Image 01 Image 03

Rittenhouse Trial Day 9: Prosecution Big Win On “Provocation” Jury Instruction Saves Chance At Conviction

Rittenhouse Trial Day 9: Prosecution Big Win On “Provocation” Jury Instruction Saves Chance At Conviction

Lacking any factual rebuttal to self-defense, the State will argue that Kyle Rittenhouse was a “provoker with intent” eliminating self-defense privilege under Wisconsin law that cannot be regained by withdrawal from the fight.

Today was the ninth day of the trial by which ADA Thomas Binger is seeking to have Kyle Rittenhouse convicted and sentenced to life in prison for having shot three men (two fatally) the night of August 25, 2020, in Kenosha WI, when the city was suffering a tsunami of rioting, looting, and arson following the lawful shooting of a knife-wielding Jacob Blake by Kenosha police officers.

Today the parties argued over what instructions should be given to the jury for their use in deliberating the guilt (or not) of Kyle Rittenhouse for any criminal charges for which he’s currently on trial.

Naturally, the jury was not present for this discussion.  The jury will return to court on Monday morning, at which point the judge will give them the final set of jury instructions, the State will present its closing argument, the defense will present its closing, and then the State will have a rebuttal argument.

At that point, the jury will begin its deliberations, and I’ll switch over to “Jury Watch!” mode.

For today, however, I wanted to share the court’s decisions on jury instructions, the jury instructions themselves, and some of the more important legal concepts to understand being applied in these instructions.

Big Win for the Prosecution:  Saved by Judge Allowing Provocation Instructions

Much of the day’s argument over jury instructions centered on the instructions dealing with the legal doctrine of provocation—and that’s because an attack through the doctrine of provocation is the only desperate hope the State has for overcoming Kyle’s powerful claim of self-defense and obtaining convictions on the use-of-force charges against him.

Of the six counts brought against Kyle Rittenhouse in this trial, five are use-of-force felonies (the other is the misdemeanor gun possession charge already discussed).  To each of those felony charges, Kyle has raised the legal defense of self-defense.  To convict on any of those, then, the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  How might the State do this, given that it has introduced little if any evidence attacking the core elements of Kyle’s self-defense?

By attacking Kyle’s claim of self-defense through the doctrine of provocation.

I expect the State’s central attack on Kyle’s core legal defense of self-defense to come in the form of a narrative of either simple provocation or provocation with intent.

Simple provocation occurs when the defendant engages in unlawful conduct likely to provoke a violent response. When that violent response occurs, the simple provoker cannot claim self-defense for resistance until they exhaust every possibility of avoiding the need to use force, including retreat–where a duty to retreat would not exist in an otherwise lawful act of self-defense.

Provocation with intent occurs when the defendant deliberately provokes a violent response, with the intent of then having an excuse to use deadly force against the person provoked.  Importantly, the provoker with intent cannot regain self-defense by withdrawal and communication—on the other hand, the State must prove that malicious intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

I expect that the State’s argument to the jury during closing arguments on Monday will be structured around this legal doctrine provocation in one of those two forms.

This is why the “unicorn” evidence of the drone video and the “enhanced” images from that video have been so important to the State, and why they fought so hard to get them admitted into evidence.  With that material in evidence, the State can at least argue provocation.  Without that material in evidence, the State would have no substantive attack on self-defense at all.

For example, the State may argue that Kyle was a simple provoker who committed an unlawful act by pointing his rifle at Joshua Ziminski, thus provoking a reasonably foreseeable violent response from Rosenbaum.  Although Kyle then fled, the prosecution would argue that he could have fled further than he did, and thus failed to exhaust every possible means of avoiding having to use defensive force.  This would mean he had not regained the privilege of self-defense that he lost by his simple provocation.

Alternatively, the prosecution may argue that Kyle was a provoker with intent when he purportedly pointed his rifle at Joshua Ziminski, seeking to provoke a violent response against which he would then have an excuse to use deadly force.  Again, this pointing of the rifle did trigger a violent response from Rosenbaum.  Rittenhouse then led the provoked Rosenbaum across the parking lot, where Kyle ultimately acted on his intent to use Rosenbaum’s provoked attack as an excuse to use deadly force on Rosenbaum.

As a provoker with intent, the State will conclude, the defendant is not privileged to justify his use of deadly force on Rosenbaum as justified self-defense, and no withdrawal argument can salvage self-defense for a provoker with intent. (One difficulty for the State arguing provocation with intent is that they have not charged Kyle with intentionally killing Rosenbaum, but only with recklessly killing him. Rationally, an argument of provocation with intent only makes sense if the subsequent killing was intentional–but this is not an especially rational prosecution.)

Then the State will use the killing of Rosenbaum as a purported act of provocation with respect to the attacks upon Kyle by “jump kick man,” Huber, and Grosskreutz, attempting to strip him of the legal defense of self-defense for those uses of force, as well.

The defense argued sensibly that the evidence in support of the State’s narrative of provocation—the “unicorn” drone video left by the evidence fairy on the State’s doorstep last Friday, and the “enhanced” photos produced for the first time yesterday—were too flimsy a basis to support an argument of provocation.  They pointed out the poor quality of the video and images and noted that for Kyle to be raising his rifle as the State claimed he would have had to suddenly decide, for the first time that night, to handle the rifle as if he were left-handed.

Judge Schroeder essentially informed the State that he didn’t think very much of their provocation evidence, noting how blurry and indecipherable the video and photos were for purposes of determining whether Kyle had pointed his rifle at Ziminski as the State claimed.

He even took the opportunity to review the State’s video on a giant 4k television screen in the courtroom today and walked away without appearing to have seen much of what the State claimed.

Again, however, this is a judge who values the role of the jury, and who is predisposed to give more instructions rather than fewer, and ultimately he decided he would instruct the jury in the provocation doctrine, and thus saving the State from complete argumentative stasis.

It will be the job of the defense, now, to argue against the State’s expected narrative of provocation to the jury during their own closing argument Monday morning.

Monday is going to be a high-stakes day, for certain, as closing arguments always are.  This is where the win or loss will ultimately be realized.

Good News for Defense: Judge Adopts Gun Charge Instruction They Drafted

The biggest jury instruction win for the defense was on the misdemeanor gun possession charge, Count 6 in the criminal complaint.  The standard jury instruction for this charge would almost certainly have meant an automatic conviction for Kyle, for reasons I explain at length here:  The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse

Instead of that standard jury instruction, however, the judge agreed to accept a jury instruction drafted by the defense that includes as an option the exception that relieves Kyle of criminal liability for that gun possession.

It would have been best, I think, for the judge to have dismissed the gun charge in its entirely, but this is a judge who values the role of the jury, and who is predisposed to give more instructions rather than fewer—but at least with respect to the gun charge the jury will receive an instruction that, if rationally applied to the facts, should result on an acquittal on Count 6.

The Criminal Charges and the Jury Instructions Approved for Them

The criminal complaint against Kyle has six counts.  Five of these are use-of-force felony counts, and one is the misdemeanor gun possession count.  Today the parties argued in court over the specific jury instructions to be read to the jury for each of those counts.

The parties also argued over where the jury would be permitted to consider lesser included offenses for a particular count in the complaint. (If you’re unfamiliar with lesser included offenses, I discuss that concept below).

Ultimately the Judge decided upon what final instructions the jury will be read on Monday morning, just before closing arguments, after which the jury will begin to deliberate, applying those jury instructions to the facts of the case as they believe those facts to have been proven or disproven.

It is worth noting that the jury can only convict on charges for which they receive a jury instruction, so as you might imagine the defense was arguing against many of the instructions the State was asking for.  Overall the defense won a few of these arguments and lost a few.

As already noted above, the big win for the defense was the acceptance of their version of the gun possession jury instruction—that should lead a rational jury to acquit on the gun charge—and the big win for the State was the judge agreeing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of provocation predicated on the State’s “unicorn” drone video and “enhanced” photos.

Here I’ll simply list the Counts of the criminal complaint and provide the jury instructions approved for each immediately below each count.

Count 1: First Degree Reckless Homicide (Joseph Rosenbaum)

1020 First Degree Reckless Homicide

Count 2: First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety (Richard McGinnis) 

1345 First degree reckless endangerment

1347 Second-degree reckless endangerment

Count 3: First Degree Intentional Homicide (Anthony Huber)

1010 First Degree Intentional Homicide

1016 First Degree Intentional Homicide: Self-Defense

Count 4: Attempt First Degree Intentional Homicide (Gaige Grosskreutz)

1070 Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide

1072 Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide: Self-Defense

1020 First Degree Reckless Homicide

Count 5: First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety (“Jump Kick Man”)

1345 First degree reckless endangerment

1347 Second degree reckless endangerment

Count 6:  Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18

WCJI 2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child is the standard instruction for this offense—but if applied on the facts of this case, it would certainly result in an unjust conviction, for reasons I discuss in detail here:   The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse

Fortunately, this is not the instruction the jury will be given for Count 6. Instead, the jury will be given a customized jury instruction drafted by the defense that presumably accounts for Kyle being exempt from the gun possession statute being applied against him. If properly drafted and applied by a rational jury, this customized gun possession instruction should lead to an acquittal on this charge.

Self-Defense & Provocation Instructions

805 Privilege: Self-Defense: Force Intended or Likely to Cause Death or Great Bodily Harm

810 Privilege: Self-Defense: Retreat

815 Privilege: Self-Defense: Not Available to One Who Provokes an Attack: Regaining the Privilege

Legal Concepts Need to Understand the Jury Instructions

Now I’d like to explain some legal concepts that may make it easier to understand how those jury instructions are intended to be applied.


Intent is a mental state in which the person intends a particular outcome. Further, we are all considered to have intended the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our actions.  Of course, none of us can read minds, so intent is invariably inferred from a person’s words or conduct.  Normally, for example, if you point a gun known to be loaded at someone and pull the trigger discharging the weapon at them, it will be inferred that you intended that person deadly injury.

In this case, Rittenhouse is charged with the intentional homicide Anthony Huber (Count 3) and the attempted intentional homicide of Gaige Grosskreutz  (Count 4).


Several of the criminal charges, in this case, are based on recklessness.  Recklessness can be thought of as an aggravated form of simple negligence.  Where negligence only creates civil liability, however, recklessness creates criminal liability.

In the case of negligence, we all have a basic legal duty to not cause unjustified harm to others, and we are all presumed to know this.

To illustrate, if you are driving down the road, and glance down for a moment to change radio stations, and while doing this your car moves onto the shoulder and takes out somebody’s mailbox, your conduct was negligent and you are liable to pay for the damage caused.

Recklessness differs from negligence in both the degree of harm caused (or threatened) and the mental state of the person causing (or threatening) the harm.  Where negligence arises in the context of almost any unjustified damage, recklessness generally involves a danger to human life.  Also, where a negligent person is merely being careless or thoughtless, the reckless person is actually aware of the risk being created by their conduct and chooses to ignore that risk.

To illustrate, if you drink to the point of intoxication, decide to drive your car through town, and run over a group of nuns using a pedestrian crosswalk,  your conduct is reckless.  Everyone knows that driving drunk creates an unjustified risk of death or serious injury to others, and so by driving you intentionally ignore that risk.

Wisconsin law has two different degrees of recklessness, first degree recklessness and second degree recklessness.

Second degree recklessness is essentially what I’ve just described—the creation of an unjustified risk of death, and the deliberate disregarding of that risk.

First degree recklessness can be thought of as an aggravated form of second degree recklessness.  Whereas second degree recklessness requires the creation of an unjustified risk of death and the deliberate disregarding of that risk, first degree recklessness also requires that you acted with an utter disregard for human life.

Utter disregard might best be explained with an illustrative example.  Imagine you are in the woods and have brought a rifle to do some target practice.  Your target consists of a soup can, which you hang from a tree branch using a string.  You begin shooting at the can.  Naturally, both the bullets that strike the can and those that miss continue moving with considerable energy past your target.

Unfortunately, a short distance past your target, hidden by the thin stand of trees behind your target, is a school, and one of your bullets strikes and kills a student.

Your killing of that student is certainly not an intentional homicide—a murder—because you never had any particular intent towards that student, and indeed never knew the student existed.

