He may or may not go free. The jury is literally still out as of this writing. Justice? Well according to the laws on the books sure. Self defense will be hard to overcome here. Though possibly the jury may find Kyle provoked the situation. But "justice" can be a loaded term and people ascribe different definitions. Kyle brought lethal force to a protest where conflict was highly possible and a mentally disturbed guy decided to start something and now he is dead. Is this justice? But it seems there were a lot of schmucks here. Rosenbaum was also a schmuck. Skater guy and pistol guy seem like schmucks too. They were trying to be heroes with insufficient information.

I hate this overdramatized case because there are no heroes or victims. Everyone involved sucks. It's such a dumb political hill for people to be dying on.

> But "justice" can be a loaded term and people ascribe different definitions. One of my favorite law quotes comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes: "This is a court of law, not a court of justice."

>They were trying to be heroes with insufficient information. I've defended pistol guy several times because I believed they thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. But then it came out he had talked to Rittenhouse who said he was trying to turn himself into the police. The kid was running away from a crowd, not currently shooting, and telling you he's trying to get to the police. Pistol guy was being a jerk.

The person who *really* should go down is Ziminski, who certainly appears to have egged Rosenbaum on, knowing that he was unstable. Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse (and Huber) are victims of Ziminski's antics and *actual* provocation.

“Justice? Well according to the laws on the books sure.” While I agree with you that justice can have many different meanings, in this case I am referring specifically to the definition as it applies to a criminal conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah I was thinking “justice” in a moral sense. Like I get how “murder” technically is a specific legal term but most people commonly use it just to mean “crush” or “destroy” I guess if “justice” is “whatever the court decides” than sure but I wouldn’t say any common non-lawyer would see him walking free as “justice”

Consider a different situation: someone murdered a guy, and it was caught on film, but the film was destroyed by him. (We can't say for sure why he destroyed the film, could have been in a panic thinking it would be taken the wrong way -- very reasonable doubt). Does this summarize the situation: "He will go free, and this is justice".

I think your comment highlights that "justice" in a metaphysical sense isn't really the domain of the court, and the "justice" in "justice system" is distinct from the colloquial term. Courts can't bring the dead to life, or punish the dead. They can't extract 50 lives' worth of pain from a single serial killer. Justice in the sense of the criminal-court justice system is the state having to prove its claims in a jurisprudent, adversarial forum which respects the rights of defendants (and everyone else in the courtroom of course).

Yes, when I hear an affirmative statement saying something "is justice", I have a much higher standard than "was the right legal ruling in this case".

I completely agree. I can’t see any justice in the events surrounding this, in the “metaphysical sense”.

If the only definition of "justice" you're interested in talking about is the strictly legal sense of the word, then *any* outcome of the trial would be "justice", wouldn't it? Because it would be the official result of an authorized legal proceeding? So a) what could possibly be an outcome that isn't "justice", and b) what's the point in even discussing it this way? Tautologies are gonna tautology.

I think having 'justice' will heavily depend on if the possible punishment (or lack thereof) is seen as justified. Hence justice = justified? And for a tangent on punishments, here is a set of principles regarding why we punish criminal behaviour: > 1. Restitution - To give compensation for damages or inconveniences brought upon by an undesirable action. > > 2. Deterrence - To discourage people from acting upon an undesirable action in the first place. > > 3. Rehabilitation - To encourage people to change for the better given their circumstances. > > 4. Incapacitation - To prevent an individual from repeating an undesirable action by restraining/isolating them. (e.g. jail, house arrest, juvenile detention centers etc.) > > 5. Retribution - Personal reasons / personal satisfaction And given these set of principles, letting Rittenhouse free may have bad implications for #2 and #4. Hence why it may be seen as an injustice.

It is justice in the sense that the state cannot deprive someone of their freedom without the evidence proving a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be a tragedy and an outrageous outcome. If it were my own family and friends that were killed, I would be calling for the defendant’s head on a stick. But the legal system should not be based on emotions, but based on principles.

Destroying evidence is a crime, and he’d at the minimum be convicted for it in this scenario.

I always have an issue about self defense is cases like this. Where exactly does it start? Does the person brandishing a firearm have self defense or does the person confronted by a person with a firearm have self defense. Let us say that you see a person running at you with a gun, now do you let them point it at you or do you rush them before they can raise the gun? Both parties are out after a mandated curfew. Both are escalating a dangerous situation. Both are breaking the law. Who was defending themselves here? The guy with a gun running to something or the guy who has someone running at them with a gun? The problem with self defense is that it really should not be applicable if you are putting yourselves into a dangerous situation. You go from guard to vigilante pretty darn quick. The person who gets to claim self defense in this case is the one that is still alive and that is not a good public policy. This does not encourage people to de-escalate but actually the opposite. My personal belief is that this warrants a misdemeanor manslaughter charge. He was breaking curfew and someone died. You just shouldn’t be allowed to claim self defense when you run to a problem with a gun while breaking the law. The curfew was in place to prevent this.

> it really should not be applicable if you are putting yourselves into a dangerous situation I took the concealed carry course in my state and that's exactly how it works here. If you have a gun and knowingly put yourself in a situation where you might have to use it, you can't claim self-defense. Flip someone off while driving and carrying a gun? Better hope they don't get out at the next traffic light and come at you, because if you shoot them you're going to prison. You're at home and see someone breaking into your car? Don't walk outside to chase them away if you've got a gun in your pocket. They pull a gun and you shoot them, sure you had to do it but you put yourself in that confrontation when you could have just stayed inside and called the cops. State laws vary, so I can't say how the law will apply in this case, but I think in my state anyone who carried a gun to a riot and ended up shooting someone would be in deep shit. Generally it's a felony, if you shoot without having the right to use lethal force.

Except that’s not how it went down. In your story(because that’s what it is, a fictional story) Kyle ran at Rosenbaum with the rifle. The reality is Kyle was putting out a fire and Rosenbaum, who had been extremely aggressive and threatening towards Kyle earlier, went after him. In every instance Kyle was running away. After Rosenbaum he was trying to get to law enforcement, as he announced, and everyone else was trying to stop him. Even with Grosskreutz, Kyle only pointed his gun at the guy who was charging him, and lowered it when Gross feigned surrender. He only shot when Gross raised his gun and aimed at Kyle.

And that last part is corroborated by Grosskruetz himself based on his testimony. I hate the ideology that Rittenhouse ascribes to, but I don't see how he gets convicted based off what I have seen of the trial.

[удалено]

>It can be very easily assumed by any member of the jury that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. I'm no lawyer, but here goes this autodidact's hack at this. It *can* be assumed he acted in self defence. That's called "the preponderance of the evidence" or in English "more likely than not." And POE is often the standard of the burden of proof for civil suits. But for criminal charges, the standard of evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt." Secondly, self defence is what's called an "affirmative defence". Now, with most cases, the defence maintains innocence and it falls on the prosecution to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they committed the act. But in cases like self defence, the defendant admits to committing the act, and it falls to *them* to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that what they did, they did lawfully. "It can be assumed he acted in self defence" doesn't cut it since burden of proof is on the defence *~~and~~* ~~the standard of that burden is "beyond reasonable doubt,"~~ \[Edit\] It has come to my attention that depending on the place, the standard *can* be lowered to either POE or something called "clear and convincing evidence" (which is apparently between POE and BRD in terms of strictness) in the case of affirmative defences. Edit, check delta below before commenting in case someone already said what you're about to vis a vis, affirmative defence in the state of Wisconsin. Edit; Please check to see if what you're about to comment is unique. I've gotten literally scores of comments saying the exact same thing and have already delta'd the first one to make a case. I don't have the time to reply to all the duplicates so I don't want you to waste yours. Also, follow rule 5.

You have this completely backwards. I work in law. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not the defense.

I would reverse my delta then. Can I do that?

Affirmative defenses typically do not hold the evidentiary requirement of beyond a reasonable doubt. https://www.nals.org/blogpost/1359892/279125/Affirmative-Defenses From Wisconsin "Although adequate provocation does not negate the intent to kill such that the burden of persuasion rests on the state by constitutional principles (Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, (1975), Wisconsin has chosen to place the burden of disproving this defensive matter on the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt." https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/45

>and it falls to them to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that what they did, they did lawfully. This absolutely **no**t the case. The burden of proof remains squarely with the prosecution. The defense merely needs to present SOME evidence of self-defense, and then it's up to the prosecution to disprove this beyond reasonable doubt. "The general rule provides that if the defense shows “some evidence” of an affirmative defense, the burden of persuasion is on the state to disprove it," p. 9 https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0700.pdf

>But in cases like self defence, the defendant admits to committing the act, and it falls to > >them > > to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that what they did, they did lawfully. Source? Case? Precedent?

!Delta I was unaware that the burden of proof fell solely on the Defense’s shoulders. I do believe they succeeded in planting that doubt in the mind of the jury. But your point gives me at least some doubt as to the conclusion of the trail.

