Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Post Reply New Topic

Remember the case has to proven beyond a reasonable doubt and good lawyers can muddy the waters and portray him as scared and confused by a mob of people.His point of view at the time can become an issue and if he believed he was in danger and may have had the right to defend himself.

It appears Kyle wasn't even the one who shot first.

A defense lawyer could get "reasonable doubt" out of that footage for sure!

There is no "reasonable doubt".

We have the event on video tape.

I think he even confessed to the shootings.

Here is his defense law firm's response ...

"In fear for his life and concerned the crowd would either continue to shoot at him or even use his own weapon against him, Kyle had no choice but to fire multiple rounds towards his immediate attackers, striking two, including one armed attacker," the statement from the lawfirm added.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/k ... s/2330687/

I had been sceptical\unsure of the first shooting and the self defence claim, but with that footage (or some related to it), it did seem likely that "self defence" would have a reasonable chance. Having heard about the rubbish bin fire he was involved in puting out earlier, where the person who chased him had been at the same location, it also supports the claim. Finding out the head shot was a grazing one, not what killed the first victim, also makes sense: hearing he shot someone in the head, as reported, makes it sound like an aimed\planned shot, which based on video it was obviously not.

With the later shootings, while it seems reasonable for him to claim self defence, it is possible some of those who tried to stop him would also have been "in the right" in trying to stop him (citizen's arrest), had they witnesssed the shooting (others who just joined in based on another person's word, however, wouldn't have any "citizen's arrest" legitimacy, not having "direct knowledge"), which is why trying to make a "citizen's arrest" is generally not advisable...It's a messy, complex area, and very easy to go outside the laws regarding it, so best avoided if possible.

Based on the information available, it seems likely the worst he would be guilty of is the "handing a weapon while under 18" related charge, but even that may not happen based on a combination of a law with poorly worded exceptions and a jury who would likely be from the city and would remember what the riots were like (and a defence lawyer mentioning he was there to try and help stop them may help sway them in his favor).

Confessing to the shootings doesn't mean he didn't shoot them in self defence. You can't say "I didn't do it, but I did it in self defence", after all.

All he confessed to is shooting the rioters. It is then up to the prosecutors to prove the shooting\killings were unlawful (self defence being a lawful defence, and if applicable would make his actions lawful).

A "reasonable doubt" is regarding whether something happened or not, we seem to know what happened because of the video recordings.

The only issue appears to be whether a self-defense law is applicable or not.

To me, it doesn't appear like self-defense.

"Rosenbaum was shot in the groin, back and left hand. "
https://abc11.com/victims-of-kenosha-pr ... n/6393801/

He shot the first victim in the back ... as he was running away?

"Some people were shouting, "He shot him." Someone else said, "Get him. Get that dude," according to the complaint

So, the mob goes after him so he doesn't murder anyone else?

However, he kills some of them too.

He confessed because he did the shooting,that doesn't disprove self defense.

He only had to have reasonable believed his life was endanger and reasonably believed he had no escape route or ability to retreat to "absolute" safety,that's right absolute safety.

In all that confusion his lawyer can paint a picture that he was reasonable in believing he was in danger and had not the chance to retreat to ABSOLUTE safety.

It's a tough one to call self defence or not. I think the legal definition of self defence might change in the eyes of a jury who are tiring of near riots. They might give him more leeway for self defence considering how destructive the recent riots have beven over the last few months.

I would imagine the trial would be moved away from the Kenosha but I suppose people from around the country are tired of the riots.

I would think shooting his first victim many times, and once in his back would disprove an argument of self-defense.

That doesn't disprove that he had no reason to fear a serious threat for his safety.

If someone poses a threat one has the right to neutralize the threat,if it's a reasonably serious threat to ones safety.

He had to fear for his safety from a retreating man with his back to him?

^^^
I did not see anything like that I any of the videos

He purposely went to the protest with a gun, and not a pistol, but an AR-15. That is not a defensive action. When you purposely place yourself in a harmful situation and arm yourself to attack people, the theory of self defense does not really apply.