Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:15 pm
We had a discussion awhile back about why I didn’t find Rittenhouse to be a credible witness. I said I thought his testimony was coached. Looks like I was right.
In spite of the obvious coaching, I thought (and still think) that his account of the attacks and his motives for shooting was consistent with the testimony of other witnesses and video evidence, and that the prosecution presented virtually no evidence inconsistent with it (indeed several prosecution witnesses buttressed KR's self-defense case). Since he is presumed innocent, I thought the verdict was correct, because the prosecution didn't give me conclusive reason to reject any part of his claim to have acted in reasonable self-defense.
In your discussion there was only one element of this defense you explicitly said you thought the state disproved beyond a reasonable doubt: that it was *reasonable* to believe he faced a deadly force threat (death or serious bodily harm). Of course this is the whole ballgame. To me it's the *only* difficult legal issue in the case. And ... I just think it's mostly a judgment call on which reasonable people can differ. I see evidence in support of it:
-On Rosenbaum, another witness confirmed his testimony that JR threated to kill them if he got anyone alone, there was other testimony and video showing Rosenbaum to have behaved aggressively and erratically (making him fearsome), made other threats and tried to start fights, and prosecution witness and video evidence support Rosenbaum going for his rifle, meaning the agressive psycho was in the process of arming himself while simultaneously rendering KR defenseless. Maybe Rosenbaum would only have taken the rifle, maybe he would only have beaten KR up, but ... Kyle can't know for certain what the aggressive psycho was going to do. Was he obligated to just let the aggressive psycho who had threatened him take his gun?
-Jump-kick man was a big guy in work boots kicking straight down at his head while he was helpless on his back on the pavement.
-Huber bashed him twice with a skateboard and went for his gun. Skateboard is like a baseball bat with metal parts attached (the trucks: skaters have a concept of "truck fucking" someone by swinging the board).
-Grosskreutz advanced on him with a pistol drawn.
So I don't think it is at all outrageous to hold that someone can reasonably fear death or serious bodily harm from those attacks. Perhaps more likely the serious bodily harm part.
On motive, it seems very hard to me to say the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did not believe he faced threats of death or serious bodily harm or that he did not shoot with the motive of eliminating those threats. I would believe this even without his testimony. Someone who actually *wanted* to shoot people would not be trying to flee and firing only at the last minute as attackers were upon him, and could have shot plenty of other people. Just prima facie, I think the behavior you see on video is that of a defensive shooter. I've thought this since three days after the event when NYT ran video.
On whether the force used was necessary to eliminate the threats, I don't see that he had lesser-force alternatives available to him in those particular circumstances.
On provocation, the prosecution had only very dubious evidence and anyway it wouldn't have made a legal difference if Rittenhouse had provoked through illegal conduct: it would give him a duty to retreat, but retreat was not an option in his situation.
Hancock is concerned to expose Rittenhouse's bad character for his own reasons. I find this interesting (there's more stuff I might post). But his bad character doesn't seem relevant to his self-defense case to me.
>