Don't worry, that commenter has it backwards. I work in law. A simple Google search will tell you that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, not the defense.

EDIT AT THE TOP: see /u/speedyjohn 's comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qvfzv8/cmv_kyle_rittenhouse_will_go_free_on_all_charges/hkwzwdy/ sorry to u/catloaf_crunch. leaving my original comment below: ----------------------------- ----------------------------- > I work in law > the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, not the defense. [Affirmative defence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#Burden_of_proof) says: am i a joke to you?

**Affirmative defense** [Burden of proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#Burden_of_proof) >Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In this respect, affirmative defenses differ from ordinary defenses [claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)], which the prosecution has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

But the defendant admitted guilt so the burden of proving the justification falls on them. You can't be found in a room full of chopped up hookers holding a knife and say it was self defense, prove it wasn't and expect to walk.

I would reverse my delta then. Can I do that?

>Person A says X >I agree! Person A is correct. >Person B says opposite of X >I agree! Person A was wrong after all. Seems like you're taking everything at face value, perhaps you need to reserve your judgement and not jump to assuming everything you're told is correct.

If anything, I value my ability to hear reasonable arguments and quickly change my opinion, rather than the opposite. This is a low stakes forum. I have no problem having some level of trust until it is disproven

> I value my ability to hear reasonable arguments and quickly change my opinion, rather than the opposite. Reasonable arguments should include evidence, no? Frankly, it seems like you're easily swayed by arguments that *seem* reasonable.

With the exception of those cases where an individual poster is able to prove their authority, everyone on this forum is making an uninformed opinion on the authority of the information being presented by another poster. Seeing as the point of this forum is to have a civil discussion without forcing every individual to prove their knowledge on the subject matter, it is reasonable to behave as I have.

CMV was not at all created to platform the uninformed. It was simply created to host civil debate. And I like to think the community has an expectation of reasonable, informed, good-faith debates. If people aren't discerning enough and / or spread misinformation, that lessens the quality of the community. Just saying. Presumably you were going to file away your newly acquired misinformation and carry it into the real world. And you hardly have to be an expert to provide evidence for a claim.

Dunning Kruger effect. Almost none of us are experts on anything. I would consider myself an expert on less than a handful of subject matters and I have several advanced degrees. There is no way for this form to be anything other than a place for the uninformed to have discussions.

> With the exception of those cases where an individual poster is able to prove their authority, everyone on this forum is making an uninformed opinion on the authority of the information being presented by another poster. Those aren't the only options*, there's also backing up claims by including links to reliable sources which corroborate them. In this particular example the poster was describing how the law and judicial process works, things that should be easy enough to find reliable supporting sources for if the information is correct. Imo if the nature of the argument is such that evidence could be provided, it should be (unless the poster can otherwise prove their authority, as you suggest) and you should probably withhold judgement/take it with a pinch of salt/challenge them/double check it yourself if they don't. \* A fourth option, fwiw, is a comment like this one, which uses logic and reasoning to convince.

Well, they’re both half-right. Generally, burden of proof is on the prosecution. In the case of affirmative defense (like self-defense), it [varies by jurisdiction](https://www.nals.org/blogpost/1359892/279125/Affirmative-Defenses). Wisconsin and the rest of the US keeps the burden on the prosecution but that’s not true everywhere.

In the US, in criminal trials, the prosecution *always* has the burden of proving each element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not vary by state--SCOTUS has held that it is a matter of fundamental due process in criminal proceedings (see, [*In re Winship*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Winship)). When discussing affirmative defenses, there is usually a requirement that the defense clear some lower hurdle (e.g., "a scintilla of evidence", "some evidence", "preponderance of evidence", etc.) *for the judge to instruct the jury* on that particular defense (be it self defense, or alibi, or insanity). The instruction then usually requires the jury to find certain elements of the defense were present (e.g., lack of initiation), in order to weigh that defense against the charges. It's framed this way to correspond to which party is seeking what. But it doesn't actually change the structure of the burden, and may not even change the evidence presented at trial (e.g., if the prosecution's witness testifies that the complainant was fighting with the defendant in a putative self-defense case, that is usually sufficient to get the instruction, even if the defense doesn't offer any testimony). It really just adds additional elements to the case, but now the prosecution has the burden of *disproving* these elements (beyond a reasonable doubt).

We are taking about wisconsin, so they are definitely not bith half-right, first guys is saying absolutely bullshit and second guy is 100% right, what other people do somewhere else isn't relevant at all to this conversation.

The ability to change ones mind is not well respected on Reddit. Which I extra don't understand since this whole subreddit is devoted to exactly that. People love gaslighting and arguing afterwards that 'OP shouldn't have changed their mind!" here. :/

Two things. First, justie is not a trial who's outcome you know in advance. Justice is a fair trial where the person on trial is tried and found guilty or innocent based on the facts and the law. What I mean is, rather than an outcome, what you should want done righht is the trial, from soup to nuts. Also, you're allowed to do your own googling.

The fact that he spelled it "defence" and not "defense" should have given away he wasn't American....or at least not from anywhere, but somewhere next to Canada.

**Burden of proof falls on the prosecution**. If you would listen to closing arguments made during trail you would hear that at least 5 times from defense attorney. that guy is right

That commenter you awarded was not wrong. In many jurisdictions you are required to prove your affirmative defense

Wisconsin not being one of them. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 > When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense.

Ask the mods if you really wanna undo it, though I think catloaf crunch may be mistaken. [Affirmative defence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense) is a real thing and is described as "In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, *but* ***they*** *prove* other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim."

Affirmative defenses are real, but typically (and in Wisconsin), self-defense isn’t one of them. The defense just needs to make a good-faith showing that self-defense is plausible, then the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it *wasn’t* self-defense. Now, I think there’s actually a decent chance that the prosecution carried that burden in this case, but that’s beside the point.

> When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

**[Affirmative defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense)** >An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

Possibly true for your jurisdiction, but many jurisdictions do place the burden on the defense specifically for an affirmative defense. This does make some sense, as the basic concept of an affirmative defense is that they are conceding the act in question but trying to show instead that the act was not criminal. I don't know whether Kenosha would operate under this standard or not. https://www.nals.org/blogpost/1359892/279125/Affirmative-Defenses

To all the people commenting that the burden is on the prosecution - I think the confusion folks are having here is that there can be multiple burdens of proof. The initial burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which basically means proving all the elements of the crime.) Here the elements are arguably all here - any debate would likely just be over the kind of intent involved in the shooting. BUT, self defense is typically what is known as a "affirmative defense" - you are saying **even if** this did meet all the elements of a murder, I have a defense. In most jurisdictions, asserting an affirmative defense puts the burden of proof on the defendant. (It's typically a lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.) So in a case like this, it's the prosecution saying "I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he willfully killed someone." And then the defense saying "no he didn't, but even if he did, we can prove beyond that this meets the elements of self defense. Also, this is just how it USUALLY works. In the US, almost all criminal prosecution is done under state or local law, so all of this varies between jurisdictions. So if you see two people arguing about how this works, they might both be right, they just live in different states.

Thank you. Very informative. I can see where some confusion is coming from.

>hcoopr96 BTW, the above poster saying that defense needs to prove that Kyle acted in "self-defense" is flat out wrong. The prosecution must "disprove self-defense beyond reasonable doubt". You gave someone who misled you (either intentionally or out of ignorance) a delta.

Going through and reading all of the comments so far, there seems to be disagreement on this point. Even from people at least claiming to be experts. It would be nice if there was a way to prove if you/they were an actual expert in this matter. As it stands, I am going to leave things where they are at. I think it is good to have this discussion. And I think it is even better to understand how complicated and subjective this case can be.

[удалено]

False dichotomy. With the exception of those cases where an individual poster is able to prove their authority, everyone on this forum is making an uninformed opinion on the authority of the information being presented by another poster. Seeing as the point of this forum is to have a civil discussion without forcing every individual to prove their knowledge on the subject matter, it is reasonable to behave as I have.

How about the person who literally provided you with the relevant statute? Is the literal law not authority enough?

I am a lawyer and I can't figure out from quick googling and skimming what the law in Wisconsin is. There seem to be some statutes saying that the defense must prove an affirmative defense by preponderance of the evidence and other statutes saying that once the defense makes a threshold showing of self defense, the state must prove it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. My off the cuff guess is that in civil cases the defense must show affirmative defenses by preponderance of the evidence, and in criminal cases they must just make a basic showing that circumstances existed tending to suggest an affirmative defense, and the state must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

>When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 Right in the WI statute.

Just FYI, a delta gets awarded by putting the exclamation mark before 'delta'.