The killing, however, is likely criminally reckless.  You know that firing bullets at a target with an inadequate backstop means the rounds will continue downrange with considerable energy until they hit something with sufficient resistance to stop them.  If that something is a person, they are likely to die.  Guns are inherently dangerous instruments, and it is your responsibility to use them in a manner that does not unjustifiably endanger others. The enjoyment of recreational target shooting cannot justify a human death.

In short, by shooting at the can on a string without an adequate backstop you know or should know that you are creating unjustified risk of death, and you intentionally disregarded that risk—the very definition of recklessness.

Utter disregard for human life occurs when it is not merely reasonably possible that your recklessness may cause a human death, but highly likely.

Imagine that you’re shooting at your tin can in the woods again, but this time you know there is a school on the other side of the thin stand of trees.  Further, you can hear children in the playground between you and the school building, and even get glimpses of them through the trees.  Despite this, you shoot at your can, anyway., with the same result that one of your bullets strikes and kills a student.

Now you’re not merely knowingly creating a risk of death and intentionally ignoring that risk, you simply have an utter disregard for the people you know are being placed in danger of dying by your actions.

In this case, the charges against Rittenhouse include the reckless homicide of Joseph Rosenbaum (Count 1), the reckless endangering of safety of Richard McGinnis (Count 2), and the reckless endangering of safety of “jump kick man” (Count 5).   All of those counts are premised on first-degree recklessness, arguing that Rittenhouse was not merely reckless but showed an utter disregard for human life.


Self-Defense is a legal justification or privilege that relieves you of criminal liability for having used force upon another in specific circumstances.  At Law of Self Defense we define those specific circumstances using what we refer to as the five elements of a claim of self-defense.  These are Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, Avoidance, and Reasonableness.  I’ll explain these briefly here. (Get your “Five Elements of Self-Defense Infographic” here.)

Innocence requires that the person claiming self-defense not have been the initial physical aggressor in the confrontation.

Imminence requires that the threat you were defending against was either in progress or immediately about to happen.

Proportionality requires that your defensive force be proportional to the force threatened against you, and particularly that deadly defensive force can be used only to stop a deadly force threat.

Avoidance asks whether you had a legal duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense—only 11 states impose such a generalized legal duty to retreat in cases of otherwise lawful self-defense, and Wisconsin is not one of those, so we can disregard the element of Avoidance for purposes of the Rittenhouse trial (except in the context of provocation, which I’ll come back to in a moment).

Reasonableness requires that the defender’s perceptions, decisions, and actions were both subjectively genuine believed by the defender, and that this belief was also objectively reasonable—that a reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances would have shared that subjective belief.

These elements are cumulative, meaning that the claim of self-defense is valid only if all the required elements are present.  It is the burden of the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, but he need not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt self-defense in its entirety, he need merely disprove beyond a reasonable doubt any single element of self-defense.

Accordingly, each of the required elements of a self-defense claim can be thought of as a target of attack for the prosecutor.  If he can disprove any single required element—in Wisconsin the four elements of Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, or Reasonableness—he will have defeated the legal defense of self-defense.

If the prosecutor cannot disprove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, however, then the underlying use of force is deemed to have been justified, and the defendant will have zero criminal liability for his use of force.  That use of force is simply not a crime.  The jury will be instructed that under those circumstances they must acquit the defendant of the use-of-force criminal charge in question.

Because an undefeated claim of self-defense results in an acquittal and zero legal liability for the defendant, self-defense is said to be a perfect defense.

Remarkably, after eight days of trial testimony the prosecution has introduced little if any substantive evidence that attacks any of the four required elements of self-defense under Wisconsin law, and certainly not anything like the evidence required to disprove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The self-defense jury instruction for Wisconsin is:  805 Privilege: Self-Defense: Force Intended or Likely to Cause Death or Great Bodily Harm

This instruction will be read to the jury.

Imperfect Self-Defense

There is a variant of self-defense recognized by many states, among which is Wisconsin.  Whereas self-defense is a perfect defense that allows for an acquittal and zero legal liability, imperfect self-defense does not allow for an acquittal.  Instead, imperfect self defense can only mitigate what would otherwise have qualified as a first degree intentional murder to some lesser killing charge—second degree intentional murder, manslaughter, first-degree reckless murder, and so forth.

Imperfect self-defense can be thought of as a claim of self-defense that’s almost complete, but not quite—just short of perfect.

Wisconsin law recognizes several flavors of imperfect self-defense that can mitigate a first degree intentional homicide to a lesser killing charge.

For example, imagine a defendant who used deadly force in self-defense. Per the element of Reasonableness, perfect self-defense requires the defendant had both a genuine subjective belief in the need to use deadly force in self-defense, and that this subjective belief was objectively reasonable.

Where the defendant has that genuine subjective belief, but that belief is objectively unreasonable, however, he has failed the element of Reasonableness, and therefore does not qualify for perfect self-defense.

If that lack of objective reasonableness is the only defect in his otherwise valid claim of self-defense, however, he can argue that what would otherwise have been deemed a first degree intentional homicide is mitigated to a second degree intentional homicide.

In this case, Rittenhouse is charged with the first degree intentional homicide of Anthony Huber.  If the jury were to find that Rittenhouse had an otherwise valid self-defense justification for his shooting of Huber, except that his use of deadly defensive force was objectively unreasonable, they could acquit him of the charge of first degree intentional homicide and instead find him guilty of second degree intentional homicide.

The jury instruction that addresses this concept of imperfect self-defense under Wisconsin law is:  1016 First Degree Intentional Homicide: Self-Defense

This instruction will be read to the jury.


I mentioned earlier that there are four core elements of self-defense under Wisconsin law that are possible targets of attack by the prosecution:  Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, and Reasonableness. I also mentioned that the fifth element of self-defense, Avoidance, does not generally apply in Wisconsin, in that there is no generalized legal duty to retreat before you can act in otherwise lawful self-defense.

There is, however, what might be thought of as a “back door” avenue of attack on self-defense, and that target becomes available where the defendant can be said to have provoked the attack against which he then defended himself.  Generally, I treat provocation as a facet of the element of Innocence, but Wisconsin law breaks it out as if it were a separate element, so that’s how I’ll treat it here.

I noted earlier that over eight days of trial testimony the State had offered little or no evidence attacking any of the four core elements of Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense, and certainly not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not do so for the perfectly good reason that they have no such evidence.

Instead, the State is putting all its chips on attacking Kyle’s claim of self-defense through the legal doctrine of provocation.  If they can prove provocation beyond a reasonable doubt, Kyle becomes effectively ineligible to claim self-defense.

Specifically, the State is arguing that as Kyle approached the four cars in which Rosenbaum was concealed at the corner of the 63rd Street Car Source parking lot, Kyle raised his gun and pointed it at Joshua Ziminski—this is the why the State fought so hard to get the “unicorn” drone video and “enhanced” images into evidence, as purported evidence of this conduct by Kyle.

This pointing of the rifle, the State claims, provoked Rosenbaum into a use of force in defense of Zimkinski, and as a result of that act of provocation Kyle should be unable to justify his use of force upon Rosenbaum’s provoked attack as lawful self-defense.

Importantly, there are two types of provocation under Wisconsin law, each with different conditions:  simple provocation, and provocation with intent.

Simple Provocation

Simple provocation is engaging in unlawful conduct that would be reasonably likely to provoke a violent response.  If that occurs, the person who provoked the violent response does not have a privilege of justifying their use of force against that response as self-defense, unless they meet additional conditions not usually required for self-defense.

Specifically, the person who engaged in simple provocation has effectively acquired a legal duty to retreat, that element of Avoidance, that would not normally be a legal duty under Wisconsin law in the case of an otherwise lawful act of self-defense.  Before the simple provoker can justify their defense against the provoked violence as legally justified, they must withdraw from the confrontation and effectively communicate their withdrawal to the other party.

The jury instruction that addresses simple provocation under Wisconsin law is:  810 Privilege: Self-Defense: Retreat

This jury instruction will be read to the jury.

Provocation with Intent

The second form of provocation is provocation with intent. This occurs when the defendant not only provoked a violent response but did so with the deliberate intent of then having an excuse to use deadly force against the person provoked.  Importantly, the provoker with intent cannot regain self-defense by withdrawal and communication—on the other hand, the State must prove that malicious intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury instruction that addresses provocation with intent under Wisconsin law is:

815 Privilege: Self-Defense: Not Available to One Who Provokes an Attack: Regaining the Privilege

This jury instruction will be read to the jury.

Lesser Included Offenses

Many criminal offenses come in several degrees, as we’ve already seen with respect to recklessness coming in both a “standard” second-degree form and an “aggravated” first degree form where there is an utter disregard for human life.  Between the two forms all the criminal elements are identical, except for the addition of utter disregard to first-degree recklessness.

If a defendant is charged with first degree recklessness, and the jury finds that all the elements of that crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt except for utter disregard for human life—well without utter disregard the defendant cannot be found guilty of first degree recklessness.  He still, however, meets all the conditions for being found guilty of second-degree recklessness.

In such a case the crime of second degree recklessness is said to be a lesser included offense of first degree recklessness.

In this case, Rittenhouse is charged with several charges based on recklessness, all in the first degree claiming utter disregard for human life, including the shooting death of Rosenbaum, endangerment of McGinnis, and the endangerment of “jump kick man.”

To all these charges of recklessness Kyle has raised the legal defense of self-defense. For each charge, if the jury finds the state has failed to disprove any one element of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury will be instructed to acquit Rittenhouse of that charge.

In other words, recklessness requires the creation of an unjustified risk of death, but if the death was the result of lawful self-defense the risk created was justified and therefore not a crime.

Of course, if self-defense is found to have been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, then Rittenhouse will be found guilty of the charge.

But guilty to what degree?  Both first and second degree recklessness require that Rittenhouse created an unjustified risk of death and ignored that risk.  But first degree also requires utter disregard for human life.

If the jury is considering a charge of first degree reckless, and finds it has been proven with the exception of the element of utter disregard, they can acquit Rittenhouse of the first degree charge and instead find him guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree recklessness.

OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.

Until next time:


You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!


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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Provocation – assuming arguemento that the rifle was pointed horizontal and pointed at someone, –
when Riddenhouse bend down to set the fire extenquisher down, the rifle would likely have moved to were it would be pointing up or horizontal

that is presuming the photo / enhanced photo could be is clear enough

    Iluvtruth in reply to Joe-dallas. | November 12, 2021 at 9:05 pm

    Assume Kyle did point his gun at someone, purportedly a guy that the prosecution declined to call to the stand, because the police concluded was a liiar.

    1. Do the videos actually establish that Kyle pointed his rifle at this person? I don’t see it. The overhead FBI drone footage doesn’t show it: the rifle could have been held by Kyle, pointing ahead, but down-angled.

    2. Even if he did point it at the person, he did not fire his pistol. So, if the person he pointed it at had taken out his pistol and shot Kyle, that would be the pistol-wielder’s valid claim for self defense. But that did not happen. Kyle simply bypassed him.

    3. The proposition that Kyle’s action precipitated a justified chase-down by Rosenbaum is preposterous. What kind of rational, sane unarmed person would be “provoked” to chase down a rifle-armed person, with an expectation of disarming him? Such an action would not be heroic, it would be insane–unless the chaser believed the rifle-holder would not shoot. But a sane person would never assume this.

    Rosenbaum was deranged–he had just gotten out of psychiatric hospitalization. He had been homeless. It may be fair to characterize him as demonically possessed, controlled by forces that wanted him to die.

    The same can be said for the other people Kyle shot, or shot at. He did not fire at a single person who did not violently assault him, or clearly attempt to. In every case, he was running away to avoid violent confrontation. His assailants would not allow him to withdraw.

      Iluvtruth in reply to Iluvtruth. | November 12, 2021 at 9:09 pm

      “he did not fire his pistol.” I mean the pistol-holder whom Kyle purportedly aimed his rifle at.

      MattMusson in reply to Iluvtruth. | November 13, 2021 at 8:04 am

      Overnight another video appeared showing that Kyle did NOT point his pistol.
      The faux video in evidence truly did not show what the prosecutors said it did.

