Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 6
The Golden Ticket - Corporate tickets, functions, Open Air Boxes at the Adelaide Oval, ENGIE, Gabba, MCG, Marvel, Optus & People First Stadiums. Corporate Suites at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
30k Posts
10k Posts
BeanCoiNFT Investor
Song Contest Winner - 5+ Rounds
Podcaster
Pokemon is Life
Pantskyle
Great summary. I just watched the video. Looks like self defence to me. Bonus was that he took out a couple of scumbags.You seem to be imposing a legal verdict based on your moral outrage.
The legislation is quite clear:
"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."
There is the subjective test - what the individual believes, and the objective test - what is reasonable given the circumstances.
The subjective is difficult for the prosecution to attack, because it calls to question the mindset of the individual and, as defendants being witnesses go, Rittenhouse's evidence was quite concise and the prosecution likely did not cause anyone on the jury to reconsider Rittenhouse's beliefs as part of the cross-examination.
This leads to the objective test. Was the force used reasonable?
The prosecution has properly identified that the first shooting is the key to discrediting Rittenhouse's reasoning.
If the first shooting is considered by the jury as self-defence then virtually all other dominos fall. So what is the factual matrix that is painted by both the witnesses for the prosecution and defence during the last two weeks.
1. Rittenhouse is recorded numerous times in the hours prior to the shooting. One recording is an amateur "interview" where Kyle outlines his intentions (whether you accept them or not). Rittenhouse stipulates that "our job is to protect this business, my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harms way". In another piece of footage he can be seen shouting and asking if anyone needs medical attention. You can argue voraciously that Kyle was putting on an act in these videos, however, it does paint a compelling picture as to Rittenhouse's alleged intentions and state of mind prior to any of the incidents.
2. A number of witnesses (outside of Rittenhouse himself) provide consistent evidence that in the hours leading up to the incident they are approached by Rosenbaum whilst standing in front of a car lot who attempts to start an altercation and Rosenbaum explicitly states that if he catches any of them alone he will attempt to kill them. This threat is conveyed on at least two occasions and it is directed at Rittenhouse specifically. At the time the defenders of the car lot have a number of support people, all of which are armed and while they take this threat seriously all understand that there is safety in armed numbers.
3. I believe that evidence is led that at some point the parties associated with Rittenhouse (including Rittenhouse) observed Rosenbaum wielding a long chain prior to him disappearing until the first altercation.
4. Rittenhouse is separated from his party by a police line.
5. Minutes before the incident Rosenbaum is recorded causing property damage to a large dumpster, setting it on fire and pushing it into the street.
6. Moments before the incident Rittenhouse is recorded with an extinguisher in his hand moving towards a burning vehicle.
7. Drone footage demonstrates that Rosenbaum hides in wait just off the main road as Rittenhouse passes by his location.
8. Rittenhouse then bursts into a sprit with Rosenbaum following a number of paces behind and gaining on Rittenhouse.
9. Rosenbaum throws his plastic bag of contents at Rittenhouse. This lands near Rittenhouse's feet.
10. A third party about 20m behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum shoots a handgun into the air immediately after 9.
11. While Rittenhouse's back is turned Rosenbaum continues to rush at him. This is confirmed in footage (see here).
12. Rittenhouse is cornered by motor vehicles and Rosenbaum lunges at him.
13. The time between Rittenhouse turning around to face Rosenbaum and the shooting occurring is less than a second. This is lead in the evidence by Dr John Black.
14. The distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum is two feet or less at the time of the shooting.
At no point during the trial has the prosecution been able to dislodge any of these material facts.
The problem for them is that these facts about the events paint a very compelling explanation as to reasonableness.
Particularly damning is point no. 2. The indisputable fact that Rosenbaum made threats to kill contingent on him isolating any defenders of the car lot gets to the very heart of reasonableness. Had this not occurred I believe that the prosecution could cast doubt that Rittenhouse's actions were disproportionate (not that this raises their case to "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it would be far closer).
The only way that the prosecution can pull a win out of this train wreck is if they can demonstrate provocation as required in the criminal code 939.48(2).
If Rittenhouse can be demonstrated to provoke the attack he is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence and must exhaust every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his assailant. It is worth noting that this privilege may be regained by Rittenhouse at any time if he withdraws from the fight.
The problem for the prosecution is four-fold.
1. The evidence that Rittenhouse provoked the fight is scant. The prosecution produced grainy and under-exposed drone footage (that the judge ruled that they were unable to "pinch and zoom" into) of Rittenhouse purportedly raising his gun mere moments before Rosembaum started chasing him. The problem is, firstly, very few people (including Judge Schroeder) advised that they could see this action which the prosecution was arguing was tantamount to provocation. Also, anyone accepting the footage demonstrated what the prosecution suggested had to accept that Rittenhouse raised his gun with his left hand. As a right-hander this would've been a very unnatural position to fire from and is not consistent with the way that Rittenhouse held his gun in the copious amounts of footage both prior and during the altercations.
2. The person that Rittenhouse allegedly pointed the gun at to cause provocation did not testify. Further, this individual was definitely not Rosenbaum. Virtually the only evidence led was the grainy drone footage.
