Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

https://historum.com/threads/ages-of-us-civil-war-soldiers.96404/
How Old Were Redcoats? Age and Experience of British Soldiers in America - Journal of the American Revolution (allthingsliberty.com)

Here you go.. a little illumination just who does "play.....

 

Says his lawyer, nutbag QANON leader, Lin Wood.

 

What the kid did was idiotic.

 

No. Says the video

 

I assume Lin Wood will bring that video to court in defense of his client (if he isn’t disbarred by then) and a jury will decide based on all the facts of the case presented by both sides, who was at fault. That’s how we do it here in America. Unfortunately for you, internet trolls don’t get to decide who is innocent or guilty in cases like this. I will wait and see what is revealed in the trial before coming to any final conclusion.

 

Well I am looking at Shadow X's post.. I fail to see "his lawyer sez" .. I think see your problem with perceptions of reality.

 

We have trials here in America in which both the prosecution and defense have the absolute right to present witnesses on their behalf and confront any witnesses against them. Pretty smart, right? Perceptions of the reality of any given case can be gained by objectively looking at the evidence and deciding based on all evidence presented by both sides and weighing it our. We shall see if and when there is a trial. Otherwise, as in many cases, the defendant enters into a plea agreement and deems himself guilty of a crime. Should be interesting to see and or read the transcripts and evidence in this case and get a good perception of the reality of what occurred that day.

 

Wow.

That was a rather ABRUPT *Bump* after almost 10 months of inactivity...

As of now (barring further delays) it looks like the Trial won't happen until (at the earliest) November:

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/k...tings-to-make-1st-in-person-court-appearance/

 

Pretty balanced analysis and nice framing of the issue and event. Nothing I disagree with here, given what I know of the event.

 

As is normal for those who think like you, you're wrong. Lynn Wood is not Rittenhouse's attorney and hasn't been for almost a year. Perhaps you need to educate yourself as to what actually happened and what's actually going on before you make yourself look more like a fool. You should also drop the ad hominem attacks and actually attempt to refute the facts.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-retains-new-lawyer-ahead-murder-trial-n1268148

 

Ok.

 

That's what a smart and responsible person would do.

 

I look forward to Kyle getting an award for the Kenosha hat trick- dropped 3 felons like a pro.

 

What I do know is that a 17 year old kid illegally crossed state lines with a loaded weapon and insinuated himself into a conflict which was really none of his business. He ended up shooting and killing a couple of people. Pretty serious stuff there. For Mr. Rittenhouse’s sake, I am glad that he has evidently realized that and gotten rid of the grandstanding nit wit Lin Wood as his attorney. Hopefully the case will be resolved without resulting in too much jail time. This kid needs psychological help. I hope he gets it and never kills anyone else.

 

Actually he didn't cross state lines with a loaded weapon. The gun was determined to have already been in Kenosha. Kyle also worked in the area so he does have a vested interest in being there. As for "insinuating himself into a conflict which was really none of his business".....are you the type of person to turn a blind eye to bullies? Because that's what you're advocating here.

 

I am not sure who you directed your comments at but I did not claim Wood is still Rittenhouse's lawyer but I can clarify yes there have been a change in lawyers.

I can clarify I only was talking about the change of venue issue not guilt or innocence.

Getting back to that issue only, the change of venue issue has been known to the media for some time, i.e., :

March 21/01 SOURCE: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/10/9758...al-in-kenosha-killings-delayed-until-november

"On Wednesday, Rittenhouse's lawyers said they needed extra time to finish up a public opinion poll "to get a feel for whether Rittenhouse can expect to get a fair trial in the county, or if there might be reason to seek a change of venue or a jury pool from another county," the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported."

So this is why as far as I know that change of venue issue is still possibly on the table.

I can also clarify that it was back in October of 2020, (SOURCE: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...person-wisconsin-court-appearance/5181816001/ )

Rittenhouse was originally extradited to Wisconsin.

"WAUKEGAN, Ill. (WLS) -- Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois accused of shooting and killing two people during protests in Kenosha, was extradited to Wisconsin for trial, after an Illinois judge's ruling Friday.

The Lake County Sheriff's Office said by 4 p.m. they extradition had already been completed."

