Oso planning to go pro
Scoop has been generally okay on these topics lately so let's see how long this one will last.Looks as if that trial is pretty much over.
Lets see, if I were to bet (which you probably can these days). My guesses at verdicts (without commentary):First-degree reckless homicide (COUNT 1) - Not Guilty, self defenseFirst-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5) - GuiltyFirst-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 3) - Not Guilty, self defenseAttempted first-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 4) - Guilty (toughest one, not sure)Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor) - GuiltyUse of a dangerous weapon (AGGRAVATING FACTOR) - Yes, just adds to any other felony guilty verdict
Which guy is count 4 for?
If you haven't seen the video yet, that one is pretty much going to be not guilty
I've watched lots of video, and read daily recaps. Just my guesses. They may all be wrong.
From the group of defense lawyers voicing over a stream, it seems that all murder charges will be not guilty.
They are not the jury, nor was that testimony "all" the evidence.
My prediction is Rittenhouse gets nothing, but it’s a shame that life was lost nonetheless.
He'll definitely get this one: Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor) and possibly this one: First-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5)
The real crime here was not being detained by the police whenever someone noticed his firearm
I think he's a Dbag and a hardo who went looking for a fight and to play soldier, but its really hard to call it murder, much less get a murder charge, when you have other sh**y people also committing violent acts against him, one of whom was also armed with a gun.
He had his hands up in the air just after Rittenhouse shot the second guy, but then when Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him, and re-racked it, he lowered his arms and pointed his gun - then was shot. Who was acting in self defense?
Hm, this makes it sound like you haven't been following closely. The first two guys definitely chased him. The first had mental issues (was just released from the hospital) and lunged at him, the second chased him and hit him with a skateboard. The guy armed with a gun was the least threatening. He had his hands up in the air just after Rittenhouse shot the second guy, but then when Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him, and re-racked it, he lowered his arms and pointed his gun - then was shot. Who was acting in self defense?So, it may *all* be self defense, but the "other" dude with a gun wasn't the threatening one. I have lots of questions about shooting someone hitting you with a skateboard and whether shooting him is within "self defense", but since he wasn't present (obviously) I think the jury will side with self defense. My gut is that the emotion of hearing a real human testify, even if he had a gun, will qualify as attempted homicide. Regardless, I expect the sentencing to be light regardless of the verdict. He's a dumb kid that didn't have the necessary training to handle himself or that gun in that situation. People (that were "volunteering" with Rittenhouse) also testified that he didn't seem comfortable, and he was carrying the gun in a hostile way - basically saying if he had the right training this never would have happened - they were worried about him.
Going back to Jesu's point, its even more baffling that the police weren't like "WTF are you doing?" If not directly clocking him for the shooting, but just how he appeared with that gun.
I grew up in Kenosha and the cops were outstanding. That has really changed though in the last 20 years. They went from being a community force to being an overly armed militia.
The interesting part to me, while we can debate legalese, it all comes down to the emotion of the jury. Which, in some ways is scary . Right & wrong don't necessarily matter. It's how they felt about the testimony, but often comes back to emotion...one way or the other.
I guess it all just comes down to "mob mentality". You have a group of people chasing someone, someone is wielding a weapon (the skateboard), then as you are on your back as people are pursuing you, someone is holding a gun that is then pointed at you. Even if you initially pointed the gun. I'm not a lawyer, but hypothetically, if you were being robbed, backed into a corner, you pulled your gun out, then one of the robbers pulled out their own gun after you leveled your gun at them, then you shot them, would you be deemed an aggressor, all things considered? I guess this goes to your addendum. I don't know the legalese enough, its surely murky.I have a friend that got cracked in the face with a skateboard in a fight in college, severe concussion and lost 3 teeth, if someone wanted to finish the job with one they probably could, so I'm not so inclined to brush off a skateboard like a stick or a broom or something.Again, I'm not defending Rittenhouse or his cowboy antics. I think your last paragraph is pretty accurate. He went in thinking he was a Call of Duty hero, but was untrained and reckless/spastic. But at the same time, I think there were a lot of bad intentions all over the place.Going back to Jesu's point, its even more baffling that the police weren't like "WTF are you doing?" If not directly clocking him for the shooting, but just how he appeared with that gun.
I'll be the first to admit I haven't been following much of this case. But to me the key is the first encounter. The new surveillance videos show him as the aggressor, and chasing the eventual victim. At that point, he is an individual illegally in possession of a firearm, chasing an unarmed civilian. He is not in a position of self-defense, he has initiated the confrontation and is guilty. Arguments could be made for self defense in some of the subsequent encounters, but they all stem from the same illegal original act.
Emotions trumping facts is nothing new in courtrooms or elsewhere.