Rittenhouse trial goes to opening statements after jury set

The areal video shows he was not trapped, but being trapped is not a requirement for self defense claim. He stopped in his tracks and turned to fire when he heard the shot and Rosenbaum kept his momentum, so they were going to collide. That might be enough for self defense. We shall see.

There is also this: "Rittenhouse is charged with recklessly endangering McGinniss’ life and faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted."

 

Wrong.

he was cornered and ran out of room to flee

 

I'm now more convinced hes innocent.

 

If his claim of self defense against Rosenbaum is upheld (and I don't see how it couldn't be after today's testimony about Rosenbaum's death threat against Kyle and Rosenbaum lunging for Kyle's rifle), the jury has to acquit him on recklessly endangering McGinnis.

source: Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

Had Kyle actually injured McGinnis, the state could make this case under the "first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire" exception, but McGinnis was uninjured (at least by Kyle - someone else punched him in the face later), so that ain't going to work here.

 

This is remarkable progress in only a few days. Kudos to you.

 

Yeah.

Here it is, HD.

Best Case for KR, is Acquittal on the Homicide Related Charges (Which would include Acquittal on both counts the Reckless Charge, each of which carries a 12 1/2 Yr Max).

COUNTS 2 AND 5

First-degree recklessly endangering safety
The law defines this crime as recklessly endangering another person’s safety under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.

Mr. Rittenhouse is charged with recklessly endangering two people who, according to the criminal complaint, had shots fired toward them but were not hit: Richard McGinnis and an unknown male seen in video of the episode.

The crime is a class F felony that carries a basic sentence of up to 12 and a half years in prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or both, for each of the two counts.

However, I do believe that there is a Prima Facie case on the weapons possession charge which carries a 9 Month Max.

COUNT 6

Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
Though Wisconsin is an “open-carry” state where it is legal for adults to carry firearms openly, state law prohibits minors from doing so. Mr. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shooting.
This crime is a Class A misdemeanor that carries a basic sentence of up to nine months in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

So, when I said he would get convicted of "something", I was alluding to the certainty that he will be convicted of the weapons possession charge.

Obviously, getting a conviction on the 1st Degree Homicide charge seems like pipe dream.

As far as counts 2 and 5?

At this point, I will be very interested in the Prosecution's strategy in proving the elements of Counts 2 and 5 (beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

If you believe a conviction for the homicide charges are a "pipe dream", then the "recklessly endangering safety" charges are too. I've already shown how the law protects Kyle from the charge regarding McGinnis if his self-defense defense is upheld. And I can't see a jury acquitting him for shooting the pedophile, Huber, and Grosskreutz, but deciding that those shots at jump-kick man (while he was in the act of kicking Kyle in the head) were just too much.

As for the possession charge, there's some dispute about some poorly-drafted Wisconsin laws that might give Kyle a loophole, or might get the whole charge tossed for unconstitutional vagueness, but if the weapons charge sticks ... well ... even Bernie Goetz had some minor weapon possession violation stick.

The true best case for Kyle is that the jury acquits on all charges, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them acquit on all the others, and then basically toss their hands up and say, "this kid did nothing wrong, leave him alone. There were dozens of people carrying weapons that night, why single him out for persecution?" and acquit him on the weapons charge too. That's what I'd be arguing if I were on the jury.

 

I love it when people assume they're teaching other people a new word that they already knew....

Perhaps if he is found guilty, some of the hoplophobes on the left will be mollified.

 

The shooting took place among the six cars left of the building. Clearly there was plenty of room to run, but to me that seems irrelevant, because he has already made an attempt to retreat. Him NOT being in a corner does not invalidate self defense claim. Why do you argue he was in a corner, when the evidence clearly shows that was not the case?

Could it have something to do with the fact that the others didn't shoot anyone?

That is beyond obvious, and it is also possible. I still stick to my original stance which is "possible, but unlikely"

 

Has anybody watched the trial at all? I was so perplexed as to why the prosecution was pretty much laying out the defenses argument.

Something occurred to me earlier today. It's a show trial. They can't get him on the biggest charges will probably let go of the lesser charges and there seems to be a lot of cameras. I think it's to show that he's not guilty.

 

You see a point in charging him only to show he is not guilty?

When prosecution does not have a case, they don't press charges, which is common in clear-cut self defense cases.

He may well be found not guilty in the Rosenbaum case, but his bigger challenge in with the other two shootings.

