Rittenhouse: prosection closing statement: "You can't claim self-defense if you create the threat"

[mysteryowl]

Last edited Tue Nov 16, 2021, 08:17 PM - Edit history (2)

That sums it all up what Rittenhouse did.

That quote was make by the prosecution.

[Jedi Guy]

1. Except under WI law, that's not true. Emphasis mine.

(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.

By attempting to flee prior to both shootings, Rittenhouse regained the right to self-defense under WI law.

What the prosecution must prove to negate that right to self-defense is that he went there with the specific intent to provoke an attack as an excuse to kill people (subsection c). From what I've seen of the trial and evidence, I don't think they cleared that hurdle.

[maxsolomon]

4. "adequate notice", LOL.

a law written for ideal circumstances and not the middle of a riot.

[Jedi Guy]

5. Well, that's up to the jury, isn't it?

Does attempting to run away constitute "adequate notice" under that law? Had Rosenbaum elected to stop pursuing or not pursue at all, would he still have been shot by Rittenhouse? Those are the questions the jury is going to have to consider, among others.

But it's simply not true to state that "creating the threat" negates any claim to self-defense under the law in that jurisdiction, as is clear in the text.

[maxsolomon]

7. Not disputing that aspect. Obviously it is a subjective call by a jury.

Just makes me think of the legal notices that municipalities have to post in newspapers...

[Smackdown2019]

10. Smacking this argument down!

1. Gunman, "active shooter", is an attacked by police. Accordingly to this argument, gives the unlawful actor to protect themselves with self-defense.

2. A person who engages in unlawful conduct!

In ordered for this to be used, the actor must admit they were UNLAWFUL. Meaning GUILTY!

[Jedi Guy]

11. Except you're not smacking anything down, since you're incorrect.

First, no jurisdiction in the US allows you to claim self-defense against a uniformed/identified police officer, so far as I know. The self-defense statutes exempt them.

Second, did you read the statute? It very plainly says (subsection b) that the person engaging in unlawful conduct is not privileged to claim self-defense except when the attack against them causes them to reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. They can even use deadly force if they reasonably believe they have exhausted all avenues of escape. So even if their conduct is unlawful, they can still claim self-defense if those conditions are met.

Third, and again, did you read the statute? Even if the person who provokes the attack is engaged in unlawful conduct, they regain the privilege of self-defense if they withdraw from the fight (subsection c), which Rittenhouse did before both shootings by attempting to flee.

Fourth, they don't have to admit to having engaged in unlawful conduct to claim self-defense. Again, self-defense applies even if they are engaged in unlawful conduct, not because of it, as long as certain conditions are met.

[uponit7771]

2. Some people are arguing "reasonable means to escape death" is firing at unarmed people chasing him

... because fist and bullets present the same level of threat.

[Skittles]

3. it worked for Zimmerman

there won't be justice this time either

[joshcryer]

6. Yep.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. It sounds like the Prosecution had a good closing

Link to tweet

Speaking with CNN's John Berman on Tuesday morning, two legal experts expressed surprise at the strong closing argument presented by the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case and said the jury may not let the young man who pleaded self-defense after killing two BLM protesters off the hook.

With the jury to be winnowed down from 18 to 12 via a lottery on Tuesday, Brooklyn Law School Assistant Professor Alexis Hoag told the "New Day" host: "The prosecution really delivered."

"I think they used the weekend well to bring their narrative together," Hoag continued. "What they did was deliver a compelling story arc, that's what jurors want to hear. They want the evidence, they want the witnesses to make some sort of sense."

"Their overarching narrative was you had this person coming in from outside, not defending their own property, not defending their own family, nor their home, bringing a gun, looking for a fight," she continued. "Then they peppered it with the highlights of evidence jurors saw, reinforcing repeatedly their storyline and the story arc. We saw the drone footage. We saw it when Rittenhouse shot, initially, Mr. Rosenbaum. He was on the ground, he wasn't lunging or attacking. Of course, that was the defense's characterization, so the prosecution actually really delivered."

[mysteryowl]

9. Thanks, nice summary.