Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They don't have our interests in mind either, R or D. I've seen enough over 10+ years to justify that sentiment.
Still don't see it. Nothing you highlighted address what did it provoke the victim (Rosenbaum in this case) to do? It speaks to the provoker (Rittenhouse in this case) potentially losing the privilege of self defense and the possibility of either regaining it or not.939.48 …
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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.
(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.
(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.
There was no provocation by Rittenhouse. To believe that is grasping at straws.Still don't see it. Nothing you highlighted address what did it provoke the victim (Rosenbaum in this case) to do? It speaks to the provoker (Rittenhouse in this case) potentially losing the privilege of self defense and the possibility of either regaining it or not.
I thought pretty much the same as you do until I watched the trial. A lot of what you said in this post is inaccurate. I'm not going to go through every correction based on the evidence that was presented, but suffice it to say I was wrong initially about his intention and what he was doing at the time. This seems a clear case of self-defense.
So where did he buy a gun from illegally? You cannot legally purchase a firearm in the US until you are the age of 18. He borrowed that gun from a friend. Regardless where the gun came from, he was in public with it as a minor which is also against the law. I posted that law yesterday.
Your interpretation makes no sense. What the law is saying is that a defendant cannot provoke the other guy into DOING SOMETHING which the defendant then seeks to use as the basis for self defense. It isn’t even a matter of interpretation in reality. That’s simply what the law says. And the section I quoted and highlighted says it in a straightforward manner.Still don't see it. Nothing you highlighted address what did it provoke the victim (Rosenbaum in this case) to do? It speaks to the provoker (Rittenhouse in this case) potentially losing the privilege of self defense and the possibility of either regaining it or not.
He thinks the law should be one-sided in favor of his conclusions.Your interpretation makes no sense. What the law is saying is that a defendant cannot provoke the other guy into DOING SOMETHING which the defendant then seeks to use as the basis for self defense. It isn’t even a matter of interpretation in reality. That’s simply what the law says. And the section I quoted and highlighted says it in a straightforward manner.
I am not trying to be a dick, now, with this addition: I can show you the law and I can even explain it up to a point. I can’t make you see it.
That fact was never in question. A lack of denial is essentially an acknowledgment that he did kill those rioters, but that analysis has no bearing on this case. None.because the defense has not denied the contention that the 2 dead rioters were killled by the defendant.
In fact: when any defendant, charged with murder or the like in any criminal trial, resorts to the defense of justification, it is always true that such defendant is not disputing that he is the actor who caused the death of the “victim.”The sole issue in the case is whether or not the State has disproved the defense of justification (self defense) beyond a reasonable doubt.
It would be silly for the jury to ask for the elements of “homicide” for example — because the defense has not denied the contention that the 2 dead rioters were killled by the defendant. So, the requests show at a minimum that the jury is focusing on the right issue. Really, the only issue.
It was a burden the State had to prove UNTIL THE DEFENSE interposed the defense of justification. At that point, legally, it was no longer in dispute. The sole issue then becomes the justification issue.That fact was never in question. A lack of denial is essentially an acknowledgment that he did kill those rioters, but that analysis has no bearing on this case. None.
The matter is self-defense or homicide, not the denial or lack thereof of the defense of the contention the defendant killed those 2 rioters.
It was a burden the State had to prove UNTIL THE DEFENSE interposed the defense of justification. At that point, legally, it was no longer in dispute. The sole issue then becomes the justification issue.
