# The Rittenhouse trial **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 4, 2021, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798 "2021-11-04T14:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/742 "2021-11-14T21:01:05Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > It seems obvious to me. He was a scared kid. Otherwise why did he carry the rifle? You are really missing the point about what this question is. And there are lots of reasons he could have had for carrying the rifle. One of the more benign ones would be thinking it would be fun to play cop against the awful looters for a day. But the jury question isn’t whether he was, in general, a scared kid. And it has nothing to do with whether he was scared when he decided to carry the rifle. Was he scared, at the moment he fired, that he was in danger of being killed or grievously injured by Rosenbaum? Another possibility (I’m not saying this is what he was thinking, but it’s possible, and therefore the former is not “obvious.”) is that he was getting tired of jogging away from someone who was following him and being confrontational and making him angry. He thought, I’m done with this shit, and turned around and shot him. Again, not saying that’s what he was thinking, but it isn’t obvious that it’s _not_ that. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/743 "2021-11-14T21:02:43Z")
Um, OK. Yes they are. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/744 "2021-11-14T21:04:25Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > Who are they running toward? If an active shooter is running down a school corridor away from the teacher, toward a room full of students, are you saying the teacher can’t use deadly force to stop them? I would think you have to believe that someone is at imminent risk of death or grievous injury. Rittenhouse running down a street away from a crowd does not equal imminent risk of death to anyone, And indeed, if he hadn’t been chased he simply would have kept running. If Rittenhouse had turned and raised his gun in the direction of the crowd, I think a defense claim could be made for shooting him, even at a distance. But he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/745 "2021-11-14T21:05:20Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > > [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > > > > [@Loach](#): > > > > > > The place to do it would have been when Rittenhouse was on the stand. It doesn’t matter if he had an answer ready the prosecution should be ready for that. They certainly can’t bring in new evidence during close. It’s bad strategy to bring up new concepts. The prosecution should be hammering in concepts he brought up during testimony. > > > > Except it’s not new evidence: the video was admitted into evidence already. He is now free to refer to it in his closing and highlight key portions of it, perhaps even use the video and his argument for how it undermines a self-defense claim as one of the last things the jury walks away with before going into deliberations. As to “new concepts” is it really? The whole trial has been about how Rittenhouse was or was not entitled to self-defense. That is the key legal concept. This is just a potentially damming interpretation of the evidence presented, and the conclusions that should be drawn from it, that the prosecutor can use as a final punch to the defense. > > I didn’t say it was new evidence. I said that wouldn’t be allowed at all. Closing is to remind the jury of the case you brought before them during testimony. Switching things up and introducing a new interpretation is not good strategy. I doubt strongly it will happen. I’m also thinking that it might backfire if he did bring it up. The jury may wonder why the prosecutor didn’t ask Rittenhouse when he had the chance. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/746 "2021-11-14T21:09:44Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I would think you have to believe that someone is at imminent risk of death or grievous injury. Rittenhouse running down a street away from a crowd does not equal imminent risk of death to anyone, **And indeed, if he hadn’t been chased he simply would have kept running.** Emphasis mine. Wow, that’s some insight into the alternate reality of what would have happened. The reason I used a hypothetical is because you were speaking in general about what that law means. Not about what Rittenhouse was doing. If a person thinks an “active shooter” is running toward people, you think deadly force can only be used once he raises his gun? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/747 "2021-11-14T21:25:56Z")
The conditionals that are only real in your mind are ultimately of no relevance to the jury, the prosecutor, or anyone else for that matter. Ultimately, what you are proposing is inherently self contradictory and unworkable in any society where one is not legally obligated to be a victim to whomever the state through it’s inaction allows to rampage. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/748 "2021-11-14T21:26:57Z")
I think the person shooting the guy has to get a jury to believe that he thought someone else was in imminent danger. This kid only pulled the trigger during a direct confrontation with angry and threatening people. He wasn’t sniping people. He never shot anyone from a distance. So I think it would be a heavy lift to shoot the kid in the back while he was running away, or to chase him down then shoot him if he wasn’t raising his gun at someone, and convince a jury that you had no choice because it was him or someone else. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/749 "2021-11-14T21:35:23Z")
OK, you’ve just dropped the general contention you were making, and keep going back to Rittenhouse. I was disputing the general proposition you stated. I’m not that interested in debating what exactly the victims were privileged to do based on their hypothetical beliefs. It’s not at issue in the case. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/750 "2021-11-14T21:46:50Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > Was he scared, at the moment he fired, that he was in danger of being killed or grievously injured by Rosenbaum? Another possibility Loach upthread used two terms **legal** and **fact.** Those of you with knowledge of such things are correct beyond question about the legal constructs. The issues being raised by others deal with fact, not legal construct. So if the test is: " \*An objective standard of reasonableness requires the finder of fact to **view the circumstances from the standpoint of a hypothetical reasonable person** , absent the unique particular physical and psychological characteristics of the defendant." Given that standard, if I were a juror, I would say that subjectively he never actually feared for his **life** and objectively he never had reason to fear for his **life**. Factually I believe he was scared shitless. