As per Grosskreutz testimony (that I just pulled up) he was over a block away and coming from Rittenhouse’s rear when he heard the first shot, and then approached Rittenhouse. He wasn’t being shot at when he approached Rittenhouse. When he actually reaches Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse points a gun at him (during which time Grosskreutz then points a gun at Rittenhouse) I’d argue there is likely a self-defense claim had Grosskreutz fired faster and killed Rittenhouse at that moment. I do not believe that Grosskreutz pursuing Rittenhouse for over a block, running towards the sound of gunfire, demonstrates that he was being “shot at” and only then pulled his gun. Rather it sounds like someone running towards a shooter–which if we want to assume best motives means he was considering trying to take a shooter out or render aid to victims, but there is nothing in Grosskreutz own testimony that suggest he was haplessly being shot at and had no choice but to pull his gun out to disarm Rittenhouse, in fact he says the opposite–that he wasn’t party to the initial shooting and ran towards the sound of the shooting.
I’m not sure what isn’t clear. There is only one person on trial. What other people were thinking isn’t relevant since they are not on trial.
The reasonable person standard is used because what is relevant is what the defendant knew at the time of the incident and whether it was reasonable to think he was in mortal danger. The defendant doesn’t know the thoughts or motivations of others he only knows the action. Given what was happening around him at the time was it reasonable to use deadly force to protect himself. It’s pretty simple.
Right, this is actually the core point–it really doesn’t matter what the non-Rittenhouse actors thought. The only relevance to them in terms of this trial is what they did and how a reasonable person would interpret it.
Thanks for the clarification.
Also that one witness was a prosecution witness. No one refuted his testimony. There is no other narrative for the jury to consider. What that witness said about the Rosenbaum shooting is the only story the jury can consider.
Except that in the text of the law you posted, it specifically requires the attack to be unlawful in order to claim self defense. If the attackers were in fear of their lives, as an ordinary person having witnessed Rosenbaums demise would assume, then disarming Rittenhouse would have been lawful.
Was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse after he shot Rosenbaum unlawful?
They have the drone video as well. The prosecution can, in its closing, argue that the jury should weigh that testimony against the video and consider the video definitive evidence the witness was mistaken or confused on certain points. And the defense can, in its closing, argue that the video is grainy and doesn’t really clearly dispute certain elements of the witness’ testimony that are favorable to the defense. And the jury is free to credit one interpretation of the evidence over the other and arrive at its own findings of fact based on that evidence and how they choose to weigh it. Personally, I think the video undermines certain elements of the eye witness testimony (and we all know eye witness testimony can be unreliable, right?) that would otherwise be favorable to the defense. And not necessarily because the witness is lying, mind you: things happened fast, and it was a while ago, and human memory being what it is…
Pesky nuances
They could, but to my point that the prosecutor did not raise the concern you had–that Rittenhouse circled back, at the time the video was shown, would mean it’s unlikely he thinks it’s an important issue. Prosecutors generally want to make their argument at the time the evidence is shown when it’s freshest in the jury’s mind, not mention it days later in closing after not mentioning it during examination. That’s highly suggestive the prosecutor simply doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the “circle back” being legally important.
If I had to guess he probably didn’t raise the point because something that happens after the shooting is of less interest in proving or disproving a self-defense claim.
I went back and read what he posted–it actually says “reasonably believes to be unlawful” the factual status of its lawfulness not being determinative.
I did not watch the trial, but was there even an opportunity for the Prosecutor to raise that yet? Closing arguments are tomorrow. Which is precisely the time one would expect the Prosecutor to shift from presenting evidence to actually making an argument as to what the evidence shows.
Whose examination? Apart from showing that portion of the video, what more did the prosecutor need to do? And what more could he have done? He doesn’t get to make “arguments” outside of opening/closing, right?
Yes–the prosecutor can’t make his close while examining evidence but he can ask questions to set the tone for the jury. The questions that were raised from the drone video actually were ones that are more salient legally–specifically ones that related to a finding that Rosenbaum’s body was impacted by the bullets at a “downward angle” showing he was horizontal at the time of the shooting (a forensic specialist testified to this and the video was purportedly to corroborate.) The prosecutor’s focus with the video was establishing that the video shows Rosenbaum basically was already falling when Rittenhouse shot him.
So, you propose that it is the belief of the individual involved, which for Rittenhouse is:
“whatever occurs to a scared 17 year old”
I’ve determined further discussion along this particular line of inquiry is no longer productive with you. I have stated my opinions and my view of the law, as have others, with cites to back it up. Further discourse on it that just produces circular arguments is not productive.
Self defense includes defense of others. There are numerous examples of people, often unarmed, who have heroically rushed active shooters to try to stop mass shootings.
How do the videos corroborate the timing of the “warning shot”?
That’s not really how it works. And if there are videos showing the same things, the jury can draw their own conclusions, and don’t have to rely on a “narrative.” Or they can decide something is unknown – by disbelieving the witness, and no other evidence is available.
Indeed you have clearly stated your belief then consistently countered it. I don’t argue that it is not one or the other but it cannot be both. It’s either an absolute standard of ‘ordinary and reasonable’ or it is the relative standard of the ‘arbitrary choice of the person under duress’. You don’t get both.
No.
Sorry the reply has to be more than 5 characters.
It’s not both.
I give up - which one is it?
The reasonable person standard. Should I just put this on repeat?