Rittenhouse Trial: What to Expect As Trial Starts Monday
Monday begins jury selection in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who on August 25, 2020 shot three men in riot-ravaged Kenosha WI, killing two of them and grievously wounding the third. We will cover the entire trial live daily.
Monday begins jury selection in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who on August 25, 2020 shot three men in riot-ravaged Kenosha WI, killing two of them and grievously wounding the third. We will cover the entire trial live daily.
Kyle is being tried on a variety of charges, including the felonies of intentional homicide, reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide, two counts of reckless endangerment, as well as a misdemeanor charge of weapons possession by a minor. (Update: There is also a civil charge of violation of curfew, but this is not a criminal charge and is punishable by only a ticket, so we won’t spend much time on it here.)
The legal defense to the felony charges will be the legal justification of self-defense. The legal defense to the misdemeanor weapons charge will be inapplicability on the facts, as well as unconstitutional vagueness.
Jury Selection Begins with 150 Prospective Jurors
With respect to jury selection, beginning tomorrow, Monday, November 2021, news media are reporting that the trial judge, Judge Bruce Schroeder, has ordered 150 prospective jurors to the courthouse tomorrow, to be subject to voir dire.
Judge Schroeder reportedly wants a total of 20 jurors seated, to consist of 12 who will deliberate a verdict plus 8 alternates. The state and the defense will each have seven peremptory strikes to remove prospective jurors for reasons of preference.
Overview of the Events & Charges
On the night of August 25, 2020, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from his hometown of Antioch IL to the neighboring border town of Kenosha WI, where he had worked as a lifeguard and spent considerable time.
Kyle’s stated purpose was to help protect property from the riots, looting, and arson that had besieged the city since the lawful shooting of Jacob Blake by police two days earlier. (Blake, a 29-year-old black man, non-compliant with lawful arrest, wielding a knife in his hand, and was climbing into a car full of children when police shot him.)
Kyle, trained in medical care, also intended to provide such care to anyone injured that he might come across. For that purpose, he carried with him a sizable first-aid kit. In recognition of the violence rampaging through the city, Kyle also armed himself with an AR-15 pattern rifle (open carry of firearms is lawful in Wisconsin).
Count 1. First degree reckless homicide (Rosenbaum). At approximately 11:45pm amidst the chaos of August 25, 2020, Kyle would shoot and kill Joseph Rosenbaum, in claimed self-defense. This would result in the first degree reckless homicide charge against Kyle, Count 1 in the criminal complaint, under § 940.02(1) First-degree reckless homicide.. If convicted of this charge Kyle is looking at up to 60 years in prison, plus an additional 5 years for having used a dangerous weapon.
Count 2. First degree reckless endangering (McGinnis). Near to this scene was a reporter, Richard McGinnis, who had moments before been interviewing Kyle. McGinnis would later tell police that he did not think that Kyle was handing his rifle safely. This would result in the first degree reckless endangering charge against Kyle, Count 2 of the criminal complaint, under § 941.30(1). Recklessly endangering safety. If convicted on this charge Kyle is looking at up to 12 years in prison, plus an additional 5 years for having used a dangerous weapon.
After shooting Rosenbaum, Kyle began to run towards a line of police officers who had created a vehicle barricade a short distance down the street. During this flight to police Kyle was pursued by angry members of the mob, during which he would fall to the street. Once fallen, Kyle was subject to violent attack by several men.
Count 3. First degree intentional homicide (Huber). One of the men who attacked Kyle was Anthony M. Huber. While Kyle was struggling to get up from where he had fallen, Huber struck at Kyle’s head and neck with a heavy skateboard. Kyle shot Huber, with fatal results. This would result in the first degree intentional homicide charge against Kyle, Count 3 of the criminal complaint, under § 940.01(1)(a). First degree intentional homicide. If convicted on this charge Kyle is looking at life imprisonment—and, once again, an additional 5 years for having used a dangerous weapon.
