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]Amishman
(5,557 posts)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 persons 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.
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