Current Events > Legal Eagle analysis on Kyle Rittenhouse

(+) Yeah! (+)

Great video, here you go

https://youtu.be/IR-hhat34LI

---

Was literally about to post this.

The comments section is uncharacteristically vitriolic for a Legal Eagle video. People mad all round, despite his perfectly balanced and legally accurate analysis.

---

Spoil me, what's the outcome?

---

if he's so good den why hasn't he put trump in jail yet????
---

KneeOnBest posted...

Spoil me, what's the outcome?

Basically, Rittenhouse is a dick who provoked attacks, but still had the right to defend himself with deadly force because you always have that right against perceived deadly force.

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

The comments section is uncharacteristically vitriolic for a Legal Eagle video. People mad all round, despite his perfectly balanced and legally accurate analysis.

Same as Bruce Rivers, another lawyer reaction channel.

This trial is bringing out the worst in people, and by people I mean brain dead dipsticks.

---

KneeOnBest posted...

Spoil me, what's the outcome?

While he doesn't outright give his opinion he says that it's likely the prosecution failed to disprove self defense beyond reasonable doubt to the jury and that if Kyle was shot and killed by Gaige then he would be getting off the hook by the same laws.

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

Basically, Rittenhouse is a dick who provoked attacks, but still had the right to defend himself with deadly force because you always have that right against perceived deadly force.

That's literally not at all what he says.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That's literally not at all what he says.

Well the floor is yours.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That's literally not at all what he says.

In what way is what I said wrong?

Apart from him not literally calling Rittenhouse a dick?

---

Huh, surprised this didn't pop up on my feed. Watching shortly
---

Xavier_On_High posted...

In what way is what I said wrong?

Apart from him not literally calling Rittenhouse a dick?

He didn't say Kyle provoked anyone. He also definitely didn't say you always have the right to defend yourself with deadly force against perceived deadly force.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

He didn't say Kyle provoked anyone. He also definitely didn't say you always have the right to defend yourself with deadly force against perceived deadly force.

What did he say then? (Havent watched the video)

If Kyle provoked Rosenbaum, he wouldn't have had a case for self defense.

---

BroodRyu posted...

What did he say then? (Havent watched the video)

You have to watch the video but the high level summary is:

1. Self defense law is highly contextualized by state.
2. Wisconsin requires a duty to retreat if you provoked the attack before you can use deadly force in self defense.
3. Provocation in Wisconsin requires unlawful conduct. Curfew is likely unjustifiable because lots of people were violating curfew and there weren't mass provocation incidents. And he's legally allowed to possess a non-short barreled rifle as a minor so he wasn't committing a crime there either.

---

Sad_Face posted...

If Kyle provoked Rosenbaum, he wouldn't have had a case for self defense.

That's not 100% true. The video goes into it further.

---

Random YouTuber gives opinion

Cares

---

PatrickMahomes posted...

Random YouTuber gives opinion

Cares

lol this is a bad take, even for you
---

Who is this dude and why should I care?

Sorry, I legit never heard of him. Is he like some Youtuber lawyer or something?

---

HagenEx posted...

Is he like some Youtuber lawyer or something?

Hes a real lawyer who also does YouTube videos about being a lawyer. I saw his videos for the first time when he was rating lawyers from tv shows & movies. Rating them on how real it was and such
---

HagenEx posted...

Who is this dude and why should I care?

Sorry, I legit never heard of him. Is he like some Youtuber lawyer or something?

https://stonelawdc.com/about

---

Oh so a Lawyer Youtuber.

Aight.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

He didn't say Kyle provoked anyone.

Devin points out multiple instances that he says could each individually be construed as provocations, such as pointing a gun, firing near people but not at them, etc.

He also definitely didn't say you always have the right to defend yourself with deadly force against perceived deadly force.

The 11:00 mark in the video, he describes the circumstances under which use of deadly force is lawful, and even points out that it can still be lawful even if you're the provoker.

