Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.
But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.
Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.
I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.
Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.
The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.
sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.
What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?
No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.
These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.
Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.
