Rittenhouse Trial: What to Expect As Trial Starts Monday
Legal Insurrection by Andrew Branca 10/31/2021
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/rittenhouse-trial-what-to-expect-as-trial-starts-monday/Monday begins jury selection in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who on August 25, 2020 shot three men in riot-ravaged Kenosha WI, killing two of them and grievously wounding the third. We will cover the entire trial live daily.
Kyle is being tried on a variety of charges, including the felonies of intentional homicide, reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide, two counts of reckless endangerment, as well as a misdemeanor charge of weapons possession by a minor.
The legal defense to the felony charges will be the legal justification of self-defense. The legal defense to the misdemeanor weapons charge will be inapplicability on the facts, as well as unconstitutional vagueness.
----
If you’re unfamiliar with the five elements of a legal defense of self-defense I urge you to download our 100% infographic that provides a brief description of these elements. These are the fundamental legal building blocks of any claim of self-defense, so if you don’t know these you can’t possibly understand self-defense law. You can download the PDF of that infographic for free, at:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/elementsInnocence: Clearly it was Rosenbaum who was the physical aggressor here, and Kyle was the victim of that unlawful attack. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Imminence: The attack Kyle was defending himself against was actually in progress, and so qualifies as an imminent attack. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Proportionality: By seeking to seize control of Kyle’s rifle, Rosenbaum was apparently arming himself for the purpose of carrying out his earlier death threat against Kyle—and, simultaneously, attempting to disarm Kyle and leave him defenseless. Rosenbaum’s attack is therefore deadly in nature, justifying a proportional deadly force defense by Kyle. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Avoidance: Wisconsin is a stand-your-ground state, so the element of Avoidance would not normally apply in an otherwise lawful act of self-defense. Even if it did apply, however, Kyle was in desperate flight from Rosenbaum, who sustained his relentless pursuit until the point of actual contact. If Avoidance did impose a legal duty to retreat, Kyle would have met that duty. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
Reasonableness: The circumstances facing Kyle would certainly justify a subjectively genuine fear of deadly bodily harm, and there is nothing about Kyle’s perceptions or reactions to those events which were those of an unreasonable person—this is readily assessable from the video and eyewitness accounts of what happened. This element is consistent with self-defense on these facts.
In short, there would appear to be no reason to believe, to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, that the state can disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Kyle’s claim of self-defense with respect to Rosenbaum.
Conclusion: The shooting of Rosenbaum by Kyle was lawful self-defense.