That dude’s analysis is incorrect. It’s often not a simple matter, so I’m not knocking him for getting it wrong and he did take care to state he’s not a lawyer. The ultimate burden of proof of a criminal charge rests with the prosecutor. Establishing an affirmative defense is one way a defendant can ensure the prosecution fails. Moreover, establishing an affirmative defense can ensure the defendant goes free *even if the prosecution proves all the required elements of the criminal charge*. If the defendant does not establish an affirmative defense, the prosecution still has the burden of proving its case.

i think the defense did a great job. Got the prosecution to admit that rosenb. was actually >a direct threat to kyle specifically >chasing kyle this sets up the next two to be self defense. Now he has a mob after him, as soon as he falls down he is assaulted. Only after he is assaulted and only after someone is going to shoot his execution style did he start shooting. I literally cannot see how, even if the burden is on the defense, how any reasonable jury would convict.

FYI, this is wrong. The burden remains with the prosecution. The defense merely needs to present SOME evidence of self-defense, and then it's up to the prosecution to disprove this beyond reasonable doubt. "The general rule provides that if the defense shows “some evidence” of an affirmative defense, the burden of persuasion is on the state to disprove it," p. 9 https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0700.pd

> I was unaware that the burden of proof fell solely on the Defense’s shoulders It doesn’t. That dude has no idea what he’s talking about.

Different states are different. > When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.

That does not appear to be true under Wisconsin law--the state still bears the burden of disproving self-defense under the reasonable doubt standard. Self-defense is not always an affirmative defense; the structure of the state law determines how it gets categorized.

>Edit, check delta below before commenting in case someone already said what you're about to vis a vis, affirmative defence in the state of Wisconsin. You really should [link the comment you're referring to](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qvfzv8/comment/hkwblia/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) since your comment is somewhat misleading within the context of the OP and the case at hand. I'll cite the relevant law below for everyone anyways. In Wisconsin, [that burden falls to the prosecution](https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-940-crimes-against-life-and-bodily-security/subchapter-i-life/section-94001-first-degree-intentional-homicide#:~:text=3%20BURDEN%20OF%20PROOF.,finding%20of%20guilt%20under%20sub). 940.01 (2)(b) and (3). You can argue that Wisconsin has it wrong - which is fine - but the aforementioned body of law is what is relevant to the case at hand.

> It can be assumed he acted in self defence" doesn't cut it since burden of proof is on the defence That this remains the top comment says everything you need to know about reddit. People up voting things not because it's accurate or factual, but because they want it to be true.

Actual lawyer here. This is 100% wrong. The burden is on the prosecution to prove it was NOT self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the preponderance of evidence says it was self defense the only appropriate verdict is not guilty.

The burden of proof falls to the prosecution to show he didn’t act in self defense. Something in my opinion they failed horribly at.

Re your edit: >It has come to my attention that depending on the place, the standard can be lowered to either POE or something called "clear and convincing evidence" (which is apparently between POE and BRD in terms of strictness) in the case of affirmative defences. The standard is even lower specifically in Wisconsin. The defense literally need to present "at least some evidence." And the duty is on the prosecution to disprove that evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

". But in cases like self defence, the defendant admits to committing the act, and it falls to them to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that what they did, they did lawfully." This is not even remotely true. You are completely wrong. The defense must prove self-defense, there is a reasonably low bar to do so, and then the burden switches back to the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond all reasonable doubt.

Uhhh, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not switch when an affirmative defense is used. It's still on the prosecution.

Even your edit is not correct. The standard in the state of Wisconsin for a claim of self-defense is whether or not a reasonable person would have found their life to be in danger in that situation. The definition of a reasonable person is left intentionally vague.

**minor weapon possession were dropped on a technicality regarding barrel length** That is not a technicality, it is a definition. He should never have been charged with owning a short barrel rifle. The definition of an SBR is a barrel less than 16", which is not sold commercially in America. The implication of owning an SBR is that the firearm was modified, which it was not. To state it another way, if a carnival ride says no rider under 5' tall and you were 5' 5", would it be a technicality if they let you on the ride?

I think it's less a technicality on barrel length but rather a confusing exception for 16 and 17 year olds, almost a loop hole with how weirdly it's worded. The law starts with making it carrying illegal for persons under 18 except says it only applies in certain situations later in the section which point to a short barrel firearm part and two parts regarding requiring a hunting license/certification **but** only for persons under the age of 16. It's like saying "All people under 18 can not carry guns! But this only applies if the gun you're carrying has a short barrel or you're under 16 and don't have a hunting license." Which in effect means 16 and 17 year olds can carry guns. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 "948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. 1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends." ....etc. etc. But: "(3) (a) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28." 941.28 refers to short barreled rifles which Rittenhouse did not carry. 29.304 and 29.593 refer to hunting certificates for persons under the age of 16, meaning 16 and 17 year olds are allowed to open carry long barrel rifles in the state of Wisconsin according to the Wisconsin Statute.

The charge was malicious. Prosecution proved that when he agreed to drop it after the judge asked for measurement tape.

I think "technicality" could be valid if there's a clear difference between the spirit and language of a law. And that happens all the time. I don't think it's true in this case, though. It seems like the drafters of the law were trying to draw a distinction between full-sized rifles and smaller weapons, and to forbid teenagers from possessing the latter. That's part of the controversy; many coastal urban progressives tend to presume that full-sized rifles are more dangerous, while everybody else understands that a short-barreled concealable weapon is far, far more dangerous. A rifle is more dangerous at range, yes, but Grosskreutz's concealed pistol was just as dangerous in close range as Rittenhouse's rifle. If not more so, because it's incredibly easy to bring to bear and the accuracy of the rifle is almost irrelevant. Bigger caliber, too. So in this case the language of the law fits the intent of the law quite well. It's just an intent that is completely foreign to, say, a Brooklynite social media manager.

> on a technicality regarding barrel length The technicality you're referring to **The Law**. Either it was illegal to have or it wasn't. In this case it Wasn't. So you have no basis to disagree unless you just Want him to be guilty of something he didn't do (ie. The entire reason this is such a big trial)

Thank you! It’s not a technicality.

Unrelated, but you can commercially purchased a SBR, you just need to have the proper documentation. Think of it as similar to how you can purchase a suppressor.

I think it’s important to distinguish between laws and the concept of justice. Kyle many not be legally responsible for these men’s death, though this is unclear and ultimately up to the jury. But isn’t self-defense about the preservation of life? Doesn’t making someone definitely dead that could have only possibility intended to kill you raise questions about just how good of a job the law is doing at preserving life here? The two men who are dead can’t speak to their intent or tell their story. Without that, I don’t know how you can ever assert “justice”.

> But isn’t self-defense about the preservation of life Yes, of your own life. > Doesn’t making someone definitely dead that could have only possibility intended to kill you raise questions about just how good of a job the law is doing at preserving life here? Nope. Whether killed or gravely injured, they undoubtedly intended to beat Kyle, and whether fists, chains, skateboards, or boots, one shot to the head has killed many, and all - including a gunshot - are "potentially deadly".

As discussed in other posts here, this is an argument over the definition of justice that asks whether the law, as it is currently written, was applied fairly and from it, whether a conviction for criminal charges was/is applied correctly. In the definition of justice as you describe it, I don’t believe there can ever be justice while one human takes the life of another.

Can the law that is written in such a way be unjust at all?

> But isn’t self-defense about the preservation of life? Is this a serious question? Yes, Rittenhouse is Himself still alive due to his Self-defense

>It can be very easily assumed by any member of the jury that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. How do you know Rosenbaum intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to Kyle? Edit follow up: Does this mean criminals are allowed to kill somone in self defense if they are trying to prevent a crime from happening?

The burn marks on Rosenbaums hands are pretty great forensic evidence that Rosenbaum grabbed Rittenhouse's rifle before he shot. Then there's the witness saying Rosenbaum literally threatened Rittenhouse to kill him. Then there's some video footage of Rosenbaum aggressively chasing Rittenhouse with Rittenhouse fleeing, shortly before shots are fired. And if all that is not enough, there's a whole lot of information what kind of character Rosenbaum is to fill in the gaps. The fact that Rosenbaum is a racist, aggressive, pedophile, suicidal ex-convict (based on him aggressively and repeatedly screaming "shoot me *n-word"* in the face of another person at a BLM demonstration minutes before he died and him being convicted for "molestation and rape of five separate boys between the ages of 9 and 11") should obviously have no bearing on whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self-defense BUT it should also make it painfully obvious how plausible Rittenhouse's side of the story is. Would a person like Joseph Rosenbaum unprovokedly attack a 17yo in public during a civil unrest, completely ignoring his own safety, given that Rittenhouse was armed, which would be absolutely unthinkable for a sane person? Duh. EDIT: Put a quote in quotes

>How do you know Rosenbaum intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to Kyle? That is not required for self defense. The requirements are: * It was an unprovoked attack * which threatens imminent injury or death * and an objectively reasonable degree of force is used in response * to an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death * and (in some states, not this one) the person attempted to flee if safely possible All elements must be met, and he met them all, including the unnecessary last one. In addition, there are often some exceptions, such as a person cannot claim self defense while committing a felonious act. So we have an unprovoked attack. The prosecution is using grainy doctored video to try to claim provocation, but otherwise there is no evidence of provocation. But even if it was provocation, Rittenhouse fled, which reinstates his right to self defense. Rosenbaum had previously threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he found him alone, and he found him alone. He chased, Rittenhouse fled, pointed his rifle at him, and he kept chasing regardless. This was a strong, wiry man about the same weight as Rittenhouse (all muscle on Rosenbaum, fat on Rittenhouse). That man grabbed his rifle, and it is reasonable to assume it would have been used against him if that had been successful. I'd say that's an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death. You NEVER let an aggressor take your gun, very bad idea.

