Stand your ground and the Rittenhouse defense in a nutshell:

[Rustynaerduwell]

"I shot you with the gun I carried because I was afraid you'd take it from me and shoot me with it ".


Is that about right?

[FBaggins]

1. Partially

But it could also be "I was scared that you were going to beat me with that skateboard"

And, of course, I think one of them was also armed.

[maxsolomon]

12. Gaige Grosskreutz was armed.

He pulled out his pistol to get Rittenhouse to surrender, as he had just killed Anthony Huber who was trying to apprehend him because he'd killed Joe Rosenbaum.

The protestors thought they were trying to stop a killer; the killer thought he was under assault.

Did Huber or Grosskreutz know that Rosenbaum had been starting a fire when confronted by Rittenhouse? Unlikely.

[LonePirate]

2. How does a stand your ground defense work when you're actively hunting for targets to kill?

[Jedi Guy]

4. The prosecution will almost certainly have a hard time proving he was actively hunting.

When it was revealed that the FBI had surveillance video from an aircraft, the prosecution claimed that it showed Rittenhouse actively pursuing Rosenbaum. CNN's reporting on the trial indicates that that's not the case.

The video shows Rittenhouse approaching a car dealership where, Rittenhouse's lawyer alleges, Rosenbaum was setting a Duramax on fire. The lead detective confirmed that Rosenbaum was "in hiding" and was masked. Rittenhouse was, as per video from people on the ground, calling out "friendly, friendly, friendly" at this time. There was some sort of verbal exchange between the two. He begins moving away from Rosenbaum, at which point Rosenbaum began to chase him and threw something at him. At nearly the exact same time, a third person fired a shot in the air nearby, after which Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times.

I'm betting Rittenhouse will be found guilty on just the minor in possession of a weapon charge, and not guilty on the others, unless the prosecution has very compelling evidence otherwise.

[Mr.Bill]

18. And you've already killed someone. n/t

[LiberatedUSA]

3. If the first shot was self defense, it was all self defense.

If it was unjustified, then it was all unjustified.

So was he swarmed by a group of people that wanted to do him harm?

Yes. One tried to take his head off with a skateboard, another had a gun and they were chasing him.

So - Was it him justified in shooting? Or was it they justified in taking down a person with a gun?

He is going to walk on the serious stuff.

[Jedi Guy]

5. Yep, he'll get convicted for minor in possession of a weapon, and that's it.

The FBI aerial surveillance video doesn't show what the prosecution claimed it did, based on the reporting I've seen. The self-defense claim is going to work.

[Sympthsical]

9. Yeah, that aerial surveillance kind of seals the first one for me

He is clearly retreating and being chased. A shot isn't fired until Rosenbaum catches him. Given previous video that matches up with it, and that Rosenbaum seemed like he was in a highly agitated state and/or having a mental episode (the NYT feature shows this), no jury is convicting for that incident.

So now we get into a much, much messier area. Rittenhouse is being chased and could reasonably fear harm. The two people chasing him think they're going after an active shooter - they think they're doing the heroic thing. They go after him. One hits him with his skateboard, the other is holding a gun.

Is it reasonable to believe Rittenhouse feared for his life, that he was defending himself?

I just don't see how there isn't reasonable doubt all over this case.

I think the lesser charges with the gun stick. But I don't think murder is going to fly here. Not with all the video available.

We'll see.

[Amishman]

15. Yup, the videos make it pretty clear he was trying to flee before and after

Prosecution's case is coming across weaker than expected. When I watched for a bit earlier I could have been fooled into thinking it was a witness for the defense.

Weapons charges could very well be the only things that stick

[Rustynaerduwell]

6. I believe the first man he shot was unarmed.

I don't know if there's a legal parallel, but I believe Rittenhouse lost any self defense argument when he decided to carry a gun to a different state with a vaguely defined sense of an enemy he was obviously preapared to, no, expecting to encounter. The irony I see is that, in carrying the gun so...openly, Rittenhouse made himself a more obvious target, particularly if it was obvious he was not Law Enforcemen. I believe he set out to shoot someone in self defense.

[LiberatedUSA]

7. Well I don't know about any of that.

But I do know that Premeditated Self Defense is not a charge that exists in law.

[Hoyt]

10. Think that is way it will go too. There is no reason to allow anyone to carry guns to a protest, but

apparently it's legal in that state. I know Rittenhouse was underage, but don't think that will make much difference.

