Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[raison de arizona]

Well this appears to a) have been lost in the board crash, and b) beginning to move forward again. So here we go!

Rittenhouse attorney wants to show victim was sex offender

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney wants a judge to allow him to argue that one of the men his client fatally shot during a Wisconsin protest was a sex offender, saying it supports a defense theory that he attacked Rittenhouse and intended to take his gun because he couldn't legally possess one.

Mark Richards maintained in court filings Thursday that Joseph Rosenbaum was convicted of having sex with a minor in Arizona in 2002 and was prohibited from possessing firearms. Rosenbaum started the altercation with Rittenhouse in hopes of making off with his assault-style rifle, which only bolsters Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument, Richards wrote.

Kimberley Motley, an attorney representing Rosenbaum's estate, said Tuesday morning that she hadn't read the motions yet and had no immediate comment.

Richards also filed a motion to dismiss a charge that Rittenhouse couldn't possess a gun because he was too young under Wisconsin law, arguing that statutes prohibit minors from possessing short-barreled shotguns and rifles, and Rittenhouse's assault-style rifle doesn't meet that definition.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/nation ... dc4e4.html

A quick reminder of the kind of guy Kyle is...

Prosecutors are trying to introduce evidence at trial that Kyle Rittenhouse is associated with the Proud Boys and that he had a past violent encounter on Kenosha’s lakefront.

In the motion filed Thursday in Kenosha County Circuit Court, Assistant District Attorneys Thomas Binger and Jason Zapf asked Judge Bruce Schroeder to allow them to admit evidence that Rittenhouse is associated with the Proud Boys, a group classified as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government and as a hate group by the U.S. based Southern Poverty Law Center.

“Much like members of the Proud Boys take pride in violence, the defendant is evidently proud that he killed two people and seriously wounded a third. He has posed for selfies as if he is a celebrity. His family has sold merchandise with his image on it that celebrates his acts of violence,” the prosecution motion states. “The fact that he has since celebrated his notoriety strongly suggests that he set out to achieve the goal of becoming famous.”

Prosecutors also want to admit evidence that Rittenhouse repeatedly punched a teenage girl during an incident on Kenosha’s lakefront the month before the August shootings.

Defense attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi filed a response Thursday afternoon arguing that the incident on the lakefront is irrelevant and unrelated,

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/ ... f3f15.html

Here's the prosecution's evidence motion:

rittenhouse_evidence97.pdf

(455.11 KiB) Downloaded 810 times

[Maybenaut]

My prediction: The defense’s motion to admit evidence that the victim was a sex offender will be denied as speculative. Rittenhouse can’t connect the dots between the guy’s inability to own a firearm as a result of his conviction and his attempt (if true) to take Rittenour’s.

The prosecution’s motion to admit evidence of Rittenour’s involvement with the Proud Boys and his prior act of violence will be granted. Ordinarily, you’re not allowed to use a person’s prior bad acts to show that they’re a bad person. But they can be used to show other things like motive, intent, absence of mistake, and the like.

It wouldn’t break my heart if the judge kept that stuff out, though. Personally, I think too much of that sort of thing gets admitted at trial. And the instructions to the jury that they can only consider the evidence for the limited purpose for which it was admitted are meaningless, IMO.

[arayder]

What could go wrong with a 17 year-old taking an AR-15 to a protest that has turned chaotic?

Why isn't this boy's momma in jail?

--------------------
Dope Clock II: It's been 24 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth!

[raison de arizona]

I won't have a chance to read this until later, but it looks pretty good. And they have an audio version (90 minutes).

Kyle Rittenhouse, American Vigilante
After he killed two people in Kenosha, opportunists turned his case into a polarizing spectacle.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 ... -vigilante

► Show Spoiler

[andersweinstein]

My prediction: The defense’s motion to admit evidence that the victim was a sex offender will be denied as speculative. Rittenhouse can’t connect the dots between the guy’s inability to own a firearm as a result of his conviction and his attempt (if true) to take Rittenour’s.

The prosecution’s motion to admit evidence of Rittenour’s involvement with the Proud Boys and his prior act of violence will be granted. Ordinarily, you’re not allowed to use a person’s prior bad acts to show that they’re a bad person. But they can be used to show other things like motive, intent, absence of mistake, and the like.

