General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I've seen very little of the Rittenhouse trial. I have a question. [View all]Sympthsical
(9,073 posts)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.