TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.
I saw mention of the "newly disovered" footage a few days ago from a member of the defence team, on who it had been sprung at the last minute (I can't find the video at present where it was discussed)... Seperately, "Armed with a rifle" doesn't specify how he carried it (in hand\slung over shoulder while carrying a fire extinguisher\etc.) so it's difficult to determine what affect this may have on the trial.
Assuming there was provocation (and it wasn't Mr Rittenhouse simply running behind Mr Rosenbaum while carrying a fire extinguisher to put out a fire), the following would apply:
Quote:
939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c) (c) 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 his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
Source:
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48/Given he was running from Mr Rosenbaum (related to the first shooting):
939.48(2)(a) - "In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant." could apply, given Mr Rosenbaum was trying to grab the barrel of his gun\take possesion of it... The prosecutors would also need to demonstrate the "unlawful conduct" Mr Riittenhouse engaged in, in order to "provoke" the attack - lawful action provoking an attack does not appear to affect "self defence" claims under this section.
Similarly, under 939.48(2)(b), given he was running from (withdrawing from) the "fight", this would permit self defence to become available (Mr Rosenbaum did not have to pursue Mr Rittenhouse, yet made a conscious decision to do so)
This of course leaves 939.48(2)(c), which would require the prosecution to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that Mr Rittenhouse intended to "cause death or great bodily harm" to Mr Rosenbaum, and would require an explanation as to what Mr Rittenhouse could have done to ensure Mr Rosenbaum would pursue him when he ran away from him.
In the later incidents, the people who were shot were the assailants, with no provocation appearing to have been made towards any of them prior to their attacks upon him, where he appears to have been defending himself.
27 Oct 2021, 10:10 pm
