And this is why no one should be their own lawyer. Random words are not used to write laws. The wording is very specific for a reason. Regular English words that can have multiple or nuanced definitions in regular correspondence have very specific legal meanings. One of those words is reasonable. Anyone who understands the law knows that means it is using the reasonable person standard. That is not and can never be what the defendant randomly feels is reasonable at the time. The reasonable person standard has been defined multiple times in this thread.
I’m not sure who you’re responding to, but nothing about the the “reasonable person” standard requires that the reasonable person act with metaphysical certainty. The reasonable person standard leaves open the possibility that the reasonable person might be mistaken, yet still be privileged to act on their reasonable belief.
Genuine belief vs. reasonable belief vs. actual fact.
The reasonable person standard absolutely allows for someone to be mistaken, no controversy there.
That’s why Good Samaritans who have shot and killed active shooters, or armed robbers, have subsequently been shot and killed themselves by people (sometimes cops) who thought the Good Samaritan was the bad guy. It’s tragic and does happen.
This goes back to why I (a lifelong gun owner with literally five figures worth of guns of all type, including lots of expensive period pieces) generally am not a fan of open carry–even as far back as the Wild West towns were prohibiting open carry for a reason. Texas of all places prohibited open carry for like 120 years before repealing that law in the last few years. Open carry and casual carry exacerbate situations.
Yes sorry if you were saying something different. I thought you were agreeing with Crane that the standard was simply if Rittenhouse felt he was being reasonable which it certainly is not. Yes it can be a mistaken yet reasonable belief. Like if a toy gun that is made to look like a real gun is pointed at you. You are not in mortal danger but it could be a reasonable belief that you are depending on circumstances.
Specifically in Wisconsin law the reasonable person standard is written as the following:
The reasonableness of a person’s belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant’s psycho-social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).
Not irrelevant at all. After Rosenbaum was shot the others felt mortally threatened and moved to disarm Rittenhouse. They moved in self defense against an armed active attacker.
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.
I suspect the jury will impose something on Rittenhouse. I don’t think he’ll just walk away. Probably a few months of soft jail time and parole until he is 21.
I dunno, it’s weird to me that a threat to my life would require me to jump across a street and slam a skateboard into a person who is prone on the ground versus just leaving the area.
It was explained many times over hundreds of posts that both “sides” could be acting under reasonable beliefs. Both Huber and Rittenhouse could have had the reasonable belief they were acting in self defense. All that matters to the jury is if Rittenhouse was acting (legally) in self defense.
A prone shooter in place and firing and you are going to outrun him? Good luck!
I don’t need to out run anything, he’s not chasing me or shooting at me.
Sure. And to my earlier point, which I now believe @loach and I are on the same page on, it may be that Rittenhouse’s subsequent victims had a reasonable belief he was an active shooter and were genuinely in fear for their lives. And it may be that Rittenhouse, at the same time, had a genuine belief his subsequent victims were a mob out to tear him apart after his own (in his mind and perhaps in fact lawful) exercise of “self-defense.”
One or both (Rittenhouse vs. his subsequent victims) may have held some combination of a genuine, mistaken, or reasonable belief, which may or may not have matched up with actual fact. It is legally possible that Rittenhouse was privileged to use self-defense against his subsequent victims, and that his subsequent victims were privileged to exercise self-defense against him, premised on one or more of them acting under a reasonable (but mistaken) belief that the other was threatening them with unlawful force.
That seems patently ridiculous, When people are threatened by someone with a gun they tend to hide or run away. Are you seriously suggesting that chasing someone with a gun who is running away from you is a form of self defense?
The fact that some of the people he shot may have thought he was an active shooter was covered within the first couple dozen posts in the thread, that’s never really been at issue. Something that also was pointed out is just because the people who were shot may not have had “bad intentions”, doesn’t affect if Rittenhouse was acting reasonably at the time he fired his gun, they basically are not related really. The motivations of the shot people don’t matter for evaluating the self-defense claim, unless those motivations were communicated in some way to Rittenhouse (which in as much as they have been, they’ve suggested perhaps bad motivations, although the evidence of that is light.)
Yes we are on the same page. Sorry I misunderstood your previous post.
Yes, this is correct.
We don’t “know” anything from one witness’s testimony. The jury doesn’t have to believe this is exactly how it went down.
I don’t think the guy who fired the “warning shot” testified. I though I read that they haven’t been able to locate him?
Your take on the video is exactly what I saw as well, which is what made me ask about whether there was another view or something, because there were people saying Rosenbaum “clearly” lunged for the gun. The turn and shoot act seemed fairly continuous to me, and I don’t see a lunge. I also see the circling back as curious, and at the very least undermining of a claim that he feared other people around him.
FWIW I don’t believe Huber or Grosskreutz even believed they were acting in self-defense, and I don’t believe Grosskreutz testified to that effect either. I believe both thought they were attempting to disarm / stop a violent criminal. That is not the same thing as self-defense (again, it actually isn’t relevant as to the legality of Rittenhouse’s firing his gun, but it would be relevant if Huber was alive and facing charges or Grosskreutz was facing charges.)
Good point and that is the issue raised by posters above. The law is not clear. Were those who approached Rittenhouse acting in self defense.
The odd thing is that Rittenhouse shooting people is considered self defense while people attempting to disarm the shooter are considered to be attacking him.
Perhaps you can explain the difference.
Sorry, I don’t think Ziminski testified–but he was never “missing”, he was charged by police for firing the warning shot back in October 2020 which is when he made his statements to law enforcement, and the charges were dropped. I’m not actually sure he testified at trial, but he has acknowledged to officials he fired a warning shot.
It’s corroborated by two videos, Ziminski, and audio, and an eye witness. I’m comfortable saying the word “know” and doubt a jury will think otherwise.
Attempting to affect what you would essentially call a “citizen’s arrest” is not actually the same thing as self-defense. Attempting to stop a criminal allows you to use force (including deadly force) in some circumstances, but it’s actually a separate area of common law than self-defense (although sometimes they overlap depending on the situation.) We can only speculate as to Huber’s motivations because he’s dead, but I don’t believe Grosskreutz says he was acting in self-defense, didn’t he literally testify he was trying to stop Rittenhouse because he thought he was an active shooter? That isn’t a self-defense assertion.
If I am subject to being shot at, then disarming the shooter is self defense.
There is also the possibility of “defense of others,” which falls under the same statute as self-defense. Presumably, an active shooter is an imminent threat to everyone around. Sure you could try and run away, but then the law in Wisconsin doesn’t require that (if it did, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion).
ETA: Apparently, this may not be the case. It seems that the ability to retreat may be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the belief that force in self-defense was necessary. Wisconsin is a castle doctrine state, but not, apparently, a stand your ground state, unless I’ve missed something. In which case… Rittenhouse apparently trying not very hard to run from his first victim might be relevant.