It wouldn’t break my heart if the judge kept that stuff out, though. Personally, I think too much of that sort of thing gets admitted at trial. And the instructions to the jury that they can only consider the evidence for the limited purpose for which it was admitted are meaningless, IMO.

1. I would be quite surprised if the schoolyard fight were allowed. The act does not seem very similar to first-degree murder with a rifle to me (in spite of the prosecutor's valiant attempts to link them). Probative value seems low, because the inference from "x once joined a schoolyard fight on his sister's side" to "x is likely to commit first degree murder" is very weak. Commonsensically, where would we be if anybody's once joining in a schoolyard fracas allowed to persuade the jury in a murder trial of violent tendencies? I'm sure lots of murder defendants have lesser incidents of aggression in their background.

2. The alleged Proud Boys association is more interesting. It would be highly relevant if Rittenhouse were affiliated. with the Proud Boys. The fascinating New Yorker piece includes an explanation of how that link arose, apparently obtained from the Rittenhouse point of view. In that telling it arose through grifting lawyer John Pierce, who sent the head of the Proud Boys to pick the Rittenhouses up for a meeting. Later, family advisor Hancock -- someone who split off from Lin Wood in disgust -- wound up using some people Pierce provided for security as volunteer lookouts when KR attended Zoom hearings at WI lawyer's office. Those turned out to be the Proud Boys who invited him out to the bar, serenaded him and posed with him pictures. The Rittenhouse line is that he had no idea who they were or what the "OK" hand signal meant to them and is repulsed by their ideology.

If this is true, the association appears to have arisen entirely AFTER the shooting. We have not heard of any evidence of any link to any extremist group from BEFORE the shooting. And one would assume investigators combed his phone calls, texts, social media posts and emails looking for such things. So the prosecutor is milking this event for all it is worth.

So: should this be allowed to be brought up and the defense present their rebuttal at trial? Or should it be excluded as of little probative value compared to prejudicial effect? I don't know what to expect here.

3. I agree Rosenbaum's history of child rape is very unlikely to be allowed in support of a very speculative theory.

I would have thought Rosenbaum's record (and mental illness) would be most relevant to support the defense claim that Rosenbaum was the aggressor in the interaction, not Rittenhouse. The prosecutor's motion anticipates Rittenhouse's self-defense claim and makes clear that he will raise the issue of who was the aggressor. I wonder if there is an opportunity to move again to bring this in when that arises -- I have no idea about the relevant rules.

[andersweinstein]

I notice the prosecutor's motion includes:

The defendant’s presence, as well as the presence of other armed individuals, made the potential for violence a certainty. Rather than make things more peaceful, the defendant’s presence increased the unrest and chaos. ...The defendant deliberately aggravated the situation. It is anticipated that the defendant will attempt to assert the privilege of self-defense at trial. His association with a violent racist group is highly relevant to that assertion. By illegally bringing a deadly weapon to an already volatile situation, the State contends that the defendant forfeited his right to claim self-defense.

That last sentence is applying some kind of folk morality that as far as I can see -- even if the factual claims were true! -- has no basis in WI self-defense law. Think about what it would mean to forfeit your privilege of self-defense! Someone could attack and kill you and you would have no right to defend yourself.

You can read the law at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48 It indicates that even if you provoke an attack, you do not necessarily forfeit the right of self-defense, although you have a slightly higher burden. Since Rittenhouse was seen to be fleeing his attacker, it seems he would he able to meet that burden even if he was judged to have provoked the attack on him (something the defense will also deny, of course).

The law does say someone forfeits their right to self-defense if he or she provokes an attack "with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant". But the prosecution does not claim anything like that here, merely that his armed presence increased the likelihood of violence. The necessary claim about specific intent looks very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without something like explicit statements to that effect, though one could always try to make a circumstantial case for it. But again, not what they're saying.

The fact that this is legal nonsense suggests to me the prosecution here is mainly playing to public opinion.

[fierceredpanda]

Oh good. Anders is back to explain Wisconsin law to me, a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin.