    William L Gensert in reply to Joe-dallas. | November 12, 2021 at 11:04 pm

    I carried a handgun for a long time. It is very easy to get even a large gun into a pocket but extremely hard to get even a smaller gun out of a pocket. It is likely the man Rittenhouse is supposed (I did not see this in the video evidence) to have pointed his rifle at had the gun in his hand extended, straight arm down his side, which wasn’t caught on camera.

    DelightLaw1 in reply to Joe-dallas. | November 13, 2021 at 9:49 am

    Despite all the twigs and turns and specifics of the statutes now to be dissected by the jury in deciding the fate of KR, particularly now that the State has been allowed to enter the the Provocation elements, puts the spotlight on the Elephant which will no doubt be squatting in the Jury room: KR simply being in possession of a gun that night. So many people believe – or have been brainwashed – into thinking that simply possessing a gun makes you a bad guy. Hence, that alone may be enough for them to accept the Provocation judgment. It’s a clever move for the State as they brought this tenet up ad nauseum during the trial. How utterly frightening to have your life in the hands of 12 people chock full of pressure to a.) understand the finer points of law. And, b.) their own personal biases. That is our system – best we can hope for. But in today’s mixed up crazy world, God have mercy on us all.

You stated in the article regarding the provocation charge,
“Importantly, the provoker with intent cannot regain self-defense by withdrawal and communication”

But in the jury instructions you linked it says,
“A person who provokes an attack may regain the right to use or threaten force if the person in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice of the withdrawal to his assailant.”

This seems contradictory.

    fogflyer in reply to fogflyer. | November 12, 2021 at 7:19 pm

    After rereading 815, I seems that last paragraph is only included if the evidence supports it. Are you saying the judge did not include this instruction, because it sure seems like the evidence supported it?

    The simple provoker can regain self-defense by withdrawal and communication.

    The provoker with intent cannot.

    Simple provoker ≠ Provoker with intent.

    Two different things.

      I got that quote straight from the 815 link you have under the heading…
      “The jury instruction that addresses provocation with intent under Wisconsin law is:

      815 Privilege: Self-Defense: Not Available to One Who Provokes an Attack: Regaining the Privilege”
      Did you link the wrong jury instruction for provocation with intent?

      Beyond a doubt the defendant should of hired Attorney Branca instead of Mr. Richards.

Thank you!

I will add that I viewed the video 5-6 times and never could see kyle in the video until 10-20 strides after he started to run. The point being is how is someone going to be able to tell which direction the rifle was pointing

    It’s disgusting they’re going to argue with a straight face that the pixel soup on offer shows anything one might trust at all, let alone go ‘Welp, looks incontrovertible to me. Fry him!’ If I were on the jury I’d be utterly insulted for being served that BS. The judge should not have allowed anything that wasn’t a straight zoom (integral multiplier of rows and columns with perfect pixel replication (i.e. N∙R x N∙C, e.g. 192 x 108 → 1920 x 1080 with *no* interpolation). I hope the defense comes ready to argue these points and show how unreliable such ‘interpretations’ can be.

      CarlosT in reply to JorgB. | November 13, 2021 at 7:03 am

      I’d be the same. Not guilty on all charges.

      Joe-dallas in reply to JorgB. | November 13, 2021 at 4:06 pm

      JorgB in reply to Joe-dallas. | November 12, 2021 at 10:40 pm
      “It’s disgusting they’re going to argue with a straight face that the pixel soup on offer shows anything one might trust at all,”

      I never came close to making that argument. As I stated, I could not locate Kyle in the photo/single frame of the video, until he had taken at least 10 strides from the location the prosectution claimed he was located.

The state attempting to “sell” KR as the provoker.

I’m beside myself.

Not half as much as I will be if the Jury buys any of it.

Having watched this- a conviction is yet another lynching for anyone standing up for law and order.

At what point is it too late for the dismissal with prejudice?????

Judge has turned into the Chauvin Judge today to be honest.

    jakeump in reply to Andy. | November 12, 2021 at 7:26 pm

    BLM must’ve gotten his phone number and threatened him

    Krenn in reply to Andy. | November 12, 2021 at 7:44 pm

    in theory, I think hypothetically the Judge could dismiss with prejuidice AFTER the Jury brings back a guilty verdict. But he’d be really unlikely to do that unless the Jury flat-out admitted that the prejudicial conduct had persuaded them.

    Elzorro in reply to Andy. | November 12, 2021 at 8:32 pm

    If Kyle is found not guilty it will be because the jury overcame…
    The Judge
    Their Fear

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 9:31 pm

      Oh come on. It’s just the jailing of one kid after all. Sacrifices must be made for the revolution and the fundamental transformation of America. I mean, no one takes joy in this, well, some people do not, but it really must be done, you must agree.

      jakeump in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 9:40 pm

      Their fear is what will get him convicted on all counts.

        Mercyneal in reply to jakeump. | November 12, 2021 at 9:55 pm


        No, the judge’s apparent cowardice. I’ve been giving him the benefit of the doubt up to now but in retrospect, this guy doesn’t have the spine to apply the law. He has shown signs of impatience with the prosecutors but maybe that is just because they have been making it so hard for him to find a way to allow a guilty verdict.

        I know it is very rare for a judge to dismiss a case with prejudice, especially such a high profile case like this where violence is certain if the defendant is found not guilty, but I can’t imagine there have been cases in the past where it was more obviously warranted. Does anyone here know of any cases where it was used?

        Surrendering to mob rule is the end of civilization. There is no excuse for corrupt judges and cowardice is corruption. It is dereliction of duty. That is why line army officers in battle wear pistols, to shoot any cowardly soldiers who refuse to obey orders at the front lines. Harsh but it’s life or death either way for the soldiers. And we are in a war.

        Is it too late for a dismissal with prejudice?

        Edward in reply to jakeump. | November 13, 2021 at 8:12 am

        Not all counts, but possibly at least one Felony. I hope for a better jury than that, but hope isn’t a winning plan.

I sure wish I could read the gun charge instruction.

Doesn’t look good for Kyle. So many opportunities, so much pressure for the jury to convict on *something*.

From previous thread:

Judge explaining lesser included offenses, notes reduces risk of a second trial due to a hung jury.”
That is probably the most ominous thing that I have read…The judge is allowing more lesser includeds so as to increase the likelihood of a guilty verdict inorder to reduce the “risk” of a second trial. Making decisions not on “law” or the “risk” of Kyle going to prison but to increase the chance of a guilty verdict inorder to avoid the hassle of another trial!! WTF

    Elzorro in reply to SHV. | November 12, 2021 at 7:35 pm

    You have hit the nail on the head.

    styro1 in reply to SHV. | November 12, 2021 at 7:48 pm

    Most important thing is not true justice but assembly line prosecutions where the chances for a guilty verdict takes precedence to avoid costing the state more money and judges/prosecutors more work. All else takes a backseat.

    JMark in reply to SHV. | November 12, 2021 at 8:53 pm

    If all the judge said to him was “kid, this is great because it means you won’t have to go thru a second trial” I’d agree. I heard it as the judge acknowledging that possible outcome from allowing the lesser included offenses in, but that KR could object independent from any advice from counsel to those lesser includeds his attorneys didn’t object to. I took it as the judge making sure KR has the complete picture and is aware of his ability to have input.

    PBM in reply to SHV. | November 12, 2021 at 10:09 pm

    Made a similar comment on the live thread. It strikes me as ludicrous that a defendant can be brought to trial on one charge but convicted on another. As I asked there, is this allowed in other countries? Or is it like “plea bargaining” which is treated as unlawful extortion outside the US.

      henrybowman in reply to PBM. | November 13, 2021 at 1:19 am

      Hoo, that ain’t half of it. In some instances, a defendant can be found guilty of one charge and not guilty of another, then have the judge add the sentence for the count he was found not guilty onto the top of the guilty sentence regardless. This practice has a specific name but I can’t find what it is. After a medium search, I did find corroboration that I’m not talking through my hat, but the link in that article to the actual court decision which might explain more is dead.

      James B. Shearer in reply to PBM. | November 13, 2021 at 12:10 pm

      “… ludicrous that a defendant can be brought to trial on one charge but convicted on another. ..”

      I believe adding lesser included charges happens a lot and the defense should be prepared for it. What difference would it have made if they had all been listed from the start?

As pure speculation, I was wondering if the main reason to have Kyle take the stand was to win sympathy votes on the gun charge and make a clean sweep more likely.

Provocation? Seriously? Sounds suspiciously like “Da b****h was asking for it when she wore that sexy outfit!”

You can bet every anti-Bill of Rights prosecutor is drooling at the mere prospect of charging millions of people with “provocation” for legally possessing a firearm.

I think Evers’ announcement to send in the Wisconsin National Guard has achieved the intimidation he desired. The judge doesn’t want to be blamed for a riot. This is an act of pure cowardice.

    aramissebastian in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | November 13, 2021 at 4:41 am

    As I read Wisconsin’s self-defense statute, I think it’s fair to say that your claims of self-defense are strongest as they pertain to the use of deadly force against an intruder in your home, vehicle, or place of business.

    And I think a majority of persons across the political spectrum have no problem with that/would agree with that.

    I think it’s the intent of the law that the further away you get from that scenario (protecting your home/business/vehicle), the weaker your claim of self-defense becomes.

    I don’t have a problem with that. I think it’s reasonable. But, that’s just my opinion.

I am so sad about this and disheartened. I don’t feel like this court is searching for the truth, rather a search for an outcome, true or not. I understand the adversarial system but this is not ethical and that system requires ethics to function.

I still have a problem with provocation with intent. KR’s statement was that he dropped the fire extinguisher because he saw Ziminski with a gun pointed at him. Ziminski proved he had a gun by firing a shot into the air several seconds later.
The state needs to disprove KR’s testimony with some evidence. Ziminski was never called to testify that KR pointed a gun at him. No witness testifiied to seeing KR point his rifle, and there were witnesses everywhere. We have a retouched photo, that now the prosecutor is going to tell the jury what it shows? That sure doesn’t sound like “evidence”, and the judge SHOULD NOT allow it.
Finally, the entire foundation for the prosecution’s close is based on a video for which we have no idea where it came from, that was only provided to the defense in the second week of the trial, immediately before the prosecution rested. So, the state charged and prosecuted KR for more than a year, and conducted the first week of the trial, without the only evidence that supposedly supports their charges? If that doesn’t prove political persecution, I don’t know what does.

    fogflyer in reply to A Thinker. | November 12, 2021 at 7:44 pm

    Well said sir!

    darwin in reply to A Thinker. | November 12, 2021 at 8:07 pm

    Exactly! I kept waiting for the defense to bring up that the persecution brought NO evidence of this and didn’t even come up with it until a few days ago. If it had happened, multiple people would have seen it and would have been brought in to testify.

    They didn’t do that because it didn’t happen.

      Elzorro in reply to darwin. | November 12, 2021 at 8:40 pm

      Well Richards did spend 10k of his spoils on and expert and then botched up his direct and went back to slouching over his chair and looking bored while Binger created a good rapore and used him to his own advantage.

    Formerly known as Skeptic in reply to A Thinker. | November 12, 2021 at 11:24 pm

    “KR’s statement was that he dropped the fire extinguisher because he saw Ziminski with a gun pointed at him. Ziminski proved he had a gun by firing a shot into the air several seconds later.”

    Even if the state evidence is accepted as sufficient to show that Rittenhouse raised his rifle at this point, without disproving KR’s statement that Ziminski was pointing his gun at him first, it looks more like prudence than provocation.

    DaveGinOly in reply to A Thinker. | November 13, 2021 at 5:20 pm

    No proof that KR provoked JB. And we know JB had already threatened Kyle’s life, so he was predisposed to attack Kyle that evening by his own admission. “Provocation” wasn’t necessary to explain JB’s assault. Even admitting that KR provoked Z, there’s no evidence that JB saw or was otherwise aware of, or influenced by, the provocation.

    The final three assailants attacked KR while he was fleeing and after he had been knocked down. However far KR would have to flee to regain innocence (in a simple provocation), if it was a distance farther than he had already run, he was prevented by his pursuers from going that distance.

    Even if he had provoked with intent, did the survivor, GG, testify that he saw KR point a gun at Z? If he didn’t, and if there’s no proof that any of his other assailants saw the provocation (and, importantly nobody testified to such provocation, or any reason why the other assailants may have been aware of it), how can “provocation” apply?

