Rittenhouse Trial

[HighwayHunter]

Surprised there isn’t more on this topic already! I’ve been watching as close as I can the last few days and I’d say things are looking pretty good for Kyle. The DA had a small win today but the videos they plan to show kind of suck. I’m no expert but I think rittenhouse will or at least would be acquitted by a reasonable jury. Do you think the prosecution has a chance at convincing the jury to find him guilty of provoking the attacks that lead to two deaths? As of right now I think their argument of “Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum causing Rosenbaum to chase Kyle away before hitting him with his skateboard, then being shot by Kyle” is a very weak argument for provocation. Even more so the video they played today is grainy and hardly ties Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum and Zaminsky within eyeshot of each other considering the size of the crowd. What do our legal experts on TBH think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reconman]

https://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=825481

[tvc184]

I am far from an expert on Wisconsin law but from what I have read, it is like Texas law in that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.

Using Texas law as an example, self-defense does not have to be proven by the defendant. If a defendant brings evidence to trial that he was using self-defense (as Rittenhouse brought evidence), the state has to negate that beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, even if the state can show that Rittenhouse “might have” unlawfully provoked the attacks on him, did the state prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? I don’t think so. I think there was plenty of doubt. There is no legal percentage definition of beyond a reasonable doubt but if you put it in percentages, it would probably be about 99%. So as an example if you’re about 70% sure of something, 30% leaves a lot a reasonable doubt in my opinion.

Again using Texas law (which I think is similar to Wisconsin), even if a person provoked the attack, if the defendant abandoned the encounter, he is again afforded the right of self-defense. (Texas PC 9.31(b)(4))

In the first shooting incident against Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse ran away and was chased and cornered by Rosenbaum. I watched at least one witness in the trial state that Rosenbaum said if he ever caught Rittenhouse alone, he would kill him. That sounds more like Rittenhouse is the victim of a threat, not the person provoking the attack. Again if that was in Texas, I believe that shows that Rittenhouse clearly abandoned the encounter by running away, even assuming there was earlier provocation by Rittenhouse, which I don’t believe and don’t believe the prosecution proved. I believe the provocation under Texas law in the situation would be like if Rittenhouse was in Rosenbaum‘s face making threats. I don’t think the state came even close to proving that against Rittenhouse. Their claim as far as I can tell is that Rittenhouse simply being there With a rifle was a provocation. That seems like a nonsensical argument however it might be all the prosecution has.

I have read a little bit of the Wisconsin law but it seems a little harder to decipher than Texas. There are similarities to it and more than likely self-defense in Wisconsin is effectively the same as Texas.

So to the jury…. Did the state of Wisconsin prove that Rittenhouse provoked the attack by Rosenbaum? I say not at all but certainly there is reasonable doubt.

Once Rittenhouse was cornered, did Rosenbaum give Rittenhouse a reasonable belief from his point of view that he was in danger of serious injury or death? Remember that under Texas and Wisconsin law, you do not have to fear death in order to justify deadly force in self-defense. You only have to reasonably believe that you might suffer serious injury. A broken bone in the arm in my opinion is serious injury under the definition given in the penal code. So this question to the jury is, did Rittenhouse have a reasonable belief that he might suffer at least serious injury and did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he could not have had such a belief? Again I think there is plenty of doubt.

Assuming that the jury finds the first shooting of Rosenbaum was in self-defense, from then on I believe he ran away and tried to abandon the entire encounter. Rittenhouse is the one who was chased down by the others until he tripped and could flee no more. I think the state will be trying to make the case that killing Rosenbaum was the provocation for the second incident however if they cannot prove the killing a Rosenbohm was murder, it seems to automatically negate the second instance of claimed provocation. If you kill someone lawfully trying to break in your home and then flee out the back, is that provoking? Again I think that is nonsensical.

I think the evidence at trial showed reasonable doubt to each aspect that needed to be proven by the state of Wisconsin. I think the defense attorneys need to make a very compelling closing argument to the jury that not only was there a reasonable doubt but this was clearly a case of self-defense and Rittenhouse was the victim, not the aggressor or the criminal.
.

[HighwayHunter]

https://discussions.texasbowhunter.c...d.php?t=825481

That’s weird I searched for it and that never popped up. Didn’t mean to make a separate thread on purpose. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HighwayHunter]

I am far from an expert on Wisconsin law but from what I have read, it is like Texas law in that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.

Using Texas law as an example, self-defense does not have to be proven by the defendant. If a defendant brings evidence to trial that he was using self-defense (as Rittenhouse brought evidence), the state has to negate that beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, even if the state can show that Rittenhouse “might have” unlawfully provoked the attacks on him, did the state prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? I don’t think so. I think there was plenty of doubt. There is no legal percentage definition of beyond a reasonable doubt but if you put it in percentages, it would probably be about 99%. So as an example if you’re about 70% sure of something, 30% leaves a lot a reasonable doubt in my opinion.