---

Not sure what point you guys that keep saying that lame shit are trying to make

btw that was at hagen and muffinzor
---

Xavier_On_High posted...

Devin points out multiple instances that he says could each individually be construed as provocations, such as pointing a gun, firing near people but not at them, etc.

Can be construed as =/= he provoked people, and he provides reasons why someone might reasonably consider Kyle as having not provoked anyone.

Xavier_On_High posted...

The 11:00 mark in the video, he describes the circumstances under which use of deadly force is lawful, and even points out that it can still be lawful even if you're the provoker.

Can be =/= you always have the right. He very clearly states a case law precedent that says if you provoke someone then kill them it's murder. He then goes on to state that duty to retreat provides an exception to that precedent in Wisconsin.

Literally one of the first things he says is "you can't make any blanket statements" and if you've watched his channel for a while the answer is always "it depends"

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

You have to watch the video but the high level summary is:
1. Self defense law is highly contextualized by state.
2. Wisconsin requires a duty to retreat if you provoked the attack before you can use deadly force in self defense.
3. Provocation in Wisconsin requires unlawful conduct. Curfew is likely unjustifiable because lots of people were violating curfew and there weren't mass provocation incidents. And he's legally allowed to possess a non-short barreled rifle as a minor so he wasn't committing a crime there either.

Makes perfect sense. Why would anyone think breaking curfew would be a provocative act when everyone involved was breaking curfew?

My analysis would be that Rittenhouse should have had better judgement of going down there in the first place and I'm sure in retrospect he learned his lesson. It's sad that people were setting things on fire, etc. and he did have every legal right to be there; but it was still bad judgement and trouble waiting to happen. The same could be said for the people who were also down there participating and disobeying police orders and curfew. It was at night, the protest was over. No one should have been there at that time.

What ended up transpiring, though, was a clear self defense case. Rosenbaum clearly had some issues, which were well documented throughout the trial. It's clear that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse to the point where Rittenhouse had no other option at that point.

What transpired afterwards was mob mentality. Not everyone chasing Rittenhouse knew exactly what happened with him and Rosenbaum nor did they see it. Some could have assumed Rittenhouse was a random gunner, specifically, Huber. Maybe Huber thought he was trying to stop a threat (I'm not 100% familiar with Huber's account or evidence regarding him besides his attack on Rittenhouse). Grosskreutz, on the other hand, did have some idea of what happened and Rittenhouse told him directly that he was going to the police but Grosskreutz continued to follow.

A bad situation all around, but Rittenhouse was not the aggressor and was seen fleeing and running away.

As a side note, all these Youtubers sound the same to me. I guess they use the same equipment... kind of annoying.

---

Houston posted...

My analysis would be that he should have had better judgement of going down there in the first place

He also talks about that funny enough, that's towards the end of the video. While it's required to get a murder conviction in a case like this, it's not enough to pass the reasonable doubt standard.

---

Cornmuffins posted...

Not sure what point you guys that keep saying that lame shit are trying to make

That he's a Youtube Lawyer.


---

KneeOnBest posted...

Spoil me, what's the outcome?

He was basically forced to concede that the defense made the case that Kyle acted in self-defense while trying his best to not upset his subscribers by framing it in a dishonest way by saying things like Kyle was acting like a vigilante and shot Rosenbaum in the back. He waited until after the trial to make a video on it because he knew it would piss off his audience to say Kyle is not guilty like all the legitimate YouTube lawyers were saying. Still, it was more accurate than the news was reporting events and he restrained his bias enough to not call him a white supremacist or anything like that.

Why people take Legal Eagle seriously goes to show how easily people can be fooled by a cheap suit and set. The guy is either a fraud or a piss-poor lawyer who speaks in areas not in his specialty (copyright). People figured this out when he said a guy touching Captain Marvel's newspaper was battery or when he scammed his gullible woke audience out of an unknown amount of money filing an anti-Trump FOIA when he knew (or should of known) that it would be a waste of time and money.

