I’m curios why did they charge him so quickly. A rush to judgement or solid evidences? Kid probably was a normal decent person that got with the wrong crowd and consumed too much fear and hatred.
Absolutely, I'm sure he was. At 17, you're young, dumb, and so easily influenced. I think they arrested him so quickly because of the amount of video evidence they had.
but if there is a solid case of self defense from the video, wouldn’t they take more time to investigate and establish if there is a credible claim of self defense ? Do they have video or other evidence the public haven’t seen yet? Or a rush job?
Good article. (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense a That's not the complete statement and it does go on to establish some self-defense but a minor that crossed State lines with a gun and on the streets past curfew, engaging passionate protesters seems to met this definition. This is where I think his social media posts are going to hurt him if he ever threatened violence and I bet he did since his school mates had identified him as a possible shooter. So, even if Rittenhouse bears some responsibility for the initial conflict, he can still argue that he did everything he could to escape the situation and withdraw from the fight. Both shooting incidents began with him running away. I don't think the video shows that, the police were just a block away.
Public safety required quick charges. They can be amended. The Prosecutor can file charges against you that are different than what the arresting agency claimed they arrested you for. Also, even after charges are officially filed, a prosecutor can amend the complaint to add or take away charges.Sep 11, 2011
This, in my opinion, is what the article fails to address: Mitigating circumstances include “adequate provocation,” meaning the victim did something “sufficient to cause complete lack of self-control in an ordinarily constituted person”; In my opinion, an ordinarily constituted person does not travel across state lines with a weapon (legally or illegally...another argument to be made here) looking to defend property that is not his. It's going to be an interesting case. In a vacuum, he's got a great case for self defense. At least on the first charge and probably the second. Problem is, this will not be taken in a vacuum. And it shouldn't. He shouldn't have been there. His commission of whatever it is (murder, manslaughter, etc) is precipitated by the fact that he travelled far enough to do it. If he was commiting a crime in travelling there, then a lot of his self defense argent goes out the window. It'd be akin to a someone holding up a gas station and then shooting the clerk "in self defense" so the clerk doesn't shoot them. Interesting case.
Where is the confirmation that his mom drove him there? I keep seeing people state it as fact. Is there an article or report that I missed?
The video doesn't capture the universe if what happened that night. I don't know if he'd committed any crimes at that point or not, apart from open carry as a minor.
I wouldn't be as upset if rioters damaged government property as opposed to innocent private property.
Did Wendy drive her son Kyle to the Kenosha protests? It is unclear if Wendy drove Kyle to the Kenosha protests. She could not immediately be reached for comment.
In that case , neither should the protesters have been there ? That knife cuts both ways. Really , its subjective - That's your opinion based upon nothing but the outcome. The people that shouldn't have been there are those who were trespassing on private property tearing **** up under the guise of protest. I didn't see them "enforce a curfew" on anyone at all .... protesters , anti-protesters or those just tearing **** up. It is fairly likely that law enforcement knew who these people were from the time they arrived ... considering LE thanked them for their help. I doubt at that moment when he walked past the police that they (the police) had realized the gravity of the situation hence they didn't take him into custody.
Really the only thing we don't see is what happened between Rittenhouse and the "shoot me n***a" guy that led to him fleeing and that dude chasing. We see , over the course of several video's a pieced together the story of literally everything that takes place after that from the guy chasing him on to the end of the scene where he walks past the cops. Have you watched the multiple video's ?
Yea but the kid brought his illegal (probably) AR with him. Seems like both sides were looking for a fight, and this kid brought a gun to the fight.
There is some truth to that but if you look around at the actions of many of these "protesters." they appear to be opportunists among them who are derailing the situation from peaceful protest to riot. Its one thing to gather in front of the police station or city hall to get officials attention , its another to run thru the city destroying , stealing , harming people. They aren't protesting a damn thing , just taking advantage of the situation. These opportunists are doing harm to the peaceful protesters and their cause ....