I would go into a long discussion about why Wisconsin self-defense law doesn't actually work the way you think it does and why just reading Wis.Stat. 939.48 is not nearly sufficient to understand how it does work. However:

1) It's 9 AM on a Saturday morning, and I done lawyered enough this week.
2) I'm tired and slightly hung over from drinking some excellent Chianti last night.
3) My work computer, which has access to the Wisconsin Jury Instructions database (a much more helpful illustration of the business end of the law), is at my office.
4) I've tried reasoning with you on Old Fogbow, and I am quite certain that nothing I say will penetrate your Dunning-Kruger shield.
5) It's 9 AM on a Saturday morning, and I simply cannot be bothered.

[bob]

6) Prosecutors (i.e., professional criminal attorneys) aren't known for writing motions to courts that "have no basis in ... law" and are "legal nonsense."

Especially in highly publicized cases.

[fierceredpanda]

I have no idea about the relevant rules.

Truer words were never spoken.

[andersweinstein]

I would go into a long discussion about why Wisconsin self-defense law doesn't actually work the way you think it does and why just reading Wis.Stat. 939.48 is not nearly sufficient to understand how it does work. However:

I would be very happy to hear information from someone who knows better than me. I make no presumption that I understand the law better -- you will notice that everything I say on the subject is prefaced with "as far as I can see" or "my understanding is" and openly confessed where I am ignorant. I am perfectly happy to be corrected on this or any other matter of law. I do think it is unfair to blame me for *starting* by looking at what the actual statute says. (Binger's brief does not cite any self-defense law.)

I post on Fogbow because I'm very interested in this case as a self-defense case and looking for informed discussion. I have appreciated your expertise very much in the past. I really would like to hear your comment on this issue.

[Corrected my mistake on the prosecutor's name]

[fierceredpanda]

I would go into a long discussion about why Wisconsin self-defense law doesn't actually work the way you think it does and why just reading Wis.Stat. 939.48 is not nearly sufficient to understand how it does work. However:

(Bingham's brief does not cite any self-defense law.)

That's because Binger (the prosecutor who wrote the brief) doesn't bear the burden of arguing self-defense. That's the defense's job, and it's an affirmative defense. Rittenhouse's lawyers have to show that one of the privileges in 939.48 applies. The state's objective in this motion is to admit other-acts evidence pursuant to Chapter 904 and State v. Sullivan that they feel would help the jury put Rittenhouse's actions in a context that would demonstrate that no legitimate self-defense privilege applied here. Sullivan motions are brought all the time by Wisconsin prosecutors when they feel that some prior bad act would be helpful to their case and helpful to the jury. The judge can agree or disagree, but your implicit accusation above that this motion was brought in bad faith or for an improper motive (political grandstanding) is ludicrous. They're doing what prosecutors do when the defense is broadcasting that they're going to argue self-defense - trying to bring in evidence that damages the defendant's case.

If the State's narrative is that Rittenhouse went there while armed because he was motivated by racial animus, the fact that he has associated with the Proud Boys only after the fact is immaterial, because it lends credence to their theory that Rittenhouse is basically a violent bigot. Rittenhouse's lawyers can (and I'm sure will) argue that this evidence is more prejudicial than probative (see Wis.Stat. 904.03), and therefore should be kept out. It's an interesting legal argument for the judge to decide, but that's literally what lawyering is. One side asks for something, the other side argues why that shouldn't happen, and the court decides. You seem to be of the opinion that this motion is so wildly unfounded that it should be laughed out of court, and I'm here to tell you it will not be.

The State is not saying that Rittenhouse's membership in the Proud Boys forfeits his right to self-defense. They are saying that it provides necessary context for his violent and bigoted character that demonstrate that this incident was not, in fact, an act of self-defense but a cold-blooded murder by someone who was looking for any excuse to kill people he didn't like. Same thing with the fighting incidents; the State wants to demonstrate that Rittenhouse is not some hero who uses force only as a last resort, but a violent, aggressive person who has a propensity for using force first rather than last. You can disagree with that, and the judge might not grant the motion, but again, it's not anything groundbreaking. The prosecutors are trying to put on a strong case, and Rittenhouse's actions since the shooting have given them more ammunition. This is why "client control" is a thing amongst defense lawyers.