From what I've seen so far, jurors will have reasonable doubt about the first man killed. That doubt will definitely extend to guy that pulled a gun on Rittenhouse. The guy with a skateboard is not quite as certain, but suspect it will go same way.

I'm definitely not excusing anything Rittenhouse did, but I don't see how jurors will get around reasonable doubt unless something new comes up with the first victim (even if he can't be called a "victim&quot , say Rittenhouse shot the "victim" as he turned to leave.

Personally, Rittenhouse is a punchable pissant, wearing his hat backwards, slinging a rifle over his shoulder, and strutting down the street.

The charges remaining might not even get him time.

[LiberatedUSA]

11. Well let me ease your worry.

He may get off, but he has missed his senior year and he will be toxic in the employment world. Because he is still young enough to be easily susceptible to suggestions and because of a sense of hero’s pride, he will go the militia route and may one day cross the line and go to jail.

[Hoyt]

13. Would be nice. He'll likely become next Randy Weaver and appear at white wing militia gatherings.

[Amishman]

16. Yes, what is right and what is legal are often rather different

This case is could end up being a high profile example of that

[MagickMuffin]

8. Little Kyle was standing his ground in another state than where he lives

How is that even possible?

[Bettie]

14. Because he's a white boy and

they generally get close to zero consequences.

He will then know for certain that he can kill and get away with it.

[Hoyt]

20. Agree if this were like murder of Trayvon Martin, but all victims were white guys.

[MagickMuffin]

21. Well I do understand the premise

But generally stand your ground laws were written for people committing crimes at one's house. I suppose with the George Zimmerman murder, stand your ground means shoot with impunity wherever ya like.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

22. I think you are mistaking castle doctrine with stand your ground

Castle doctrine applies to your residence, place of business, and in some states, your vehicle. Stand your ground applies anywhere you have the legal right to be. Also, Wisconsin doesn't have an actual "Stand Your Ground law" like other states passed, though I think Wisconsin also doesn't have a duty to retreat either.

[hardluck]

25. Yup, no duty to retreat in Wisconsin although the ability to retreat can be used to determine

the reasonableness of the force used.

Here's the jury instruction:

810 PRIVILEGE: SELF-DEFENSE: RETREAT
[ADD THE FOLLOWING TO WIS JI-CRIMINAL 800, 801, OR 805 WHEN
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. DO NOT GIVE THIS INSTRUCTION IF
§ 939.48(1m) APPLIES. SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 805A.]1
Retreat
[There is no duty to retreat. However, in determining whether the defendant
reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the
interference, you may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with
safety, whether such retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the
opportunity to retreat.].

[LiberatedUSA]

23. Castle Doctrine was written for your house.

Stand Your Ground was written for the streets.

[Tommy Carcetti]

17. It's Zimmerman 2.0.

Which sadly worked before.

[Buckeyeblue]

19. So at what point when you are committing a crime can you claim self defense?

Let's say I'm stealing something from my neighbor's back yard and he comes out and to confront me with a weapon so I shoot him. I say he was going to hurt me so I defended myself. I don't think I could claim self-defense because I was committing a crime.

When Rittenhouse went out on the street with his gun, he was committing a crime because he was in illegal possession of a firearm. Since he is actively committing a crime that causes others to fear for their life, how can he claim self-defense?

That essentially means I can go out on the corner with my gun and bait someone into taking an aggressive posture toward me and shoot them. And then claim self defense.

Could OJ have claimed self defense? He shows up with a knife, Nicole and Ron approached him aggressively and he stabbed them. What's the difference?

[LiberatedUSA]

24. There is a point where a criminal becomes a victim.

Like say a person starts assaulting another person. They are the criminal. The person pulls a Rocky and turns it around. Self defense so far. They overpower the person and have them in a position a UFC referee would say “fight is over”. So far so good. Then they decide they didn’t like the challenge and decide to start beating them to an unconscious state. Now they are a criminal.

[hardluck]

26. Here's the Wisconsin Jury instruction on provoking an attack.

815 PRIVILEGE: SELF-DEFENSE: NOT AVAILABLE TO ONE WHO
PROVOKES AN ATTACK: REGAINING THE PRIVILEGE — §
939.48(2)
[ADD THE FOLLOWING TO WIS JI-CRIMINAL 800, 801, OR 805 WHEN
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.]
Provocation
You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. 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.
[USE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE SUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE.]
[However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he
or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he or she may lawfully act in
self-defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause
death unless he or she reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable
means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm.]
[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.]
[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.]