Removed, but double murderer Kyle Rittenhouse was let out on $2M cash bail paid for by the My Pillow guy and a bunch of low-level 'celebrities' and was promptly given a corporate sponsorship by a coffee company that profits off pro-fascist branding.
Someone sent me their coffee once for some reason and it sucked.Removed, but double murderer Kyle Rittenhouse was let out on $2M cash bail paid for by the My Pillow guy and a bunch of low-level 'celebrities' and was promptly given a corporate sponsorship by a coffee company that profits off pro-fascist branding.
Removed, but double murderer Kyle Rittenhouse was let out on $2M cash bail paid for by the My Pillow guy and a bunch of low-level 'celebrities' and was promptly given a corporate sponsorship by a coffee company that profits off pro-fascist branding.
That's so stupid. At least he's still going to go to jail for a loooong time.
Hung Jury.Is he though?
I’m not a lawyer but doesn’t this case really depend on if the first person he shot was in self defense or if he was the aggressor?Hung Jury.
Except the weapons charge, don't see how he beats that.
It should depend on whether he traveled across state lines with an illegally purchased firearm looking for people to shoot. Also, first victim was shot in the back.I’m not a lawyer but doesn’t this case really depend on if the first person he shot was in self defense or if he was the aggressor?
Hence the reason it won’t be a hung jury. It’s going to be self defense or murder to some degree.It should depend on whether he traveled across state lines with an illegally purchased firearm looking for people to shoot. Also, first victim was shot in the back.
You are aware of who the president is, right?How fucking stupid is the US at this time in history?
I get that, but why is this still tolerated? Why is this acceptable to anyone?You are aware of who the president is, right?
That in of itself should be explain the depth of stupidity washing itself out into the open.
No. The law is cut and dry here. You forfeit your right to self defense if you are in the middle of committing a crime. He was committing multiple crimes at the time he shot someone in the back for throwing a bag at him. Even if bag man was the aggressor he has no right to claim defense. Any judge/jury remotely interested in upholding the law will put him away for a long long time.I’m not a lawyer but doesn’t this case really depend on if the first person he shot was in self defense or if he was the aggressor?
No. The law is cut and dry here. You forfeit your right to self defense if you are in the middle of committing a crime. He was committing multiple crimes at the time he shot someone in the back for throwing a bag at him. Even if bag man was the aggressor he has no right to claim defense. Any judge/jury remotely interested in upholding the law will put him away for a long long time.
That’s not correct. If I’m jaywalking or double parked when someone jumps me, I can fight back. He’s an absolute piece of shit and deserves to root in jail but bringing a gun over state lines is not (I think) enough to waive any self defense argument.No. The law is cut and dry here. You forfeit your right to self defense if you are in the middle of committing a crime. He was committing multiple crimes at the time he shot someone in the back for throwing a bag at him. Even if bag man was the aggressor he has no right to claim defense. Any judge/jury remotely interested in upholding the law will put him away for a long long time.
Also, this is not an angle to this story that I expected to encounter: https://news.avclub.com/silver-spoons-ricky-schroder-reportedly-helped-pay-kyle-1845732646
Just to elaborate slightly. I am defending a civil action against a store (ignore this) where the underlying cause of action arises from theft and assault. Specifically, Plaintiff stole items from the store and stabbed our employee when confronted. He claimed at his civil trial that he acted in self-defense since (allegedly) our employee tased him first. Even thought he admitted to the theft, he was able to argue self defense. Further, unless Rittenhouse pleas to the lesser crimes prior to trial, the jury will be ruling on them as well, which begs the question on how he cannot argue self defense because he was allegedly committing crimes to which he neither admitted nor was convicted of. Just saying “hey, he was doing these crimes too” doesn’t fly.That’s not correct. If I’m jaywalking or double parked when someone jumps me, I can fight back. He’s an absolute piece of shit and deserves to root in jail but bringing a gun over state lines is not (I think) enough to waive any self defense argument.
Should have read “at his criminal trial”.Just to elaborate slightly. I am defending a civil action against a store (ignore this) where the underlying cause of action arises from theft and assault. Specifically, Plaintiff stole items from the store and stabbed our employee when confronted. He claimed at his civil trial that he acted in self-defense since (allegedly) our employee tased him first. Even thought he admitted to the theft, he was able to argue self defense. Further, unless Rittenhouse pleas to the lesser crimes prior to trial, the jury will be ruling on them as well, which begs the question on how he cannot argue self defense because he was allegedly committing crimes to which he neither admitted nor was convicted of. Just saying “hey, he was doing these crimes too” doesn’t fly.