And no, Rosenbaum's record will not be coming in. A defendant who is invoking self-defense is allowed to file their own other-acts motions. The strongest of those for a self-defense case is a McMorris motion, arising as it does from the case State v. McMorris. I've brought a whole bunch of those in my career. The problem is that a McMorris motion expressly requires that the other act or acts being admitted were known to the defendant at the time of the incident. For instance, I've brought this in cases where my client was accused of battering someone who previously had battered them and been arrested for it. It's great for proving a defense that the victim was a violent person, the defendant knew that, and the defendant acted accordingly. Rittenhouse knew sweet fuck-all about Rosenbaum when this happened, so McMorris is out the window. All that's left is a Sullivan motion on the same grounds as the State's motion. But Rittenhouse was the one who brought the gun to the incident. The State's whole point is that Rittenhouse was the aggressor. Rosenbaum's record or lack thereof is immaterial to Rittenhouse's motivations for bringing a gun and deciding to start shooting. The only purpose in bringing the gross sexual stuff in would be to smear Rosenbaum in the eyes of the jury, which is an improper purpose. That evidence isn't coming in, ever.

[noblepa]

IANAL, but a little nit-picking here. The prosecutor did not suggest that Rittenhouse forfeited his right to self-defense. Rather, he suggested that Rittenhouse forfeited the right to CLAIM self-defense as a defense to the charge of murder.

Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, but the prosecutor seems to be saying that Rittenhouse's actions belie any self-defense claims.

[somerset]

IANAL, but a little nit-picking here. The prosecutor did not suggest that Rittenhouse forfeited his right to self-defense. Rather, he suggested that Rittenhouse forfeited the right to CLAIM self-defense as a defense to the charge of murder.

That's essentially what FRP just said.

[andersweinstein]

IANAL, but a little nit-picking here. The prosecutor did not suggest that Rittenhouse forfeited his right to self-defense. Rather, he suggested that Rittenhouse forfeited the right to CLAIM self-defense as a defense to the charge of murder.

Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, but the prosecutor seems to be saying that Rittenhouse's actions belie any self-defense claims.

Ah that is an interesting interpretation! I had not thought of it that way.

I do think evidence that belies his claim about motive is not well represented as "forfeiting his right to claim self-defense". I mean, he still has the *right*, it's just that the evidence would render his claim to have acted in self-defense implausible.

But I acknowledge that could be an idiomatic way of putting this point about belying his claimed motive. People do sometimes put things that way.

[andersweinstein]

It's an interesting legal argument for the judge to decide, but that's literally what lawyering is. One side asks for something, the other side argues why that shouldn't happen, and the court decides. You seem to be of the opinion that this motion is so wildly unfounded that it should be laughed out of court, and I'm here to tell you it will not be.

Thank you for elaborating. To clarify one thing, the bolded bit is not my position at all. If you look at my first post, I said a Proud Boys relationship would clearly be relevant for many purposes. I agree entirely with your assessment that it is an interesting legal question whether it should be admitted. I said I couldn't predict how the judge would rule.

The bit I quoted was just more of a side note zeroing on just one specific part that jumped out at me. It was not intended as a judgement on the entire motion.

(It is correct I personally judge Binger [my mistake] to include a fair bit of grandstanding amid actions that are otherwise perfectly standard as you say. But that is an opinion based on the totality of his efforts here and earlier, as in the bail motion.)

[andersweinstein]

I do find an interesting intellectual puzzle in the WI self-defense statute as written, which could actually be relevant in this case. I'd be very interested in informed comment.

For self-defense, WI requires a reasonable belief in an unlawful interference with one's person as a threshold element.

Now it is always possible to contrive a situation where someone has a belief that is fully justified on the evidence, but false. So other people could have a fully justified but false belief that a person is a murderer/active shooter/about to kill someone. To sketch a hypothetical, imagine police broadcast a description of a man wearing orange pants and a green shirt, shooting everyone he meets on sight. By terrible coincidence, a completely innocent bystander holding a gun is in the vicinity fitting just that description when some citizens come upon him, take him for a suspect and attack him thinking they're preventing further loss of life. Does the innocent man have the right to defend himself in this case?

I see two cases. (A) he has no idea why they are attacking him. In this case he has a reasonable belief that the attack upon him is unlawful, so he retains the right of self-defense. It is just a tragic situation: both parties can be justified on the evidence available to them in attacking each other. Mercifully rare, but it can happen in theory.