What I should have been crystal clear in stating and I did not, is that an attempt to avoid that extradition would be a waste of time and questionable in my legal opinion as it is very rare a US state will NOT extradite. The only time they do not is if they also charged the same person with a crime in their state and in such cases the fight is only to decide whose trial goes first.

That attempt would be questionable as it would be too early to prove you have concrete reasons to believe you can't be extradited due to prejudice.

 

So you’re in the three wrongs makes a right camp.

 

The things you think you know are wrong. Right off the bat, you get this point wrong. He never "illegally crossed state lines with a loaded weapon". He lived in Antioch, and traveled a few miles to Kenosha, but the firearm was not in his possession when he crossed the state line. In fact, the rifle was never in Illinois, loaded or not:

source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...llinois-gun-never-left-the-state-of-wisconsin

 

I am sure that his lawyer will try to sell this in his opening statement. Let’s see if the jury buys it. I am a gun owner and would not hesitate to shoot anyone threatening my home, myself and family or my place of business. I don’t think this was the case here. I think the kid is nuts. We will see how it turns out soon.

 

You may not grasp this, but his lawyer doesn't have to "sell" it because he's not being accused of crossing state lines with a loaded weapon. Everyone already knows and agrees he never "illegally crossed state lines with a loaded weapon" (except you, apparently).

 

One of my high school friends had a saying.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right, but it damn sure makes it even.”

 

Clean shoots. You get to defend yourself.

 

He killed people that were trying to kill / harm him. You are aloud to defend yourself in America.

 

I am trying to be very clear because a poster was right, we can not and should not jump to conclusions and I am only trying to explain some legal concepts nothing else and do not want to unintentionally state an absolute opinion on innocence or guilt.

What we do know as well is that in May of 2021 the trial was put over until November of 2021. At this time the jury has not been selected. Also According to a wide spread news story dated May 21, 2021,
because of the intense publicity surrounding the case, the new defence team plan to sent out questionairres to prospective jury members about their background and beliefs.

This would suggest they may be worried about whether they can find sufficient jury members neutral enough to pick. If they feel the prospective juror pool is so problematic they would run out of their limited amount of requests to strike out jury members, this is where they might revisit the change of venue issue.

Now its a different basis than earlier when they were arguing against extradition. Earlier before the extradition with the previous lawyer I would argue it was a wasteful tactic since you can't avoid an extradition. Now however at this stage, it might be necessary if the prospective pool is so bias they can't find anyone to ask for a change of venue. Its a different set of circumstances.

This same technique of using questionairres by the way was used in the George Floyd trial.

This is why as I explained arguing change of venue depends on whether you have sufficient information to bring to a Judge's attention that a trial can not proceed without a change to another city or state because of too much publicity/anticipated prejudice.

In this case we have very extreme and polarized views on both sides. This case will probably get a lot of publicity and extremists on both sides could use it as an excuse to display violence.

A motion was just raised whether Rittenhouse's past violent behaviour and association with the Proud Boys should be considered part of the evidence.

Rittenhouse is arguing he was there to protect property.

As a general rule in criminal case law, you have a right as a citizen to apprehend someone you see with your own eyes threaten to hurt someone or is hurting someone but NOT property.

Judges have often said in both criminal and civil cases for wrongful death that in regards to property a reasonable person can assist police taking pictures, but they should stand back because a reasonable person knows with property the risk of getting hurt or accidentally getting others hurt over property is not justified.

Furthermore a reasonable person knows if they bring a gun to a known conflict zone to protect property, the likelihood of them shooting someone rather than waiting for police rises and in fact may demonstrate premeditated intent to shoot someone for property damage if it happens. T

If a person knowingly places themselves in a position of harm with an intent to use their gun that is not self defence-that is an intent to engage in protection of property, i.e., act as a peace officer to enforce private title of property but such a function is the role of a sheriff or bailiff not a citizen. So self defence has to do with defending life not property.

People assume in the US because you can own a weapon you can shoot people who trespass. No. Cases have said if you shoot someone who trespassed but there was no imminent threat to your life, the dependents of the killed person can sue you civilly and the police can charge you with homicide.

Hope that helps clarify the issues you will see. I am surprised like I said this matter is not plea bargained but then in the US going to show trial is much more common.

 

Getting to defend yourself does not automatically mean you can shoot people. That is not what the law says that is what you say. The right to defense is conditional not unlimited as you state it.