I've seen very little of the Rittenhouse trial. I have a question.

[Progressive Jones]

During the trial, has the prosecution noted that after Rittenhouse committed his first murder (Rosenbaum), the people he claimed were "attacking him" were justified in their actions as they were trying to subdue a violent criminal?

[left-of-center2012]

1. Yes

[greytdemocrat]

2. Where/when

Has it been determined that Rittenhouse murdered anyone
or have you just jumped to that???

[ms liberty]

11. He murdered 2 people. This trial is to determine whether or not he goes to jail for it.

[FBaggins]

15. Untrue. He killed two people

The trial is to determine whether those killings were illegal (e.g., "murder" )

[ms liberty]

18. Legally, yes those hairs would split that way. But outside a court of law

I can make my own judgement from the facts available. The presumption of innocence is a legal standard and I am not on the jury, I am an interested observer. I would say that the trial is to determine if he is legally guilty of murder. Morally, I think it's clear he is a murderer, hence my use of the term when talking about him.
And now I must go, it's treadmill and get ready for work time. Have a good day!

[NewHendoLib]

48. no, you are a library posting annoying troll

[marble falls]

52. A little slow in the book stacks????

[NewHendoLib]

53. she's not a seed...but certainly seedy!

[ms liberty]

55. What the heck? I attracted a troll and I MISSED IT???

Damn. I always miss the fun.

[NewHendoLib]

56. Just library girl for the 4,886,545,334th time

But who's counting!

[Bluethroughu]

20. In the cross examination by the procesecutor of Kyle

He asks Kyle if any of the people he shot had any kinds of weapons and names guns, knives, bats etc...Kyle answers no to each specific item.

Then the prosecutor is interrupted by the judge in the middle of questioning because he just admitted he shot into an UNarmed crowd.

The judge then begins to talk about how a mob can be threatening in of itself. Then Kyle begins to rephrase his narrative that the crowd was threatening him and he had to defend his life.

Then they discuss that someone behind him shot into the crowd, so he was scared and shot at the first victim, then a kid with a skate board swung his skate board at him because the crowd came at him to disarm him but he shot the second guy that was pulling his gun from him, then the medic with a gun told him to put the gun down and as he began to raise his gun the first one KYLE saw, and as the medic was on the ground by the man who was shot, he shot his arm, and it was a grusome sight, but the guy still didn't shoot Kyle.

Kyle then ran toward the police line yelling someone was shot and kept running until he got home across state lines, it's about a 25 minute drive, later that evening and found out he was dox by the drone in the area. Then went to Antioch IL police to turn his murdering ass in.

The procesecution laid it out event by event with clips and Kyle's admission to everything as it happened. With the judge periodically interrupting and giving his opinion on what he thought could have happened or what he thought Kyle could be feeling. This was while Kyle was answering the questions himself. It didn't work, the prosecutor kept to task and pulled Kyle back, but Kyle was listening to the judge and would add some legal defense line of I was defending my life. It was complete BS the kid is a menace to society.

[rampartc]

3. rittenhouse was an "active shooter"

but what were these armed white guys, one from waco tx, doing there during curfew?

[maxsolomon]

37. who was from waco?

and what does that have to do with anything?

[Decoy of Fenris]

4. From what I've seen/heard of the autopsy report, Rosenbaum was indeed an aggressor.

It doesn't take a forensic analyst to come to the same conclusion; Rosenbaum was reaching for Rittenhouse's gun, moving forward, at point blank range. It's basic math and geometry.


The kid shouldn't have had a gun, but Rosenbaum's grievous lack of common sense seems to have precipitated all of this; Taking the politics out, a suicidal serial child-molester made a grab for Rittenhouse's gun, paid the ultimate price, and was followed by two others (one of whom also had a gun, the other tried to dome him with a plank) trying to do the same.

Rittenhouse will walk on the murder charges at the -very least- IMO. He may get off scott-free. He shouldn't, but this entire scenario couldn't have played out better in his favor.

[left-of-center2012]

5. I have been watching the trial live on Court TV

I am unclear as to where you get your 'facts'.

[Decoy of Fenris]

6. Rosenbaum was at point blank range.

He was shot in the hand and body at a distance and angle consistent with the defense's testimony. The wounds also match the ballistic profile for the ammunition used fired from the gun involved. Forensic analysis backed up the Defense in every count and for every shooting, but that's patently obvious to anyone with even the most elementary and rudimentary understanding of trajectory, geometry or ballistic physics (You only need one, take your pick and read up).

Look, I get it, we want this guy to get whacked for being a piece of shit, which he is, but facts don't lie and I'm not a fan of peddling dishonest propaganda. And if you were watching "Live on Court TV", may I suggest you spring for a Tivo (or whatever obsolete tech they use nowadays) to watch it again? The coroner obliterated the prosecution on every count; The defense couldn't have asked for or paid for for a better testimony.