Count 4. Attempted first degree intentional homicide (Grosskreutz). Another of the men who attacked Kyle was Gaige Grosskreutz. While Kyle was fighting off the other attackers as he struggled to rise from the street, Grosskreutz approached Kyle initially with his hands up in a peaceful gesture, but then swiftly presented a pistol and rapidly closed on Kyle. Kyle shot Grosskreutz, striking him in the right bicep, causing serious not but fatal injury. This would result in the attempted first degree intentional homicide charge against Kyle, Count 4 of the criminal complaint, under 940.01(1)(a). First degree intentional homicide. If convicted on this charge Kyle is looking 60 years in prison, plus an additional 5 years for having used a dangerous weapon.
Count 5. First degree reckless endangerment (unknown male). Another of the men who attacked Kyle was an unidentified male who attempted a flying drop kick onto Kyle as he lay in the street. Kyle shot at this attacker, but missed. This would result in the first degree reckless endangerment charge against Kyle, Count 5 in the criminal complaint, under § 941.30(1). Recklessly endangering safety. If convicted on this charge Kyle is looking at up to 12 years in prison, plus an additional 5 years for having used a dangerous weapon.
Count 6. Unlawful Weapon Possession by Minor. Finally, Kyle also would be charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, Count 6 in the criminal complaint, under § 948.60(2)(a). Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. This is the sole misdemeanor charge specified in the criminal complaint, and if convicted on this charge Kyle is looking at up to 9 months in prison.
Now I thought it might be useful to do a quick legal analysis of these various counts against Kyle. Well, brief for counts 2 through 6. With respect to Count 1, the shooting death of Joseph Rosenbaum, I’ll spend more time, as this first event is to some degree a lynchpin for all the others.
If the shooting death of Rosenbaum looks sketchy, that would tend to flow downhill to all the other defenses. On the other hand, to the extent that the shooting death of Rosenbaum appears legally justified, that justification also flows downhill to all the others.
CCW Safe
The Shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum: Count 1
The first man shot by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, in a car sales parking lot. The language of the criminal complaint—presumably written to justify the felony charge of first-degree reckless homicide—provides a telling description of the circumstances immediately preceding Kyle’s shooting of Rosenbaum, much of it based video of the events as well as on the eyewitness testimony of reporter McGinnis.
The defendant [Kyle] is running across the Car Source parking lot. Following the defendant is Rosenbaum, and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is McGinnis.
The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. … A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video … then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and get in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the floor.
The interview of McGinnis by detectives is described in the criminal complaint as follows:
Before the shooting, McGinnis was interviewing the defendant. … The defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw the male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant. McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.
McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward. …
McGinnis stated that he did not hear the two exchange any words. McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun. … McGinnis said that [Rosenbaum] definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).
I’ll remind everyone that this narrative of events is not the defense explanation of what happened between Kyle and Rosenbaum—it’s the explanation of events provided by the state that is prosecuting Kyle on a charge of murder for shooting Rosenbaum under these circumstances.
What’s described here is a Kyle Rittenhouse desperately fleeing a relentlessly pursuing Joseph Rosenbaum, who was intent on fighting Kyle for control of the rifle. Unmentioned in the criminal complaint, but in evidence as a result of FBI interviews of bystanders, is that earlier in the evening Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse.
Even when faced with the relentlessly pursuing and self-declared murderous Rosenbaum, Kyle did not fire until Rosenbaum had rushed him, arms outstretched for the rifle, and actually achieved contact with the 17-year-old.
Kyle is, of course, justifying the shooting death of Rosenbaum as lawful self-defense. That means that Kyle must be acquitted of this charge of reckless homicide unless the state can meet its burden to disprove that claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
It might be useful to do a quick “5 Elements of Self Defense” analysis of this confrontation, to assess the viability of that self-defense claim.