Again using Texas law (which I think is similar to Wisconsin), even if a person provoked the attack, if the defendant abandoned the encounter, he is again afforded the right of self-defense. (Texas PC 9.31(b)(4))

In the first shooting incident against Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse ran away and was chased and cornered by Rosenbaum. I watched at least one witness in the trial state that Rosenbaum said if he ever caught Rittenhouse alone, he would kill him. That sounds more like Rittenhouse is the victim of a threat, not the person provoking the attack. Again if that was in Texas, I believe that shows that Rittenhouse clearly abandoned the encounter by running away, even assuming there was earlier provocation by Rittenhouse, which I don’t believe and don’t believe the prosecution proved. I believe the provocation under Texas law in the situation would be like if Rittenhouse was in Rosenbaum‘s face making threats. I don’t think the state came even close to proving that against Rittenhouse. Their claim as far as I can tell is that Rittenhouse simply being there With a rifle was a provocation. That seems like a nonsensical argument however it might be all the prosecution has.

I have read a little bit of the Wisconsin law but it seems a little harder to decipher than Texas. There are similarities to it and more than likely self-defense in Wisconsin is effectively the same as Texas.

So to the jury…. Did the state of Wisconsin prove that Rittenhouse provoked the attack by Rosenbaum? I say not at all but certainly there is reasonable doubt.

Once Rittenhouse was cornered, did Rosenbaum give Rittenhouse a reasonable belief from his point of view that he was in danger of serious injury or death? Remember that under Texas and Wisconsin law, you do not have to fear death in order to justify deadly force in self-defense. You only have to reasonably believe that you might suffer serious injury. A broken bone in the arm in my opinion is serious injury under the definition given in the penal code. So this question to the jury is, did Rittenhouse have a reasonable belief that he might suffer at least serious injury and did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he could not have had such a belief? Again I think there is plenty of doubt.

Assuming that the jury finds the first shooting of Rosenbaum was in self-defense, from then on I believe he ran away and tried to abandon the entire encounter. Rittenhouse is the one who was chased down by the others until he tripped and could flee no more. I think the state will be trying to make the case that killing Rosenbaum was the provocation for the second incident however if they cannot prove the killing a Rosenbohm was murder, it seems to automatically negate the second instance of claimed provocation. If you kill someone lawfully trying to break in your home and then flee out the back, is that provoking? Again I think that is nonsensical.

I think the evidence at trial showed reasonable doubt to each aspect that needed to be proven by the state of Wisconsin. I think the defense attorneys need to make a very compelling closing argument to the jury that not only was there a reasonable doubt but this was clearly a case of self-defense and Rittenhouse was the victim, not the aggressor or the criminal.
.

I agree with most of what you’re saying but I do believe from yesterday’s trial (day 9) they discussed that in Wisconsin you lose the right to self defense if you’re provoking the attack. The prosecution team argued rittenhouse pointed his gun at Zaminsky, provoking an attack from Rosenbaum or something to that effect. Pretty weak argument but it was made. The fear I really have is that the jury is biased because there’s no way they didn’t know about the case and there’s no way they didn’t see mainstream media calling him a white supremacist/terrorist. Most people that don’t follow politics and current events are much more easily swayed by first impressions than those of us who like to get to the bottom of things and form our own opinions. Doesn’t mean they’re dumb or intentionally biased, but it could certainly have an affect depending on how the closing arguments are made. I think it’s open and shut self defense but the defense needs to finish strong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

I agree with most of what you’re saying but I do believe from yesterday’s trial (day 9) they discussed that in Wisconsin you lose the right to self defense if you’re provoking the attack. The prosecution team argued rittenhouse pointed his gun at Zaminsky, provoking an attack from Rosenbaum or something to that effect. Pretty weak argument but it was made. The fear I really have is that the jury is biased because there’s no way they didn’t know about the case and there’s no way they didn’t see mainstream media calling him a white supremacist/terrorist. Most people that don’t follow politics and current events are much more easily swayed by first impressions than those of us who like to get to the bottom of things and form our own opinions. Doesn’t mean they’re dumb or intentionally biased, but it could certainly have an affect depending on how the closing arguments are made. I think it’s open and shut self defense but the defense needs to finish strong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But, like Texas, if you abandon the encounter, you again get to claim self-defense.

This quotes WI law…

“ 939.48(2)(b) (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.”

It shows that if you were in good faith withdraw from the fight (Texas uses “abandon”) and with adequate notice, your right to self defense may be regained. I think turning and running for 100 yards appears to me withdrawing and that is adequate notice.

The next section in the law says that if your intent the entire time was to kill somebody, then self-defense is not an option. Again, the prosecution would have to show that Rittenhouse intended all along to kill somebody and if he did, why did he run until he was cornered? Remember that the state has to prove each point that it uses in prosecution. Any one element that has reasonable doubt, negates the case. If Rittenhouse intended to shoot somebody while pulling a gun, why did he not do so, especially after being threatened?

