Or that's some benevolent prosecution.

(Which really, doesn't exist in reality)

The point was if you have a homicide case lead to a not guilty case because of an affirmative defense, I'm pretty sure reckless charges will be dropped.

What I am saying is in negotiations with the prosecutor. I can only speak for the couple of law firms that I worked in.... But the bulk of the work was done before the trial.

Get discovery, talk to client at length, do an overview investigation. If you find there is a solid defense for self defense, then present that to the prosecutor handling the case and perhaps they agree and can dismiss or reduce the charge to something the Defendant/Client can accept.

I don't think many just dismiss reckless charges but keep a homicide charge. Dunno, that'd be some weird prosecutor.

Well... I havent seen it with homicide. But I have seen it in Aggravated Assault and Attempted Murder

Still sounds like you're taking my point out of context though.

No... I do absolutely agree that Self Defense is an Affirmative Defense. As such, to prevail that has to be established in court... at trail.

Its not even relevant at like a prelimiary hearing

??? I'm talking about if you are able to defend a main charge of let's say homicide as being justified, you usually have the other charges dropped.

Let me scroll up... no sure what other charges you are referring to, one sec

"In some situations it is a defense if you are on your own personal property. But that does not absolved of other problems like criminally negligent or reckless behavior."

"If you are found to have acted in self-defense, you generally won't be charged with recklessness, pretty sure."

If you want to get technical, I'll just change the "charged" bit with "convicted"

Ok. I think I see what you are saying.

To set up a crazy example:

Property owner A is in his yard, in a normal subdivision, with this AR 15, popping off rounds at some annoying black birds.

This scars Neighbor B who runs over with his AK 47, is standing on the property line between the two lots and is now screaming that those shots just barely missed his favorite Satellite Dish on his roof that gets all his porn channels.

One thing leads to another. Each points their guns at the other and A ends up pulling his trigger and killing B, but only after B raised his gun and pointed it at A.

That does seem like Self Defense to me.... But, the simple fact A was outside firing off a long rifle in a residential neighborhood is a violation of that city's laws.

He could well be charged with Reckless Endangerment. But does his Self Defense Claim still prevail?

Tennessee's Self Defense Law is a bit goofy. Or at least it use to be..... If at any point the person claiming self defense could have seen to be the aggressor then there is a better than good chance the Self Defense defense would fail.

We're usually talking about reckless endangerment that is a cause of actions of self defense.

That's some pretty round-the-bend interpretation.

Also that's self defense yes, from what you've established as facts thus far.

We're clearly talking about endangerment that is caused in the act of self defense.

So endangerment of those around or in the general area.

I would think that should be a high bar.... like in Rittenhouse..... Politics aside (the idiot should not have been there).....
BUT
From the limited video I have seen and the first portion of the PH I have no clue how we could justifiably find that Kyle acted recklessly in firing a weapon in a crowd if it is determined that he fired out of self defense.

I must admit that I have not see all of the information here.

I am also a public school teacher wishes to smack people who bitch about permits, back ground checks and waiting periods as being just too much to ask - while I watch my students participate in Active Shooter Drills. Or feel uncomfortable because Paul Blart with an attitude problem is our resource officer who clearly gets off on the fact he has the ability to physically restrain students..... BUT......
Is under NO duty to protect them. (one has to ask why they are even there)

Kyle did not fire into a crowd. He only shot those presenting a direct danger to himself. One of those was a miss on a skateboard attacker.
Yes he should not have been there.
Many diff pundits and some of those lawyers have emphasized the restraint Kyle had in his limited fire.
License, permits, back ground checks and waiting periods are all barriers to an enumerated right recognized in the bill of rights.
There should never be a barrier for anyone who would defend the weak amongst us.

Should a single one of the people there have “been there” that night? If not, they should all be facing the same charges.

I don't know how you can just if Kyle should have been there that night in the moral sense without knowing the situation. It was foolish of him though.

IMO Kyle shouldn’t have been there. It was a very bad decision for him to go to Kenosha. Nonetheless, it appears to me after reviewing the video footage that Kyle was acting in a non-legal sense in self defense.

If he was there at the request of a friend in need, wouldn't helping out be the right thing to do?

Kenosha is Kyle's back yard. Works there and has friends.
The ask made sense to Kyle.
Interpreting that Kyle baught the rifle via strawman. That is going to haunt him if true.
The long gun put a target on him for retaliation for snuffing a dumpster.
An instigator fired a shot as he witnessed Kyle and #1 thug cornering causing Kyle to defend.
I don't think anyone is justifying presence.
The self defense claim is not voided for other technical errors.
Possible valid charges from my clearance grade cheap seat:
Straw purchase
17 yo with longarm in public

The irony of this is that the reason mr. Rittenhouse got isolated and hunted, was because he stayed behind to render aid to the enemy.

The part of the training needed to be a combat medic he obviously did NOT acquire.

That is one way to see it, yes.

@Tneedels, you just advanced to level 3!

He should not have been alone, being solo like that is what really drew the idiots to him. If you're by your self in a situation like that then you are really up shits creek without a paddle. I did a lot for my community when I was 16-22 lifeguard, military, LEO. I could have seen myself in a similar situation. It would have been easy to get drawn into when you want to make a difference in your community and have your first chance to make a mark on your world and the place you want to live.

I concur on all those statements, and agree. That was the only point i was going to make, until i decided just to walk away. lol

Have been biting my lip since 2017, and it's getting hard

2009**

Well, don't know what LEO may be , but lifeguard, military, community service etc.

LEO means Law Enforcement Officer

10-4

No, never went police . . My brother, and best friend both usmc as well. non police after 😛

I got hurt at MCRD San Diego

Easy to do

Brother was a champion cross country and played basketball, football, baseball, band. . had a lung collapse during MOS