If you’re unfamiliar with the five elements of a legal defense of self-defense I urge you to download our 100% infographic that provides a brief description of these elements. These are the fundamental legal building blocks of any claim of self-defense, so if you don’t know these you can’t possibly understand self-defense law. You can download the PDF of that infographic for free, at: http://lawofselfdefense.com/elements
Innocence: Clearly it was Rosenbaum who was the physical aggressor here, and Kyle was the victim of that unlawful attack. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Imminence: The attack Kyle was defending himself against was actually in progress, and so qualifies as an imminent attack. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Proportionality: By seeking to seize control of Kyle’s rifle, Rosenbaum was apparently arming himself for the purpose of carrying out his earlier death threat against Kyle—and, simultaneously, attempting to disarm Kyle and leave him defenseless. Rosenbaum’s attack is therefore deadly in nature, justifying a proportional deadly force defense by Kyle. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Avoidance: Wisconsin is a stand-your-ground state, so the element of Avoidance would not normally apply in an otherwise lawful act of self-defense. Even if it did apply, however, Kyle was in desperate flight from Rosenbaum, who sustained his relentless pursuit until the point of actual contact. If Avoidance did impose a legal duty to retreat, Kyle would have met that duty. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Reasonableness: The circumstances facing Kyle would certainly justify a subjectively genuine fear of deadly bodily harm, and there is nothing about Kyle’s perceptions or reactions to those events which were those of an unreasonable person—this is readily assessable from the video and eyewitness accounts of what happened. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
In short, there would appear to be no reason to believe, to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, that the state can disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Kyle’s claim of self-defense with respect to Rosenbaum.
Conclusion: The shooting of Rosenbaum by Kyle was lawful self-defense.
Reckless Conduct Towards Richard McGinnis: Count 2
The sole grounds for the claim of felony reckless conduct towards Richard McGinnis appears to be found in a single sentence from the criminal complaint:
McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well.
Even taken at face value, this is not a claim of recklessness—intentionally creating an unjustified risk of death or serious bodily injury, and intentionally disregarding that risk.
First, there is no indication of any particular intent on the part of Rittenhouse. Second, the phrase used in the criminal complaint, “very well,” falls vastly short of the threshold for a claim of criminal recklessness.
Further, to the extent any risk may have been created by Kyle merely having the gun in hand, the circumstances of the rioting, looting, and arson besieging the surrounding blocks and Kyle’s subsequent need to use that rifle to save his own life would suggest that the risk was not unjustified, and therefore would not be reckless. Indeed, a great many people—including Gaige Grosskreutz himself—were armed in the vicinity that evening.
In short, there would appear to be no reason to believe, to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, that the state can prove Kyle’s conduct with respect to Richard McGinnis to constitute reckless endangerment.
Conclusion: Kyle’s conduct with respect to McGinnis does not constitute reckless endangerment.
The Shooting of Anthony Huber: Count 3
With respect to the shooting death of Anthony Huber, the evidence in support of self-defense is, if possible, even stronger than it was in the shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum.
At this point Kyle was in full flight towards the police line a block or so down the street, clearly fleeing for purposes of safety after having survived the attack by Rosenbaum.
He was being pursued by an angry and violent mob, during which he fell to the street—whether pushed or tripped, the fall was clearly the result of fleeing his pursuers.
Once fallen to the street, Kyle was immediately attacked by Huber, who swung a heavy skateboard at Kyle’s head, and Kyle shot him in response to this attack.
Innocence: Clearly Huber was the initial aggressor in this confrontation, as Kyle was not threatening Huber in any way until Huber struck with his skateboard. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Imminence: Huber’s attack was in progress, and therefore imminent. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Proportionality: Striking someone in the head with a skateboard is readily capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, and thus a deadly force attack justifying a deadly force defense. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Avoidance: Again, Wisconsin is a stand-your-ground state, but in any case safe retreat was not possible under the circumstances, and so Kyle would have satisfied any duty to retreat had it existed. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Reasonableness: The circumstances warranted a subjective fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, and there would have been nothing unreasonable about such a perception. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
In short, there would appear to be no reason to believe, to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, that the state can disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Kyle’s claim of self-defense with respect to Huber.
Conclusion: The shooting of Huber by Kyle was lawful self-defense.
The Shooting of Gabe Grosskreutz: Count 4
Near simultaneously with Huber’s attack upon Kyle, Gabe Grosskreutz also closed on the fallen Kyle. Initially Grosskreutz displayed his hands, palm forward, in an inoffensive manner.
This, however, was merely a ruse to close proximity, as Grosskreutz quickly produced a pistol in his right hand as he reached Kyle. Kyle responded by shooting at Grosskreutz, striking him in the bicep and causing the injured Grosskreutz to drop his pistol to the street.
