The Rittenhouse trial

[bobot]

@Loach

Sorry the reply has to be more than 5 characters.

I’m pretty sure that if you add an emoji, that counts as 3.

[Loach]

Ok

[Sam_Stone]

@eschrodinger

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.

I don’t think so. It might be a citizen’s arrest, it might be heroic, it might be legal - but it isn’t self defense.

[eschrodinger]

@Crane

You don’t get both.

There is a subjective and an objective component. The 17-year old has to actually be in fear for his life in the ways that have already been specified. And his fear has to be objectively reasonable – that is, a reasonable person would have had the same belief in those circumstances.

If you don’t understand this, can you be more specific about what part is confusing you?

[ASL_v2.0]

@Martin_Hyde

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.

Sure… But the question is, how could the prosecutor have emphasized the video of Rittenhouse walking back more other than just showing it? I would suspect that if he were to ask his witness, “And this segment here, where the Defendant is walking back, is that consistent with someone running in fear for their life from a mob of protesters?” would get objected to as something the witness is not qualified to provide an answer on (sorry, not a lawyer, don’t know what the precise form of the objection would be). That the prosecutor didn’t metaphorically draw a bright red circle around that segment of video doesn’t mean he doesn’t intend to put forward the same conclusions I have (that it’s not consistent with Rittenhouse’s story of being genuinely in fear for his life and indicates he did not make a sincere attempt to retreat from the threat), it might just mean there was not way to elicit testimony to that effect from a witness.

I mean, he could have asked Rittenhouse what he was thinking then on cross, but I suspect Rittenhouse would have had a self-serving answer ready, along the lines of “I was in shock and disbelief” or “I was looking to see if he needed medical assistance.”

So I hope to see the prosecutor make the appropriate argument in his closing, perhaps even display the video again during that portion of his closing.

[Loach]

@eschrodinger

@Sam_Stone

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?

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.

@Martin_Hyde

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.

How do the videos corroborate the timing of the “warning shot”?

@Loach

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.

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.

If the prosecution witness says Rosenbaum was trying to take the gun, the defense is saying he was trying to take the gun and the video is unclear what way is the jury going to go? Sure they could come up with a different theory but where will they get it?

[ASL_v2.0]

@Loach

If the prosecution witness says Rosenbaum was trying to take the gun, the defense is saying he was trying to take the gun and the video is unclear what way is the jury going to go? Sure they could come up with a different theory but where will they get it?

Well the jury could say, “Gosh, the video is unclear, but it sure looks like if Rosenbaum reached at all, it was only as Rittenhouse turned to shoot, and that expert testified and made it sound like the shots came at a downward angle, so I think maybe it was more like an act of desperation by Rosenbaum as he realized he was about to be murdered, and the prosecutor makes a really good point [in his hypothetical closing] about how Rittenhouse didn’t really seem to be trying to retreat, and how he circled back so he didn’t really seem to be in fear of anyone else in the area.”

[eschrodinger]

@Sam_Stone

I don’t think so. It might be a citizen’s arrest, it might be heroic, it might be legal - but it isn’t self defense.

Why do you think that defense of others wouldn’t apply if there were an active shooter? Here’s the Wisconsin law. The releant part is (4), and then (1). I’m quoting the whole thing to have it available for reference on other points.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

(1m)

(a) In this subsection:

1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).

2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.

(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.

2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:

a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.

b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.

(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

[Crane]

@eschrodinger

subjective and an objective component

Thanks

Obviously he feared for his life

The fear was not objectively reasonable because he had overwhelming force at his disposal

Is that the way the decision will be reported by the jury

[Loach]

@ASL_v2.0

@Martin_Hyde

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.

Sure… But the question is, how could the prosecutor have emphasized the video of Rittenhouse walking back more other than just showing it? I would suspect that if he were to ask his witness, “And this segment here, where the Defendant is walking back, is that consistent with someone running in fear for their life from a mob of protesters?” would get objected to as something the witness is not qualified to provide an answer on (sorry, not a lawyer, don’t know what the precise form of the objection would be). That the prosecutor didn’t metaphorically draw a bright red circle around that segment of video doesn’t mean he doesn’t intend to put forward the same conclusions I have (that it’s not consistent with Rittenhouse’s story of being genuinely in fear for his life and indicates he did not make a sincere attempt to retreat from the threat), it might just mean there was not way to elicit testimony to that effect from a witness.

I mean, he could have asked Rittenhouse what he was thinking then on cross, but I suspect Rittenhouse would have had a self-serving answer ready, along the lines of “I was in shock and disbelief” or “I was looking to see if he needed medical assistance.”

So I hope to see the prosecutor make the appropriate argument in his closing, perhaps even display the video again during that portion of his closing.

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. I agree with Martin that if it hasn’t been brought up by now it won’t be brought up in closing. Not that I think your point has no validity. I don’t think the prosecutor believes it does.

[eschrodinger]

Having a rifle doesn’t prevent a person from being shot dead by a handgun.

[ASL_v2.0]

@Crane

The fear was not objectively reasonable because he had overwhelming force at his disposal

That’s quite the paradox you’ve constructed.

[eschrodinger]

@Crane

Obviously he feared for his life

I don’t necessarily think this is obvious at every point where he used deadly force. The jury doesn’t have to believe him. There is plenty of evidence to support it, but they could interpret things differently.

[Crane]

@eschrodinger

Having a rifle doesn’t prevent a person from being shot dead by a handgun.

Rittenhouse faced considerable potential danger but he had overwhelming firepower

Actually that was his problem. Without the rifle nobody would have messed with him.

[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.

[Sam_Stone]

@eschrodinger

(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

This is the part that references a third party. It requires that you see an innocent person you believe is about to be killed, so you step in and defend them. For example, a burglar breaks into your house and is about to kill your wife or child, so you shoot him even though your own life isn’t in danger.

Chasing someone who is running away does not meet any of those criteria.

[Crane]

@eschrodinger

I don’t necessarily think this is obvious

It seems obvious to me. He was a scared kid. Otherwise why did he carry the rifle?

I used to carry a pistol in my back pack when I worked remote archaeological sites. When I reflected on why I carried it, I realized it was because I was scared. If I was scared I had no business working remote sites. I got rid of the gun and I wasn’t scared any more. Seems inverted but that’s the way it works.

[eschrodinger]

They are running away from you.. That’s not the question in a defense of others claim.

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?

[Crane]

@eschrodinger

Who are they running toward?

Rioters in a riot are turbulent.

[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.