    The “provocation” argument should be countered with the argument, “Even if KR attempted to provoke Z, that doesn’t mean that JB’s attack on KR was motivated by it, or that JB wasn’t acting out of his own murderous intent, entirely independent of any provocation.” With no evidence or testimony to indicate JB’s motivation was anything but the follow-through on his own threat to kill KR, there is nothing to support the contention that KR’s provocation started the series of events that led to either JB’s death or the other shootings. The “provocation” argument is a red-herring, because there is no train of logic by which any such provocation can be found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been a necessary element to the incidents that night.

    The prosecution failed to call the only witness who could have testified to any provocation in support of the drone footage – Ziminski. Why were they allowed to make a coulda/possibly/maybe argument with the video, when they could have called an actual witness?

    The prosecution had the “unicorn” video from the start, and planned to use it, if necessary, to substitute for testimony Z didn’t provide. They knew already “provocation” might become a necessary claim (because the case was otherwise devoid of the evidence and testimony necessary to overcome the claim of “self-defense”) and planned to use the video to introduce the narrative they needed. (This addresses “Where did the video come from?”)
    Z didn’t give such testimony because he wasn’t called to do so. He wasn’t called because the prosecution knew that Z’s testimony wouldn’t support the claim (that KR pointed his rifle at Z) they planned to introduce with the video. The prosecution didn’t want to take the risk that any of Z’s testimony might upset their plan for the video. (This addresses “Why didn’t the prosecution call Z as a witness?”)
    They waited until the last moment to introduce the video, and the “provocation” element, only when they knew they absolutely needed it. (Why take a chance at getting caught admitting withheld evidence if its admission is not needed? So they waited.) (This addresses “Why was the video introduced at the last minute?”)

Midfiaudiophile | November 12, 2021 at 7:33 pm

Someone points a firearm at me, I move the fuck out of the way, I don’t charge them down and/or chase them. I guess I’m probably a coward, but we call people that charge towards gunfire heroes for a reason. Most people don’t do that.

Even if we accept that every fact that Binger alleges is true and the Rorschach Photo is crystal clear , is “Sees a gun, charges like a bull seeing red” really a likely enough outcome enough outcome to satisfy “A person who engages in unlawful conduct1 of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self defense against that attack.”???

    Midfiaudiophile in reply to Midfiaudiophile. | November 12, 2021 at 7:38 pm

    Once again the lack of an edit feature bites me. The claim is that he pointed it at Ziminsky, not Rosenbaum, and Rosenbaum responded. Still, though…

    KR isn’t even accused of pointing his rifle at Rosenbaum according to the corrupt Little Binger but at Ziminski. Rosenbaum was provoked by transference.

      It would seem all the defense has to do is point out what a stretch it is that Rosenbaum would have been provoked with intent by a purported momentary sweep of Kyle’s rifle in Ziminski’s direction.

      Absent that, no evidence exists to disprove an element of self-defense

I wonder if those 9-10 yr old boys Rosenbum raped in the early 2000’s were provoking him by wearing tight pants, speedo swim trunks or listening to Michael Jackson songs.

What are the odds of the up to their eyeballs corrupt FIB losing HD drone video but then prosecution magically discovers at last minute another drone video on their doorstep where “expert” works 20 hours on video to show an extremely blurry KR pointing weapon at Ziminski?

Also how does provocation against Ziminski, if KR really did point rifle at him, gets transferred to the psycho Rosenbaum? Wouldn’t KR need to have provoked the deceased psycho?

The rules work when applied by an impartial trier of the facts. I think the judge has demonstrated he is worried about outside appearances and influences and it has affected his rulings.

    TargaGTS in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 8:03 pm

    When he made that comment today about liking Court TV because they weren’t being hostile to him (I believe is words were, ‘they’re not getting in my way), I almost fell off my chair. What the actual Eff? Why would a judge watch coverage of a trial he was currently presiding over? There aren’t rules against that?

    Can anyone imagine a referee listening to the telecast of the game – color commentary and all – as he was working it? Even the WWE wouldn’t allow that.

      Elzorro in reply to TargaGTS. | November 12, 2021 at 8:45 pm

      He is a smiling cobra. Steeped in years and years of the processing system of guilty defendants. Normally his job is to make sure the state follows the rules and protecting a guilty defendants rights throughout the process. After all this time i bet he is a well liked and respected institution throughout the court system there in Kenosha County.

      styro1 in reply to TargaGTS. | November 12, 2021 at 10:13 pm

      Actually Court TV has been extremely hostile to him, along w/ all the fake news. Seems like he was trying to curry favor w/ them by these rulings.

      CuriousJustice in reply to TargaGTS. | November 12, 2021 at 11:04 pm

      He was referring to the cameraman not creating difficulties, like accidentally filming jurors, or recording sound when they’re not supposed to. I don’t understand how you immediately read some nefariousness into a comment that has readily apparent alternative explanations.

        Uhm, no. He was specifically addressing the commentators. Right before he made that shocking comment he said, (paraphrasing as best as I can remember) ‘…of course, we can’t show the jurors a feed that contains commentary…’ One of the lawyers (defense, I believe) said, ‘They want to show Court TV,’ and Schroeder immediately then made his comment about CourtTV letting him do what he wants and not getting in his way.

        I have no idea how you can construe that exchange to mean he was talking about their ‘cameraman.’ I

It sounds to me like the real criminals, Binger and his thugs, are really reaching here.

I’m confused now.

As I understand things, as the trial started, the FBI unexpectedly showed up with low-res drone footage that everybody understands was from the FBI.

Then, halfway through the trial, some additional drone footage mysteriously appeared, and no one knows who took it, who stored it, who may have tampered with it, or really anything about its provenance or chain of custody.

And Kyle’s freedom is going to hinge on barely-discernable “information” recorded on that video?

How was this evidence ever accepted by the defense?

    Elzorro in reply to henrybowman. | November 12, 2021 at 7:49 pm

    Criminal Courts and prosecutors and defense lawyers spend their days prosecuting and defending mostly GUILTY defendants. The whole system is geared to deal with that reality. This is an anomaly. An innocent defendant charged because of politics and other considerations. It is breaking down.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 8:01 pm

      This is why it is so important to pick your attorney carefully. I am disappointed in Rittenhouse’s team. I know he went through others, and the bald guy is competent, but they were not aggressive whatsoever in defending him.

      Richards making the closing argument…Ugh. He wasn’t able to construct a story properly this past week. The prosecution’s BS narrative can be shredded, but the jury also has to understand what makes a valid, self-defense case. I am not convinced he can do the job. I hope I’m wrong.

        From what I have seen Richards is a natural born loser that does not give a hoot about Kyle. They mostly ignore him. I think he would have been better off with a major crimes public defender with years of experience and a natural animosity with the DA rather than a slouch who likes to yuk it up with Binger. I really do not see a bond with their client.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 8:35 pm

          Yes. Rittenhouse would talk to baldy sometimes, but now that you bring this up, I bet that is because he was merely because he was sitting next to him and it always seemed like Rittenhouse was the one who initiated the conversation. I never saw Richards and Rittenhouse say anything to each other during a break or lull.

          I swear, if I had this case I would have defended Rittenhouse like he was my own kid. If this wasn’t self-defense, the concept doesn’t exist.

          Mercyneal in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 9:56 pm

          The other attorney he has is excellent. Too many Debbie Downers here

          pchase9401 in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 11:25 pm

          When I was younger, I had a DA bring me up on some bogus charges because she had a beef with my brother and though I was a loser like he was. I got a public defender, who was the husband of my college physics advisor, that hated her and while we could have likely gotten the case dismissed, but he waited for trial to embarrass her. That guy was awesome.

      Many defense attorneys have tremendous experience working “bad guy” cases of self-defense that are quickly lost, checks cashed.

      When I talk to them they tell me in their entire 20-30 year career, they’ve had MAYBE 4 or 5 “good guy” cases of self-defense.

      It’s hard to get good at something you do 4 or 5 times over 20-30 years.

      It’s one of the reasons I’m an odd duck–the ONLY cases I work are self-defense cases, and almost all the ones I consult on are “good guy” cases of self-defense. Turns out the “bad guy” cases that send us inquiries don’t want to pay us when they discover we’ll accurately report why their claim of self-defense sucks.

        Mr. Branca,
        You saw this coming before anyone else. Binger has to prove Kyle ‘intended’ to draw Rosenbaum in to a trap so he could kill him. I hope the jury can see through this. it is a hard concept of law to understand. I doubt Richards is capable of explaining this in his close. Binger is stipulating everything he is going to argue and claiming it does not amount to a hill of beans because Kyle intentionaly provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at Kamisky. That is absurd. Do you think Richards should object a lot during Bingers close and how can the judge rule on the objections? I wonder how many ways there are to object? Would the judge send the jury out to argue over them?

          amwick in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 6:35 am

          The internet provides some behind the scenes support and communication. It may not ever come to light, but I believe George Zimmerman’s case was assisted by a blogger and crowd sourcing.. Just me spitballing. I fervently hope that the same is true for this case, especially when there are sources out there such as

      aramissebastian in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 4:57 am

      Many attorneys will tell you that the scariest thing they ever did was defend a truly innocent person b/c the stakes were so high.

      At the other end of the spectrum, I had an attorney friend who defended a particularly violent, push in rapist.

      He knew details that the prosecutor didn’t, that were even scarier.

      When his client got 60 years in the slammer, he felt justice had been done.

    The blown-up enhanced video still ‘snapshot’ submitted as evidence of ‘provocation’ is little more than blurry colored blotches not remotely discernable as anything. And it took an ‘expert’ 20 hours to ‘fortify’ it.

    It’s a Rorschach test Binger prepared for the jury. Those inclined to find Kyle guilty will see in it what they want to see.

    The judge should have never allowed it.

Even if there was provocation, which there is no evidence of, once he was running away from the violent mob it no longer mattered.

    OnePingOnly in reply to geronl. | November 13, 2021 at 7:17 am

    You need to read Mr. Branca’s explanations above of simple provocation and provocation with intent.

    In short, with simple provocation, one can regain the concept of “innocence” by disengaging — the running away as you described it — whereas in provocation with intent, the concept of “innocence” cannot be re-established.

      The defense needs to hammer the unicorn video hard.

      A. No one testified that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Zalinsky
      B. The video doesn’t show squat
      C. At the angle the video was shot, you can’t tell depth perception to the detail needed whether Rittenhouse pointed the gun at Zalinsky anyways.

      I rewatched Lefty’s cross yesterday, some very important details were gleaned that are overshadowed by the showstopper.

      1. Rittenhouse told lefty he was going to the police
      2. Lefty did not know Rittenhouse was the shooter at first
      3. Lefty did not go to help Rosenbaum despite being the self described Official Summer of 2020 Riot Medic on scene.
      4. Instead, he chased after a guy with his gun drawn

        5. Worse, if Lefty *had* stopped and shot Kyle in the back, he would be up on Murder One charges right now, with absolutely no chance of getting out from under it, because he could not have met any of the pre-reqs for claiming self-defense. That’s something you get hammered into your head during CC training.

        Midfiaudiophile in reply to GRAMBO. | November 13, 2021 at 2:25 pm

        I’ve been thinking about this “with intent” thing. According to Mr. Branca’s website, the instructions state: “[A person who provokes an attack whether by lawful or unlawful conduct with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to another person is not entitled to use or threaten force in self‑defense.]”

        Part of me thinks the Defense might be better served to focus on the “to use such attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to another person” bit of it.

        Defense can talk about Kyle’s on-stand panic attack. He clearly did not want to be put into that situation so he could justify using deadly force against someone. And pre-trial motions excluded things like Lin Wood’s publicity stunt with the militia people and other similar evidence that might prejudicially dilute that perception (though I expect Binger to be sleazy and try to introduce it through a back door, once again, in his closing or rebuttal).

        Once you move past intent, it’s clear-cut that Kyle retreated and fired his rifle only when a violent man was within a hair’s breadth of possibly gaining control of Kyle’s rifle. (That sling was pretty long. Was it long enough that Rosenbaum could spin it around so the muzzle covered some part of Kyle’s body? Would it be reasonable to assume that it could, even without being disattaching it from Kyle’s body?) and so, even with provocation, which can’t possibly be proven by that still frame or that video, he regains the right to self-defense.