Innocence: Clearly Grosskreutz was the initial aggressor in this confrontation, closing rapidly on the fallen Kyle with pistol in hand, as Kyle was not threatening Grosskreutz in any way until Grosskreutz approached him with pistol in hand. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Imminence. The attack by Grosskreutz was in progress, and therefore imminent. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Proportionality: Grosskreutz attacked Kyle with a pistol in hand, clearly a deadly force attack justifying a deadly force defense. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Avoidance: Again, Wisconsin is a stand-your-ground state, but in any case safe retreat was not possible under the circumstances, and so Kyle would have satisfied any duty to retreat had it existed. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Reasonableness: The circumstances warranted a subjective fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, and there would have been nothing unreasonable about such a perception. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
In short, there would appear to be no reason to believe, to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, that the state can disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Kyle’s claim of self-defense with respect to Grosskreutz.
Conclusion: The shooting of Grosskreutz by Kyle was lawful self-defense.
Reckless Conduct Towards Unknown Male: Count 5
Among the first attacks upon Kyle when he initially fell to the street while running to the safety of the police line was a flying stomping attack by an unknown male. Kyle fired at this individual, but apparently missed.
Innocence: Again, clearly the unknown male was the initial aggressor in this confrontation, jumping on a fallen Kyle who was no threat to him prior to his attack. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Imminence: The attack by the unknown male was in progress, and therefore imminent. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Proportionality: A full-body falling drop kick of this type is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury, making it a deadly a deadly force attack, justifying a deadly force defense. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Avoidance: Again, Wisconsin is a stand-your-ground state, but in any case safe retreat was not possible under the circumstances, and so Kyle would have satisfied any duty to retreat had it existed. This element is consistent with self-defense. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Reasonableness: The circumstances warranted a subjective fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, and there would have been nothing unreasonable about such a perception. This element is consistent with self-defense. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Criminal recklessness is based upon the unjustified creation of a risk of death, and intentionally ignoring that risk. In this case the risk of death created by Kyle towards the unknown male was, to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, lawful self-defense, therefore legally justified, and therefore by definition not criminally reckless.
Conclusion: Kyle’s conduct with respect to the unknown male attacker does not constitute reckless endangerment.
The Unlawful Possession of a Gun Charge: Count 6
Given that this charge is a mere misdemeanor, and that I have previously done a comprehensive legal analysis of this charge elsewhere, I’ll simply direct you all to that analysis at lawofselfdefense.com/Rittenhouse, where you can find all our aggregated coverage of the Rittenhouse case.
Further, a conviction on this charge would in no way diminish the self-defense justification and lack of criminal recklessness we’ve already discussed with respect to the other charges.
I will note in passing that at a recent pre-trial hearing even Judge Schroeder himself expressed confusion at how the relevant gun law statute was to be applied, suggesting that the statute in question is unconstitutionally vague on its face. If so, the charge should be dismissed before trial, or alternatively the jury not instructed on the charge before sdeliberations.
Bottom Line
The bottom line is that if the verdict in this case is based on actual merit, and on the actual evidence on applicable law, the outcome ought to be not guilty on every felony count.
As for the gun charge, nobody seems agreed on how that law is to apply, but my own analysis suggests it’s simply inapplicable on the facts of the case, or unconstitutionally vague.
OK, folks, don’t forget to join us all starting tomorrow for our daily coverage of the Rittenhouse trial, starting from jury selection and continuing through the verdict (and, heaven forbid it should come to this, sentencing).
Until next time:
Remember
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I expect a lot of nonsense from the prosecutor!
From what I understand, the DA of Kenosha County didn’t take the lead in this case because he was busy with the Blake shooting. The DA didn’t charge police with anything, rightfully so, because Blake was a moron with a knife. I have always wondered if the DA wanted to pursue this case to make up for that. At the same time, I think it’s clear the prosecution knows it has a weak case. I’m at a loss for what’s going on here, other than politics trumping all else. We all know it happens, just wonder when the public will start caring.
Word is that if Kyle gets off, Alec Baldwin will offer him a job as the cameraman on Baldwin’s next western.