[left-of-center2012]

7. Well, that is your opinion

My opinion sides with the prosecution.
Thanks for your input.

Have a nice day.

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. Of course. No reason we can't be civil about this.

I'm just looking at it from a pure mathematical and statistical analysis. Too many are willing to immediately forgo fact for emotion, but neither you nor I are on the jury, and active dialogue is healthy.

I will say this; While I don't -expect- a conviction on any murder charge, the motherfucker deserves to serve time for taking lives. It's just that the law doesn't, IMO, currently support that. If I'm wrong, then it's pleasantly so and I look forward to it.

A good day to you too, sir.

[Amishman]

14. His is backed up by the medical examiner and the reporter's testimony

Medal examiner's testimony confirms the distance, the pinky burn pattern means Rosenbaum's hands were both extremely close to and past the end of the barrel.

The drone video and reporter's testimony make a good case for Rosenbaum being the aggressor; casing KR down and attempting to take the gun.

The initial version of what happened has not held up well to video and testimony.

[Chille]

50. Correct

I heard them say he had soot on his fingers

[Woodswalker]

8. Your just focused on part two of the story

And you've been sold on the defenses cock n bull about this poor Lil kid only there to help people. This kid walked after the crowd that already has moved on with the excuse to find people to help after things calmed down at his original location because he was bored. He randomly starts raising his AR at people as he's approaching. WTF did you think was going to happen.

[left-of-center2012]

10. Okie dokie smokey

Thanks for your input.

Have a nice day.

[Decoy of Fenris]

12. "Walked after the crowd". Legal. He had as much a right to be there as anyone.

That's where the prosecution falls apart; Rittenhouse was no more or less "legal" than anyone else at that point; They all had a right to be there. Yes, that includes Rittenhouse, including his gun, thanks to Wisconsin's overarchingly broad firearms laws (Which, after a cursory view, need -heavy- revisions. Good lord they're poorly written).

Only one person leading up to the shootings was an actively aggressive agent, that being Rosenbaum. Given his character history, a history the prosecution VERY wisely decided to avoid triggering by subjecting Rittenhouse's character to scrutiny, there's no doubt in my mind that Rosenbaum was the type of "Little-big-man" looking to prove himself by acting tough. In this case, it cost him his life.

[janterry]

19. it's good to read this

I'm not happy about it, but these appear to be the facts - from what I can see.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

9. Yes

But its irrelevant to the case at hand. Self defense claims are not negated by the other party also claiming self defense. The state of mind and the reasonableness of his actions knowing what he knew at the time of the shootings are what matters. Everything else, including the actual facts as we know them now, take a back seat.

[FBaggins]

17. So much clearer than my answer

[FBaggins]

16. Many times. The problem is - that doesn't matter

If they were being brought up on charges for assaulting him, they would have a clear defense that they believed that he was a threat.

But they aren't and that isn't how the law works. It doesn't look at two sides and try to figure out who the "good guy" was... and the other one goes to prison. The question is only who is being charged and whether or not they thought that they needed to defend themselves. Not whether they actually did have to.

[Bucky]

21. That's a great question

Rittenhouse's defense is predicated on the vanity that the whole mob of protestors were there to attack him.
It's the ultimate narcissistic Republican delusion. He thought he was Charles Bronson in Deathwish III

[Sympthsical]

22. It is possible for multiple parties to have self-defense claims

That's what makes things complicated in all this. It is possible Rittenhouse believes his life is in danger while at the same time, the second two attackers believe they're subduing a criminal.

Whether or not a self-defense claim is valid is up to what a jury thinks the person reasonably believes at the time. So, we introduce all the video, testimony, and forensics to figure out if it was reasonable he believed he is in danger at the time.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there's no way Rittenhouse felt he was in danger or that he caused a provocation of the attack. Legal provocation. Not, "He shouldn't have been there. Just being there provoked Rosenbaum." That's the internet standard, not the legal one.

I mean . . . given all the evidence we now have, I just don't see how people get there. At least on the murder charges. The lesser, I'm less certain about. I admit, I didn't sit there memorizing the jury instructions. But if the first shooting is self-defense, the other two can be too. It doesn't matter what the second two victims think. It matters what Rittenhouse thinks at the moment he shoots them.

That's the only thing that matters when considering whether he's guilty or not of what he is charged with.

[uponit7771]

24. KR initiated the aggression by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaugh BEFORE the chase happened ...

... then pointing at Rosenbaugh again WHILE RUNNING.

A person doesn't get to become an aggressor and repeat the aggression while retreating.

