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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.