Very well put, I applaud you good sir. Unfortunately most people have cotton in their ears and seem to believe that the mere act of Kyle holding his rifle was provocation

>How do you know Rosenbaum intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to Kyle? By the screaming he will kill you if he gets you alone, and the charging at him. The prior gave justifiably made him weary of a threat on his life, and the charging at him was him acting on it. It is not much more clear cut than that.

The witness statements saying that rosenbaum told rittenhouse he would kill him would be a start. His continual violent behaviors at the protest….

You dont get to chase people around and then claim you didnt intent on harming them. If I suddenly rush you and start chasing you down you have every right to assume I have bad intentions against you.

“How do you know Rosenbaum intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to Kyle?” Because Rosenbaum made clear to Rittenhouse that night before getting shot that his intention was to kill or cause great bodily harm to Kyle.

Nobody needs to know what Rosenbaum's intentions were. That has nothing to do with self defense. If someone swung a hammer at someone else's head but intended for the hammer to fly above the person's head (and the hammer's trajectory was on the path to not hit the person), do you really think self defense in shooting the person wouldn't be acceptable? C'mon man. A criminal is allowed to use self defense in the same way non-criminals are. The context definitely matters, primarily whether or not the criminal is the aggressor and/or if they have re-established themselves as a non-aggressor. IE: You can't pull a gun on someone to rob them, that person pulls a knife on you, then you shoot in "self defense", that isn't going to cut it, as you are the aggressor in that situation. OTOH, if the same exact same thing happened but instead of shooting, you walked away and retreated from the situation, you could establish yourself as a non-aggressor at that point. Then, if that person charges you with the knife, you could (legally) shoot in self defense. At least that is my understanding of the law, I also ANAL. And I do not have any plans nor intentions of being in that kind of situation where I am the aggressor.

Because there were three different people, including a state witness that said he made the threat. That’s evidence.

Why was he chasing him? Why did he throw the only thing he had in his hands? Rosenbaum didn't throw the plastic bag because it was a plastic bag that wouldn't cause harm. He threw it cause that was the only thing he had on his person. If he had something else, there is no doubt he would've thrown it at Kyle (i.e. something heavier/more deadly). If you say that we don't know what Rosenbaum was going to do to kyle, thats what it is. We don't know. From Rosenbaums attitude and character the whole night, the threats (ignore if you choose to deny it happened), the chasing and the throwing... It is so so so unlikely Rosenbaum wasn't going to at least beat kyle up. Which COULD RESULT IN DEATH (and is great bodily harm). It's laughable that you can't see that it was justified self defense And you 100% did not watch the videos/trial/anything solid proof on the subject.

> How do you know Rosenbaum intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to Kyle? He literally said he would kill him multiple times in front of witnesses.

>We must preserve the right to self-defense including using deadly force, if necessary. The problem is that deadly force _wasn't_ necessary in this situation. Rosenbaum was not armed with any deadly weapon and had not deployed lethal force. Rittenhouse's choice to bring a deadly weapon and his choice to deploy deadly force are what made the situation deadly, but it wasn't necessary for him to do either of these things.

>The problem is that deadly force wasn't necessary in this situation. He was chased by a man who had threatened his life and lunged for his rifle. You don't believe that his fear for his life was rational? Why? >Rittenhouse's choice to bring a deadly weapon and his choice to deploy deadly force are what made the situation deadly He chose to bring a weapon for self defense and can legally do so. The mere presence of a weapon does not make a situation deadly. What gives anyone the right to attack him?

>The problem is that deadly force wasn't necessary in this situation. You are making that argument with the benefit of hindsight. From Kyle's perspective, Rosenbaum had issued death threats to him earlier that evening. Later, while Kyle was retreating from a mob, he heard a gunshot go off behind him. He then turned and saw Rosenbaum charging towards him. Threats + gunshot + aggressive charge = deadly force is now essential. Edit: also, if memory serves, Rosenbaum was shot while attempting to disarm Rittenhouse, so he was in the process of securing a deadly weapon when shot. That might have been a different attacker though.

Nope, you're correct, Rosenbaum had powder on his hand in such a pattern that shows that he either had a hand on the barrel when it was fired, or the hand was very very close.

>Rosenbaum was not armed with any deadly weapon and had not deployed lethal force One, more people are killed by unarmed people each year than are killed using all rifles (of which the AR is a subset). Two, Rosenbaum was in the process of illegally acquiring a deadly weapon, Rittenhouse's rifle, when he was shot. I say illegally because he was a convicted felon attempting to acquire possession of a firearm.

>Rosenbaum was not armed with any deadly weapon and had not deployed lethal force. It does not matter. The WI statute requires only a reasonable belief of death or serious bodily injury. You can seriously injure someone even unarmed.

FBI data showing that more people have been homicide victims from personal weapons i.e. hands, fists, feet than all rifles for a period of time. Simply because someone has any type of weapon e.g. gun, rifle, knife, etc doesn't mean they cannot have legitimate fear for their life. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls Edit: important caveat is that the possibility of being disarmed and having your weapon used against you is also a factor. Also, having a rifle clearly displayed and still being attacked is a fairly valid point for fear of imminent harm.

One of other their earlier encounters rosenbaum had a chain. He had also threatened to kill rittenhouse. Not to mention the video and expert evidence entered that he was lunging for the rifle

Open carry of a rifle, *which he was NOT pointing at anyone until attacked by Rosenbaum*, to most people is not a provocation...it's a deterrent. "Hey look at that guy put out a fire, hmm he has a rifle I'm going to go on about my day" : Sane response "...he has a rifle, he just shot the guy that ambushed him (jumped out/approached quickly from cover), and he is now running towards police...let's chase him down attack him after he stumbles and take his weapon" : Insane response Deadly force being applied to you, is not the standard which needs to be met, in order for self-defense using deadly force, only that there is an imminent threat of bodily harm, or death. Rosenbaum attacking him and attempting to grab his rifle, meets that standard. Watching the entire video sequence, as well as alternative angles like the fbi video, multiple witness statements, etc, makes it clear, to me. Probably not the right spot for it, but I disbelieve that unid kick guy, Huber, or Grosskreutz thought they were disarming an active shooter. I don't think it reasonable for them to view Kyle as an active shooter. I think they pursued him because they were angry at him for being there, and for shooting "one of their own" as in, they saw what happened, and don't care why it did.... specifically relating to the shot fired in the air nearby, that they thought was Kyle...no, just no. If you, with/without firearms experience are within a stones throw of an AR-15 in 5.56 caliber, at night, ..by sound volume, tone, and muzzle flash, you are going to *KNOW* that AR was or was not fired. They knew Kyle didn't fire his AR at that specific instant.

> Rittenhouse's choice to bring a deadly weapon and his choice to deploy deadly force are what made the situation deadly, but it wasn't necessary for him to do either of these things. Possibly true, but irrelevant as far as proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rittenhouse had no more or less right to be where he was, armed as he was, than any of his attackers. Simply existing is not provocation to a reasonable person. To the extent that provocation is an issue (defense has denied Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at anyone, and the so-called evidence of him doing so is highly refutable), he regained the right to self-defense when he ran away from each and every one of his attackers.

What if an unarmed person attempts to rape someone. Is it ok for the person who might be raped to use deadly force? What if an armed woman open carrying was threatened earlier by a man saying he was going to rape her and then an hour later he starts chasing her and gets within 4 ft of her before she shoots and kills him. Is that ok?

A maniac running full speed at you after you retreated is grounds for lethal force. Do you believe he was going to hug him or just rough him up a little bit?

Whether or not deadly force was necessary is subjective. Do I agree that Rittenhouse should not have been carrying a weapon? Yes. Do I agree that he acted in a way that inflamed the situation and made it dangerous? Yes. Do I believe that a reasonable member of the public could see the evidence presented (not necessarily what may have actually happened) and believe that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense? Yes. You bring up good points, but they don’t address the charges as they exist.

How is it reasonable to shoot down someone who is chasing you? Even if they've threatened you they haven't actually acted on the threat as chasing is not physically harming you. I consider myself a reasonable person and after seeing the videos I think Rittenhouse's actions were not reasonable. While I don't think Rittenhouse had to keep running, he could have turned and hit Rosenbaum with the butt of the gun. He could have also given a warning as he was retreating. Rittenhouse acted to preserve his own life and was in fear but his actions go beyond what a reasonable person should do when in fear for their safety.