But what about (B): he hears the police description too. He knows why the folks have taken him for a murderer. He knows how improbable it is that two people would meet that description. Either he rationally acknowledges they are fully justified in attacking him, or, one could argue, he at least ought rationally to do so. Either way he does NOT have a reasonable belief the attack on his person is unlawful.

In this case, does WI law entail that this completely innocent man has no right to defend himself?

That result seems hard to believe. But perhaps a case could be made. After all, the people attacking him are epistemically blameless -- they are doing right on the evidence they have. They are also completely innocent people who don't deserve to die for their actions. It is another tragic situation, where whatever happens, an innocent will be harmed. The law could take the view that in this - rare -- situation, the bystander does have to accept his possibly tragic fate rather than use deadly force against people he knows to be morally innocent. And an ethical person could in fact have a hard time shooting people he knows are completely blameless.

I'd be happy if someone who knows more could let me know if I am understanding this aspect correctly.

[andersweinstein]

I do find an interesting intellectual puzzle in the WI self-defense statute as written, which could actually be relevant in this case.

The relevance should be obvious, but: I am thinking of the second and third shootings. In this case, the people who ran at KR believed they were justified because interfering with a murderer/white supremacist/active shooter who might shoot other people. KR himself could have thought he only committed a justifiable homicide in self-defense, so took the attack on him to be unlawful, and so believed he had the right of self-defense.

I have hitherto thought this could have been a tragic situation of type A above, in which both sides could be justified in attacking each other. I don't find it completely obvious that the bystanders who ran at him were justified in attacking him. Mobs aren't known for their rationality and one could argue they jumped to a hasty conclusion based mainly on stereotyping him an enemy. But I certainly recognize it as a defensible view that they were fully justified.

But could one argue that KR ought rationally to have recognized that others would be justified in attacking him? That a rational person would understand the attack on him was lawful, entailing he had no right to self-defense? Even if he believed otherwise, can one argue that a *reasonable* person would have believed this, so he fails the test for one element of perfect self-defense?

The rhetoric in the DA's motion includes "It was not the defendant who possessed the right to self-defense that evening. It was everyone else, to defend themselves against him." So perhaps when it comes down to legalities, could it come to this hairy bit of epistemic logic?

I have seen a lot of commentary on this case, some from lawyers attempting to parse the legalities finely, but none squarely addressing this particular aspect.

[sugar magnolia]

I do find an interesting intellectual puzzle in the WI self-defense statute as written, which could actually be relevant in this case.

The relevance should be obvious, but: I am thinking of the second and third shootings. In this case, the people who ran at KR believed they were justified because interfering with a murderer/white supremacist/active shooter who might shoot other people. KR himself could have thought he only committed a justifiable homicide in self-defense, so took the attack on him to be unlawful, and so believed he had the right of self-defense.

I have hitherto thought this could have been a tragic situation of type A above, in which both sides could be justified in attacking each other. I don't find it completely obvious that the bystanders who ran at him were justified in attacking him. Mobs aren't known for their rationality and one could argue they jumped to a hasty conclusion based mainly on stereotyping him an enemy. But I certainly recognize it as a defensible view that they were fully justified.

But could one argue that KR ought rationally to have recognized that others would be justified in attacking him? That a rational person would understand the attack on him was lawful, entailing he had no right to self-defense? Even if he believed otherwise, can one argue that a *reasonable* person would have believed this, so he fails the test for one element of perfect self-defense?

The rhetoric in the DA's motion includes "It was not the defendant who possessed the right to self-defense that evening. It was everyone else, to defend themselves against him." So perhaps when it comes down to legalities, could it come to this hairy bit of epistemic logic?

I have seen a lot of commentary on this case, some from lawyers attempting to parse the legalities finely, but none squarely addressing this particular aspect.

Every person I have ever come into contact with that shot (or otherwise injured) someone else in self-defense (and the number is much greater than zero) has almost immediately dropped the weapon or become compliant as soon as the threat was over. They have thrown guns at the cops to get it out of their hand, they have dropped to the ground, they have raised their arms, they have pretty much done anything they can to comply as soon as the cops arrive. What I have never seen is someone who shot in self-defense then take off running and continue to shoot other people while trying to get away. Of course, there could be instances where that happened but I've never heard of one.

[Dave from down under]

KR illegally armed himself so that he could treat gunshot victims...