3. Regardless of whether it is found it is open to the jury to determine that Rittenhouse provoked the altercation there is evidence to demonstrate that Rittenhouse was withdrawing from the fight and the right to self-defence began applying again.
4. The question of provocation has to be considered in light of initial point 2 - Rosenbaum had previously threatened Rittenhouse. It appears to me to be problematic to prove provocation when the party being provoked had previously verbalised their intention to kill the other party.
The question of provocation has been left to the jury to determine.
This is the prosecutor's only hope. I cannot fathom that a jury will be satisfied on the legal standard of proof to determine that provocation occurred and Rittenhouse did not take steps to withdraw from the fight.
If it is found that Rittenhouse acted in self-defence as to the first shooting then the other incidents necessarily need to be considered upon the presumption of the first.
Rittenhouse was running towards the police line.
He fell over and was assaulted by jump-kick guy and then Huber with a skateboard without justification (remembering that if self-defence has been established both jump-kick guy and Huber have acted unlawfully).
Further, Grosskreutz made the astonishing admission to defence on cross-examination to the question "it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, now your hands down pointing at him, that he fired. Right?". To which Grosskreutz replied "correct". This is pretty damning exculpatory evidence.
Based on the above the only murder in this situation is the one that you are proposing where Grosskreutz was actually given the opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse.
Now you might not care about any of the above, however, I have found the last half a dozen pages exhaustive reading without any shred of legal analysis.
The term vigilatisim has stigmatism and does not rightly apply to this situation. Rittenhouse is not a hero and may have displayed a lack of judgment and common sense being in the situation but under the Wisconsin penal code he is not a murderer (although with their juries everything remains on the table).
We need to set aside our Australian sensibilities about gun laws and use and consider the laws of the land (whether we like them or not) and how the factual matrix played out.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
The way I see it, by simplifying it into a 'what would you do in a simple kill or be killed', you're entering into power fantasy territory as opposed to reconciling the nature of what he's done, whichever side of things you fall on as far as his behaviour is concerned. Reality is, you don't end up in a 'kill or be killed' situation without making a series of choices in that direction.
I just watched the Grosskreutz testimony where's he confirmed that he was only shot after pointing his handgun, and then a follow up interview with CNN about the "confusion" around that very statement.He definitely a gives very shady vibes.Thanks, while I won't get into the character and upstandingness of the "victims" it is interesting to note that the only two people who, on the evidence, displayed the requisite intention to commit homicide was Rosenbaum himself (with his earlier threats and then actions leading up to the first shooting) and potentially Grosskreutz, whose ex-roommate posted this after the event:
What I don't get is how a key witness was so poorly prepared by his legal counsel and the prosecutor, that when asked about pointing his handgun at Rittenhouse he apparently fumbled.
I did read that in eaglespremiers excellent summary, sounds pretty much dismissed?
This evidence has been put to the jury.
The shot is below and the parties are located in the distance in this frame.
The judge remarked that he could make out nothing in the footage, however, it was admitted as evidence to the jury with instructions on the scope of provocation.
Also IIRC, as Rosenbaum tries to pursue him Rittenhouse yells "friendly, friendly, friendly" at least according to witness Richard McGinnis:
This evidence has been put to the jury.
The shot is below and the parties are located in the distance in this frame.
The judge remarked that he could make out nothing in the footage, however, it was admitted as evidence to the jury with instructions on the scope of provocation.
Also IIRC, as Rosenbaum tries to pursue him Rittenhouse yells "friendly, friendly, friendly" at least according to witness Richard McGinnis:
It would have been chaos.
A fabulous post. I haven't found a similar clear breakdown on MSM, perhaps I am looking in the wrong places.You seem to be imposing a legal verdict based on your moral outrage.
The legislation is quite clear:
"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."
There is the subjective test - what the individual believes, and the objective test - what is reasonable given the circumstances.
The subjective is difficult for the prosecution to attack, because it calls to question the mindset of the individual and, as defendants being witnesses go, Rittenhouse's evidence was quite concise and the prosecution likely did not cause anyone on the jury to reconsider Rittenhouse's beliefs as part of the cross-examination.
This leads to the objective test. Was the force used reasonable?
The prosecution has properly identified that the first shooting is the key to discrediting Rittenhouse's reasoning.
If the first shooting is considered by the jury as self-defence then virtually all other dominos fall. So what is the factual matrix that is painted by both the witnesses for the prosecution and defence during the last two weeks.
1. Rittenhouse is recorded numerous times in the hours prior to the shooting. One recording is an amateur "interview" where Kyle outlines his intentions (whether you accept them or not). Rittenhouse stipulates that "our job is to protect this business, my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harms way". In another piece of footage he can be seen shouting and asking if anyone needs medical attention. You can argue voraciously that Kyle was putting on an act in these videos, however, it does paint a compelling picture as to Rittenhouse's alleged intentions and state of mind prior to any of the incidents.