        I think we may be missing the forest for the trees here.

        DaveGinOly in reply to GRAMBO. | November 13, 2021 at 6:46 pm

        “No one testified that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Zalinsky”

        And a person who would have known if KR had pointed his gun would have been Z himself. But the prosecution didn’t call him as a witness. Coincidence?

        Because Z would have been able to testify to such a thing, how does springing the video at the last moment make any legal sense? Could the defense have asked to have Z testify as a hostile witness? But by the time the need for his testimony was known, Z would have heard of the prosecution’s contention (that KR pointed his AR at Z – how’s that for alphabet soup?), and that would likely have tainted his testimony.
        Is the allowance of the video into evidence reversible error?

I honestly do not understand why the gun charge wasn’t dismissed. The bar for a charge to survive a motion-to-dismiss must be incredibly low considering the state didn’t contest Rittenhouse’s age nor did they allege the weapon wasn’t the required length, correct?

My prediction is he’s found guilty of no less than two of the charges. I’ll be praying strongly I’m laughably wrong. I want deeply to be laughably wrong.

Count 6 is a judicial not a jury decision. This judge is a smiling cobra IMO.

For all the talk on the Left about how this judge is “rigging” the trial for Rittenhouse, all the big decisions have gone the way of the prosecutors.

    Elzorro in reply to KPOM1. | November 12, 2021 at 8:15 pm

    Did you know…
    Over 90 percent of all state criminal cases end in guilty pleas.
    For Public Defenders…
    48 percent of all trials resulting in no conviction, compared to 46.5 percent in 2009 and 38.5 percent in 2008.
    Approximately 700 felony cases dismissed due to the crime lab scandal.
    70 percent of homicide trials resulting in acquittals, hung juries or mixed verdicts.

      They plea out the ones they can’t win… or don’t bother. This IS a political trial.

      This trial is about whether the mob can beat you to death or not.

      If KR is convicted, Antifa has full license to attack with full violence and will be fully sanctioned to do so under the protection of all the Soros prosecutors.

        Elzorro in reply to Andy. | November 13, 2021 at 2:22 am

        Agreed. Hope only in Wisconsin. I think the free states should write legislation on the quick yo bolster the self defense of person and property.

The judge’s caving on the provocation jury instruction with apparently no evidence besides a very fuzzy image is very disheartening.

Regarding the jury instruction on the 6th count (weapon possession) that was approved by the judge, if it has been shown above, or if there is a link to it, I do not see it. Can anyone point me to it?

    It’s not available, because it’s a custom one-off by the defense. I’m presuming it actually reflects the statutory language–I sure hope it does. We likely won’t know exactly what it says until the judge reads it aloud to the jury on Monday morning.

      I don’t understand why the judge thinks the barrel length can be a matter of fact for the jury to find. Its a Smith and Wesson M&P 15, whos specs are clearly 16″ barrel and 35″ overall length. There is no way this could LEGALLY be a short barreled rifle. Critical error or negligence by the judge?

    MarkS in reply to Ira. | November 13, 2021 at 7:41 am

    During discussion of the weapons charge the judge stated that as he and the attorneys could not agree on whether Kyle was in violation, the jury should not be expected to come to a decision. There is a vague exception for long guns being legal for 16 year olds.

Provocation with intent occurs when the defendant deliberately provokes a violent response, with the intent of then having an excuse to use deadly force against the person provoked.

I don’t see how this argument is going to make any sense. If Kyle really pointed his gun at Ziminski with the deliberate intent of provoking either him or Rosenbaum to attack him so that Kyle could then shoot one or both of them, then why did Kyle run away from them, instead of just shooting them as soon as they moved towards him? The fact that Kyle tried to get away from them seems to be pretty clear and convincing evidence that Kyle had NO intent to provoke them into attacking him so he could shoot them.

The reporter witness McGinnis, who witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, testified that when Rosenbaum first came at Kyle, Kyle “pivoted” and ran away. Kyle could have shot Rosenbaum right then, but he didn’t. When Rosenbaum caught up to Kyle, Rosenbaum came at him again and Kyle moved the barrel of his gun away from him. IOW, Kyle had yet another opportunity to shoot Rosenbaum if that was what he wanted, but he didn’t do it. Kyle didn’t shoot until Rosenbaum lunged at him and actually grabbed the barrel of his gun. Kyle’s behavior doesn’t make sense if he was just looking for an excuse to shoot Rosenbaum. Kyle did everything possible to AVOID shooting Rosenbaum for as long as possible, and only shot him when he had no other choice. That behavior is completely inconsistent with the argument that Kyle was deliberately trying to provoke Rosenbaum in order to have an excuse to shoot him.

    JustSayN2O in reply to Observer. | November 12, 2021 at 10:18 pm

    brilliant, detailed analysis

    You’re expecting THIS prosecution to suddenly start making sense? Of course it doesn’t make sense. But nothing else they’ve argued makes sense, either.

      It’s so offensive.

      The deeper implications in this case, if Kyle is convicted, are that if you are attacked by someone of a particular political orientation your options are either death or prison. There is no door number three.

        This may be the case in blue states/counties/cities, but it is definitely not so in red ones. If antifa-BLM thugs want to take their show on the road, they will find a much different response (both from locals and from law enforcement/county and state government) than they enjoy in blue states. In fact, there are more than a few vids of antifa being run out of red towns by the people, with local police looking on or even helping out.

        Here in Free Florida, our great governor has put in place safeguards to protect not just business owners in blue cities but all citizens who need to defend themselves and their community from out-of-state leftist burners, looters, and murderers.

        The lesson here is to let blue cities burn since trying to stop it is useless given the Democrat leadership of those cities insisting it be allowed to occur unfettered (the Rittenhouse self-defense shootings occurred on the THIRD night of riots in Kenosha . .. riots over a knife-wielding career criminal being shot for moving to stab a police officer. Where was the national guard then?).

        If that’s what they want, what the citizens voted for . . . shrug. Let it burn. [edited to add: or better yet, let local gangs like the Latin Kings protect their own. Talk about a quandary for the left! It makes me laugh just to think about it, and frankly, if I lived in those communities, I’d rather know the Latin Kings have my back than rely on any woke Democrat mayor, city official, or police chief.)

        When these antifa/BLM thugs start getting cocky, thinking they can roll over all of America with their crazy just as they do these blue riot-friendly zones, okay, then, let them come to red states and see what happens when the rule of law is actually applied fairly for all.

    JRaeL in reply to Observer. | November 13, 2021 at 9:41 pm

    Agreed. I also have to point out that if Kyle had intended to provoke Rosenbaum as an excuse to shooting him, why did he put the fire extinguisher down? That could have been used as a weapon or as a threat to provoke R so that Kyle could shoot him. Instead Kyle put the extinguisher down so he could unencumbered by it while retreating and better able to defend himself against Rosenbaum’s unpredictable behavior.

Does anyone know how the ‘except that’ clause in section 3 of Wisconsin’s self-defense statute (dealing with third-party harm) is interpreted? Does it limit the offenses that can properly be charged to those mentioned in that section?

“(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.”

I am a little upset that a prosecutor can just make up total bullshit and it goes to the jury. A reasonably intimidated jury.

    Welcome to my world.

    In the criminal information that dragged George Zimmerman into court, the authorities explicitly stated that he’d racially profiled Trayvon Martin–that’s HOW they got second degree malice murder charged, and the criminal prosecution started.

    Want to guess how much evidence there was of “racial profiling” presented at trial? None. Zero. Zip. Nada. It was just a lie to enable the prosecutor to use the process as the punishment.

Colonel Travis | November 12, 2021 at 8:22 pm

So the Rekieta Law panel today said that the only reason provocation was allowed today is because Rittenhouse himself brought up the pointing of a gun when he took the stand. If he hadn’t have testified, it would not have come up and the state would never have been able to resurrect its dead case.

I’ve watched most this case, but trying to think back to this – is this true? The prosecution could not have brought it up via video? I know there was no other testimony about it. Ziminski sure as heck wasn’t there to say so.

    During cross KR acknowledged that a protester had accused him of pointing a weapon at him and KR stated he replied with “I did” as he walked away. KR stated he did so with sarcasm as he walked away trying to avoid a conflict.

      Colonel Travis in reply to WillS68. | November 12, 2021 at 9:00 pm

      Yes. What I’m asking is: if he had not testified, the state 100% wouldn’t have been able to have this crap admitted today?

        Oh man, I hope that’s not the case.

        That state 100% SHOULDN’T have been able to. ‘Would they have been able to,’ is a different question. When it comes to questions of law and trial procedure, even the easy ones, I don’t think anything is 100% with this judge This is the same guy that has allowed a video into evidence that was obtained anonymously and at least three other videos with copious amount of hearsay included, either audio or editorialized text. It’s crazy and yet it’s there, in evidence.

        (btw, this isn’t an endorsement of having Kyle testify. As some said on that same YouTube broadcast, defense may ave better served Kyle by resting after state did)

          Colonel Travis in reply to TargaGTS. | November 12, 2021 at 11:33 pm

          Agree about the judge. To me, wouldn’t and shouldn’t is the same concept asked at two different junctures in time. Either non-testimony prevents it, or the judge prevents it after it gets into testimony. We know the answer to the latter. My question is about the former.

          I’m still at a loss as to whether Rittenhouse’s testimony is the fundamental reason that provocation is in play now. Yes, it had to go through a judge. But it had to get to the judge in the first place, and is that reason thanks to Rittenhouse’s lawyers?

For the so called defense team it was all about the green.

What I don’t understand is how they can argue provocation when they have no foundation i.e. no testimony from the allegedly provoked individual that is in fact what happened. The prosecution is conducting a seance, not submitting evidence.

    George_Kaplan in reply to randian. | November 12, 2021 at 9:14 pm

    The prosecution doesn’t have a case but does have a mob and a media willing to support them. Since Rittenhouse is claiming self defence, their only chance is to have the jury decide he started it somehow whilst ignoring the fact that Rosenbaum’s friend fired the first shot, Rosenbaum who threatened Rittenhouse, and Rosenbaum who chased then lunged at Rittenhouse while he tried to flee to a safer location e.g. behind police lines.

    Rittenhouse is the victim here, but the Left can’t permit that fact to interfere with their narrative.

    amwick in reply to randian. | November 13, 2021 at 6:42 am

    Having a weapon is provocation.. simple (devil’s advocate) Seems this is their push. People in the twitterverse have been screaming about how this is a direct threat to the 2nd.

      JRaeL in reply to amwick. | November 13, 2021 at 9:44 pm

      Not letting yourself get killed is also grounds for being charged with provocation. If I am following Binger’s logic.

I was invited by the county prosecutor where I lived at the time to observe a murder trial where provocation with intent was a factor. It was a road rage incident where the defendant had hurled obscene verbal abuse at the wife of the other driver (a classic type of provocation Andrew mentioned in his earlier writeup on this issue). This (as well as some additional provocations like pulling his car up to block the other driver’s vehicle) resulted in the other driver exiting his vehicle, coming up to the defendant’s vehicle, putting his hands into the vehicle and grabbing the defendant’s lapels. The defendant considered this a violation of the “Castle Doctrine” which then entitled him, he felt, to pull a Glock and shoot the other driver in the head after that driver had backed away and put his hands up in the air in surrender. (I should point out the defendant was conducting his defense per se.) Interestingly (though it was not brought up at the trial), the defendant had previously informed his attorney that if he ever did shoot someone and claimed to the police that he had been so frightened that he “s__t his pants”, the attorney was to understand from this that he had managed to be able to shoot someone but expected to have legal justification. In this incident, he did, in fact, use that exact phrase to the police. The trial I observed resulted in a hung jury, when one of the jurors simply refused to vote guilty. Subsequent retrial resulted in the defendant being found guilty of murder and afforded an extended stay courtesy of the State of Arizona. The weapon his used was completely within the law, as were the other 3 semiautomatic weapons, 900 rounds of ammunition, stun batons, gas masks, tactical vest, etc. he carried around in is vehicle as a matter of course. The Rittenhouse case looks a good bit different.