T’ain’t funny, McGee….
So have the prosecution even tried to locate “unidentified male who attempted a flying drop kick” since he is 50% of the surviving witness pool of people who *directly* assaulted Kyle with intent to (kill/severely injure/maim) One would think with all the people there and direct video of his attack that he would be fairly easy to identify and drag into a deposition. Of course, that could easily backfire on the prosecution if ‘Kicker’ has multiple priors of assault, which is probably why he’s kept his head down.
Maybe the individual has not come forward because the flying drop kick could conceivably be aggravated (felony) assault.
I recall a protest in which one of the “protesters” admitted to reaching inside a vehicle to grab the driver. Some people are not very bright.
Yeah, he’d be asked to testify about a felony he committed.
“Clearly it was Rosenbaum who was the physical aggressor here, and Kyle was the victim of that unlawful attack. ..”
This seems to be the key point. If the prosecution can show that Rosenbaum was provoked in some unlawful way that could defeat the self-defense claim. I guess we will find out if the prosecution has anything in this regard.
Have you read anything about the dumpster fires that were lit by a convicted arsonist? The shooting of JoJo Rosenbaum was not their first acquaintance, some have said.
It is possible in a self-defense case that the aggressor could later become the defender under certain circumstances. That’s not what happened here. There is video of Rosenbaum the night he was killed, actively looking for a fight not long before he encountered Rittenhouse. On his site, Andrew has pointed out that under Wisconsin law, Rosenbaum would be classified as a provoker with intent. Once you become that, Wisconsin says you are an aggressor who cannot regain innocence, as the video proves.
I guess the jury could ignore this. But there is no way you can say Rosenbaum was provoked unlawfully. I don’t even know what that means. Even if Rittenhouse challenged Rosenbaum to a fight, if Rosenbaum accepted, Rosenbaum is engaged in mutual combat. Either you are in the fight or you’re not. How you can be illegally brought in is a mystery to me.
“… Even if Rittenhouse challenged Rosenbaum to a fight, if Rosenbaum accepted, Rosenbaum is engaged in mutual combat. ..”
Generally in a mutual combat situation neither side can claim self-defense.
Not in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has the best self defense laws regarding provocation, IOW, criminals can’t use being provoked, or “provoked”, as an excuse to be violent.
Whether or not the jury will follow the law is another matter. Binger (may he be duly Nifonged) has obviously violated the principle of probable cause from the start, as in the arbery trial.
Wisconsin does have a provocation provision. If you provoke a reaction from someone, generally, you cannot claim self-defense responding to it. An exception exists, however, when the person clearly gives up the provocation and attempts to disengage or flee. Rittenburg running away would remove any “taint” from a prior action (if there even was one).
Of course, if the prosecution believes their own witness, they already know who the aggressor is. They’d need to impeach their own witness.
I should have said Wisconsin is better on provocation than other states, and it does allow someone clearly retreating, as Rittenhouse did, to regain innocence.
Anyway, there’s no evidence I know of that Kyle provoked anyone.
Everyone who frequents here should have a good grasp of what happened to Kyle. For those that are interested, there is a twitter thread that lays it all out quite well, and I’d be surprised if it all doesn’t come out at trial. We’ll see
https://twitter.com/freekyleusa/status/1453290714058706950?s=20
Good info. Kyle never should have been charged, but most of us know what is going on.
“The sole grounds for the claim of felony reckless conduct towards Richard McGinnis appears to be found in a single sentence from the criminal complaint:
McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well.”
The complaint also states at the top of page 4 that “McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot.”
Could that be the basis for a claim of recklessness, and is there any legal merit to such a claim in Wisconsin?
The entire thing is speculative. McGinnis “thought” and “felt something” and “first thought” and “was wondering.”
I would suggest that none of that rises to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you very much for your reply! I look forward to following your coverage of the case.
Given his relative accuracy in a stressful situation, it seems like he was handling it just fine.
Kyle’s accuracy wasn’t remarkable.
He shot Rosenbaum at CQC distance, and struck his back, thigh, groin, hand, and head. I counted eight shots from the audio, but I’m not sure how many came from Kyle. That’s not precisely what I call “accuracy”, but it did the trick.
