Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[Lima Oscar 7]

I’ve read through all replies. I could have worded my replies much better. As others have said just because something is not smart does not make it illegal. Agreed.

My experiences and opinions for that matter, are not relevant. What are the laws applicable to this case?

My questions are: What are the laws in the city, county and state where this happened? Who are the judges who will have a say in these proceedings?

One final question: Is the “ Department of Justice “ involved in this?

 

[stagpanther]

I've seen a million versions of this thread over the years--they all end up in the same place--"I'd kill someone if..."

Clint Smith said it best; "A lawyer rides every bullet you fire."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There are now jurisdictions in America where the just will be punished and the unjust will go unpunished for political expediency.

At no time in America have such places not existed.

Kyle should not have been prosecuted.

While I agree, "should" or "should not" is a value or opinion statement that is a bit outside of the law. He did break the law, so he will get due process and determine if he did so with justification or not.

Will the jury be a bunch of people like you originally had who seem to want to put the blame on his shoulders for being there when he could have avoided the situation? We'll find out.

 

[Lima Oscar 7]

I don’t want to assign blame. I could have chosen my words better. It might not have been the smartest thing to be there but as the title of the this forum suggests, we are concerned with the law here.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

While I agree, "should" or "should not" is a value or opinion statement that is a bit outside of the law. He did break the law, so he will get due process and determine if he did so with justification or not.

Other than possibly violating a law dealing with possession of a firearm, what law are you stating that he broke? If you are referring to laws prohibiting homicide, if the law (as the law in every state does) includes exceptions for circumstances under which homicide is justified (legitimate self defense), then if he is found to fall under such an exception he did not break the law.

 

[JohnKSa]

Killing someone intentionally is breaking the law. It's necessary to determine if justification for the act exists.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Killing someone is breaking the law. It's necessary to determine if justification for the act exists.

I disagree. If justification for the act exists, then it is not breaking the law.

The law:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/

940.01  First-degree intentional homicide.
(1)  Offenses.

(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.
(b) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of an unborn child with intent to kill that unborn child, kill the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or kill another is guilty of a Class A felony.​

(2)  Mitigating circumstances. The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution under this section which mitigate the offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide under s. 940.05:

(a) Adequate provocation. Death was caused under the influence of adequate provocation as defined in s. 939.44.
(b) Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable.
(c) Prevention of felony. Death was caused because the actor believed that the force used was necessary in the exercise of the privilege to prevent or terminate the commission of a felony, if that belief was unreasonable.
(d) Coercion; necessity. Death was caused in the exercise of a privilege under s. 939.45 (1).​

(3)  Burden of proof. When the existence of an affirmative defense under sub. (2) has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt under sub. (1).

So, if the defendant satisfies any of the mitigating conditions, the homicide would not constitute breaking the law, because the mitigating conditions are exceptions to the law. Under exception (2)(b), the homicide is lawful if the defendant reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to defend himself. If the jury determines that the alleged belief was not reasonable, the charge would be reduced from first-degree intentional homicide to second-degree intentional homicide.

 

[mehavey]

Homicide in and of itself is not illegal.
It is the circumstances that determine judgement one way or (several) others.

 

[JohnKSa]

Homicide is illegal.

If the homicide is justifiable, the person can escape conviction.

The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution

This tells the story. The mitigating circumstances provide a defense to prosecution.

How can a person be prosecuted for a legal act? Clearly they can not.

The deadly force section of TX law states it nicely--the chapter provides justifications that exclude criminal responsibility based on the circumstances, for actions that are against the law.

I hadn't really thought about the topic in exactly those terms before, and I admit that it's probably down into the level of semantically splitting hairs, but it's kind of interesting to see that the deadly force laws don't actually say:

If these circumstances apply then it's legal.

They say things like:

If these circumstances apply then that's a defense to prosecution.
If these circumstances apply then there is no criminal responsibility.
If these circumstances apply then it's justifiable.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I will rephrase. Rittenhouse committed homicide. Homicide is treated as a crime in Wisconsin until which time it is determined as to its status of legality. He was arrested for it and and apparently getting prosecuted as a result. That is due process. The possibility was there for it not to go this far, but it has.

 

[zukiphile]

In the Rittenhouse case, I don't remember the details of the first shooting.

A fire had been started in a dumpster at the front of the property at which Rittenhouse stood. Rittenhouse used a fire extinguisher on it, putting out the fire. Rosenbaum was part of a group who were incensed that the fire had been extinguished. Rittenhouse ran back toward the building as something was thrown at him, and he ended up appearing to be trapped amongst parked cars with Rosenbaum blocking one of his exits.

Rosenbaum was shot, briefly drawing the attention of the crowd. Rittenhouse appeared to be dialing his telephone when he realized that the crowd had re-focused its attention on him. Next is the video of Rittenhouse running down the street before falling.

It's hard to find video that isn't tied to editorial content, but this shows several of those events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVVuqXfs14

 

[mehavey]

Homicide is illegal.