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/751 "2021-11-14T21:53:56Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > The conditionals that are only real in your mind are ultimately of no relevance to the jury Wrong - It’s not what Rittenhouse thought it’s what a reasonable person would have thought - hence the opinion of (me) or in the case under consideration the juror ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/752 "2021-11-14T22:00:00Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > > [@eschrodinger](#): > > > > Was he scared, at the moment he fired, that he was in danger of being killed or grievously injured by Rosenbaum? Another possibility > > Loach upthread used two terms **legal** and **fact.** Those of you with knowledge of such things are correct beyond question about the legal constructs. The issues being raised by others deal with fact, not legal construct. > > So if the test is: > > " \*An objective standard of reasonableness requires the finder of fact to **view the circumstances from the standpoint of a hypothetical reasonable person** , absent the unique particular physical and psychological characteristics of the defendant." > > Given that standard, if I were a juror, I would say that subjectively he never actually feared for his **life** and objectively he never had reason to fear for his **life**. > > Factually I believe he was scared shitless. And if the jury agrees with you he will be found guilty. He could also be found guilty of some or all of the charges. Each victim is a separate charge and they have to determine separately if he acted in self defense with each. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/753 "2021-11-14T22:05:50Z")
Are the final arguments going to be available on TV? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/754 "2021-11-14T23:39:47Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > How about the issue of proportionality. The guy with the skateboard sought to remove a threat to his life. He could not remove himself from the destructive range of the rifle that had just been fired. His move to disarm Rittenhouse was his only defense. Semi-automatic rifle against skateboard is not proportional. Do you think it’s reasonable to believe someone swinging a skateboard at you might cause grievous bodily harm or possibly death? I imagine you could split someone’s scalp, give them a concussion, or beat them to death with a skateboard. In Wisconsin, a person is permitted to use force likely to cause imminent death or great bodily harm in order to prevent suffering imminent death or great bodily harm and the hands of their attacker. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/755 "2021-11-15T00:07:32Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > someone swinging a skateboard In a proportionality contest the AR wins hands down. Rittenhouse proved the point. Rittenhouse had no reason to fear mortal harm. The skateboard guy did. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/756 "2021-11-15T00:21:29Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > In a proportionality contest the AR wins hands down. Rittenhouse proved the point. That’s not what proportionality is about. And obviously his having a rifle did not stop skateboard guy from trying to hit him. I’m not sure how much proportionality comes into it when talking about deadly force. I think of it more in non-deadly force circumstances. If a frail old man is about to unlawfully punch you in the head, you can use force to stop him. But if you’re a golden gloves boxer, that doesn’t mean you can punch him in the head to stop him, because that would be a disproportionate amount of force. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/757 "2021-11-15T01:26:42Z")
I just watched the interview with Rittenhouse mother. That poor kid never had a chance. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/758 "2021-11-15T02:20:30Z")
Again, you fixate on irrelevant concepts. This isn’t about a what is equal in a Platonic ideal of a so-called fair fight. This is simply a question of is it reasonable to fear serious harm from an attack? A mob attacking you with weapons or even a single person attacking you who happens to be a superior fighter leads to the simple answer of “yes.” Ultimately, you don’t like the outcome and are fixated on some sort of semantic demonstration of so-called proof. Not gonna happen. Like it or not self defense is a valid concept in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/759 "2021-11-15T03:54:22Z")
I think Rittenhouse’s testimony about the Rosenbaum encounter doesn’t jibe with narrative’s being espoused in this thread. He said he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed, so no confusion about where the warning shot came from. He also said he wanted Rosenbaum to stop chasing him, and that’s why he turned and pointed the rifle at Rosenbaum. That doesn’t sound like a lawful threat of deadly force to me. (Pointing the rifle at Rosenbaum to make him stop.). There doesn’t seem to be evidence that Rosenbaum did anything to make Rittenhouse reasonably fear for his life until Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at Rosenbaum because he didn’t want Rosenbaum to chase him. > [@](#): > > But in cross-examination, Rittenhouse said that he knew the man, [Joseph Rosenbaum](http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html), was unarmed when he ran at the teenager. Rittenhouse said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him, adding that he knew pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous. > > “He was chasing me, I was alone, he threatened to kill me earlier that night. I didn’t want to have to shoot him,” Rittenhouse testified. “I pointed it at him because he kept running at me and I didn’t want him to chase me.” > > He said he feared Rosenbaum, who did not touch his body at all that night, would take his gun and kill people. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/760 "2021-11-15T04:41:55Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > In a proportionality contest the AR wins hands down. Rittenhouse proved the point. While I certainly agree that an AR-15 is a much or effective weapon than a skateboard, that’s not what proportional means. Proportional in this case just means you can only use a level of force likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm when your attacker is using force likely to case death or grievous bodily harm. If someone picks up a 2x4 and uses it against someone with a rifle, the person with the rifle isn’t obligated to use the butt of his rifle rather than shooting at them. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/761 "2021-11-15T05:25:07Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Do you think it’s reasonable to believe someone swinging a skateboard at you might cause grievous bodily harm or possibly death? I have not gone back to review the clip, but on the first and only viewing it looked like skateboard guy was lunging for KR’s firearm. With the benefit of hindsight, skateboard guy should have just gone for the full body tackle and takedown. KR sure looks to me to be a little man with a gun in his hand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=39)