• Hadriscus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    So that’s why the guy went free ? I did wonder but never bothered to research it

    • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      He wasn’t charged with 1st degree murder, that’s nonsense. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. Here’s the wiki.

      I watched almost the entire trial live, and it was clear as day that his actions were textbook self defense. The prosecution had essentially no evidence - at one point they argued that Kyle had a desire to shoot people because he plays Call of Duty. I’m not making that up.

      Everyone I’ve talked to about this incident who believes he should’ve gone to jail were unaware of what actually happened. The media lied about what happened and smeared his character leading up to the trial, so I’m not surprised that people think he’s a murderer. I am extremely disappointed though that the media blatantly lies this way in order to push a narrative or agenda, and people who consume it do little to no research to check it’s accuracy.

      Edit: Clarity below

      • UmeU@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Incorrect. The Wikipedia article is not specific on what type of murder charges he faced.

        All murder charges come with a degree. He had 6 charges, all first degree. Search for Kyle Rittenhouse Charges and the first result should be the AP article.

        First degree charges require that intent and/or premeditation be proven.

        I agree he wasn’t guilty of intent, but they would have had a conviction if they went with a lesser murder charge. By entering a riot with a loaded open carry firearm, against curfew ordinances, crossing state lines with a firearm he was not allowed to possess, they could have easily proven 2nd degree homicide, not premeditated.

        They were trying to prove intent because that is what they charged him with.

        I also watched every moment of his trial.

        • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m sorry, looks like I got that wrong. I didn’t realize the wiki omitted that.

          The NPR article I found that explained this also says that the jury was asked to consider lesser charges but still acquitted. I’m not sure what lesser charges exactly, but I assume it was second degree accounts. For first degree intentional homicide, Wisconsin law lists “mitigating circumstances” that downgrade first degree charges to second degree charges if proven true. It’s 940.01, found here.

          • UmeU@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            No worries, the case was complex for sure.

            The lesser charges were 2nd degree intentional homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide.

            For the 2nd degree intentional charge, the prosecution would still have to prove intent. The key difference is that with 1st degree intentional, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. With 2nd degree intentional, they would have to prove that he had the belief that he was acting in self defense but that his belief was unreasonable.

            For the 1st degree reckless, they would have had to prove ‘utter disregard for human life’, which I don’t believe is what happened in this case.

            The lesser charge that the prosecution asked for but was ultimately denied was ‘2nd degree reckless homicide’. It is my personal opinion, having watched the whole trial, that they would have gotten a conviction on that charge.

            Without an intention to kill, and without an utter disregard for human life, he recklessly put himself into a situation where he believed he was acting in self defense, but that belief was unreasonable. 2nd degree reckless homicide, 25 years.

            The judge denied that lesser charge because he said that he thought it would be overturned on appeal… not really his call but that’s the way it played out.