Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I've seen very little of the Rittenhouse trial. I have a question. [View all]Sympthsical
(9,072 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I've seen very little of the Rittenhouse trial. I have a question. [View all]
Progressive Jones
Nov 2021
OP
He murdered 2 people. This trial is to determine whether or not he goes to jail for it.
ms liberty
Nov 2021
#11
From what I've seen/heard of the autopsy report, Rosenbaum was indeed an aggressor.
Decoy of Fenris
Nov 2021
#4
"Walked after the crowd". Legal. He had as much a right to be there as anyone.
Decoy of Fenris
Nov 2021
#12
KR initiated the aggression by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaugh BEFORE the chase happened ...
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#24
" You can't see anything in that picture." this is false, what was showed during the trial was clear
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#29
No they can't *CONTINUE* or even reinitiate provocation and aggression while running away ...
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#34
"reasonable means to escape from death" isn't shooting at people while running away after provoking
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#39
If someone's trying to kill you, retreating while firing is entirely rational and preferable.
Decoy of Fenris
Nov 2021
#41
Same, you might have a point is Rosenbaum was armed but KR admitted he wasn't and firing at
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#49
Yep, "reasonable means to escape death" isn't shooting at unarmed people while running away
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#46
That's your opinion, and is subject to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Calista241
Nov 2021
#35
that's in and image not an opinion. KRs weapon was NOT pointed towards the ground close to chest
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#36
Even better ***AFTER KR POINTED HIS WEAPON AT ROSENBAUGH BEFORE THE CHASE***
uponit7771
Nov 2021
#23
Especially in light of the absolute trainwreck of a rebuttal that the prosecution gave afterwards
DetroitLegalBeagle
Nov 2021
#27