---

uh huh
---

People need to get over it, its now old news

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

Basically, Rittenhouse is a dick who provoked attacks, but still had the right to defend himself with deadly force because you always have that right against perceived deadly force.

this

---

Kolibri X posted...

He was basically forced to concede that the defense made the case that Kyle acted in self-defense while trying his best to not upset his subscribers by framing it in a dishonest way by saying things like Kyle was acting like a vigilante and shot Rosenbaum in the back. He waited until after the trial to make a video on it because he knew it would piss off his audience to say Kyle is not guilty like all the legitimate YouTube lawyers were saying. Still, it was more accurate than the news was reporting events and he restrained his bias enough to not call him a white supremacist or anything like that.

Why people take Legal Eagle seriously goes to show how easily people can be fooled by a cheap suit and set. The guy is either a fraud or a piss-poor lawyer who speaks in areas not in his specialty (copyright). People figured this out when he said a guy touching Captain Marvel's newspaper was battery or when he scammed his gullible woke audience out of an unknown amount of money filing an anti-Trump FOIA when he knew (or should of known) that it would be a waste of time and money.

This is a very sad, desperate post.

HagenEx posted...

That he's a Youtube Lawyer.

I think hes asking why that matters. Hes still a lawyer (and I believe hes certified in multiple states)
---

What does he say about crossing state lines?

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

What does he say about crossing state lines?

Why are you so obsessed with state lines

LinkPizza posted...

I think hes asking why that matters. Hes still a lawyer (and I believe hes certified in multiple states)

He is, and he knows that. Maybe he doesnt and is just talking out of his ass. Not sure which is worse
---

Background_Guy posted...

Why are you so obsessed with state lines

I do think its a good question. Especially since many states have different laws. Some of which have clauses about crossing state lines
---

Aw man koribi put me on ignore :(
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

What does he say about crossing state lines?

Crossing states is a non issue here. While the gun crossed state lines Kyle wasn't the one to bring it and nobody at the protest could reasonably determine he was out of state anyway.

---

Regardless of what the letter of the law states, the spirit of the law should be respected as well. Rittenhouse obviously travelled a great distance with evil intent. Hes not innocent for that reason. It was planned self defence, and that shouldnt be acceptable.

Cornmuffins posted...

Not sure what point you guys that keep saying that lame shit are trying to make

btw that was at hagen and muffinzor

I literally have no clue as to what you are referring.

---

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Regardless of what the letter of the law states, the spirit of the law should be respected as well. Rittenhouse obviously travelled a great distance with evil intent. Hes not innocent for that reason. It was planned self defence, and that shouldnt be acceptable.

Legal Eagle talks about that at the end of the video. That said I don't really think he drove "a great distance" I've driven that far just for d&d games.

---

Background_Guy posted...

This is a very sad, desperate post.

Just keep coping like your slimy, charlatan law analyst over here.

Cornmuffins posted...

Aw man koribi put me on ignore :(

Don't lie. I don't have anyone on ignore.

---

Kloe_Rinz posted... Rittenhouse obviously travelled a great distance

Still can't tell if people are genuinely ignorant of the case when they say this, whether they are being intentially obtuse, or whether its some sort of metropolitan urbanite particularity to actually believe 20 miles is a great distance.

---

sutree posted...

Still can't tell if people are genuinely ignorant of the case when they say this, whether they are being intentially obtuse, or whether its some sort of metropolitan urbanite particularity to actually believe 20 miles is a great distance.

Every tried walking 20 miles? You know how long that takes the average person?

---

Tag for later
---

I love legal eagles videos. I admit that I'm kinda annoyed he won't take a (my) side, he does make it explicitly clear that no matter what is believed by who, the jury did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even though he seems to very much like he heavily implies that not only did he provoke the first incident, it would have been the same legal outcome if someone killed rittenhouse. I will always probably look at him as a murderer.

---