Homicide is a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being. Homicide itself is not necessarily a crime—for instance, a justifiable killing of a suspect by the police or a killing in self-defense. Murder and manslaughter fall under the category of unlawful homicides.

Not all homicides are crimes. However, all killings of humans are included in the homicide definition. Many homicides, such as murder and manslaughter, violate criminal laws. Others, such as a killing committed in justified self-defense, are not criminal. Illegal killings range from manslaughter to murder, with multiple degrees of each representing the gravity of the crime.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/homicide-definition.html

It is the context & circumstance of the homicide that assigns its legal character.

... which is the issue at hand for Kyle Rittenhouse

 

[Metal god]

Just watched that video linked above , I never heard that first shot fired before in that first altercation . Which was not by Kyle and both sides in court acknowledged was fired by someone else ( name was given in court ) just before Kyle opened fire . It sure seems less gray now IMHO . Kyle being chased , cornered "and shot at" in that first altercation sure seems to lead to lawful self defense .

Prosecution claims to have inferred drone footage from a fixed wing aircraft that night that shows Kyle was chasing Rosenbom , defense claims they both were running in the same direction so it may look like Kyle was in pursuit . However Kyle actually caught up and passed him indicating Kyle was not chasing him . This is a interesting aspect in the case and I look forward to seeing that work it self out in court .

I believe the "chase" in question was when Kyle ran down the street to get the fire extinguisher and the claimed footage is of Kyle running back to the car lot with the extinguisher to put out a fire .

 

[Eight_is_enough]

I will rephrase. Rittenhouse committed homicide. Homicide is treated as a crime in Wisconsin until which time it is determined as to its status of legality. He was arrested for it and and apparently getting prosecuted as a result. That is due process. The possibility was there for it not to go this far, but it has.

Homicide is investigated as a crime, but if the evidence indicates deadly force was justified then no one gets arrested or charged. In other words, it is not treated as a crime.

What I said was that after reviewing all the videos and photos, I do not see how any reasonable prosecutor could believe that Rittenhouse acted unlawfully.

After raging at the armed militia members, Rosenbaum is clearly seen in one video walking away swinging a length of chain. It looks to be about 3/4" link and 3' long, a classic street-brawl weapon. It was only minutes later that he got shot. Rosenbaum was clearly looking to menace the people trying to stop property desctruction. He did not want to do it on the street in front of all the videoing phones, but his behavior indicates he was very likely to attack any militia member he could if he thought he could get away with it. Away from the street, among the parked cars, he thought he could get away with it.

OTOH I have seen no indication whatsoever that Rittenhouse was "looking to shoot someone," or looking for confrontation at all.

A good timeline:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYjG4uequWQ

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Homicide is investigated as a crime, but if the evidence indicates deadly force was justified then no one gets arrested or charged. In other words, it is not treated as a crime.

So being investigated as a crime isn't until legality is determined isn't being the same as treated like a crime? I believe you are mincing words.

After raging at the armed militia members, Rosenbaum is clearly seen in one video walking away swinging a length of chain. It looks to be about 3/4" link and 3' long, a classic street-brawl weapon. It was only minutes later that he got shot.

So much front end loading of your description, but let's play devil's advocate.

Rittenhouse is clearly seen swinging a rifle. Lots of people with weapons that night that looked "menacing," right?

When Rosenbaum was shot, was he menacing anybody with the classic street brawl weapon chain? What happened minutes before isn't necessarily related.

 

[Metal god]

Was Rosenbom menacing right be for he got shot .

“Menacing” - suggesting the presence of danger; threatening.

Chasing and throwing something in your direction, all while understanding how unstable he was acting earlier would be a reasonable definition of menacing .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

When Rosenbaum was shot, was he menacing anybody with the classic street brawl weapon chain? What happened minutes before isn't necessarily related.

When Rosenbaum was shot, he was trying to take the rifle away from Rittenhouse. A former LEO commented in this thread (post #11)

The first assailant tried to take his gun from him. As a former LEO, i can tell you, attempting to wrestle my gun from me will be considered a deadly attack and would be met with that level of response.

 

[stagpanther]

Much more than just a sociopathic kid is on trial here. Personally, I think given the amount of special interest money and sensational lawyers arrayed in his defense, the case will likely be thrown out on a contrived technicality or tied up indefinitely on appeals.

The problem with the line of reasoning used by some here is that stretch it far enough and you end up justifying a free-for-all shoot-out at the OK corral with all "sides" being justified in killing one-another.

One could use the same rationale, for example, for showing up at the capital on Jan 6 and shooting and killing the protestors.

 

[dahermit]

...a sociopathic kid is on trial here.

While people tend to use the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath", as disparaging insults, they have specific meanings and if one does not know what they are and the difference, one should not use them.

 

[stagpanther]

While people tend to use the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath", as disparaging insults, they have specific meanings and if one does not know what they are and the difference, one should not use them.

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society. A disorder of some sort could actually be used in his defense, BTW.