    I’ve gotta ask: did it come up at trial why he carried around an arsenal like that? That’s more than I have in my house right now.

    I was summoned for jury duty and I dimly remember a question about a person in a car and an argument, and whether the incident was over when he walked away. I said yes, and was dismissed from actually being on the jury. In retrospect this makes sense. huh…

The defense should be defending their client as if he was their own child!
This was the weakest most incompetent, or rigged defense I have ever seen.
~by any means necessary that is their motto.

    I have never seen Richards speak a word to Kyle. He is about the worst excuse for a defense lawyer I have ever seen. If he is closing I hope the jury can overcome it. The Jury is Kyles last hope in this travesty. I guess that is the way it should be. And with that a thanks to all and Mr. Branca.

    luckystars33 in reply to luckystars33. | November 12, 2021 at 8:57 pm

    How do I know that?
    I was in San Francisco CA since 1959 to 2020.
    We are at WAR.
    make no mistake about that.

Here’s another problem (of the many) with the “enhanced” photo of the drone footage: Even if you accept that it accurately depicts Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at someone (prosecution claims Zaminski), where is that person in the picture? The prosecution claims that Zaminski is just out of frame, but if he’s just out of frame, how the fuck can you prove that the rifle is actually pointed at him? How this was allowed in is just depressing. It really makes me wonder if Kyle will be acquitted.

    henrybowman in reply to jmare. | November 13, 2021 at 1:31 am

    You would prove it by time-matching other footage that included Zaminski.

      There is no other footage to compare it to. The aerial footage gives a rough estimate where everyone is, but without the person supposedly threatened by Kyle’s gun in the picture, there is no way to definitively prove or even reasonably suggest that what the prosecution claims is true. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and a undefined blob maybe pointing something that can’t be seen at something not even in the picture is a joke.

The gun charge may be a blessing in disguise. If the jury wants to acquit on the felonies, this gives them a misdemeanor charge to convict on so they at least convict on something. That’s a better compromise than the “lesser” included offenses which are all major end-of-your-life-as-you-know-it felonies.

And I think that Kyle has something important going for him that has nothing to do with the law. He seems like a nice kid with good-hearted intentions. I think it was good that he took the stand. He presented himself well. It helped to humanize him and maybe help make it more difficult to callously ignore the evidence and the law and simply throw him to the wolves out of political bias.

Nevertheless, if they convict Kyle on the basis of this bogus evidence and ass-hat prosecution, it means they had it in for him anyways, the whole trial was an exercise in futility, and Kyle was doomed from the start. No actually fair and un-biased jury could possibly convict on the basis of what I was in this trial.

But there is, as Andrew put it, the noise in the system. 🙁

I’m concerned by the number of people accusing the judge of all manner of bad motives for today’s decisions. While he may, in fact, be intimidated, a coward, or any other unkind description above, but we will never know. It was only a couple days ago many were singing the judge’s praises for dressing down the prosecutor, but today when he makes some decisions we don’t like, we want him run out of town on a rail.
This is exactly the type of thought process that has many liberals call everything racist. “We don’t like it, so it must be racist”. We don’t like some of today’s rulings, so the judge must have caved to the BLM/Antifa/government thugs or is a bad person who probably kicks puppies.

    Russ from Winterset in reply to JMark. | November 12, 2021 at 10:29 pm

    To be fair, he was praised for gutting Binger like a trout because Binger kept pulling out his schlong and pissing on the table in front of the jury. It didn’t have anything to do with Binger’s politics. These rulings on admissibility of “tweaked” evidence seem to be aimed at preventing outrage from the left post-verdict. Most of the time, I would agree that you let the jury make the call, but with the prosecution’s shitshow of recently-found altered footage? With the spectre of riots and jury harassment if the verdict goes the “wrong” way? I can see why people would rather see forceful rulings than snarky ass-chewings delivered from the bench.

    I’m worried that the judge is putting too much faith in the good people of his jury pool. And only a damn fool would trust the appeals process to remedy any bad calls and evidence shenanigans. Just ask General Flynn how that works out for you.

    buck61 in reply to JMark. | November 13, 2021 at 12:10 am

    to this point Schroeder has been all bark and no bite. It may not happen until after the trial but Binger deserves sanctions. Until Schoeder follows through he is just barking

    pchase9401 in reply to JMark. | November 13, 2021 at 10:36 am

    Once the judge got the phone call with the ring tone the Twitter verse went crazy over, everything changed on his rulings.

This provocation ruling has me concerned. How can the judge allow this in when the prosecution provided no evidence of this in their case in chief? Somehow they were allowed to sneak in that blury picture during the defenses case in chief (why was that even allowed).

What about the provocation of Rosenbaum? He set a dumpster on fire and tried to smash it into a cop cars with cops inside. Isn’t that provocative action?

    George_Kaplan in reply to Keith_. | November 12, 2021 at 9:17 pm

    It’s more that the judge is allowing the jury to decide if the prosecution has a case. It’s up to the jury to decide what the evidence shows, if anything. If no provocation with intent occurred then Rosenbaum and his friend are the ones who started this and the prosecutor ends up with egg all over his face, and the mob and the media go wild.

    JMark in reply to Keith_. | November 12, 2021 at 9:35 pm

    Part of me is concerned too, but I still think the prosecution’s closing arguments will resemble the Chewbacca Defense. The question is if the jury will fall for it.

      Layman101 in reply to JMark. | November 12, 2021 at 9:59 pm

      Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

    Colonel Travis in reply to Keith_. | November 12, 2021 at 9:41 pm

    With all the faint couchers at the start of the trial moaning that the judge was SO biased for Rittenhouse, none of them seems to have noticed that the judge has let the prosecution get away with nonstop BS all week. The judge has been all bark and no bite.

    styro1 in reply to Keith_. | November 12, 2021 at 9:53 pm

    The person who supposedly had rifle pointed at him, Ziminski, didn’t even testify to this fact or at all. All they have is a blurry photo taken from video that cannot be authenticated that it has not been tampered w/ besides the states admitted tampering of it. Oh, they do have a lying Detective that claims he could see on his iPhone what no one else can see, including the judge, on a 4K 50 inch TV. But judge allows it into evidence. What a clown show!

    Andy in reply to Keith_. | November 13, 2021 at 2:46 am

    It’s sort of like when a gang banger (or now Antifa) wants to fight with someone. You were there, you disrespected him, and now beating the hell out of you with 10 of his friends is the only justice there is. If you defend yourself, you will go to jail. YOU provoked them, it’s your fault. Welcome to the new America.

    fogflyer in reply to Keith_. | November 13, 2021 at 5:42 pm

    And don’t forget, Rosenbaum also threatened to kill Kyle that night on two different occasions!
    Nothing provocative about that at all!

And you wonder why people love lawyers.

Here is something interesting about the defense team.
I thought Chirafisi and Richards worked together in the same firm. They don’t. They first met as rival attorneys in a case several years ago. Chirafisi was the prosecutor. Richards was the defense attorney. Richards lost. Going by what I’ve seen of these two this past week and knowing that little tidbit, wrong guy was in charge here.

I don’t want to be unfair to Rittenhouse, how much can you know about your attorneys and how’d they do in a high profile self-defense case and you are 100% legally in the right, when all those variables together are so rare to begin with.

Gun owners: God forbid you are ever in this situation, pick the right attorney.

    pchase9401 in reply to JustSayN2O. | November 12, 2021 at 11:27 pm

    I saw the arrest video the other day and I’m pretty sure the passenger in the car was his roommate that lied for him in trial about the Facebook post.

      Antifundamentalist in reply to pchase9401. | November 13, 2021 at 11:32 am

      I suspect that the gun charge is going to be the basis of the prosecution’s closing arguments. Whatever else happened, the prosecution will argue, Kyle’s possession of the gun was what provoked the whole situation, and if the jury finds that Kyle’s possession of the gun was unlawful, then self-defense can’t be invoked and he’s guilty of murder.

The government’s own infrared imagery disproves Binger’s assertion that Kyle pointed his rifle at Ziminski:

Another totally brilliant analysis courtesy of the Twitterverse:

    That is great, JustSayN20. I hope Kyle’s defense see it. Love the part about the “support hand” being nothing more than a part of a car that is in the background!!!

    fast182 in reply to JustSayN2O. | November 13, 2021 at 9:29 am

    The fire extinguisher is in his left hand and the rifle’s pistol grip must be in his right hand, with the rifle itself pointed down and to his left. And after he drops the fire extinguisher, he instantly points the rifle to his right???!!! No way. He’s have to switch hands to point the rifle like that.

Does anyone have the drone video at native resolution? I want to use integer scaling and see what’s there.

I am struggling to understand the provocation. From my understanding, someone set a fire and Kyle returned to the dealership because of the fire and Rosenbaum was hiding (lying in wait) to ambush anyone who came to put out the fire. How could pointing a gun at someone (according to the prosecution) provoke a person who has already set a trap and was lying in wait and planning to ambush someone?

    Obviously a clever plan, worthy of Blackadder. You see, Baldrick, the devious evil young man traveled to Kenosha with evil intent, borrowing an evil gun from an evil accomplice and attending the peaceful and loving protest with the evil intent of becoming a mass-murderer. But since there were no obvious crimes being committed by criminals for him to shoot (other than a few peaceful arsons and assaults), he had to provoke a peaceful child molester by (mumble, mumble) and running away into a dark corner of a parking lot…. You know, this wouldn’t even make a bad straight to video movie.

Is Judge Norton going to warn the jury not to pay any attention to the call up of the national guard and barricades in the streets to protect the city from the mobs if they reach a NG verdict??

    aramissebastian in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 4:48 am

    Wait, you’re telling me the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers aren’t going to do one of their NSDAP-style torch-light processions if he’s found guilty?

It seems to me a big problem for the prosecution in making the case that Kyle was a “provoker with intent” is that it relies on an interpretation of the “unicorn” video that was provided by detective Antaramian who is not an impartial witness. As noted before Antaramian was working for the prosecution and sat at their table the entire time. I don’t know how it was possible for a member of the prosecution team to jump into the witness stand?

Of course the jury will be familiar with Antaramian. He sat at the prosecution table in the chair nearest the jury. The defense only needs to point out that they have seen this man sitting every day besides the prosecutors – that he is apparently a member of the prosecution team – how can they rely on his “impartial” interpretation” of what he see’s in the video (that no one else can see).

If Andrew see’s this comment I would really be interested to hear what he thinks. Will the defense bring up the fact that Antaramian works for the prosecution and as such his testimony is completely worthless. Is there any reason they cannot make that argument?

When the digital imaging “expert” testified about the enhancement of the video remember he was not allowed to give an interpretation of what he saw in the video only describe the process of enlargement. Why was Antaramian even allowed to take the stand to give an interpretation?

I can’t find a clip of the defense’s cross and re-cross of Antaramian. Did they raise the fact that Antaramian is part of the prosecution team?

I think the most important thing about this part is:
Can the prosecutor depict other events such Kyle coming to a riot to help with a gun as evidence of provocation in closing arguments?
Is Binger limited to arguing that the video shows provocation.
If he is limited, I don’t think the jury will buy it.

All in all it appears Binger is arguing Kyle committed the ultimate crime. He triggered a raving lunatic leftist nut job and lost the unalienable right of self defense. God Save the Republic.

1) Simple Provocation: Rittenhouse was running toward the police yelling “Friendly, Friendly, Friendly”. That would seem to me trying to remove himself so no dice on this one.

2) Provocation With Intent: “The second form of provocation is provocation with intent. This occurs when the defendant not only provoked a violent response but did so with the deliberate intent of then having an excuse to use deadly force against the person provoked. ”

Do I not understand this? Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse not Ziminski who had the firearm pointed at him. How can a bystander be provoked by a person that has a firearm pointed at someone else who has a firearm pointed first? Is the Prosecution really going to try for the fantasy that Rittenhouse with no prior actions that night suddenly decided to goad Rosenbaum into attacking him with the devious plan of responding to a direct threat of a firearm then luring him down the road by running away just to get a self defense of retreating before carrying out his plan of murder? Seriously??? A 17yr old is that sophisticated and plays 4 Dimension Chess like Machiavelli on steroids?