He shot at the flying drop-kicker, twice, I think, but missed.
He shot Huber once in the heart, mostly because Huber grabbed the barrel and pulled it toward himself at point blank, hoist by his own retard.
Kyle waited to shoot “Lefty”Grosskreutz when he was little more than a barrel length away and stationary, and was extremely lucky to disarm him, so to speak.
“He shot Rosenbaum at CQC distance, and struck his back, thigh, groin, hand, and head. I counted eight shots from the audio, but I’m not sure how many came from Kyle. That’s not precisely what I call “accuracy”, but it did the trick.”
Rosenbaum fell foward as Rittenhouse was firing. Also, a 5.56 round (probably 55 grm M193) from a 16″ barrel will have a 3000+ fps muzzle velocity and can take a ‘random’ trajectory through a target due to hydrodynamic effects, fragementation, and deflections off bone . It’s likely that each bullet caused multiple entrance and exit wounds. For instance, a shot as rosenbaum fell forward in a ‘slouched’ manner would enter the upper back, possibly exit the front of the abdomen, and then strike the pelvis.
“Kyle waited to shoot “Lefty”Grosskreutz when he was little more than a barrel length away and stationary”
Not in the video I saw. Lefty treated to attack, Kyle put his gun on him, guy held out his hands and backed up, then lefty tried to attack Kyle, and then Kyle shot him
Not to mention if the (non-lawyer here) prosecution tries to open up the possibility that Kyle was handling his weapon incorrectly, there are a number of police officers who saw/interacted with him that night who would easily testify the other way. Geeky reporter opinion << sworn law enforcement officer opinion.
Well, I think, feel, and wonder (my personal opinion, not a statement of fact) whether this applies to what is happening here https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor/
“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause” noting that the prosecutor stipulated that Rosenbaum attempted a strongarm robbery that involved a firearm (as was pointed out here) and Huber attempted an armed robbery and aggravated (felony) assault with his skateboard as a weapon, and Grosskreutz was waving a gun around (a right to open carry is not a right to brandish unless your life is in danger). WI defines robbery as a violent felony that justifies an armed response, the prosecutor stipulated that Rosenbaum and Huber were robbers, and that should have been an end of the matter.
But what I think, feel, and wonder does not mean that the prosecutors’ conduct actually crosses that line, so they are lucky that they are not being held to the same standards to which they are trying to hold Rittenhouse (opinion = proof).
In fact, as the prosecution team is in fact accusing others of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, then perhaps a closer look needs to be taken at what I have just described. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/11/23/prosecutors-ask-judge-limit-rittenhouse-lawyer-comments/6389828002/ “It’s one thing to say your client is innocent and that you will raise self-defense. It is another, according to the state’s motion, to call the prosecution politically motivated, say that District Attorney Michael Graveley is in cahoots with George Soros and advocate Graveley’s recall.”
I can do without the Soros conspiracy theories but I cannot envision–again my opinion and not a statement of fact because I cannot read the prosecutors’ minds–that this case was brought solely to pander to the rioters, looters, carjackers, and arsonists by making it clear that the latter will not be charged with anything while the book will be thrown at anybody who does defend himself or herself from physical attack. And this is not an isolated incident either, e.g. a driver was charged for shooting a man who reached into his car to punch him and grab his steering wheel, and the man in question was not charged with anything.
Watching to see if we are still a nation of laws or lynchings.
Looks like the Blake family has decided to involve themselves in this trial.
Blake’s Uncle: “We must come out with a good conclusion,”
This is the AP report on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUm1_x_U8e0
Scummy AP leaves out that Blake had a knife, fought police, and was attempting to get in a car with 3 children. AP implies that the officer who shot Blake is no different than Rittenhouse except he wasn’t charged.
Also security is going to be tighter at the court house.
I can see potential jurors having the same situation like the Chauvin trial where loud obnoxious protests are outside the court house demanding a guilty verdict. Jurors are going to be freaking out.
I think Rittenhouse has a good case but the troublemakers in the community are going to try and scare the jury into the “right” verdict. Hopefully the jury can resist it.
