Have you seen the video?????

Poll - Total Votes: 19

Still guilty

Not guilty

You can only vote on one answer.

I just watched a video from the Kyle Rittinhouse trial.
It was of the guy who had his bicep shot off.
He admitted that he did have a gun, not a phone like a lot of people were insisting.
He admitted that Kyle didn't shoot him until he pointed his own gun at him.
Do you think this will be a game changer in the trial??

The video was from the trial and uploaded by Dad_bod_1973 on TikTok.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

danawilliams2004 · 18-21, F

He shot multiple unarmed people. Even if the video clears him in one shooting it doesn't explain the others. The only possible way he could be cleared by this is if all the shooting happened right at the moment the other person had a gun. And it didn't.

Dainbramadge · 56-60, M

@danawilliams2004 Not nesicarially. If you have a gun and you fear for your life by an unarmed person you can legally use the gun to defend yourself.
In the video of all three incidences Kyle wasn't the aggressor. Unless you have seen something I haven't.

danawilliams2004 · 18-21, F

@Dainbramadge I asked my friends mom who is a defense lawyer and she said that you have to use reasonable and appropriate force to defend yourself. In her words you can't shoot people just because they punch you or chase you. You can however shoot someone who points a gun at you if you are in fear of your life.

Only one guy he shot had a gun. Shooting the others isn't reasonable force which kills the self defense argument.

Dainbramadge · 56-60, M

@danawilliams2004 [c=1F5E00]"Don't think an empty hands attack can be deadly? One only has to remember back to the infamous Hockey Dad case in 2000 where a player's father beat another man to death with his bare hands." -Taken from an article in Shooting Times about this same topic.[/c]

[c=1F5E00]"While the law allows for equal force, the law also considers a disparity of force between the parties. That is if the attacker has a physical advantage over the victim, a greater level of force may be used in defense — perhaps even a weapon against an unarmed attacker." -Same article
[/c]
[c=1F5E00]"How do you decide what level of force with which to respond? Well, that's the million dollar question. You must do what is considered reasonable at the time of the threat. The prosecutor and jury — if it goes that far — will judge you by the Reasonable Man Doctrine: what would a reasonable person, with your knowledge, training and experience, do in that situation? " - Same article[/c]

These are just some points of view from a third, non-lawyer, perspective.

danawilliams2004 · 18-21, F

@Dainbramadge I think what hurts him is he went to a different state with an AR-15. Reasonable people don't attend riots in another state with an AR-15. If he was defending his house this becomes another conversation. But he went with the intention of shooting someone. Plus the gun wasn't even legal or his. He is definitely guilty, it's just a question of is he guilty of murder?