NSR: A gun on Every Corner: Discuss the NRA, Gun Ownership and All Those Non-Mass Shootings..

if that's his rationale for bringing the gun, would a prosecutor not benefit from questioning along the lines "what was your intent -- what would cause you to shoot at somebody and possibly kill them - if they were kicking a window of a business you have no link to? if they were throwing a rock at a window of a business you have no link to? if they were entering a closed business you have no link to?"

(this assumes the kid takes the stand of course which isn't gonna happen. and yes, I may have been watching too many Law & Order episodes)

 

That ain't gonna work for the first guy he shot, the murder that caused all those people to go after him.

I can't wait for some bank robber to try this shit: hey, I was just trying to get away from the scene of the crime when the police started shooting at me. I shot back in self defense.

Remember, he was responding to a call on Facebook (or some other social media) from a group that was formal in some sense. How that works out in the courts, I suspect it's new ground.

Yeah, I hope so. I don't know if Kyle is an only child or not, but that's one unfit mother. She needs to get a felony conviction so her kids can...go to the dad or something.

 

It wasn't. Today Newsday wrote that the bar violated the law by not allowing a routine inspection. New York prohibits venues that serve alcohol from collecting bets, and the bar could lose its liquor license. The owner previously made fun of a transgender person and apologized.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the decision between top charge or nothing, or allowing less charges is decided by every prosecutor. If and when this goes to trial, I hope Trump is no longer president, there is a coronavirus vaccine, and the country is better in other ways.

On a related note, I took a class taught by a professor who was a federal prosecutor. Would anybody like to guess why he said he was seeking the death penalty when he didn't want the defendant to get the death penalty? I might not remember to go in this topic, so if you guess you can tag me and I'll post the answer.

 

Photo was from before he was incapacitated with the unfortunate cases of plantar fasciitis.
Before the time when Dr Scholl’s invented a $10 cure.

 

Depends... There was some sort of altercation between Kyle and the first victim and if his lawyer can convince the jury that the shooting was in self defense, then it’s possible to claim the second and third shootings were also self defense. However, if his lawyer isn’t able to convince the jury the first killing was self defense, then, yeah, self defense won’t work on the second and third shooting.

 

Is there a video of the first shooting? The ones I have seen are him speaking with "Daily Caller" and when he is on the ground and starts firing.

I do not know the circumstances of the first shooting. If he was threatened or assaulted, he could assert self-defense.

Again, I don't think it is a good strategy, but is a potential defense.

Not sure a "Facebook" group qualifies as a "well-regulated militia" under the Second Amendment.

Where is 'Constitutional Originalist' Atononin Scalia to determine if the "founding fathers" considered social media groups in drafting the Second Amendment?

Oh, yeah, he is burning somewhere for eternity.

 

That’s definitely going to be the rub and it will largely depend on what led up to Rittenhouse being knocked to the ground and then shooting the first victim. I’ve seen comments saying Rittenhouse was waving his gun around and threatening people prior to the altercation with the first victim. If that is true, it would make self defense problematic as it could be viewed as Rittenhouse being the aggressor and the victim was acting in self defense.

 

Too bad for him Wisconsin isn't a "stand your ground" state. All his lawyers would have to do then is prove that a black guy looked at him.

 

He literally ran across the parking lot to the first victim, got in an altercation, and shot him.

While the altercation was clearly shown on video...his sprint to the guy he eventually killed sure was.

And I’ll go back to my original point...in order to claim a defense such as he was part of a militia, isn’t it incumbent upon the defense to establish that? So at a minimum he’s going to need his dipshit partners to come testify that he was part of the team. Which I would think puts them in legal risk? I’d certainly be claiming I didn’t know the ******** face

 

That's beyond my knowledge. I don't understand how him being in an established militia or not would make it okay for him to shoot and kill someone. Even if the argument comes down to the police giving them tacit approval to be there as a result of the videos showing them thanking Rittenhouse and others for being there, it's not okay for police to use lethal force to defend property, so I'm not sure why it would be okay for a militia member to do so...

 

surely if a judge allowed a defence based on "organized militia" it would open the door to every such group in the US to take to the streets shooting, claiming the same ?

 

He did shoot white people, our court systems frown upon that a bit more.

 

That last episode was eye-opening. The way the California Member Councils work real hard to elect board-members who are WLP buddies. And for trinkets.