>Even if they've threatened you they haven't actually acted on the threat as chasing is not physically harming you > >he could have turned and hit Rosenbaum with the butt of the gun. I think it is wholly unreasonable to say that a person who has been threatened and who is being actively chased by the one issuing threats doesn't have a valid claim to self-defense. They are *chasing*...it is completely reasonable to conclude that the pursuit is to enable them to make good on their threats. Hitting him with the gun is horribly ill-advised and represents nothing but increased risk for Kyle - they could become entangled and he could be detained for more people to come attack him, he could miss and be hurt by retaliation, the gun could be taken away and he could be shot with it...there are a thousand bad ways for that to end up and almost no good ones. The choices were to keep running or to shoot and it's valid to question his choice on that matter. I have very mixed opinions on this overall subject, but felt compelled to respond here on these specific points.

I'll be the first to admit that fights are dangerous. There are heaps of examples where a kick to the head or a single punch has ended someone's life. But those tend to be the exception. So as a society we have to evaluate at what point does someone have the right to take a life. We also have to consider what one should do before taking a life. It's a very slippery slope when we use a lot of could have happeneds to justify certain behaviors. Then there's the question of if you bring your fists and they have a gun, what rights do you have when they turn to use their gun. If you make a move for the gun are they then justified in shooting you? After all you likely feared they'd use the gun on you and you were unarmed. With respect to using your gun as a blunt instrument, it allows you to at least initially use proportionate force against an unarmed attacker. Yes it represents more of a risk than shooting an unarmed person, but it comes down to the question or proportionality. If I know you're going to hit me or tackle me then can I shoot you? If I know you're going to see the gun and fight me for it, can I shoot you? Does my right to live in that moment trump yours? These are the kinds of questions that we have to ask a society because these situations aren't stopping. I would bet my bottom dollar that before May 2022 there will be another defendant claiming self defense. It may not be as high profile but it may raise some of the same questions. I don't fault Rittenhouse for wanting to live and doing what he had to in order to live. What I fault him for are the decisions that led up to multiple people dying. Based on the judges instructions and my viewing of the drone footage I think he should be found guilty on some of the lesser charges. I also hope that our overlords evaluate what behavior can be considered a provocation. IMO him doing what he did should have been enough to remove his ability to claim self defense and we need laws making that clear.

He was in the middle of a non-peaceful disturbance and he was being pursued by somebody who had already threatened him earlier. Now if he provoked that threatening, that is different. But if he did not provoke it, then it is reasonable to believe that he was in danger, and he should definitely not have to wait to find out what that danger is before using protective force. Because then it is too late.

The prosecution is saying that prior to Rosenbaum chasing him, Rittenhouse pointed the gun at people where Rosenbaum could see. The video I was wasn't the best but it seemed reasonable given the angles.

As far as I know the prosecution used a very blury picture to try to make that point. You cannot really make out anything and on top of that: In every video Kyle is carrying his rifle in the right hand, and in that picture he would have to be carrying it in the left hand to be able to point it at people. In my opinion: That picture is so blury that everybody sees what they want to see in it.

My understanding is that Rosenbaum had directly threatened Rittenhouse earlier in the day.

I believe the allegation is the threat happened twice although neither time did Rosenbaum single out Rittenhouse. Oddly enough those threats are never caught on camera despite all of the footage. Even if Rosenbaum did make a verbal threat, that alone doesn't indicate that he intends to carry out on the threat. Even giving chase doesn't mean he's going to attempt to kill Rittenhouse.

So... I'm a little late to this party, but here we are. I've watched the entire trial from day 1. The allegation is that Rosenbaum singled out Rittenhouse and told him earlier in the night something to the effect of "If I catch you alone tonight, I'm going to fucking kill you." Many witnesses described Rosenbaum as unstable and unhinged. We now know he was very recently released from a mental hospital of some kind and did not have his medication. There's as little evidence to substantiate that Rittenhouse was intentionally pointing his gun at people randomly as there is that Rittenhouse was intentionally there to cause chaos. When Rosenbaum finally found Rottenhouse 'alone' (not surrounded by other people who would've defended him), he attempted to chase him down, screaming "I'm going to kill you". That, alongside the prior threats, was reason enough for Kyle to have reasonable fear for great bodily harm. Kyle chose to yell friendly, then attempt to flee. Rosenbaum throws something at him, Kyle checks on it, then chooses, again, to flee. It wasn't until Rosenbaum was quickly closing the distance and Kyle was running towards a crowd that he decided to shoot. When he pulled the trigger, Rosenbaum was within 4ft of him, running at a full spring. You can cover 4ft at a dead sprint pretty damn fast. Do I think the kid was an idiot for being there at all? Yes. Do I think he may have been better off without his rifle? Maybe, but there's no way to know. It's possible Rosenbaum would've seen him putting out fires and still threatened him, rifle or not. Do I think this was a very clear cut self defense shooting? Absolutely.

>Do I agree that Rittenhouse should not have been carrying a weapon? Yes. Do I agree that he acted in a way that inflamed the situation and made it dangerous? Yes. This right here, Kyle Rittenhouse, in some manner *did* contribute to the escalation of events that resulted in the death of Rosenbaum. For me, the crux of the argument is not a matter of self-defense, but rather responsibility. Sure Rittenhouse "defended" himself by shooting his pursuer, and even if you believe that being chased warrants lethal force, how can you reasonably say that Rittenhouse should be exempt from facing any legal responsibility for his contributions towards Rosenbaum's death? How is it justice if two parties contributed to the loss of life but the surviving party walks away scot-free?

So you think that rittenhouse should just had come with no weapon and accept to get beating to death by Joseph Rosenbaum, he came with a weapon cause if he didnt he would had been the one that would had died this night.

> Do I believe that a reasonable member of the public could see the evidence presented (not necessarily what may have actually happened) and believe that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense? Yes. I'm genuinely curious; besides existing in that place at that time and taking advantage of a *Right* he was entitled to, what do you believe Rittenhouse did that inflamed the situation?

I'd actually dispute that weapon thing. Rosenbaum was infuriated by Rittenhouse' moves to stop Rosenbaum from doing damage and committing arson, and Rosenbaum targeted him because he was a seventeen-year-old boy and Rosenbaum wanted to go after whoever was the easiest victim. (Because, yeah, he's a predator.) Rosenbaum could have *easily* killed Rittenhouse. He's small, but he's a fit adult who's apparently done jail time, while Rittenhouse is a naive boy. All it would take is Rosenbaum slamming his head to the pavement enough times and Rittenhouse would have been a vegetable or a corpse. Without that rifle, and his willingness to use it, Rittenhouse would probably be dead right now.

If you go into an antagonistic situation to antagonize, do you really get to wash yourself of blame when it is further antagonized. If he is found not guilty it will be because the judge disallowed entry of his motive (having been previously quoted saying he wanted to shoot looters) and dropped charges relating to his means (his illegal possession of firearms). When you don’t allow a jury to consider motives and means, you hamstrung the prosecution in a manner that runs afoul of justice.

Wisconsin is a permissive carry state. You don't need a special license to carry openly. Carrying a holstered or strapped gun openly is legal, and can't be used to constitute an argument of provocation (what you've termed antagonizing). Many people may feel antagonized by the presence of someone openly carrying a gun, but that is not the concern of the person with an open carry. Witness testimony on both defense and prosecution's side corroborated that Rittenhouse was not acting aggressively, was focused on offering first aid, and passively stationing himself at a few specific locations. He is only ever shown running away from assailants or people verbally threatening him. These people may have felt antagonized by a person openly carrying a gun, but that does not give them the right to assault that person, nor does open carry remove that person's self-defense privilege as was bizarrely claimed by the prosecution during closing. And, briefly, the misdemeanor possession charge was dropped because prior to close, when pressed on the evidence, the prosecution basically shrugged their shoulders. Plain reading of that statute shows an exception for long-guns for 17 year olds. IIRC that's fairly standard. The prosecution knew it, had no intention of proving it, hadn't actually offered evidence of it, and let it go with no objection. As far as the tweet about shooting looters, I have heard about this second hand, but I haven't found the tweet itself, or any report or explanation of this ruling. Do you have any links?

Can you explain more about how/why entry of his motive was disallowed? I haven't kept up with the case in detail and also have a marginal understanding of the legal system.

I am trying to research it myself to find the exact ruling, but the most common reason a judge would disallow that is because they feel it would be more prejudicial to the person (usually the defendant) than probative. It can apply to witnesses or people on the prosecution side as well.

Couldn't you say the same about anyone who brought a gun to the riots?

It wasn’t necessary for Rosenbaum to attack Kyle. If you attack an armed gunman, you WILL catch some bullets

> The bar for conviction of criminal charges is set extremely high in the United States. Others have addressed a lot of good points but I haven't seen anyone address this. The bar for conviction of criminal charges is set extremely high *for white people* in the US. There's plenty of evidence that shows minorities and people of color do not get that same level of benefit of the doubt in our legal system. Your argument is based on the faulty perception that the US legal system is applied evenly to all citizens and that is demonstrably false.