Andrzejr2 (właso) | November 13, 2021 at 5:16 am

It’s amazing that the state is trying to do what Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz have failed to do. Murder Rittenhouse

The provocation instruction should not be given in any form here, as there is not a shred of evidence that provocation happened. And the instruction clearly states it is only to be given “WHEN SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.”
But even while the defense was almost criminally negligent by allowing “evidence” without any foundation into the record what is there cannot lead an impartial jury of rational humans to conclude that provocation was there, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution rests its absurd provocation theory on the “testimony” of a detective who was not a witness of what he testified to but only told what he thought he saw on internet videos. It seems the defense even allowed the prosecution to get away with highly prejudicial titles for their doctored videos; frankly, I am surprised that none of the titles were along the lines “Evil Kyle Rittenhouse Murders Saint Rosenbaum In Cold Blood” (patron saint of pedophiles).

    Long long ago, and far far away, back in the days of my high school years, the first memory I have of being taught about our constitution and trials, and I remember it well to this day is this.

    ‘The benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant’.

    Hope the jury remembers this too.

Lots of lesser charges will see Kyle jailed for something. This “Provocation’ charge gives the jury and judge a way out from mob justice on them not Kyle.

Ty Andrew for reviewing and explaining about recklessness and self defense.

I’m in agreement with those who have stated that Chirafisi should be the one giving the closing argument, not Richards. Chirafisi presents himself as having a sincere and passionate belief that KR is innocent of the charges. Richards is dull and seems to just be going through the motions.

Jack Probosec has posted a video of the same few seconds shown in Bingers Hoax on his Twitter from a better angle. The video clearly shows the armed Kamiski, Mrs. Kamiski and Mr. Rosenbaum and Kyle. It blows Mr. Bingers drone hoax out of the water. It shows Kyle never pointed his gun at either Kamiski or Rosenbaum. It shows Mrs. Kamiski point at Kyle and prolly when she yell Get Him. It shows Rosenbaum go after Kyle like a charging pit bull and shows Kyle taking off like a scared Rabbit.
Sorry Binger your scheme is busted the second anyone sees this.

    Elzorro in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 8:01 am

    BTW it shows what a smiling cobra the judge is to try to sneak this hoax in to evidence.

    Elzorro in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 8:06 am

    With this evidence the judge should reopen the case and reconsider his previous rulings.

    Elzorro in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 8:57 am

    The issue as to whether the trial judge can reopen a party’s case for further testimony after the party has rested is important in determining the scope of the record from which this court makes its review. If the trial court improvidently reopened the case for further testimony, this court would be obliged to determine this case without the benefit of the expert testimony given at the continued hearings. We do not find the trial court in error in this respect. It has been consistently held that a litigant has no automatic right to reopen a case in order to produce additional testimony, but this limitation is not applicable to the trial court. The court may on its own motion reopen for further testimony in order to make a more complete record in the interests of equity and justice. Diener v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 37 Wis. 2d 411, 422, 151 N.W.2d 721 (1967); In re Estate of Javornik, 35 Wis. 2d 741, 746, 151 N.W.2d 721 (1967). This rule promotes efficient judicial administration in avoiding another trial due to an incomplete record.

    Elzorro in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 8:58 am

    So this

    The issue as to whether the trial judge can reopen a party’s case for further testimony after the party has rested is important in determining the scope of the record from which this court makes its review. If the trial court improvidently reopened the case for further testimony, this court would be obliged to determine this case without the benefit of the expert testimony given at the continued hearings. We do not find the trial court in error in this respect. It has been consistently held that a litigant has no automatic right to reopen a case in order to produce additional testimony, but this limitation is not applicable to the trial court. The court may on its own motion reopen for further testimony in order to make a more complete record in the interests of equity and justice. Diener v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 37 Wis. 2d 411, 422, 151 N.W.2d 721 (1967); In re Estate of Javornik, 35 Wis. 2d 741, 746, 151 N.W.2d 721 (1967). This rule promotes efficient judicial administration in avoiding another trial due to an incomplete record.

    fast182 in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 9:20 am

    But will the jury see it? The judge is a snake.

      Elzorro in reply to fast182. | November 13, 2021 at 9:28 am

      It is now open source and public. Maybe he cant avoid it. If he does he will be reversed on appeal. I am hoping this means KYLE WINS!!

I still have issues with this provocation argument. Setting aside the dubious nature of the so-called evidence, the video in question is not at all definitive to me. I can almost accept Kyle is in the video. From there things go downhill. I do not see where is is pointing a gun. I cannot tell who else is shown in the video. Where was Zimmerman? Was he in supposed “line of fire” of the barrel of the gun Kyle allegedly pointed? Where was Rosenbaum? Was he in a position to see this alleged event?

As for the “lessor included charges”, I’m certain I heard the judge tell Kyle he did not have to accept these. Instead he could say he wanted only the original charges to be considered. In this case, why did the defense submit to these lessor charges? To me it opens up a nasty can of worms, especially considering the defense had an excellent chance of acquittal on the original charges and a strong case for overturning a guilty verdict.

This appears to be a classic case of straining to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Elzorro in reply to Andy_TLC. | November 13, 2021 at 9:37 am

    With the Probasac video it shows all. Kyle would have had to be running backwards in Bingers Hoax because Kamiski was behind him and Rosenbaum was hot on his heels. Arrest Binger.

Surely there can be no intent to CAUSE the pedo to attempt to kill him simply because Rittemhouse has no history of provocation.

Surely just turning up someone CANNOT be considered provocation in any sense of the imagination?!?!?

If Rittemhouse is locked away for life then we truly are all fucked. So better arm yourself now before it’s too late…and if you’re already armed then you better stock up on ammo and other stuff as much as you can.

it seems the entire prosecution case hinges on “maybe”–rosenbaum is dead, ziminski has not testified(or will not be allowed to) so there has been no direct evidence presented to suggest that rittenhouse actually provoked anyone, let alone with any sort of “intent” to do so–but, according to the prosecution, “maybe” he provoked someone (ANYONE) so, members of the jury, despite the fact that we’ve presented zero direct evidence of our claim, we want you to ignore the facts and evidence presented by the defense, ignore the bedrock presumption of innocence, and find him guilty of a felony(ies) because we’re telling you that “maybe, ,just…maaaybe” he is

lord, what bs

    Their provocation hoax is up in smoke. Over and done. Look at the post above about the Jack Probosac Twitter. Binger is TOAST!

      fast182 in reply to Elzorro. | November 13, 2021 at 9:15 am

      And yet the judge allowed the video to be introduced, after the defense had closed. What a joke. Binger played the judge like a fiddle. Oh sure, the judge yelled at him, but in the end Binger got basically everything he wanted. He yells at the woke prosecutor, so all the lefties think he’s biased, and then he caves and screws Rittenhouse, undermining any trust that others had in him.

The key point with this new video clip is whether Rosenbaum started chasing Rittenhouse before or after he supposedly pointed his rifle at Kaminiski. I thought that Rittenhouse dropped the fire extinguisher AFTER Rosenbaum started chasing him. If one believes that the enhanced video shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Kaminiski, and that this is what provokes Rosenbaum to begin chasing Rittenhouse, then the sequence doesn’t work. But you have to watch several different videos simultaneously to get a full picture. What a mess.

And if Rittenhouse really pointed his rifle at Kaminiski, shouldn’t Kaminiski or McGinniss been called to testify to that fact? McGinniss was behind Rittenhouse at the time he supposedly pointed the rifle at Kaminiski.

This is all such BS. The defense is inept. They should have hired Mr. Branca.

No doubt. I am just an old mid 70 something geezer with a interest in law that started with The Innocence Project. I hate wrongful convictions. I hope Mr. Branca will have time to shed some light on this to my eyes it looks to show the exact moment Binger is trying to push for his Hail Mary in clarity and is nothing that Binger claims it to be. In fact it is the opposite of what Biger claims.

How convenient for the state that this Zapruder image from who-knows-where dropped into their laps after Richie McGinnis and other immediate eyewitnesses had left the stand so they couldn’t be asked whether they saw Kyle raise his gun at the Ziminski family.

Is the defense allowed to point out to the jury in closing the absence of testimony from the Ziminskis?

    Elzorro in reply to JaneDoh. | November 13, 2021 at 9:42 am

    Attempted knowing frame up job that is now exposed. The real criminal appears to be Binger himself.

    mailman in reply to JaneDoh. | November 13, 2021 at 11:52 am

    Here’s the thing, if you have to be told what it is you are looking then the thing you are looking at is probably not what it is you are being told it is.

As far as I can see and remember the prosecution (ADA Kraus) talked only and exclusively of provocation without intent (otherwise he would not have discussed duty to retreat etc., because provocation with intent would not allow Kyle Rittenhouse to regain privilege at all).
So I assume the instruction will not include the with intent portion as there is no basis in the evidence. Even considering the defense’s enormous blunders around not objecting against clearly unfounded “evidence” no reasonable person can ever conclude that pointing a gun in the general direction of someone for 0.04 seconds can be interpreted as a provocation with intent.
0.04 seconds because that is what at a framerate of 24 frames per second the duration of the “threat” would be in the video that allowed ADA Kraus to “clearly see” it.

So according to the theory of the prosecution if one gives the 815 instructions the paragraph

[A person who provokes an attack whether by lawful or unlawful conduct with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to another person is not entitled to use or threaten force in self‑defense.]

must be omitted.
If it is, Kyle Rittenhouse obviously regained the privilege and/or only shot at the last possible moment with no other way to “avoid death or great bodily harm.”

That said, if the defense Richards had acted competently, most of the “evidence” would not be admitted as it clearly lacks foundation and consequently, the 815 instruction would not be given in any part.
Speaking of negligence on part of the defense, they should have had an expert to explain how a 2D picture of a 3D situation can mislead as to where an object is pointed. Just think of how false perspective is used in filmmaking. So the different blobs on the screen / printout can be no basis as to where the imaginary gun was pointed.
Let alone that the “gun” according to the prosecution must have changed orientation completely within less than a blink of the eye, because if it took more than that a frame or two would have captured that miracle in progress.

I am so scared and sad for Kyle. I know his mother switched attorneys and for apparently good reason but I don’t think he was served best.
In the end the judge sabotaged this poor young man
The message is that ALL of us are never to protect ourselves, we are to let the mob kill us
He will rot in prison to satisfy the monsters

This link goes to an image I uploaded to a different website …

It shows a Jack Posobiec twitter post with images of Kyle from the drone video and Kyle holding his AR15 pointed at the ground near his feet.

I added a combination image to show that it is impossible to determine direction of aim.

What the prosecution is trying to do is like a claim that Kyle in my image is aiming at some protesters in the street instead of the ground behind the guy in the wheelchair.

    Zoltan Jones in reply to Eskotek. | November 13, 2021 at 11:14 am

    I came to this site to comment on that exact video. Not only does it establish that KR did NOT point the rifle, but it shows: 1) Both Ziminskis standing 3-4 feet away, facing KR, pointing at him. If the State wants to allege rifle-pointing, why didn’t they put this eye witness on the stand? Because the Ziminskis would debunk the State’s claim about the rifle (We know there are other reasons, but let the State waste its rebuttal wandering into that); 2) The BIGGIE: The video shows Rosenbaum already running at KR from behind BEFORE the moment the State mendaciously claims KR pointed his rifle at Ziminiski. The State’s theory of provocation thus fails on basic logic: Raising a rifle AFTER Rosenbaum was already charging at KR, cannot possibly have provoked Rosenbaum to charge at KR. The State knows this, but is giving cynicism a bad name.

    If this video clip is already in evidence, the Defense must play it during closing arguments, and point out that it destroys the State’s assertions.

    Elzorro in reply to Eskotek. | November 13, 2021 at 4:37 pm

    How do you spell slam dunk.

Sorry about that. Link no worky.

Can be seen here

We know nothing about these jurors. Like what are their ages, profession, gender. Who the hell are these people?

    luckystars33 in reply to luckystars33. | November 13, 2021 at 11:42 am

    Only one person was watching them. Thursday he said:
    “Now none of them are taking notes anymore. They look tired with both arms and legs crossed.”

    pchase9401 in reply to luckystars33. | November 13, 2021 at 12:54 pm

    There are people who know jurors and there is an active attempt to identify them and their political background in an attempt to try and have them removed. There were call outs to video them for this purpose and then someone was caught shooting video. It wasn’t to threaten jurors, but to try and find out who they are and dig up dirt on them.

