I remember following this when it first happened. The looters shot at Kyle Rittenhouse first, and they also hid behind a wall in order to get him when he walked by. As far as I am concerned, what he did was totally in self defense. One of the people that he is accused of shooting was probably killed by someone else who was shooting at Kyle, from the way the person was shot. Another one was about to kill Kyle, so he fired in self defense. The pictures were all online back when this happened, but most of them are not there now, or at least, not findable. However, I did come across this interesting piece of information this morning. It appears that the mayor, the prosecutor, and the lead detective in the case are all related…….. probably just a coincidence, right ?
This is only one of the pictures that show that young Kyle Rittenhouse was being attacked before he started defending himself. The guy who is about to kick Kyle in the head was one who was released from prison shortly before this all happened. You can see that the attacker is an adult male, and much bigger than Kyle is. The other one with the skateboard was also there to attack Kyle.
More pictures, and you can see that the men who were attacking this teenage boy also had guns. It seems likely that they will rule that it was self-defense, and I remember seeing other pictures besides just these.
Just came across this, which I think is a very clear and unbiased account of the trial so far. Yeah, I know, it's from AP, which many people here despise as 'far left'. But an objective reading shows the material to be painstakingly free of opinion and rancor.
Apparently the key witness finally told the truth and the case has now fallen apart. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...e-trial-just-blew-up-the-states-case-n1530755
Here's an excellent update of the trial so far. Again it's from the Associated Press, and again it contains no opinion or editorial spin. While I'm defending AP as a reliable and responsible news source, it makes sense to go off-topic briefly and point out that AP made no comment at all about the Q gathering in Dallas on November 2. They refrained from either validating the event or mocking it, which is the very definition of ethical and trustworthy journalism!
Just read back all these posts and noticed again that the men who were shot are consistently and inaccurately referred to here as 'rioters' and/or 'protesters,' when in fact their mission had been to guard local businesses from possible looters and protesters. There's also mention here of reports of 'looters and protesters' shooting at Rittenhouse, but that doesn't seem to have been the case. Here's a very early news report of that chaotic night. Plenty of confusing info for alt-news sources to seize upon and manipulate for the purpose of inflaming and misinforming their subscribers.
The fact remains that the da's case has been ruined by his own star witness and he might be charged with prosecutorial misconduct.
As reported objectively by AP, that prosecution witness did damage to the DA's argument. But it's too early to declare the prosecution's case as 'collapsed.' The claim that the DA faces charges for 'prosecutorial misconduct' is baffling to me at this point, but I intend to look into it. To be clear, my personal --- and irrelevant--- inclination at this point is to view Rittenhouse as an impressionable kid who got caught up in alt-news-hysteria and social-media-algorithm-amplification and made a series of really tragic mistakes.
Since the trial is currently still in progress, it can't be declared to be over until it's actually over. That's just how the justice system works! Alt-news commentators and social media 'influencers' who are calling for the trial to end now are agitators who have no interest in rule of law or civil order.
I call that B.S. The prosecutors's own witness has made it self-defense so how can it continue? Rule of law means that when you've committed no crime you don't get tried for it.
'Rule of law' means that when a person is suspected of a crime, the evidence against them must be sufficient for an arrest to be made. Then the person is taken before a court to assess that evidence, and to determine whether a trial is warranted. If a trial is warranted, and if the accused person decides to plead innocent, the trial process begins. Once the trial begins, it must go through to completion, and end in a jury verdict. Bottom line, it will be entirely up to the jury to determine whether the prosecution's witness's testimony is enough to win the defendant's acquittal. Trial-by-media-and-public-perception is not Rule of Law!
Whenever I read or think about this, I have to think of one of Johnny Cash's best: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=don't+tak...i=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTAZ7xzZKAw Kyle's mother also might have thought of this.