 

If he’s not guilty in Rosenbaum then the attacks made on him further make even less sense and even more fit into the box of self defense.

 

I don't think so. The people trying to stop him were under the impression he was a killer on the run, and IMO court might see the chase as an attempt at 'citizens arrest'. They didn't see the Rosenbaum shooting so all they knew was that he shot someone and was trying to get away. That is my view, but we'll see. How does it work? If he WAS a killer on the run, is he still entitled to kill more people and claim self defense? Can you kill a cop and claim self defense because the cop was heavy handed? We know the answer to that.

 

There is no justification for using violence for an alleged ‘citizens arrest’. Kyle only reacted to those that actually attacked him.

 

Prosecution had a very bad day. Prosecution called witnesses that basically verified that Rosenbaum was reaching for Kyle‘s gun when it was in a downward position. That Rosenbaum lunged for it. Another witness that verified Rosenbaum had threaten to kill Kyle earlier in the day.

 

There is such justification. Whether or not it is applicable in this case remains to be seen. What was Kyle doing in Kenosha? Basically the same thing.

About citizens arrest in Wisconsin
" such arrests are covered by common law or judge-made law. Those laws allow citizens to make arrests under one of two conditions. The first is when a citizen has probable cause to believe that the person they are arresting has committed a felony. The second is when someone witnesses a misdemeanor and the misdemeanor is a breach of the peace."

 

We've had to do it in the past

Except when they need a show trial

Less of a challenge in those two. One of the people he shot attacked him with a skateboard and the other had a gun in his hand.

It's looking more and more like a show trial.

 

Well first all nobody out there was an innocent bystander as they were out there smashing property, starting fires, and generally breaking the law anyways past the city’s ordinance about being on the street at night. So they were hardly innocent bystanders. Secondly, Kyle had every right to try and escape and evade an angry mob and remove himself from an extremely dangerous situation. Note he was trying to run towards the police, not away from them. Third, the other two men shot attempted to assault Kyle as well. Kyle was well within his rights to defend himself. A reminder the law in Wisconsin says if he had an object reasonable fear for his life then deadly force is authorized. I would argue, as would most people, point a pistol at me is an objectively good reason to shoot you. Trying to brain me with a skateboard is an objectively good reason to view you as a threat.

 

What was he doing in Kenosha? He worked there. There is no duty to retreat in WI. He was obviously being attacked and had every right to think he was in harms way. He only defended himself from those that attacked him including unidentified drop kick man.

There is no citizens arrest law in WI and those that try it could also face legal issues like battery.

 

that is completely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the right to self defense. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt here and pretend that mob was just a church group handing out free bibles that night and they heard the shots and went after kyle because they thought that they where stopping a killer.. Their mistaking the situation is not a legal argument for Kyle having to give up his right to self defense. And if they attacked him and he shot them, it would still be justified and considered self defense. The only thing that matters is was he attacked and did he have a reasonable belief of great bodily harm or death. The answer is yes he was attacked and who the hell wouldnt think that? The attacking person misunderstanding the situation is irrelevant

 

That would include Kyle, and if your argument is true, then Kyle shot them while committing a crime, and then he is toast.

Yes, I agree, but as I said : How does it work? If he WAS a killer on the run (as they assumed him to be), then is he still entitled to kill more people and claim self defense? Can you kill a cop and claim self defense because the cop was heavy handed?"

We'll have to wait and see what the law says about that. I know you have your opinion about it, and that is fine. I am simply presenting my questions.

I just quoted it to you, but you are not required to believe it.

 

You think child rapist dude was able to mask his wild aggressive behavior toward kids, ie, chasing one through the streets?

 

If they attack him, yes, he still has a right to self defense. There is no law allowing someone to attack and batter someone else on an assumption.

 

Judge already ruled on this, He does not give up his right to self defense just because he was under age with a gun.

 

I quoted it to you, but its like talking to a wall.

Apparently you think that if you see a person raping a woman, the law ties your hands and you just have to watch him walk away. That mindset explains why people stand around and do nothing while crimes take place next to them, and yet at the same time when a citizen stops a crime he is hailed a hero, especially if he is an armed citizen. Kyle played a citizen police, and he is hailed a hero, so your stance seems very selective.

No worries, maybe you end up being right. We'll just have to wait and see.

Did he rule that everyone else gave up their right to citizens arrest because they were out after dark (like Kyle was)? I do not believe that has been ruled. I am interested to hear that they say about the citizen arrest aspect, because I think that will be a big factors in the 2nd and 3rd shooting.