Rittenhouse Jury Instructions

[WHITT]

So it was reported that the jury requested 11 extra copies of the jury instructions, but an ABC legal correspondent provided additional detail, that first they requested 11 extra copies of just the page(s) of the jury instructions relating to self-defense, then there was a later second request for 11 extra copies of the rest of the jury instructions.

Interesting, as under Wisconsin law, you cannot provoke or instigate a situation, and then claim self-defense if the situation escalates.

Additionally, I saw video last night of the obnoxious defense attorney claiming Rittenhouse was not an active shooter, and that was merely a "buzzword" the prosecution was throwing around.

Ah, no.

Anyone who has heard or seen text of law enforcement radio traffic knows that 'active shooter' is a law enforcement term, and Rittenhouse CLEARLY fit the law enforcement description of an active shooter.

[louis-t]

1. Prosecutor should have broken down the 'active shooter' line.

As in "How many shots must someone fire at multiple locations for him to be considered an active shooter? 2 shots at 2 locations? 3? How about 4 shots at 2 locations? What about 5? 6? How about 7 shots at 3 locations? The defendant fired 8 shots at 3 locations. The defense is outraged because of the 'active shooter' line. They say he wasn't an 'active shooter' because at some point he stopped shooting."

[Sympthsical]

2. You have the Wisconsin law wrong.

Or at least, you have an incomplete understanding of the statute. I'll highlight the part you're leaving out of your assertion.

939.48 2 (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.

What the defense argues - and what video does show - is that Rittenhouse was retreating from the second two victims. He was running towards the police when they pursued and engaged him. He is then on the ground being beaten.

So, the fact he was retreating has a very large bearing on the second part of the law.

[WHITT]

5. No, I Got It

What the defense argues - and what video does show - is that Rittenhouse was retreating from the second two victims.

AFTER he shot and killed someone, which means he was an active shooter. There is no self-defense against those attempting to stop or disarm an active shooter who already murdered an unarmed civilian.

[Tommy Carcetti]

8. Exactly.

Once Rittenhouse shot his first victim, he was armed and dangerous and considered an active shooter. Parading around with a weapon like that, police would have had the right to take him out if they so wished.

[Jedi Guy]

10. No, because self-defense may apply to all three shootings.

The post above omits subsections b and c, which state:

(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.

So by fleeing or attempting to flee prior to all three shootings, Rittenhouse regains the right to self-defense under WI law. The only way that isn't true is if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he went there with the intent to provoke an attack and use it as an excuse to kill people. I don't think they cleared that hurdle.

Thus, all three shootings may qualify as self-defense under the statute. That's what the jury has to decide.

[WHITT]

14. No

You can't compartmentalize each shooting. Rittenhouse started off by brandishing an assault weapon and threatening unarmed civilians with it.

There's no self-defense after that.

[Jedi Guy]

17. You are incorrect. Under WI law, if he flees/attempts to flee, he regains self-defense.

That's pretty plainly spelled out in the statute. The only way that is untrue is if the prosecution can prove that he went there with the intent to provoke someone as an excuse to shoot them, as per subsection c.

[kcr]

18. This assumes the victims had no right to self defense themselves

You are interpreting WI to mean that he regains self-defense and that somehow means no one else there had a right to invoke their own. They saw an active shooter and acted to stop him. If your interpretation wins out, aggressive gun owners have carte blanche and no one is allowed to stop them or defend themselves. That is ludicrous.

[Jedi Guy]

20. The victims and bystanders certainly had a right to self-defense... had KR not tried to flee.

The way that statute is worded, he regained the right to self-defense specifically because he attempted to disengage. Had he stood there actively firing into the crowd, there's no question they would have every right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary. But that wasn't the case because prior to each shooting he was actively fleeing.

The way I read the statute, the only way the prosecution can negate a reasonable claim to self-defense is to prove that Rittenhouse went there with the specific intent to provoke a confrontation and then use self-defense as an excuse to kill people. Based on the evidence and testimony, I just don't think they proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Hav]

23. On the actions alone, I'd fully agree with you

Even ignoring specific state laws, it just seems common sense that once you disengage, run away and if you haven't committed a violent crime, there shouldn't even be any doubt that you can regain your right to defend yourself.
But I wasn't aware how short the timespan was between brandishing the firearm and the shooting. I won't question that it's stupid to hunt someone down who has a rifle, but is it true that only a few seconds passed between the alleged brandishing and the eventual shooting? I thought he was chased down longer. But if it's under those 10 seconds, don't you think that provocation becomes a pretty reasonable charge? That doesn't remove all fault from Rosenbaum but I'd say it certainly shifts more of the blame to Rittenhouse.

It now becomes clearer for me why the prosecution focused so hard on the provocation element, why the jury wanted to see this footage and why the defense wanted to disallow it. That said, even if the first shooting is seen as caused by the provocation, it doesn't mean that Rittenhouse automatically loses the right for self-defense for the 2nd and 3rd shooting. I get the active shooter claim but he wasn't shooting indiscriminately into the crowd or was looking for confrontations.
I wouldn't want to be a juror because there are self-defense claims for all parties involved.

[WHITT]

19. You're Misunderstanding The Section

I assume they are referencing if a couple of individuals are fighting, not an active shooter.

[Jedi Guy]

21. That's not spelled out in the law, though.

That's your assumption and interpretation of what the legislature meant when the statute was written. We shall see how the jury interprets the situation and statute, I suppose. If Rittenhouse is convicted of anything, it almost certainly won't be any of the first-degree charges.

[WHITT]

22. Of Course

What the law is, and what the jury does, are two completely different matters.

[Sympthsical]

11. It is not established fact Rosenbaum was murder

A lot regarding the second and third shootings hinge on that.

[Kaleva]

12. Wasn't he also fleeing from the 1st person?

I believe the prosecutor argued that Rittenhouse should have kept fleeing instead of slowing down and shooting his pursuer.

[Johonny]

3. Even killing in self defense in the middle of a riot, is like shouting fire in a crowded theatre

Maybe the first death was self defense, but all indication were the other two were treating him as an active shooter and trying to save lives. In a riot, how would anyone know a mass murderer from a guy acting in self defense. It's why they had a curfew, you know.

[Throck]

4. Extra copies and extra copies?

Is there still a toilet paper shortage or is this what the jury thinks of the judge?

[DENVERPOPS]

6. Many people have wondered

what will be THE spark that will set off a national nightmare of conflict and acting out across the U.S.........

Any decision, either way, will enrage large portions of the country's population.............

If he walks on USING and killing with an assault weapon during a demonstration, it will enable and encourage the same thing across the nation....

[roamer65]

9. That would also enable shooting back in self defense.

A real Pandora’s box will open.

[xmas74]

13. This is what

Everyone is afraid of.

[Harker]

7. There are twelve jurors. Did they initially supply just one copy?

Maybe jurors wanted to annotate one copy and leave one unmarked.

I'm not sure this signifies anything of importance.

[WHITT]

15. Yep

One copy.

So initially they asked for 11 more of JUST the page(s) regarding self-defense, then later, 11 copies of the rest. Seemed like a threshold thing.

[Harker]

16. How absurd.

I would think that passing around one copy would add several days to the deliberations.

"Hey, let me see that thing again..."