    We have already seen the prosecution trying to share texts with the judge about jurors on two occasions. By Monday, how many jurors do you think they will have targeted for removal?

What is truly dangerous about this provocation thing is that it removes self defense from everyone.

You can now no longer protect yourself from the mob. The mob OWNS the streets now (and always have in Demcorat controlled shit holes).

So why are we only able to look at a single still capture of one video frame (The Picture that this seems to be hinging on). Why don’t we have available either (1) the video from which this still is captured (cropped, brightness and contrast adjusted, etc.) so we can see what things looked like immediately preceding and after this still, or (2) stills surrounding this frame? Have I been missing this? Is anybody looking into this?

    felixrigidus in reply to Fiat Justitia. | November 13, 2021 at 12:32 pm

    Oh, the video —however dubious and lacking foundation it is — is in evidence, as well as versions that have been forged, ahem, “fortified” by the state. Keep in mind, if the original video is at 24 frames per second this picture shows a “threat”/”provocation” that lasted 0.04 seconds..

      Fiat Justitia in reply to felixrigidus. | November 13, 2021 at 12:55 pm

      Not exactly. The still is a snapshot in time. Without observing the frames before and after, we cannot determine the duration of the “threat”/”provocation”. My argument here is that a zoomed video snip around the time of this still would help us. With all the videos in this case, how come the only evidence being presented is this still. I cannot see *anything* of substance from the unzoomed, wide scale video.

        felixrigidus in reply to Fiat Justitia. | November 13, 2021 at 9:37 pm

        The video (two versions at least, if I recall correctly) seems to have been entered into evidence. The still is of course another way to try to make the jury see what is not there. But, again, while it has been put into evidence the video it is taken from is in evidence as well. Not that it helps any. Or has been examined to exclude alterations have been made and to make sure it is a fair and accurate representation of what it shows. But where there is no objetion…

Gaige Grosskreutz, the Felon Who Aimed His Gun at Kyle Rittenhouse, Had Two Prior Charges Dismissed by Prosecutors Only Days Before Trial

I respect the legal analysis, but I think it might obscure what I think is the reality that the jury will decide for other reasons, with the law and facts being cherry-picked rationalizations.

If they acquit like we want, it will be out of a combination of sympathy for a scared kid who was attacked by a mob, and disgust for the rioters and what they did to Kenosha. If they convict, it will be out of a combination of disdain for Kyle’s having gone there at all, and a belief that a conviction (especially on lesser charges) is the safest route and will put all of this in the rear-view mirror.

The gun charge might not withstand appeal — but it might not matter in the sense that a conviction on that one, even if later tossed on appeal, will be a catalyst for guilty verdicts on the other charges. If I am the prosecution, besides being destined to burn in hell I don’t care about the charge itself but only its value as a catalyst.

My point is this: Argue the legal details forever, but as you do that, try to think about the factors that will ACTUALLY drive the jury, even if the jurors themselves aren’t aware of them and/or don’t explicitly debate them. This is the real world, not law school.

The defense threw this case when winning.
Hope it was worth it boys.

I think the most likely verdict is a hung jury or maybe, possibly not guilty.

In our day and age, video evidence is everything. The Chauvin trial demonstrated that. You can make any legal argument you want, but the case is made primarily by the videos.

In this case, there are multiple videos showing KR running for his life from JR and using deadly force only as a last resort. I think that’s how the average person understands self-defense and the video evidence strongly favors that narrative. Additionally, when KR testified, he comes across as a scared kid trying to help people, not a murderous thug.

I can’t see anything on either the original or the “enhanced” videos which significantly alter the clear image of KR running for his life.

I’m not an attorney and don’t have any legal training, but if I were making the closing argument, I would simply play the portions of the videos that show him running for his life.

    luckystars33 in reply to jackscott1. | November 13, 2021 at 3:17 pm

    Evidence does not matter when the trial is political.

      jackscott1 in reply to luckystars33. | November 13, 2021 at 3:27 pm

      I agree – but don’t you think that at least 1 member of the jury will go with the plain viewing of the video?

      After all, Trump won in Kenosha County in both 2016 and 2020. You don’t think there’s a single person on the jury who is 2A supporter?

        luckystars33 in reply to jackscott1. | November 13, 2021 at 3:38 pm

        Yes and from day one I was thinking hung jury. Divided like the nation.
        Glad to hear Trump won both times, so maybe their is a chance.

        fogflyer in reply to jackscott1. | November 13, 2021 at 6:20 pm

        Heck, I’ll throw my two-cents in.
        While I am obviously concerned for Kyle, I am betting on a full acquittal with the next most likely outcome being a hung jury. I honestly don’t think there is much of a chance that this jury will find Kyle guilty of any charge. I was worried about the gun charge, but it seems (hopefully) that he judge has gutted that charge with his instructions.

        I reach this conclusion by comparing it to the Zimmerman case. In both cases nearly all the evidence benefitted the defense, but in Zimmerman we had no video of the shooting and no 3rd party witnesses as to how the two came together.

        Basically, we just have much more information on what took place in Kyle’s shooting than we did with Zimmerman’s shooting and that information strongly points to a not-guilty verdict. Both trials took place in relatively conservative places, but this jury has less minorities and race isn’t really an issue as it was in Zimmerman.

        Fingers crossed that I am correct.

I find it a sham that the States video evidence was presented so late that there didn’t seem to be enough time to find relevant experts to dissect the limits of the video. The state’s case reminds me of the idiots who saw human faces & pyramids on Mars in the old Viking 1/2 orbiter photos. Books were written, millions of internet comments from the UFO/Alien community vs. scientists went back & forth against each other, and in the end it was confirmed that a bunch of idiots were making it up in there minds when a better camera with higher resolution was sent to Mars & different lighting showed all those faces & pyramids were just regular mountains or hills. It was like a giant ink blot test that made all the crazies see aliens.

The same thing is going on here with the extrapolation of pixels. Some guy who is an expert in running the image processing software ( Defense witness) is of marginal relevance & utility. They need someone who know optics & CMOS image sensors. There is a physical limit on the optical resolution of the recording camera. That limit may or may not be exceeded by the density of the pixel array at the range of the subject being photographed. For example, it should be known an approximate range from the object ( Kyle) to the camera. At that range & for the given field of view, what is the physical size of each pixel? If the cameral was 100 meters away, each pixel in a 1920 x 1080 array represents about 26mm. The barrel of Kyles MP-15 is likely 18mm in diameter ( just like my MP-15 in the basement safe) So at 100 meters the pixel array doesn’t have a single pixel that is solely represented by the barrel of the gun. How well you can see the barrel will depend on the contrast of what else is measured by the CMOS image sensor in the foreground in background. If there is high contrast, you could be certain that you see a string of black pixels laid out in a straight line. In low contrast, like you would get from a steel barrel with a black oxide surface coating held against a relatively transparent atmosphere & street asphalt or shadows, you may not see it all. I can replicate this with a 1.5mm pice of wire painted black on one end & photographed with my iPhone from a distance of 5-6 meters when held against a white wall, or against my kids dark grey chalkboard. This effect is complicated when the camera is being optically zoomed vs. digitally zoomed. Digital zooming is the relevant issue at hand.

I would note that it should be possible for expert witnesses to show the court & jury overlaid images of the actual pixels recorded by the camera, and when digitally zoomed, which pixels are interpolations. Basically the real pixels would be shrunk in size, new pixel spaces are then mathematically created, the “real” pixels represent boundary conditions for the smoothing algorithm to calculate against all the adjacent new pixels. The algorithm runs for however many iterations give a statistically stable output, and all these pixels are now the new picture. The defense should be forcing prosecution to first justify each pixel ( pre-algorithm) as it relates to uncertainty probabilities in the original image based in ISO setting contrast sensitivity, movement of subject during the frame rate interval, saturation of lighting sources. It is their burden of proof, make earn each real pixel before you go and mathematically creates a few million new ones.

The interpolation algorithms combined with the cameras ISO & shutter speed setting should also give a good probability index of garbage pixels being introduced as electrical noise in the CMOS imagers pixel junctions. I can look at the images from that drone footage & see a large portion each image is already junk before the algorithms have even been applied. Light sources are saturated way beyond near point size, and there is haloing from the electrical noise saturation on the sensor, as well as from smoke or dust in the air. All this noisy shit is getting averaged into the interpolation algorithm.

A better approach would be to try image stacking. Astrophotographers have been using this for decades now. It actually produces better resolution by stacking images on top of each other and statistically determining noise vs. signal. It is how amateur operated telescopes can now take pictures as good or better than the best professional instruments of the 70’s & 80’s. It the frame rate was 30 fps, objects not moving too much could be substantially sharpened.

One the so-called provocation evidence. As the defense pointed out, if that video shows Kyle pointing anything, it would show him pointing it left-handed. This is nearly impossible as the sling was set up. More so would be to reposition the sling to point lefty and then reverse it again in time for what follows.

Bottom line is all this speculation by the prosecution is easily debunked.

2 days before his appearance in the lynch….I mean trial, binger dropped his DUI case in Kenosha County flat out. I wonder if this is tampering or outside of a testimony deal? It is up on GP/

Finicky Fat Guy | November 13, 2021 at 5:47 pm

I don’t understand why the defense would stipulate or agree to the lesser included charges? What would have happened if they objected to them.

29 min ago Judge said he is “getting all kinds of disturbing and threatening emails.”

getting ready to dismiss with prejudice was my first hit from the start.

Sadly, the best that can be hoped for is a hung jury. Many of the jurors believed in Kyle’s guilt going into the trial. Ideally, open-minded people would change their minds when presented with evidence that disproves their assumptions. But for many people in the country today, no amount of evidence can ever disprove the narrative they’ve bought into. Add to that the threat of more riots, of being doxxed, and I think most of the jurors will buy into the prosecution’s contention that the “enhanced” photo shows Kyle pointing his weapon provocatively toward the rioters, thus negating his claim of self-defense. As with the Chauvin trial, they really should’ve changed the venue to have even the possibility of a fair trial.

No fair jury could convict KR: “provocation” theory or not. As many have pointed out, not only is the blurry, snapshot no proof of any provocation, but the absence of proof of any actual provocation from the many available witnesses and actual video is compelling.

This is why the defense needs to devote the better half of its closing to the jurors’ oath to find the case according to the facts,that so long as every juror sincerely uses their best understanding the verdict will be just, but that if any juror decides the case based on threats or trying to please anyone else, it would be to their eternal shame.

If the jurors keep their oaths, KR is a free man: because he is demonstrably innocent of all charges.

“Provocation”…Typical scumbag lawyer legal maneuvering, torturing the facts to make their thin case, similar to an unscrupulous insurance company testifying the accident was your fault because you happened to be on the road when their drunk client ran into you causing injury….the drunk client is the actual victim in their unethical tortured logic. The Prosecution is grasping at straws to confuse the jury, hopefully the jurors are smart enough to see through the charade.

2 cents: The prosecution has to prove provocation and disprove self-defense. It failed on self-defense. It presented a fuzzy, altered image to establish provocation. How was this published to the jury? It was so last minute, like “‘oh, I forgot to tip my waitress’ and I run back in to leave a $10 on the table.” But even if the jury buys this for Rosenbaum, how does provocation extend to jump-kick man, Huber, and Grosskeutz if the prosecution didn’t show/prove that they knew about, much less witnessed, the original “provocation”? Otherwise, they’re just random assailants of a guy running toward the police line. Also, the number of shots fired by Rittenhouse per assailant diminished: 4 Rosenbaum, 2 jump-kick guy, 1 Huber, 1 Grosskeutz. I don’t know what to make of that. My visceral impression is he had an adrenaline rush when he first realized he was targeted (Rosenbaum/Ziminsky gunshot), the memory of which elicited the PTSD response on the witness stand; then after the initial adrenaline rush, even though he was still under assault, he became more focused and controlled in his responses (esp. the shot to Grosskeutz’s arm).

I have one simple question Why do you refer to self defense as a privilege?

After all, if we hold the right to life as unalienable, and that to be a self-evident truth, then is not the right to defend one’s life also unalienable?