Also hopefully the jury doesn’t get any liars on it like that one in Chauvin’s trial who was later to have been found out to be at Floyd protests.
“I think Rittenhouse has a good case but the troublemakers in the community are going to try and scare the jury into the “right” verdict. Hopefully the jury can resist it.
Also hopefully the jury doesn’t get any liars on it like that one in Chauvin’s trial who was later to have been found out to be at Floyd protests.”
The outcome hinges on this.
An obvious concern, looking at any trial, is about the judge. So many seem to be less than impartial now a days. Judge Schroeder would not let prosecutors refer to people as victims, and that caused some pearl clutching, but I read that is standard in his court. Seems he is pretty much a straight shooter.. no pun intended. Ty Mr. Branca for such clear summaries of the charges, and your opinions on their merit. It gives me hope that justice will be served.
Long lost in the dustbin of progressive constitutional concepts is the oath prosecutors took to support the constitutional rights of citizens including the clearly written right to defend one’s self. Should they have chosen to fulfill their oath, no charges would have been filed. Someones in WI should file ethics complaint against the prosecutor’s office. Start setting a new legal argument and put them on defense for a change.
Back in the good old days, if you were going to particapate in a lynching at least you got all the free booze you could drink.
“One of the men who attacked Kyle was Anthony M. Huber. While Kyle was struggling to get up from where he had fallen, Huber struck at Kyle’s head and neck with a heavy skateboard.”
“He was being pursued by an angry and violent mob, during which he fell to the street—whether pushed or tripped, the fall was clearly the result of fleeing his pursuers.”
“Once fallen to the street, Kyle was immediately attacked by Huber, who swung a heavy skateboard at Kyle’s head”
Partially obstructed video gives some indication that Huber may have struck Rittenhouse with the skateboard while he was running and that was what cause him to go down.
https://youtu.be/9m7llWFaSak
“Partially obstructed video gives some indication that Huber may have struck Rittenhouse with the skateboard while he was running and that was what cause him to go down” aka aggravated (felony) assault with a weapon, which also goes for Huber swinging the skateboard at him when he was down.
I’m rather disappointed in your description of the Gaige Grosskreutz shooting. Grosskreutz didn’t “approach with his hands up”, he charged at Kyle, and when Kyle moved his gun to point at Grosskreutz, Grosskreutz then put his hands up and backed up a tiny little bit.
So Kyle took his gun off of Grosskreutz, and Grosskreutz then tried to attack Kyle.
The scene showed amazing discipline by Kyle, and total bloodlust by Grosskreutz
Also, Grosskreutz was holding a gun while his hands were up, so he was still an immediate threat to Rittenhouse. If Grosskreutz had backpedaled quickly to show that he did not want to continue the confrontation then perhaps Rittenhouse should not have fired, but that is not what happened. He did back up a little bit, but then allegedly resumed his advance.
Using observations from five (5) criminal trials, in which I was selected as a juror–in three (3) trials in Will County (a Cook County/Chicago,suburb), Illinois in the mid 1980’s, and in two (2) trials shortly after relocating in 1986 to Manatee County (a Hillsborough County/Tampa suburb), Florida. I was elected Jury Foreman (aka Foreperson) in three (3) of the five (5) trials.
Without any reservations, I can say the Defendants in at least two (2) of the trails–had I not been using facts, small details and some experience from finance (my career) law and the ability to enlighten several jurors–the defendants would have not been convicted. Being on a jury requires alertness, not using emotions, and a willingness to convict only when you are totally satisfied with your decision.
Based on my own conclusions, and in my own opinion, Defendant Kyle Rittenhouse, has a good chance of being found innocent of Counts 1 – 5. On Count 6 I’m not sure, because some jurors–the Jury–might feel Defendant Kyle might ought to be found guilty of “something,” of which I disagree!
The article writer/author, Attorney F. Branca, has presented an analysis of the prior details, and an apparently unbiased synopsis of the Prosecution’s charges. I’m in agreement of his assessment(s). Jurors, acting as one (1) of twelve (12), should be honorable, unbiased and dedicated to upholding their charge of “nothing but the facts.”‘ We’ll see. My bottom line is that Kyle Rittenhouse deserves much better than he has received thus far!