2. A number of witnesses (outside of Rittenhouse himself) provide consistent evidence that in the hours leading up to the incident they are approached by Rosenbaum whilst standing in front of a car lot who attempts to start an altercation and Rosenbaum explicitly states that if he catches any of them alone he will attempt to kill them. This threat is conveyed on at least two occasions and it is directed at Rittenhouse specifically. At the time the defenders of the car lot have a number of support people, all of which are armed and while they take this threat seriously all understand that there is safety in armed numbers.
3. I believe that evidence is led that at some point the parties associated with Rittenhouse (including Rittenhouse) observed Rosenbaum wielding a long chain prior to him disappearing until the first altercation.
4. Rittenhouse is separated from his party by a police line.
5. Minutes before the incident Rosenbaum is recorded causing property damage to a large dumpster, setting it on fire and pushing it into the street.
6. Moments before the incident Rittenhouse is recorded with an extinguisher in his hand moving towards a burning vehicle.
7. Drone footage demonstrates that Rosenbaum hides in wait just off the main road as Rittenhouse passes by his location.
8. Rittenhouse then bursts into a sprit with Rosenbaum following a number of paces behind and gaining on Rittenhouse.
9. Rosenbaum throws his plastic bag of contents at Rittenhouse. This lands near Rittenhouse's feet.
10. A third party about 20m behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum shoots a handgun into the air immediately after 9.
11. While Rittenhouse's back is turned Rosenbaum continues to rush at him. This is confirmed in footage (see here).
12. Rittenhouse is cornered by motor vehicles and Rosenbaum lunges at him.
13. The time between Rittenhouse turning around to face Rosenbaum and the shooting occurring is less than a second. This is lead in the evidence by Dr John Black.
14. The distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum is two feet or less at the time of the shooting.
At no point during the trial has the prosecution been able to dislodge any of these material facts.
The problem for them is that these facts about the events paint a very compelling explanation as to reasonableness.
Particularly damning is point no. 2. The indisputable fact that Rosenbaum made threats to kill contingent on him isolating any defenders of the car lot gets to the very heart of reasonableness. Had this not occurred I believe that the prosecution could cast doubt that Rittenhouse's actions were disproportionate (not that this raises their case to "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it would be far closer).
The only way that the prosecution can pull a win out of this train wreck is if they can demonstrate provocation as required in the criminal code 939.48(2).
If Rittenhouse can be demonstrated to provoke the attack he is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence and must exhaust every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his assailant. It is worth noting that this privilege may be regained by Rittenhouse at any time if he withdraws from the fight.
The problem for the prosecution is four-fold.
1. The evidence that Rittenhouse provoked the fight is scant. The prosecution produced grainy and under-exposed drone footage (that the judge ruled that they were unable to "pinch and zoom" into) of Rittenhouse purportedly raising his gun mere moments before Rosembaum started chasing him. The problem is, firstly, very few people (including Judge Schroeder) advised that they could see this action which the prosecution was arguing was tantamount to provocation. Also, anyone accepting the footage demonstrated what the prosecution suggested had to accept that Rittenhouse raised his gun with his left hand. As a right-hander this would've been a very unnatural position to fire from and is not consistent with the way that Rittenhouse held his gun in the copious amounts of footage both prior and during the altercations.
2. The person that Rittenhouse allegedly pointed the gun at to cause provocation did not testify. Further, this individual was definitely not Rosenbaum. Virtually the only evidence led was the grainy drone footage.
3. Regardless of whether it is found it is open to the jury to determine that Rittenhouse provoked the altercation there is evidence to demonstrate that Rittenhouse was withdrawing from the fight and the right to self-defence began applying again.
4. The question of provocation has to be considered in light of initial point 2 - Rosenbaum had previously threatened Rittenhouse. It appears to me to be problematic to prove provocation when the party being provoked had previously verbalised their intention to kill the other party.
The question of provocation has been left to the jury to determine.
This is the prosecutor's only hope. I cannot fathom that a jury will be satisfied on the legal standard of proof to determine that provocation occurred and Rittenhouse did not take steps to withdraw from the fight.
If it is found that Rittenhouse acted in self-defence as to the first shooting then the other incidents necessarily need to be considered upon the presumption of the first.
Rittenhouse was running towards the police line.
He fell over and was assaulted by jump-kick guy and then Huber with a skateboard without justification (remembering that if self-defence has been established both jump-kick guy and Huber have acted unlawfully).
Further, Grosskreutz made the astonishing admission to defence on cross-examination to the question "it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, now your hands down pointing at him, that he fired. Right?". To which Grosskreutz replied "correct". This is pretty damning exculpatory evidence.
Based on the above the only murder in this situation is the one that you are proposing where Grosskreutz was actually given the opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse.
Now you might not care about any of the above, however, I have found the last half a dozen pages exhaustive reading without any shred of legal analysis.
The term vigilatisim has stigmatism and does not rightly apply to this situation. Rittenhouse is not a hero and may have displayed a lack of judgment and common sense being in the situation but under the Wisconsin penal code he is not a murderer (although with their juries everything remains on the table).
We need to set aside our Australian sensibilities about gun laws and use and consider the laws of the land (whether we like them or not) and how the factual matrix played out.
So, unanimous jury either way required, if hang, retrial?