After KR shot Rosenbaugh then he became and active shooter, all bets are off at subduing him

[Sympthsical]

26. I don't agree with the claim

You can't see anything in that picture. That's why they argued about it so much. It's a Rorschach test. And it's going to be the one thing people hang their hats on if they want to reach a guilty verdict while ignoring literally everything else.

Rittenhouse himself admits pointing the gun at Rosenbaum after he begins chasing him. We have this on video. So that's not in dispute.

We have this blurry ass picture and no testimony to it. It is very strange we have all this video and testimony leading up to things, but hey, what are these pixels over here? Rifle! Case over, folks!

Not buying that even slightly. I don't think a jury will either.

[uponit7771]

29. " You can't see anything in that picture." this is false, what was showed during the trial was clear

... and so was testimony to it.

People can twist themselves into whatever knot they want to convince themselves that a crowd of people chased after KR for no reason at all after a night of not chasing after KR at anytime before then.

Also, a person who PROVOKES an incident CAN NOT claim self defense running away committing the aggression.

[Sympthsical]

30. Actually, in Wisconsin law, they can

Even allowing I agree with you he was pointing his rifle at people before Rosenbaum chased him - which I very much don't. But let's say I did agree with you. He still has a valid legal argument for self defense.

The relevant statute:

939.48 2 (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.

Provocation does not automatically mean self defense disappears never to return.

That's why the prosecution in closing made the claim he had an avenue of retreat while the defense denied it, citing the wall of people. That is in case the jury decides there was provocation. It can still be self defense under the law.

So even assuming your claim about pointing the rifle prevails, that doesn't mean it wasn't self defense. Not in Wisconsin.

[uponit7771]

34. No they can't *CONTINUE* or even reinitiate provocation and aggression while running away ...

... and claim self defense.

That doesn't even make rational sense, shooting at people running away isn't "reasonable means to escape from death" in this context.

KR's "self defense" claim diminishes when he turns around while running away and points his gun towards Rosenbaum ... AGAIN.

The image is clear enough, KR's weapon sure wasn't pointed down towards the ground close to chest

[Decoy of Fenris]

38. Yes they can. The law, in WI. and nationally, disagrees with you. n/t

[uponit7771]

39. "reasonable means to escape from death" isn't shooting at people while running away after provoking

... and aggression.

That doesn't even sound rational on its face

[Decoy of Fenris]

41. If someone's trying to kill you, retreating while firing is entirely rational and preferable.

As anyone with a military background or a rudimentary grasp of history/tactics could tell you, turning a 180 and running like hell just means you get stabbed/shot in the back. You back away, keeping any weapon you have forward to dissuade someone from continuing an attack. This was common doctrine going back as far as the Battle of Hastings; It's not a new concept, though for some reason it apparently has fallen out of common knowledge.

[uponit7771]

45. KR admitted to knowing Rosenbaum was unarmed,

... this situation.

KR turned around and shot at an unarmed person chasing him, that's not "reasonable means to escape death" ... come on.

KR could've just kept running, he didn't ...

What KR defenders are claiming is open season in WI to

1. provoke an incident with KNOWINGLY unarmed person
2. run away from unarmed person claiming life is in danger
3. turn around and shoot armed person while running away

the 3rd part isn't "reasonable means to escape death" in this context knowing the person isn't armed and in the case of KR he could've ran away.

There have been too many cases of "duty to flee' that have defined this already.

[Decoy of Fenris]

47. I got a LOT of shit to do, but thank you for the dialogue.

I disagree, but I don't have the time to give you the thoughtful response you genuinely deserve. Thank you for the exchange, and I'm sure we'll cross swords again when Rittenhouse is Convicted/Acquitted, one way or another.

But I'll say this; Don't get your hopes up.

[uponit7771]

49. Same, you might have a point is Rosenbaum was armed but KR admitted he wasn't and firing at

... unarmed people running away isn't "reasonable means to escape death"

[Sympthsical]

43. I don't know what to tell you. The law says precisely what it says. n/t

[uponit7771]

46. Yep, "reasonable means to escape death" isn't shooting at unarmed people while running away

[Amishman]

33. under WI law, he can do that.

I've posted this a few times, I'll dust it off again

The law is not intuitive in this scenario.

WI 939.48

(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.

So pointing his rifle at someone, his unwanted presence there, being armed in general, putting out fires, etc - all of this would cause him to lose the privilege of self defense under section (a)

The problem is section (b) says that that privilege is regained by withdrawing / fleeing, which it is pretty clear on video that he did.

