There was a guy who drove 15 miles to Kenosha with a gun. He fired first. That was Joshua Zimimski. He was hanging out with Rosenbaum during the protest and he fired what he called a “warning shot” a few seconds before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. What do you call him? That is the reason I think there is a good chance of acquittal. The gunshot was just as Rosenbaum was chasing down Rittenhouse. That will lead to reasonable doubt.
An idiot, an asshole, and not a murderer.
Wish I could say the same for Rittenhouse.
His reckless actions led to the deaths and may lead to an acquittal.
It’s my understanding that the prosecution trying for first-degree murder. In Wisconsin what does that require? Do they need to prove premeditation? Is there some other factor that can make it first degree? Is the jury allowed to consider lesser offenses? Each state differs when it comes to grading and elements of the various homicide charges and I’m not familiar with Wisconsin law.
Testimony of prosecution witnesses yesterday: Witnesses: 1st victim threatened Rittenhouse, lunged for gun (apnews.com)
Richie McGinniss, who was recording events on a cellphone that night for the conservative website The Daily Caller, testified that Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man shot that night, was killed after chasing down Rittenhouse and making a lunge for the gun.
“I think it was very clear to me that he was reaching specifically for the weapon,” McGinniss said.
Ryan Balch, a former Army infantryman who carried an AR-style rifle that night and walked around patrolling the streets with Rittenhouse, testified that Rosenbaum was “hyperaggressive and acting out in a violent manner,” including trying to set fires and throwing rocks.
Balch said he got between Rosenbaum and another man while Rosenbaum was trying to start a fire, and Rosenbaum got angry, shouting, “If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I’m going to f—- kill you!”
Balch said that Rittenhouse was within earshot and that he believed the threat was aimed at both of them.
So the guy “patrolling” with his shiny metal prosthetic penis in the hopes of “justifiably” murdering some “anarchists” is calling other people “hyperaggressive”. You can’t make this shit up…
This is why civilized places have laws against vigilantism.
I think it’s the better read of the Wisconsin statute that he was legally able to have the firearm, and it’s certainly a confusing statute, so I’m not sure how you “know” differently.
But, more interestingly to me, what’s with the constant talking point about crossing state lines? Why would that matter? Kenosha is basically on the border; that’s not unusual. I went for a walk last weekend by the river and crossed state lines a half dozen times during the walk. Yet people keep noting that he crossed state lines as if it was some major development.
It’s worth mentioning at least two of the “peaceful” protesters–Gaige Grosskreutz and Joshua Ziminski were also carrying firearms. While I fully believe most of the race/policing protests that broke out following George Floyd’s murder were peaceful, and many that were not peaceful, were at least in part (and sometimes in full) not peaceful because of Right Wing provocateurs and violence by police, I also don’t think it’s true that zero of the protests were violent because violent leftists were there. In fact, there is clear evidence in a number of the protests that violent left-wing protesters were at protests doing violence. Whatever the national narrative on these protests, this specific night of protest in Kenosha appeared to not be peaceful, but violent, and it appears both left wing protesters and right-wing counter-protestors were armed and ready for violence that night.
You can pick sides all you want and make fun of people for having guns, but in this case your ire ought to be directed literally at both the protesters and Rittenhouse’s crew, because all evidence points to a situation where it takes two to tango, and if the protesters had not been there acting violently and wielding weapons, it is highly likely no one would have died that night. Now, you can say “if Rittenhouse wasn’t there neither would anyone have died tonight”, and that may also be true, or maybe not–we can’t be sure some of these protesters would not have gotten into it with law enforcement, for example.
Thanks for that update, so I was not aware until reading this that McGinniss was associated with the Daily Caller. That makes me trust his word less, but I’m not sure it makes me believe he’d lie on the stand under oath, which is a different beast from the sort of lying everyone at the Daily Caller does on a regular basis for their jobs.
I am not defending people who set fire to dumpsters or break windows or whatever. Those are illegal acts, and they should be dealt with by law enforcement, to the fullest extent of the law as appropriate. What I take issue with is thugs like Rittenhouse or Balch forming a posse and taking the law into their own hands (with lethal consequences).
The sooner we start prosecuting assholes who act like this, whether or not they hurt anyone, the sooner we can stop reading all these news stories about misguided vigilantes killing unarmed men.
Were I emperor of the planet, I would have had him taken out and executed by a firing squad months ago. This ongoing charade is sadly demonstrating the decaying state of our society in general and our legal system in particular. “Self-defense”? It is to laugh.
The important point here is that McGinniss is a prosecution witness, not a defense witness.
It’s not like the prosecution has presented guys saying that Rosenbaum did not threaten to kill Rittenhouse or lunge for his weapon, and you’re trying to assess McGinniss’ credibility against other evidence.
At least to this point, anyway, that’s all there is. You can’t just conjure up evidence by saying that a witness is not credible therefore the opposite of whatever he says must be true. You need to have something of your own which supports an alternative version.
See, this is the kind of vigilantism I’m against.
By “charade” you mean “trial”?
If the law is badly written, the solution is to fix the law, not toss the rule of law itself out the window. Sort of like Rittenhouse did by going to the scene of an alleged crime and blasting off.
Nitpick but it’s First Degree Intentional Homicide, not murder.
The statute is 940.01. Read it and it might help you decide what may happen here.
The jury can only decide on what is actually charged.
For the record I think what this kid did was immoral, unethical, stupid, and perhaps evil. But under the law he might get off. Pretty interesting case legal wise. If he is convicted the appeals will be just as interesting, probably going all the way to the state supreme court.
Not only that, Rittenhouse had a rifle. He could be a 100 yards away from me and still be a viable threat because I am well within the effective range of his rifle. If he’s “fleeing,” how do I know he’s disengaging and not seeking a better vantage point from which to shoot at me from?
Even if you’re just trying to put a hand on the muzzle and turn it away, you’re still reaching for the weapon. Let’s be fair, you’re not going to be able to differentiate between someone trying to take the rifle or simply push the muzzle aside until they’ve actually grabbed ahold of the weapon. And as as general rule, you don’t let someone grab your weapon if you can avoid it.
Not a nitpick at all. That’s very helpful. I also find it interesting they can’t consider lesser offenses.
Sure. But this just leads to awful scenarios like this, where people get killed based on a stack of conjecture. You assume that Rosenbaum was rushing Rittenhouse to hurt or kill him. You assume that he was trying to take the gun. You assume that he would have used the gun once he’d taken it. And based on all of those assumptions, you use deadly force. But where do the assumptions stop? What’s reasonable? The moment Rosenbaum started walking towards him, could Rittenhouse have assumed that it was a risk to his personal safety to let him even get within arms reach? And gunned him down from across the parking lot?
It all just feels so ridiculous, being able to introduce the only weapon into a confrontation and then use a fear of losing control of that weapon for taking preemptive lethal force.
Rittenhouse posed a lethal threat to the unarmed Rosenbaum. It was a reasonable act of self defense for Rosenbaum to pursue and attempt to disarm Rittenhouse. We have ample evidence that Rosenbaum had reason to fear for his life.
Only part I disagree with is why Rosenbaum had to pursue him. I think he was looking for trouble as much as Rittenhouse was. If he’d just ignored Rittenhouse and let him walk past, he’d still be alive.
That is indeed true.
However in the exchange, Rittenhouse posed a danger from a distance. Rosenbaum could only remove the threat by disarming Rittenhouse.
Agree with both. This is why laws need to be changed – to discourage this scenario.