In prosecution of crime, the state has to prove each element of the crime including the required culpable mental state. There is no argument from the prosecution that, “we proved most of it”. An example from Texas would be public intoxication. There are three elements to public intoxication and those are you have to be in public, you have to be intoxicated and you have to be a danger to yourself or someone else due to that intoxication. The state cannot prove two out of three and win.

Obviously you don’t have to convince you or me but the jury. The state still bears that burden beyond a reasonable doubt. I just want to show that Wisconsin law is very similar to Texas law and that even if you provoke an incident, you could abandon that incident and it does not give the person the right to chase you down and retaliate which is what appears happened in this case…. and that is assuming they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse provoked it to begin with.



.

[HighwayHunter]

But, like Texas, if you abandon the encounter, you again get to claim self-defense.

This quotes WI law…

“ 939.48(2)(b) (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.”

It shows that if you were in good faith withdraw from the fight (Texas uses “abandon”) and with adequate notice, your right to self defense may be regained. I think turning and running for 100 yards appears to me withdrawing and that is adequate notice.

The next section in the law says that if your intent the entire time was to kill somebody, then self-defense is not an option. Again, the prosecution would have to show that Rittenhouse intended all along to kill somebody and if he did, why did he run until he was cornered? Remember that the state has to prove each point that it uses in prosecution. Any one element that has reasonable doubt, negates the case. If Rittenhouse intended to shoot somebody while pulling a gun, why did he not do so, especially after being threatened?

In prosecution of crime, the state has to prove each element of the crime including the required culpable mental state. There is no argument from the prosecution that, “we proved most of it”. An example from Texas would be public intoxication. There are three elements to public intoxication and those are you have to be in public, you have to be intoxicated and you have to be a danger to yourself or someone else due to that intoxication. The state cannot prove two out of three and win.

Obviously you don’t have to convince you or me but the jury. The state still bears that burden beyond a reasonable doubt. I just want to show that Wisconsin law is very similar to Texas law and that even if you provoke an incident, you could abandon that incident and it does not give the person the right to chase you down and retaliate which is what appears happened in this case…. and that is assuming they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse provoked it to begin with.



.

I see now. They didn’t really discuss a conclusion as to whether or not he adequately retreated. Briefly mentioned but it was kind of left open as they were actually discussing something else at the moment and branched off if I remember correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[imyomama]

what i've seen of this trial's underlying is the normalization and justifications for the riots .
the media portrayed all the actions of the rioters as justifiable and labeled them as victims.

it's a lose/lose proposition either way. it paints BLM as the good guys , and Kyle as a white supremacist who brought an ar15 to a mostly peaceful protest.

BLM is untouchable as it is a fundraising organization for the democrat party.
you're literally fighting the establishment .

[47]

If the left truly believed Kyle is a violent felon, they'd be erecting statues of him.

[HighwayHunter]

Well the closing argument was interesting. Binged told the jury that by having a firearm he was provoking the altercations that lead to the shootings so he has no right to self defense. If having a firearm causes you to lose your right to self defense then we’re in for some dark times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hpdrifter]

gun charges were dropped.

[47]

Well the closing argument was interesting. Binged told the jury that by having a firearm he was provoking the altercations that lead to the shootings so he has no right to self defense. If having a firearm causes you to lose your right to self defense then we’re in for some dark times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Their (leftists) true goal is to nullify the 2nd amendment. The idea that someone could possibly receive more prison time for defending themselves than a convicted, **** rapist PEDOPHILE, is disgusting.

[hpdrifter]

Well the closing argument was interesting. Binged told the jury that by having a firearm he was provoking the altercations that lead to the shootings so he has no right to self defense. If having a firearm causes you to lose your right to self defense then we’re in for some dark times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

didn't the judge, just before his closing, say just the opposite?

[HighwayHunter]

didn't the judge, just before his closing, say just the opposite?

I didn’t hear him if he did. I agree on Rosenbaum being a piece of human excrement but it has no bearing in the case. Doesn’t change this entire thing should be an easy self defense. The argument that by owning a gun you’re posing a threat is dangerous and it shouldn’t even be allowed. I still haven’t seen the part in the video the prosecution claims Kyle is pointing his gun at people


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WItoTX]

Well the closing argument was interesting. Binged told the jury that by having a firearm he was provoking the altercations that lead to the shootings so he has no right to self defense. If having a firearm causes you to lose your right to self defense then we’re in for some dark times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The same Kyle that earlier in the day was washing graffiti off a school, who was rendering first aid to injured rioters, the same child who was putting out fires that kept getting started by the rioters, the same kid who was just asked to protect a business?

Yeah **** that prosecutor. Kyle was a saint to the community. The prosecutor will have some serious explaining to do when he shows up to the pearly gates.