation .. the other Kyle Rittenhouse that had the drug rap sheet was 10+ years older than the one in Kenosha...
Dropped out of high school and was dumb enough to go to Kenosha. But with the CoVid is any one still in school? But still dumb enough to get involved in the street crap
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control. Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently. For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides. Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step. Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
How so? a speeding Violation .. the other Kyle Rittenhouse that had the drug rap sheet was 10+ years older than the one in Kenosha...
Dropped out of high school and was dumb enough to go to Kenosha. But with the CoVid is any one still in school? But still dumb enough to get involved in the street crap
I must score things differently. From my vantage point it was Good Guy 3, Bad Guys 0.
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control. Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently. For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides. Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step. Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
You just bailed on the Rittenhouse shooting(s), a specific scenario and lumped everything together into a series of generalities
Should he have been there? Probably not, but for the point of this exercise in guilt for MURDER it doesn't matter. A dipshit mother and questionable judgement does NOT mean you do not get to defend yourself later.
Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.
I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.
People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.
I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
Should he have been there? Probably not, but for the point of this exercise in guilt for MURDER it doesn't matter. A dipshit mother and questionable judgement does NOT mean you do not get to defend yourself later.
Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.
I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.
People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.
I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
I honestly don't disagree.
Whether he should have been there or not is a mute poont now. Good lawyer, he's acquitted on everything, based on knowledge at hand.
Should he have been there? Probably not, but for the point of this exercise in guilt for MURDER it doesn't matter. A dipshit mother and questionable judgement does NOT mean you do not get to defend yourself later.
Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.
I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.
People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.
I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
Should he have been there? Probably not, but for the point of this exercise in guilt for MURDER it doesn't matter. A dipshit mother and questionable judgement does NOT mean you do not get to defend yourself later.
Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.
I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.
People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.
I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
Do they have a state law requiring you to retreat? Otherwise you have no legal duty to retreat but it sure looks better in this case! The kid did everything he could to retreat and try to reach the police.
If the 17 year old kid was banging a 15 year old (senior/soph) and Freddie Krueger-like home invader enters the room.
The 17 year old kid grabs the girls' father's pistol in the side table - because if he's going to commit statutory rape, he may as well do it in her parents' bed even though he knows he shouldn't be there.
Kid kills burglar with a single shot to the head.
Kid walks every day of the week on a jury/murder charge.
Girl's dad will probably kill him later but that's an entirely different set of circumstances.
Should he have been there? Probably not, but for the point of this exercise in guilt for MURDER it doesn't matter. A dipshit mother and questionable judgement does NOT mean you do not get to defend yourself later.
Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.
I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.
People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.
I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
I honestly don't disagree.
Whether he should have been there or not is a mute poont now. Good lawyer, he's acquitted on everything, based on knowledge at hand.
No one should have been there, but since they were, he also has the right to be there.
Should he have been there? Probably not, but for the point of this exercise in guilt for MURDER it doesn't matter. A dipshit mother and questionable judgement does NOT mean you do not get to defend yourself later.
Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.
I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.
People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.
I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
Do they have a state law requiring you to retreat? Otherwise you have no legal duty to retreat but it sure looks better in this case! The kid did everything he could to retreat and try to reach the police.
The legal footnote of the law cites; "While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739."
Also, Wisconsin State Law 939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.... (makes no fucking sense to me)
"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 the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property."
Im glad we can all be educated on Wisconsin State law now.
but @Swaye is right, irregardless of the legal jostling and retards parroting falsehoods about the law its all a mute point. The video clearly shows someone retreating, being attacked, and defending themselves. I dont see how anyone could possibly see it any other way unless their vision is clouded by politics or the slight of hand to say he deserved it on account of what he was wearing type arguments.
Comments
Its not an attack on you unless you are the idiot that wrote the blog...
The rest of your post reads like some "my truth" facebook enlightened-centrism BS.
Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently.
For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides.
Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step.
Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
How so? a speeding Violation .. the other Kyle Rittenhouse that had the drug rap sheet was 10+ years older than the one in Kenosha...
But with the CoVid is any one still in school? But still dumb enough to get involved in the street crap
I'm a simple man.
Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.
I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.
People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.
I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
Whether he should have been there or not is a mute poont now. Good lawyer, he's acquitted on everything, based on knowledge at hand.
If the 17 year old kid was banging a 15 year old (senior/soph) and Freddie Krueger-like home invader enters the room.
The 17 year old kid grabs the girls' father's pistol in the side table - because if he's going to commit statutory rape, he may as well do it in her parents' bed even though he knows he shouldn't be there.
Kid kills burglar with a single shot to the head.
Kid walks every day of the week on a jury/murder charge.
Girl's dad will probably kill him later but that's an entirely different set of circumstances.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/27/we-witnessed-the-kenosha-shootings-heres-what-really-happened/
https://thewashingtonsentinel.com/17-yr-old-kenosha-shooters-legal-team-makes-amazing-statement-clearing-his-name/
The legal footnote of the law cites; "While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739."
Also, Wisconsin State Law 939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.... (makes no fucking sense to me)
"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 the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property."
Im glad we can all be educated on Wisconsin State law now.
but @Swaye is right, irregardless of the legal jostling and retards parroting falsehoods about the law its all a mute point. The video clearly shows someone retreating, being attacked, and defending themselves. I dont see how anyone could possibly see it any other way unless their vision is clouded by politics or the slight of hand to say he deserved it on account of what he was wearing type arguments.