He’s a hero! /s

[andersweinstein]

Every person I have ever come into contact with that shot (or otherwise injured) someone else in self-defense (and the number is much greater than zero) has almost immediately dropped the weapon or become compliant as soon as the threat was over. They have thrown guns at the cops to get it out of their hand, they have dropped to the ground, they have raised their arms, they have pretty much done anything they can to comply as soon as the cops arrive. What I have never seen is someone who shot in self-defense then take off running and continue to shoot other people while trying to get away. Of course, there could be instances where that happened but I've never heard of one.

A fair point. I was really focused on the question of law in the last couple comments, not trying to argue about the facts or his credibility. But obviously this is another hurdle his self-defense case will have to overcome.

[raison de arizona]

I would think that the fact that he heavily armed himself (possibly illegally) and went out looking for a fight amongst people he considers his enemies would belie any sort of self defense argument, but IANAL and have no idea how the law looks upon such things.

[Gregg]

I do find an interesting intellectual puzzle in the WI self-defense statute as written, which could actually be relevant in this case.

The relevance should be obvious, but: I am thinking of the second and third shootings. In this case, the people who ran at KR believed they were justified because interfering with a murderer/white supremacist/active shooter who might shoot other people. KR himself could have thought he only committed a justifiable homicide in self-defense, so took the attack on him to be unlawful, and so believed he had the right of self-defense.

I have hitherto thought this could have been a tragic situation of type A above, in which both sides could be justified in attacking each other. I don't find it completely obvious that the bystanders who ran at him were justified in attacking him. Mobs aren't known for their rationality and one could argue they jumped to a hasty conclusion based mainly on stereotyping him an enemy. But I certainly recognize it as a defensible view that they were fully justified.

But could one argue that KR ought rationally to have recognized that others would be justified in attacking him? That a rational person would understand the attack on him was lawful, entailing he had no right to self-defense? Even if he believed otherwise, can one argue that a *reasonable* person would have believed this, so he fails the test for one element of perfect self-defense?

The rhetoric in the DA's motion includes "It was not the defendant who possessed the right to self-defense that evening. It was everyone else, to defend themselves against him." So perhaps when it comes down to legalities, could it come to this hairy bit of epistemic logic?

I have seen a lot of commentary on this case, some from lawyers attempting to parse the legalities finely, but none squarely addressing this particular aspect.

Every person I have ever come into contact with that shot (or otherwise injured) someone else in self-defense (and the number is much greater than zero) has almost immediately dropped the weapon or become compliant as soon as the threat was over. They have thrown guns at the cops to get it out of their hand, they have dropped to the ground, they have raised their arms, they have pretty much done anything they can to comply as soon as the cops arrive. What I have never seen is someone who shot in self-defense then take off running and continue to shoot other people while trying to get away. Of course, there could be instances where that happened but I've never heard of one.

Little Big Horn

[neonzx]

I would think that the fact that he heavily armed himself (possibly illegally) and went out looking for a fight amongst people he considers his enemies would belie any sort of self defense argument, but IANAL and have no idea how the law looks upon such things.

Yes, it was purchased by an of-age friend on Kyle's behalf. (==illegal transfer)

Yes, I believe he was looking for a fight to use his new toy. (perhaps watched Rambo movies too many times? )

But I put this on Wisconsin's nutty law, not on this child. You want people (and children) roaming city streets with guns up there? Good luck with that program. Let me know how that works out -- I don't need to visit. I can find cheese elsewhere.

[Maybenaut]

I would think that the fact that he heavily armed himself (possibly illegally) and went out looking for a fight amongst people he considers his enemies would belie any sort of self defense argument, but IANAL and have no idea how the law looks upon such things.

Yes, it was purchased by an of-age friend on Kyle's behalf. (==illegal transfer)

Yes, I believe he was looking for a fight to use his new toy. (perhaps watched Rambo movies too many times? )

But I put this on Wisconsin's nutty law, not on this child. You want people (and children) roaming city streets with guns up there? Good luck with that program. Let me know how that works out -- I don't need to visit. I can find cheese elsewhere.

Which nutty law?

[andersweinstein]

I would think that the fact that he heavily armed himself (possibly illegally) and went out looking for a fight amongst people he considers his enemies would belie any sort of self defense argument, but IANAL and have no idea how the law looks upon such things.