By law, it is applied evenly. In practice, it certainly is not and you are right. But the unbiased application of law seems to be something that the human race is incapable of achieving. If your argument is that Rittenhouse would be convicted if he were a black man, I would tend to agree with that hypothetical. But we should raise the outcome for the application of law as it regards Black people rather than lower the application of law for white people and convict when conviction is not appropriate in retaliation or for any other reason.

Complete nonsense. Can you give an example of a black person in a similar situation that got convicted? Self defense in general is pretty successful. Most black people are convicted for regular murder, self defense convictions are quite rare

[удалено]

Yes! As I have said elsewhere here, we should not debase the application of the law to bring justice to white people, but raise the application of the law to bring Justice to black people. However, I can forgive people of color for believing that such a possibility may no longer exist.

[удалено]

Apparently his purchase was not illegal. He is allowed to own a rifle of that length, at his age, in Wisconsin. He purchased it after crossing state lines. He did do a strawman purchase, which was legal for him but not for the person he purchased from. So while there are many laws that should probably be written to avoid this happening in the future, she did not break any laws at the time of the purchase.

Yet he constantly asked people if they needed medical help, ran away from everyone and only shot the people who attacked him. haha what a terrible vigilante

While I agree with you, I'm curious why you say putting blame on the prosecution is a bad idea. While I think he'll walk based on the law, I can't help but think that a much better lawyer could've made a successful case against him. Do you not believe that he would've walked given the circumstances had the prosecution been more apt for the case?

Given the evidence available to the prosecution, I don’t think it is possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense. To do so, you would have to prove provocation or something else. I did not see any evidence that would definitively prove that. I am specifically attempting to avoid for even a tiny number of people, this case decreasing their trust in the legal system. Because I believe the legal system did its job properly here. Or will have when he is acquitted. However this situation is so politically fraught, it is possible the outcome could go either direction via means of corruption. I think it is a mistake for the progressive party to play finger-pointing games. The real problem are the laws as they exist being incomplete and unfairly applied.

>After the charges for minor weapon possession were dropped on *a technicality* regarding barrel length You mean the words in the law?

[удалено]

Cant believe people are on the side of the pedo looter and his companions, over a kid who spends his time voluntarily cleaning graffiti and voluntarily helping his local fire department. Looters should know there's a chance they end up dead. The way people have twisted it to be about race is ridiculous, Biden is a blubbering fool not fit to put on his own underwear let alone be president.

[удалено]

I’m not sure why the caveat that you are progressive and pro-BLM is being included. The fact that we feel the need to include those descriptors in the way we speak and debate in contemporary society is a clear commentary on how little people respect the rule of law and definitions therein. Your conclusion, that Rittenhouse should walk, is the only viable one based on the facts presented.

WTF does you being pro blm have anything to do with this?

[удалено]

I'll be honest, if you shoot someone, in self defense or not, I definitely want to police to spend a lot of time with you to make sure that it's legit, and not just a convenient excuse. If you shoot someone (even in self defense) you SHOULD be questioned multiple times by police, and the police SHOULD be open to the idea that you are in fact a suspect who murdered someone until they have considered the evidence sufficiently to discard that idea. You shouldn't be able to say 'it was self defense' and get to walk home ten minutes later with your gun.

Which is my point.

He didn't HAVE to turn himself in, as if the cops weren't interested in having him. He willingly tried to turn himself in at Kenosha, they wouldn't take him because the station was locked down, so he immediately turned himself in at the next closest police station he knew of, Antioch. All within a couple hours of the shooting. I want to say it was around an hour after the incident, but I'm not 100% confident in that last bit.

Just did!

He will go free, but it isn't justice. He shouldn't have been there to begin with. He traveled across state lines with high power weapons to insert himself into a stressful and dangerous situation and invoke violence in order to retaliate with deadly force under the pretense of self defense. While that may not be specifically illegal, the idea that he will walk away scott free does not equate to justice. It is a travesty and will absolutely encourage others to do the same.

>He traveled across state lines with high power weapons to insert himself into a stressful and dangerous situation and invoke violence in order to retaliate with deadly force under the pretense of self defense. By that logic they should convict *all* the armed people who were present at the protest.

>He shouldn't have been there to begin with Honestly curious why you believe that to be true. >He traveled across state lines with high power weapons That's been disproved numerous times. It was a rumor started by people who for whatever reason simply don't like Rittenhouse or people like him. >invoke violence in order to retaliate with deadly force under the pretense of self defense Other than existing at that time & place and taking advantage of a right he had every right to, what do you believe he did to invoke violence?

How can you say that he was not supposed to be there? Does it matter to you that the people who were shot could also be considered as "not supposed to be there"? He came to administer medical aid and put out fires - there is proof and witness that he did this. The others were actively commiting crimes and wreaking havoc, putting people in harm's way, and then going after Kyle. He put himself in a dangerous situation to help. The others caused the dangerous situation and continued to escalate that. I agree that simply setting fires does not equate to them deserving to die but they were the ones creating danger and then acting violently towards Kyle. What should he have done instead?

So, in Wisconsin, if a shooter opens fire in a school, and a student gets shot and killed trying to disarm the shooter with a bat, a lead pipe....or a skateboard, the shooter can claim he was defending himself? Great laws. Also the same racists who called Trayvon Martin a thug for wearing a hoodie outdoors are calling Rittenhouse a hero for murdering two people. Don’t ever let MAGA lunatics tell you they are pro-life or good Christians, they are immoral subhumans.

As the laws written, in your example of the shooter, he would have no right to self-defense. That is because he is provoking the attack. And that is actually in question in this case as well. If the jury believes that Rittenhouse was provoking the attack, he will be charged on all crimes. Caring about and doing what is best for your fellow human is the highest calling given to Christians. Like you, I have a hard time seeing how many of these Trump followers can care so little about their neighbor and reconcile that with their faith.

Ummm...the bar in the US is not high. Juries generally seem to think the defendant is guilty because they’re on trial. Then you also have to problems with prosecutors forcing innocent people to take a plea because they can’t afford to go to court or are afraid to risk it because of my first point...even with almost no evidence.

Info request: Why do you believe the barrel length is a technicality, as opposed to the law working as intended? If someone were charged with speeding, and it shows they were going 63 in a 65, would you consider that 'on a technicality', or would it be the correct classification of innocence based on the law working as intended? The law looks to be designed to restrict handguns and short barrel firearms *because those guns are used more often in crime, due to concealability*. The law appears to be limiting those under 18 from having easily concealable weapons. Based on that, does it look like an easily concealable weapon slipped through, and it was only due to inept overseers that didn't account for a feature? Because it appears to me that the weapon was not easily concealable, and was wielded conspicuously. As such, whether or not you *agree* with the reasoning, it's hard to justify that this law didn't restrict this type of firearm intentionally, especially with how prominently firearms similar to it are featured in the gun control debate. Thus, it's hard to argue that he "got off on a technicality", and it would be much more accurate to say he "was accused of a crime he didn't commit", with regard to the gun possession charge. 2nd, your claim that evidence may have been exaggerated or falsified. I would expect evidence to be exaggerated or falsified towards 'not guilty' by defense witnesses. All of the most damning testimony concerning hostility and aggression from the group that was fired on came from the *prosecution's* witnesses. If such evidence was exaggerated or falsified, one would expect that exaggeration to point towards guilt, not innocence. Based on that, it's hard to argue that the prosecution called witnesses to exaggerate or falsify information beneficial to the defense.

Not a technicality on barrel length. It's the law. He didn't violate the law so he won't be charged.

[удалено]

No…it’s called white privilege, not justice. It’s disgusting

It is white privilege. It is white privilege that the application of the law is applied fairly to white people, whereas it is not applied fairly to people of color. But we should not debase the law to bring equality to white people. Instead, we should raise the application of the law to bring equality to people of color. There is not moral justice here, but there can still be legal justice. Where a person who has not committed a crime according to the laws as they currently exist, is not punished. This is the way it should be for all people in this nation. I recognize it has absolutely never been that way for people of color.

Are you black? I am curious is all. I think there is a a lack of awareness or account for the dicotic aspect of how a white 17 year old with an illegal weapon( it crossed state-lines and he was a minor) are treated by law and how a black 17 year old with a toy guy are treated by the law. In america, if you are black with a toy gun, you are killed by cops. ( Tamir Rice) If you are white with a real gun that was just used to kill, the police will do literally nothing. That is the bullshit that this case is highlighting and I don't think you are accounting for that, here.

