Which was dumb, because believing you're in your own apartment is no defense for shooting and killing the lawful occupant. As the outcome of that case proved.
I was saying either acquittal or manslaughter. The case didn't really prove your position on it, since despite labeling it as "murder" (they went with it since she said she had "intent to kill"), she was sentenced as if it was manslaughter. The jury didn't buy the prosecution's argument.
However, my point was that you asking people to afford Rittenhouse the reasonable doubt that, to my knowledge, you have never afforded to any black victim of police brutality discussed here. Or even to Rittenhouse's own victims.
I'm asking you to actually apply the standards. Provocation in Wisconsin requires unlawful actions of the type to provoke an attack. Being underage with a rifle is not a provocation. Putting out fires is not provocation. The prosecution's case is so flimsy they're desperately trying to suggest that Kyle pointed the gun at Ziminski all over blurry blobs.
They're pretending to see Kyle raise the gun, yet every other angle of video with actual clarity never shows this, and there are oddities with the image (left-hand stance, "arm" supporting "rifle" is actually background object). They're trying to railroad the kid with bullshit.
Sure, KR shouldn't be on trial when people are dead as a direct result of his choice to break the law that night.
Do you even know what's happening with the trial?
The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.
www.reuters.com
"Now it's a fair fight," said Patrick Cafferty, a criminal defense attorney in Wisconsin, referring to the lift the ruling would give the prosecution. "Without that instruction they would have zero chance."
The judge allowed it in despite the still images/video where the images are derived showing nothing of the sort, and nobody but the prosecution and a cop with a Apple ipad will testify to it. This trial is so stupid.
If he didn't break the law that night those people would have still been alive. If he didn't choose to break the law that night he would have never been in a position where he had to "defend himself."
The same can be said about the other 3. Illegal assault and vigilantism.
Rosenbaum had a death wish and the other two were vigilantes. Why do progressives say rapists need to change but almost every other criminal act they need to be coddled?
The guy created the situation. I can't go over to my neighbors house, shove him a bunch of times and then shoot him when he finally swings and claim self defense. This situation is pretty much exactly the same.
The law is specific about what counts as provocation, which he did not cross. Why do progressives say rapists need to change but almost every other criminal act they need to be coddled?
We only have Kyle's word that Rosenbaum attempted to disarm him (Kyle has shown a propensity to lie) and no definitive proof Rosenbaum actually touched the rifle, only that one of his hands was close to the muzzle at some point.
It's self-evident in the videos. Also the autopsy photos and McGinnis testimony. Prosecution also needs around ~95% or more likelihood. This crap from you guys is no different from Trumper shit. This is what you guys do when you're biased FOR the defendant.
The case of a slain jogger was a powerful reminder that jurors are expressing doubts about confessions and DNA evidence.
www.nytimes.com
I don't "hate" the kid. But reasonable people just might come to the conclusion he's a disgusting little shit
Then so were Rosenbaum, Gaige, and Huber. So who was in the right if they're all disgusting little shits?
Facebook
Twitter