This is certainly a very common attitude he will have to overcome.

The thing is: these are not "facts". A fact is that he went there with a gun it was illegal for him to possess. Everything else one builds out of this is an interpretation.

I see most such interpretations as based on assimilating him to some stereotype, some projection, some imagination about how you believe things *must* have happened, that is not based on actual evidence. (This Rorschach aspect is the phenomenon that has me so interested in the case.)

I think there's a lot of evidence Rittenhouse was not "looking for a fight". I mean, a most basic agreed fact is that in each shooting he is visibly trying to flee people who are attacking him.

I also don't think there is any evidence for the idea that he considered the protestors his enemies. He and the armed men he was with acted like amateur security guards, stationing themselves at businesses to deter property destruction. They did not act like "counter-protestors" there to oppose the BLM cause. Washington Post quoted his sister saying he had no objection to peaceful protestors. When he was fleeing Rosenbaum's attack as fast as he could, it sounds like he desperately yelled "friendly, friendly, friendly", presumably to express that he was not an enemy of the protestors. And he roamed the vicinity repeatedly calling "anyone need medical?" hoping to administer first aid to injured protestors.

I also know of no evidence Rittenhouse was a racist, a vigilante, a white supremacist, right-wing militant, or adherent to any other extremist ideology. These also seem to be unfounded projections based on assimilating him to some stereotype that doesn't fit the particular case. I mean, the prosecution must have searched his phone, texts, social media and emails and come up with a big nothing. How many extremists leave no trace of their ideology? From watching a lot of the video evidence, I see him as a goofy misguided Boy Scout from rural gun culture who exercised the poor judgement of a teenager. He tagged along with a buddy to realize some fantasy of himself as peace officer/medic. That was dumb and led to tragic results. But he's not any of those things above.

Evidence to me suggests he wound up coming under an unprovoked attack by a mentally ill, aggressive ex-con (Rosenbaum, who lived most of his adult life in AZ prison from age 18 to 30, where publicly available records show he was a constant discipline problem). Rosenbaum had never been to a protest and may have had no interest in BLM. He was homeless after being dumped on the street in Kenosha that day on discharge from a psychiatric hospital. He could not stay at his fiancee's because he was under a no-contact order from having beaten her bloody in an earlier incident for which he was facing domestic abuse charges. He is on video behaving aggressively to other armed folks at a gas station, baiting them and getting in their faces so other protestors tried to hold him back -- you know what a tough guy looking for a fight looks like. The older guy who shepherded Rittenhouse around, Ryan Balch, has stated Rosenbaum threatened to kill them if he got either of them alone (though this is not on video and Balch's reliability is questionable).

So, yes, Rosenbaum's history was unknown to KR and is extremely unlikely to be admissable at trial, as FRP has expertly explained. Still, all the evidence I know of suggests to me it was Rosenbaum who was the aggressive one "looking for a fight" when, according to the criminal complaint, he accosted Rittenhouse walking by himself. Rittenhouse juked and fled as fast as he could, another protestor fired a gunshot in support, as Rosenbaum overtook him and tried to take his gun. Even a racist extremist would have the right of self-defense in such a case.

But: the power of these projections based on stereotyping seems to be almost unsurmountable. It seems like the liberal mind just can't wrap itself around the idea that Rittenhouse could possibly be the victim, not the aggressor. (And I say this as a liberal myself, though a contrarian one on this case.) That's going to be a problem for him. I know I have zero success trying to convince other liberals of my view. They always just come back with: well he shouldn't have been there with his illegal gun. So therefore he's responsible for everything that could possibly happen? That may be a moral judgment, but not the law. And anyway Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there either, and neither should those among the protestors who carried or fired guns who also contributed to the tragic debacle.

[I grant shootings 2 and 3 present a more difficult case. He chose to run toward where he knew the police were. He still only shoots defensively as a last resort to defend himself from attackers after trying and failing to flee. I accept he had a 100% genuine belief that the mob might have killed him or caused serious him serious bodily harm if he hadn't defended himself. He was a scared kid. But this belief could be judged unreasonable. So a jury could well find this a case of "imperfect self defense" aka unnecessary defensive force. That would make it second-degree murder, avoiding the mandatory life sentence, since the intention needed for first degree murder would be lacking. But still a very serious offence.]