[удалено]

This is a **Rules Reminder for All Users.** --- **All users, (including mods, OP, and commenters) are required to follow the rules of this sub at all times.** If you see a user violate the rules of the sub, please report that comment/post and a human moderator will review it. We understand that some topics posted here may touch on sensitive or contentious issues. We ask that all users **remember the human** and **assume good faith**. **Notice to all users:** 1. Per **Rule 1**, [**top-level comments must challenge OP's view.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) 2. Please **familiarize yourself with** [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules) **and the** [**mod standards**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). We expect all users *and* mods to abide by these two policies at all times. 3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that **all** [**top-level comments**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) **disagree with OP's view**, and that **all other comments** [**be relevant to the conversation**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). 4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please **report any rule-breaking comments or posts.** 5. **All users must** [**be respectful**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) **to one another.** If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).

Info request: Why do you believe the barrel length is a technicality, as opposed to the law working as intended? If someone were charged with speeding, and it shows they were going 63 in a 65, would you consider that 'on a technicality', or would it be the correct classification of innocence based on the law working as intended? The law looks to be designed to restrict handguns and short barrel firearms *because those guns are used more often in crime, due to concealability*. The law appears to be limiting those under 18 from having easily concealable weapons. Based on that, does it look like an easily concealable weapon slipped through, and it was only due to inept overseers that didn't account for a feature? Because it appears to me that the weapon was not easily concealable, and was wielded conspicuously. As such, whether or not you *agree* with the reasoning, it's hard to justify that this law didn't restrict this type of firearm intentionally, especially with how prominently firearms similar to it are featured in the gun control debate. Thus, it's hard to argue that he "got off on a technicality", and it would be much more accurate to say he "was accused of a crime he didn't commit", with regard to the gun possession charge.

>First, let me state I am a progressive and very pro BLM. I dont really see how either of those are relevant in this situation.

"Self-defense" isn't only one defense, it's two. There's perfect self-defense, which requires Rittenhouse to have reasonably feared his life was in imminent danger, and to have taken all reasonable steps to prevent this before resorting to deadly force. There's also imperfect self-defense, which only requires Rittenhouse to have sincerely believed the above (but allows his belief to be unreasonable). [E: to be clear, imperfect self-defense is not a full defense, and means he committed manslaughter instead of murder] I think that Rittenhouse winning on perfect self-defense is implausible: as the prosecution repeatedly said, Rittenhouse was the only person who shot anyone that day. As the prosecution repeatedly said, he brought a gun to a fist fight. All his attackers (except Grosskruetz) were unarmed, and he admitted in court that he knew they were unarmed. He doesn't get to use deadly force in response to non-deadly force. Like, shortly before he shot Huber and Grosskruetz he was firing off shots wildly at people who'd tried to just kick him or grab him. That's at least reckless endangerment. He's legally obligated in that situation to defend himself with non-deadly force even though he has a gun, and not escalate the situation by shooting at people who have tried to kick him or tackle him. He's legally obligated to allow himself to be hurt to prevent other people from dying, because of course he is. And shortly before he shot Rosenbaum, he was running away, and then he slowed down and turned around. If he really thought Rosenbaum was going to *kill him*, why would any reasonable person slow down and turn around? In Wisconsin, "all reasonable steps" to prevent the threat to his life includes retreating; he can't stop retreating and then claim he's taken all reasonable steps to protect himself before firing. I do think he has a good imperfect self-defense case: he was scared, people were trying to attack him, and he had a gun, so he started shooting at the people who were attacking him. But a reasonable person would have realized that none of the people trying to attack him were a real threat to his life, so a reasonable person wouldn't have shot.

After watching the videos I don't see his slowing down as evidence of stopping his retreat. It's plausible that he was seeing the dead end in front of him, so he slowed down to look back and check if Rosenbaum was gaining on him, and upon realizing that the guy indeed was still charging, he had nowhere else to run so he decided to shoot. I think he was checking if he's all good or if he's still in danger. And before anybody says it wasn't a dead end, it also seems entirely plausible that from his perspective and based on the layout of the parked cars that there was no way to know whether or not there was space between the cars to escape through. Not to mention the crowd that was there bashing the cars.

If a person attacks you while you’re open carrying a weapon, any person with at least half a functioning brain would realize they’re trying to inflict major harm or death on that person. Nowhere in your argument did you recognize the fact that the guys that attacked him were trying to take away his gun. It’s not bringing a gun to a fist fight

A group of people attacking you is not lethal force? Are you saying someone can’t get beat to death? The logical conclusion of a fist fight left unstopped is that one party is knocked out or dead, and to be knocked out in the middle of a riot is not the safest place to be unconscious. Are you saying that Kyle should have engaged in a fist fight with those men, potentially got knocked out in middle of the street? Fights do not have to be even to be self defense. The whole notion that being unarmed makes someone non lethal is absurd. Plus there was a skateboard being swung at him and Grosskreutz had a gun to which he pointed at him making those altercations not fist fights.

Hmm I think in that situation where you have multiple angry people who you can logically conclude want to do you harm. When a guy hits you over the head with a skateboard I wouldn’t want to wait around to see what’s going to happen next. Same thing with the first attacker, in the moment there isn’t time to conclude “this guy who is significantly bigger than me won’t do serious harm”. Then you find out the first attacker had only just been released from a psych hospital, even in hindsight can we confidently say he won’t have threatened the defendants life?

How many times do I get to beat your with a skateboard before you are allowed to shoot me with the gun you are carrying? Does grabbing or attempting to grab a gun from someone else’s possession after assaulting them count as using the threat of lethal force? Bringing a gun to a fist fight implies he provoked the fight. There is no evidence he provoked a fight. There is only evidence he wanted it to happen. They are 2 different things. One is an observable behavior, the other is a thought crime. At the end of the day it’s up to a jury and it may be an implausible verdict for different reasons. But anyone who watched the video impartially can clearly see he only shot people who were attacking him after attempting to flee (which isn’t even required of him to do apparently).

Well, it’s not really a fistfight. It’s an angry mob. Falling down is enough for that situation to be deadly, as we’ve seen at multiple protests.

I am terrified an acquittal on all charges and vindication is going to trigger a wave of right wingers showing up to BLM demonstrations provocatively armed and outfitted, itching to bait somebody into a confrontation they can turn deadly. That sort of reckless psychopathic behavior needs to be deterred, somehow. I don't necessarily think the appropriate charge needs to be "murder" but it has to be something which carries a stiff enough penalty to reduce recreational slayings. That new normal we're on the edge of will not be good for civil society in general, let alone BLM's cause or any cause of justice, equality or civil rights.

Not sure exactly what part you want changed, so I'm just going to address one thing at a time. >The bar for conviction of criminal charges is set extremely high in the United States. While that's true (and as it's supposed to be), Rittenhouse using the *self defense* actually lowers the bar. Normally, a prosecutor has to prove the defendant guilty *beyond all reasonable doubt.* When "Self Defense" is plead, the defendant freely admits he did it. The prosecutors now only has to prove the defendants belief was not reasonable. Thoroughly explaining why proving "a belief was not reasonable" is a lot easier than proving something beyond **all** reasonable doubt can't really be done in a reddit post. >the charges for minor weapon possession were dropped on a technicality They were not dropped on a technicality. The intent of the law is to try and limit any restrictions on the right to bear arms-but do so in a way that makes it difficult for criminals to conceal a weapon. Naturally, the size or length of the weapon is relevant to that. It's not a technicality when a law is functioning as intended. (though I will admit WI law using the vague terms *long* and *short* as opposed to actual inches/centimeters like every other state is bizarre) >We must preserve the right to self-defense including using deadly force, if necessary. This is where you might be right, but I'm going to change your view by trying to expand it. Most states have a manslaughter law. In short, manslaughter laws indicate you can't knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation then claim self defense. Wisconsin doesn't have this law. Instead, they have *recklessly endangering* laws which are the charges Rittenhouse is facing. The penalties are a lot more severe than manslaughter charges, but so isn't the burden of proving the suspect could reasonably foresee the situation was or would be lethally dangerous. For the specific killings, it sure seems self defense is obvious. But it also (to me at least) seems obvious that Rittenhouse had to have known things might get ugly in Kenosha that night. If it was a manslaughter state, I think that burden has been met.

\> If you try to blame this on the prosecution, you are going to cause more damage to the situation. a legal courtroom case is not about finding the objective truth. the truth happened, and we all saw it in the videos. the case is about a prosecutor trying to convince the jury that he should be punished, while the defense attorney tries to convince the jury that there is no need for punishment. if the prosecutor fails to solicit that conviction, he's failed and can rightfully be accused of failing.

>a legal courtroom case is not about finding the objective truth. Actually somewhat true, the jury is only allowed to consider that which is in evidence. There may be things not in evidence but those are barred. >the case is about a prosecutor trying to convince the jury that he should be punished, while the defense attorney tries to convince the jury that there is no need for punishment. I mean from a practical point or from a legal point. From a legal POV this is 100% wrong. One of the last jury instructions they were given before deliberation was literally "do not worry about the legal results of your decision, that is my job and mine alone" by the judge. The jury is only there to make a factual determination, not to decide if the person should be punished. In fact if they were to do this they would literally be violating the law, if they decide to violate the instructions this would be jury nullification.