Now section (c) says if the provoking actions were done with the intent to bait an attack and allow the provoker to cause bodily harm, they cannot claim self defense. I know we all are thinking 'yes, the little shit did!'. The problem is proving intent in court is really really difficult. Other than a few tidbits (like the stupid tiktok video about trying to be famous), there just isn't nearly enough evidence to prove intent to the degree required by the law. Compounding that issue are KR's documented examples of giving aid, putting our fires, and his connections to the town despite not living there - all of these together give a counter-narrative to explain his presence.



To address your description, when KR began running away from Rosenbaum, he satisfied (b) and regained the privilege of self defense.

When KR turned and pointed the rifle at Rosenbaum during the chase, Rosenbaum's shouts and pursuit satisfy the legal criteria for him to be considered a threat. (chasing someone is pretty much universally a bad idea from a legal perspective). KR was legally able to point it as part of the act of self defense. Think about it, if pointing a firearm at someone who is a threat is a provocation, it would be impossible to ever legally use a gun in self defense.

There also is the issue that the video capture shows a figure carrying and pointing the rifle left handed. KR is right handed and fired his gun from that position during the shootings. That left / right swap definitely would be very odd and introduces doubt over that piece of evidence.

[Calista241]

35. That's your opinion, and is subject to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

IMO, both sides have a legitimate argument as to what's in the photograph.

I can't see shit in the photograph, and couldn't tell you if it's a definitive photograph of the rifle or not. It is clear, that Rittenhouse would have to be holding the rifle in his off hand for it to be what the prosecution wants it to be. I find that an unlikely set of circumstances.

In any case, Rittenhouse fled 25 yards away while being chased before he shot the 1st guy. Is he just supposed to get his face beat in by this irrational guy chasing him?

[uponit7771]

36. that's in and image not an opinion. KRs weapon was NOT pointed towards the ground close to chest

... in that image no matter how hard his defenders want to squint their eyes.

[uponit7771]

23. Even better ***AFTER KR POINTED HIS WEAPON AT ROSENBAUGH BEFORE THE CHASE***

KR was the aggressor when he pointed his weapon at Rosenbause ***BEFORE*** the chase happened.

KR explains it was to "deter" Rosenbaugh but I haven't heard what KR deterring Rosenbaugh from before the chase.

Also, the DA went to explain they guy in the yellow claiming KR was pointing his weapon at people BEFORE he even got to Rosenbaugh.

[Tomconroy]

25. I haven't watched much of the trial but I did watch the

defense's closing argument out of professional curiosity.
Have to give a hat tip to a pro.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

27. Especially in light of the absolute trainwreck of a rebuttal that the prosecution gave afterwards

Ending the trial on that note was terrible.

[Tomconroy]

28. Turned that off. It was too painful.

[Sympthsical]

31. The defense provoked him successfully

The prosecutors have a bit of a prickly ego. especially the one giving the rebuttal. The defense has needled them several times during the trial, and they've reacted. I don't know what that rebuttal was, but it was absolutely something. When he devolved into a rant about bloggers, I just blinked. And then he started tearing his own witness, Debruin, a new one. Dude, he was your witness. I think the defense knew exactly what they were doing by calling the prosecutors corner-cutting liars. It was to get that reaction in front of a jury.

Mix in that completely tone deaf one-sided shouting match he seemed to be having with the jury.

It was totally bizarre.

[Tomconroy]

40. I didn't watch the state's closing and I missed the start of the defense

Closing. So he did call the prosecutor a liar. From what I had read I assumed he would. And the dude just sat there and kept quiet?

[Sympthsical]

42. There were almost no objections during closing

And the defense was not shy about impugning the prosecution's motives.

[mcar]

32. Yes

Prosecution made that very clear in their closing statements. Also noted that the defense is claiming that only Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

57. It sounds like the Prosecution had a good closing

Link to tweet

Speaking with CNN's John Berman on Tuesday morning, two legal experts expressed surprise at the strong closing argument presented by the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case and said the jury may not let the young man who pleaded self-defense after killing two BLM protesters off the hook.

With the jury to be winnowed down from 18 to 12 via a lottery on Tuesday, Brooklyn Law School Assistant Professor Alexis Hoag told the "New Day" host: "The prosecution really delivered."

"I think they used the weekend well to bring their narrative together," Hoag continued. "What they did was deliver a compelling story arc, that's what jurors want to hear. They want the evidence, they want the witnesses to make some sort of sense."

"Their overarching narrative was you had this person coming in from outside, not defending their own property, not defending their own family, nor their home, bringing a gun, looking for a fight," she continued. "Then they peppered it with the highlights of evidence jurors saw, reinforcing repeatedly their storyline and the story arc. We saw the drone footage. We saw it when Rittenhouse shot, initially, Mr. Rosenbaum. He was on the ground, he wasn't lunging or attacking. Of course, that was the defense's characterization, so the prosecution actually really delivered."