And yet, whether Rosenbaum reached or didn’t (and the jury can settle on “didn’t” based on how they weigh the testimony against the video), Rittenhouse had the means to keep that gun well out of Rosenbaum’s reach by simply picking a direction and continuing to run. He did not. He chose to run towards some parked cars, slowed, turned, and fired even as he knew Rosenbaum was in pursuit.
Perhaps so, but I believe Rittenhouse, Zimmerman and Joe Horn have turned public opinion against that point of view.
For reference purposes:
Cleared, but still burdened after split-second decision to fire fatal road-rage shot (tampabay.com)
In this case an unarmed, but angry road rager moves towards the driver’s side window of another motorist’s car. The driver warns him he is armed and tells him to back away, the rager doesn’t and is shot and killed. The driver is not charged–note that the road rager was not armed.
Searls not guilty in ’12 shooting | News | herald-dispatch.com
In this case basically a bar conflicts into one man attacking the other, the man with a gun shoots and kills the unarmed man, and is acquitted on self-defense grounds.
Minnesota man acquitted in fatal stabbing of Wisconsin man - Washington Times
In this case you have a dumb argument about fishing and partying, an unarmed man ends up trying to drag someone from his parked car to confront him. The man in the car pulls a knife and fatally stabs the assailant–who was unarmed, acquitted on self-defense grounds. Note this case occurred in Wisconsin.
I could likely take the time to put a post together with 20+ cases like that just in a few hours, but I’m not sure it is worthwhile. The key thing I’m trying to point out is I think you guys have an unreasonable view of what level of behavior is necessary in a typical self-defense trial to generate the requisite conditions to establish the defendant had a fear of bodily harm. There is no requirement I am familiar with, at common law or by statute, where you have to take a beating first, or that you can’t use a weapon against someone who is using fists.
I think the pathologist was the strongest evidence I had seen against Rittenhouse because the prosecutor was able to argue from that evidence that Rosenbaum was in a horizontal position when he was shot, which raises doubt as to the claim that he was a threat when he was shot.
Yes - our society is far down a very destructive rabbit hole - but that’s another topic.
As McGinnis testified, a lot of people had guns that night. It’s legal in that state. As far as we know only one person tried to take a gun away from someone.
As for running, maybe? How far can a chubby kid run and hope to not get caught? Maybe he was already out of breath? Also remember he slowed and turned around after he heard a gunshot from that direction. Seconds after that he shot Rosenbaum. If he stayed home and didn’t travel the 15 miles to the protests this wouldn’t have happened. If Rosenbaum had stayed home and didn’t travel the 15 miles (but didn’t cross state lines because that seems important to some people) this wouldn’t have happened. That’s not relevant to the case. KR was not shown doing anything illegal prior to the incident. There was no legal reason for Rosenbaum to be chasing let alone attempting to get the gun.
Yes, from the guy who was shooting people.
When Rosenbaum chased down Rittenhouse only one person had fired and it wasn’t Rittenhouse.
Yes those are my thoughts as well.
I’m just gonna concede this point, I think I’m misremembering a nuanced point from another case, re: the lethal or great bodily threat posed by Rosenbaum, particularly if his pursuit was unprovoked (no reason to assume that someone who pursues unprovoked will limit themselves: maybe I’m thinknig of a mutual combat situation). I’m still sticking to my “he had an obligation to retreat if he could” position, though.
I think that point is inconclusive. Not that I think McGinnis is lying, only that I don’t feel compelled to take eye witness testimony as absolute: people can be mistaken, particularly when adrenaline is pumping and things are happening fast. The jury may do the same, and they can hang their hat on the video if they need to.
Don’t know. But then Rosenbaum didn’t exactly look to be in peak shape either, and I doubt he was given his having just come out of the hospital.
Well, it is still disputed as to who provoked whom, and the prosecution did present some evidence at least that Rittenhouse had pointed the gun at someone else that night. And merely pointing a gun at someone is actually a threat of lethal force. It is, for all the person down-barrel knows, the last step before pulling the trigger. If you have to wait for a trigger to be pulled before you can finally call someone with a firearm an imminent lethal threat, then you basically have to wait to be dead.
Anyway, I think there’s room for the jury to convict even on Rosenbaum, even if the jury doesn’t think Rittenhouse provoked the initial encounter and pursuit, even if they grant that Rosembaum posed a threat of imminent lethal force or great bodily harm, provided they consider Rittenhouse’s decision not to just keep running (particularly as he had a weapon in need of safeguarding) to have been an unreasonable one.
And then there are still his other victims to consider.
But of course it may all be moot: the judge has not yet ruled on the earlier motion for a mistrial, and part of me worries that’s only because he wants to give the jury a chance to settle the matter decisively in the defendant’s favor on at least some counts. And if the jury acquits on all charges, then there simply will not be a need for a mistrial.
The fact that he actually attempted to flee is salient to that point. The duty to retreat is not a requirement that you be able to outrun someone, or to run endlessly without ceasing. You have to make a reasonable effort to retreat if retreat is available.
Sure. And FWIW, the part where Rittenhouse is running after he kills Rosenbaum seems closer to what I would expect to see as “reasonable.” Running in the open (not towards parked cars), and only resorting to lethal force as he’s down, overcome, or otherwise unable to continue retreating. The question then is whether he had the same reason to fear those pursuing him as he (allegedly) did Rosenbaum, up to and including his final victim of the night.
ETA: And as @Loach notes, other people had guns that night. Rittenhouse was, of course, the only one who shot someone. And he did it three times. Even one of his victims had a gun, and yet was such a “lethal threat” to Rittenhouse that he never actually used it.
I would say if you’re a defense attorney, when the prosecution is having to resort to arguments about how your client “didn’t run like he should have, he should have gone in this or that direction instead”, you’re probably pretty happy. That means they didn’t have a lot to debunk your self-defense claim with.
Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim is still subject to problems of provocation and the possibility that Rosenbaum himself may have been acting in self-defense and defense of others if Rittenhouse was, in fact, pointing his gun at other people. Pointing your gun at someone is a threat of imminent lethal force. There are many grounds on which the jury might conclude Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim fails, it’s just that the “didn’t run like he should have” (and so was unreasonable) one is the one that is memorialized most prominently on video.
I agree there is room to convict. As I said before I think the pathologist’s testimony will be the key to a conviction. I’m not certain which way it will go. I am reasonably certain that the way the Rosenbaum count goes the rest of the counts will follow.
I will be surprised if there is a mistrial. It’s certainly possible but I think if the judge was leaning that way he would have stopped and made the ruling at the time. I don’t know him specifically but the courts are generally very conscious of the jurors time and sacrifice. If he had any feeling he would call it a mistrial I don’t think he would have wasted their time like that. That’s just a wild guess and he absolutely can rule differently.1
Of course, had Rittenhouse not had the gun, it seems unlikely he would have been attacked in the first place and this would all be moot.
AMEN!
My impression is this judge doesn’t give a shit about the points you are making. I think he is hoping for an acquittal so he doesn’t have to declare a mistrial with prejudice but I believe he will in fact do exactly that if there is a guilty verdict. His bias in this case has been glaringly obvious.
In the videos just prior to the shootings, he’s shown strutting along , making waving gestures to…vehicles? Did he think he was directing traffic or what?