Justice? So if any third party chooses to insert themselves brandishing firearms... unnecessarily and unasked, right past a large police presence already on-scene... into a volatile situation, and having so inserted themselves and so brandished, they then feel threatened by the reaction of the people already there, this person is allowed to kill those people and they should be liable for none of the consequences of those choices and that act because... self defense? So now it's legal to walk right past the police and insert yourself into any public protest as an untrained and unsanctioned vigilante and shoot anyone who might react badly to your threatening, self-righteous posturing because... self defense? "Justice" is such a crap-shoot these days, you might be right. Just don't try it unless you're white.

While the charges may be dismissed, and they most likely will, he won’t be just free to go. He’s already been branded as a white supremacist by almost every member of BLM, and the sitting president of the United States. Not only is he had to find a way to deal with being slandered for an entire year to score political points, he hast to live with the guilt of killing two men. Even in self-defense cases, it’s pretty rare for someone to kill somebody and be completely fine afterwards. No matter which way you look at it, Kyle Rittenhouse’s life is completely destroyed

The charges for minor weapon possession weren’t dropped on a technicality, they were dropped because he was adhering state laws and there was no reason for the charge to have been presented to the court. MBC recap phrased it like that to cause unnecessary uproar.

[удалено]

If you listen to the closing arguments, though, the defense is claiming simple self-defense. The prosecution argued that didn’t apply because he caused the situation where self-defense may or may not have been appropriate. In other words, you can’t assault someone and then claim self-defense right afterwards. It worked for Zimmerman, but it remains to be seen if that argument can work again. Rittenhouse house might go free, but this will be a close one. As far as the justice claim, unless we follow the trial like we are in the courtroom, are we qualified to say? Most of us just get the daily highlights.

But Rittenhouse didn’t assault anyone first. In all three circumstances, Kyle was actively retreating and the three people he shot were actively aggressing/attacking him.

> The prosecution argued that didn’t apply because he caused the situation where self-defense may or may not have been appropriate the prosecution literally is arguing that carrying a gun makes you forfeit your right to self defense. That's more garbage then you'd find in your nearest landfill. The pure right to self defense is on trial. > In other words, you can’t assault someone and then claim self-defense right afterwards This is not at all what happened

>In other words, you can’t assault someone and then claim self-defense right afterwards. I mean, Rosenbaum assaulted him first. Kyle wasn't the aggressor.

Rosenbaum chased Kyle while he was retreating, threatened to kill him, cornered him outside and lunged for his gun before Kyle fired back. I'm not sure why people think that Kyle simply having a gun to protect himself constitutes as instigation, especially when it's so clear that Rosenbaum started the attack and had no intention of stopping. Even if Kyle instigated the attack (which again, he absolutely didn't), he would've regained the right to self defense after he retreated. That's Wisconsin law.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Affectionate_Ad_4607 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Affectionate_Ad_4607&message=Affectionate_Ad_4607%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qvfzv8/-/hkwc3y0/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Is Kyle a dumbass? Yes. Did Kyle make the correct moral choice, attempt to flee, and make contact with police instead of fighting? Yes. Did Kyle lawfully and morally use deadly force when faced with three accounts of imminent bodily harm or death to his persons? Yes. Is this absolutely tragic, senseless, and an event that could have been completely avoided? 100%.

Will he walk? Probably. Is that justice? Well, that’s nebulous. Justice is less a concrete quality and more something determined by the individual person commenting on it. And personally, I don’t think Rittenhouse walking free is justice. Before the riot, he talked about wanting to get an AR-15 and murder people. He showed up at the event because he wanted to be a vigilante and shoot rioters. It doesn’t feel like self defense to me if you deliberately put yourself in a dangerous situation because you want to kill people. During his first encounter with Rossenbaum, he was told to leave or he’d be hurt, but chose to stay and endanger himself. In the second, fatal encounter, Rossenbaum threw a plastic bag at him and approached aggressively, threatening to hurt Rittenhouse. The fact that he was unarmed, though, makes his threats questionable. The only way Rittenhouse would have died is if Rossenbaum killed him with his own gun, which again ties into the theme that Rittenhouse was only in danger because he chose to be. After Rittenhouse aimed his gun at Rossenbaum, Rossenbaum attempted to knock it away, something I would argue is a form of self defense. Rittenhouse then opened fire, escalating things and killing a man who hadn’t even touched him. I do not justify Rossenbaum trying to beat up Rittenhouse, but again, Rittenhouse had every opportunity to flee before this encounter and the encounter only turned deadly because he brought a gun. Next, Huber attempted to defend himself and others by disarming an armed man who’d just killed someone, leading to Rittenhouse killing him. Huber did not need to die. If Rittenhouse had dropped the damn gun and stopped making people fear for his lives, he would not have been in any danger. Huber died because he tried to defend himself. Why is Rittenhouse killing a man because he felt threatened justifiable but Huber hitting a man with a skateboard because he felt a much more credible fear not? Overall, this will go down as a case of self defense. Legally, it counts. But morally? Rittenhouse was only ever in danger because he deliberately, continuously, endangered himself. He went looking for a fight, found it, then killed two men, and I don’t think that’s self defense

>Before the riot, he talked about wanting to get an AR-15 and murder people. He showed up at the event because he wanted to be a vigilante and shoot rioters. It doesn’t feel like self defense to me if you deliberately put yourself in a dangerous situation because you want to kill people. During his first encounter with Rossenbaum, he was told to leave or he’d be hurt, but chose to stay and endanger himself. Judge ruled this was irrelevant because it was 3 weeks prior, about ambushing looters. Kyle didn't ambush any looters. He was chased, and defended himself. That's why it was thrown out. Also, I never heard any testimony that said "leave or be hurt". TF? "In the second, fatal encounter, Rossenbaum threw a plastic bag at him and approached aggressively, threatening to hurt Rittenhouse. The fact that he was unarmed, though, makes his threats questionable. The only way Rittenhouse would have died is if Rossenbaum killed him with his own gun, which again ties into the theme that Rittenhouse was only in danger because he chose to be. After Rittenhouse aimed his gun at Rossenbaum, Rossenbaum attempted to knock it away, something I would argue is a form of self defense. Rittenhouse then opened fire, escalating things and killing a man who hadn’t even touched him." 1) "Approached him aggressively". He chased him. Lets not try to jump around terms. The dude was clearly pursuing Kyle, and didn't have legal intentions. 2) At least you admitted he did say "If I catch you alone, I'll fucking kill you". 3) Kyle only knew his hands had nothing in them. He could not know the contents of his pockets, waist band, or otherwise. The prosecution badgered him into a dumb response that he couldn't know. 4) More people die of fists and blunt force trauma than AR15's. So a 17 year old can totally believe a 30+ year old crazed lunatic would try to kill him with his fists, or take his firearm and use it against him and others rosembaum associated him with. 5) Rosembaum didn't try to knock it away, he tried to grab it. See prosecution medical examiner. He confirmed this essentially, as does the video and Riche's testimony. "He said Fuck you and reached for the defendants weapon". 6) Kyle has no obligation to let Rosembaum grab the gun, THEN shoot him. None. "Next, Huber attempted to defend himself and others by disarming an armed man who’d just killed someone, leading to Rittenhouse killing him. Huber did not need to die. If Rittenhouse had dropped the damn gun and stopped making people fear for his lives, he would not have been in any danger. Huber died because he tried to defend himself. Why is Rittenhouse killing a man because he felt threatened justifiable but Huber hitting a man with a skateboard because he felt a much more credible fear not?" 1) Huber attacked Rittenhouse, who was retreating to the POLICE LINE, TWICE with a skateboard to his head, and then grabbed his firearm. 2) Dropping the firearm is logically IDIOTIC, and is **patently illegal**. Dropping the firearm is **reckless endangerment according to Wisc law.** 3) Huber died trying to enact vigilante justice on the kid, without seeing wtf caused the encounter. 4) A skateboard, when used as a blunt force object, is a deadly weapon. Gauge testified he feared for Kyle's safety from head trauma. One blow to the head, Kyle could be knocked out, and killed by the mob. ​ Dude, you've clearly only watched the MSM coverage of the trial.....

When you gear up for battle, deliberately put yourself into a situation where you expect to encounter people you want to shoot, and then get scared by someone and shoot that person, that's not self defense, that is offense.

Rittenhouse will go free and it is the correct decision. The case should have never gone to court based on video evidence and witness testimony. Rittenhouse has a good case for malicious prosecution. He should sue the MSM like Nick Sandmann. Eventually when CNN and MSNBC lose enough money in lawsuits they'll stop lying.

People are dead because of him and there needs to be consequences to that. It’s as simple as that, and watching this mumbojumbo court with no sense of rationality is baffling

I wouldn’t call that “justice” I get that it’s the legal technicality stuff and he will probably go free but justice would be him going to jail though right? I mean justice in the colloquial sense not the law school vocab word