Kyle Rittenhouse Update

abc7chicago.com...

The Kenosha County judge denied the prosecution's effort to bring in certain evidence against Rittenhouse because he believes it's not relevant.

RELATED: IL teen accused of killing 2 at Kenosha protest makes 1st in-person court appearance

That evidence included a video taken 15 days before the protest shootings in 2020.

Prosecutors claim it shows Rittenhouse outside a drug store watching people he believed were shoplifting and commenting that he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot them.

Oh Snap, will they allow this evidence or not...
All I know is that I'm glad I do not live in Kenosha. I think this might bring more unrest.
Also, what do you think about that statement?
Who the heck is going to be on that jury?

Just watch the videos if you think he should be charged with anything. If you do, tell ya what; I'll be right over with 2 friends; I'll hit you with a skateboard and others with either have a pistol or try stomping on your head. Putting yourself in the actual victims perspective is what any real juror should do.

a reply to: JAGStorm

He was being chased by crazed lunatics intent on harming him. I think he had every right to defend himself.

it's ironic that I hear time and time again that Australians gave up their guns, if only we hadn't we'd not be in the state we are now.

But when it actually happens in the US, the damn guy is charged.

think about that...

Another white patsy to sooth the BLM movement.

Total self defense in my eyes..
That said, he shouldn't have been there in the first place and should face some form of consequence for his part in this.

Just watch the videos if you think he should be charged with anything. If you do, tell ya what; I'll be right over with 2 friends; I'll hit you with a skateboard and others with either have a pistol or try stomping on your head. Putting yourself in the actual victims perspective is what any real juror should do.

I am kinda at odds with this one. He should not have been there, He was not from there. He went there with his rifle too shoot somebody.
So you say you and two friends will try to stop a shooter? I think he had not shot at that point though. It has been awhile, but personally I feel he went there to shoot somebody.
I think he is guilty of going there with the intent of shooting somebody. Why else would he have been there? Is it murder? IDK, not up too me to decide. But let us make it political, because it is, Rittenhouse is a hero and Ashli Babbit is a victim, correct? They both got what was coming to them?

He was being chased by crazed lunatics intent on harming him. I think he had every right to defend himself.

a reply to: jerich0
I dont know about crazed lunatics but I agree. The fact that he should not have been there, He went there to shoot somebody, has to be weighed, but he was there. I think he brought it on himself and is what he wanted.

You will say "I think" Not stating my thoughts as facts like most here do. If I remember right, He was a minor that crossed state lines with an illegal weapon and shot somebody. Does that sum it up?

Weren't the two that attacked Kyle a rapist and a molester? Good riddance. Let the kid go. Let God sort out the pervs. He will put them where they belong.

a reply to: visitedbythem
True, but the fact is, he had no idea of who they were or what they had previously done. Just as the two who chased and attacked him had seen him shoot a man in the head. They did not know whether he shot in self defense or not.

I have not yet been able to figure out yet if you can use a self defense claim while committing a crime. We know that he was illegally carrying a weapon and breaking curfew.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Just watch the videos if you think he should be charged with anything. If you do, tell ya what; I'll be right over with 2 friends; I'll hit you with a skateboard and others with either have a pistol or try stomping on your head. Putting yourself in the actual victims perspective is what any real juror should do.

Dont forget that the guy behind the man with the skateboard had admitted he had fired several shots at Kyle before kyle returned fire on him

This case should be open and shut, but because its political the kids gonna fry , there is no justice in this country.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: visitedbythem
True, but the fact is, he had no idea of who they were or what they had previously done. Just as the two who chased and attacked him had seen him shoot a man in the head. They did not know whether he shot in self defense or not.

I have not yet been able to figure out yet if you can use a self defense claim while committing a crime. We know that he was illegally carrying a weapon and breaking curfew.

They did not know whether he shot in self defense or not. Bull! Liberal excuses. They attacked out of progressive prejudice and hatred. You dont attack somebody that has a gun. Let the authorities do their job. Those were not upstanding citizens. You give them too much credit. They were animals, and now they are dead animals

originally posted by: FunshineCD
I think he is guilty of going there with the intent of shooting somebody.

This could never be proven. Intent is a very hard thing to convict anybody on, especially something like this.
It would take a monumental slip up in court, or some evidence of him saying that was his intent before hand.

As the story goes, he was out there to help protect businesses from looters. There's video to back this up.
There's also video of him being harassed by a group of people earlier on that day.

If you feel like 'he went there to shoot somebody' that's just your feeling. Nothing backs this up so far.
He should be given the benefit of doubt, especially since he did't fire a single round until he was being chased & someone else fired a gun, while he was being chased.

If he went there with shooting someone as his sole purpose, don't you think he would have shot the guy running at him, instead of retreating?

If he shot looters unprovoked I would call the video admissible. Since he didn't wish for a rifle to shoot someone that was attacking him I can't see how it's relevant.

Was the guy with the pistol that shot at him a felon barred from owning or possessing a firearm? If Kyle had no business being there (other than requested to be there by store owner/boss?——been awhile but going from memory that he wasn’t there on a lark), then what about the guy with the pistol: Zero reason to be there armed? Skateboarder and head stomper didn’t seem to be just “defending themselves” while on a walk in the park either.

And memory seems to indicate that wasn’t Kyle’s gun either. It had been provided by the one that invited him there.

The only issue is that the business owner said he did not request this "protection".

a reply to: visitedbythem

Where did you get I was calling them upstanding citizens? I said the previous post was correct, however Kyle did not know their background.

The police walked right by Kyle and ignored him. Remember? He went home out of state to bed. Whether most people would try to stop someone who just shot a guy in the head, I can't state. I've read here before that many would.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

The only issue is that the business owner said he did not request this "protection".

I think this was supposed to be a response to a reply to: Ahabstar
not me.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

You are correct! I apologize!

a reply to: JAGStorm
Idk much about this...
Even when or if his action is justified, he still has to live with two dead bodies on his conscience...🙏❤ young man.

His activities or his track record from that point on should determine if he is the illperceived threat adults proclaim that he is, while being maintained he was answering a call for backup from a friend...

I think the Mayor who's policy failure should be addressed; so Kyle's friend wouldn't have felt threatened in the first place to ask for help.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o

originally posted by: FunshineCD
I think he is guilty of going there with the intent of shooting somebody.

This could never be proven. Intent is a very hard thing to convict anybody on, especially something like this.
It would take a monumental slip up in court, or some evidence of him saying that was his intent before hand.

As the story goes, he was out there to help protect businesses from looters. There's video to back this up.
There's also video of him being harassed by a group of people earlier on that day.

If you feel like 'he went there to shoot somebody' that's just your feeling. Nothing backs this up so far.
He should be given the benefit of doubt, especially since he did't fire a single round until he was being chased & someone else fired a gun, while he was being chased.

If he went there with shooting someone as his sole purpose, don't you think he would have shot the guy running at him, instead of retreating?

I can prove he wasn't there to intentionally shoot people. You don't turn around and shoot people chasing you if your intent was to shoot them. The people shot wouldn't have provoked him into pulling the trigger, it would have been random.