So you have him found guilty and convicted already....
can you find a case where the person was a 17 year old Male in a similar situation and what that outcome was so we have an idea for comparison?
Wisconsin does have an objective portion to their self-defense law, so it is not a matter of what [Defendant] thought was reasonable entirely that's the issue. The issue is whether a reasonable person confronted with this situation would have acted in the fashion [Defendant] did.
I'm having difficulty seeing that an objectively reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm can be formed based on what Rittenhouse observed. The first shooting is the one I'm having a hard time with. According to a witness, Rosenbaum began to approach Rittenhouse, who then began to running away and the chase ensued. At some point, Rosenbaum threw an object at Rittenhouse. It was shortly after the object was thrown that Rittenhouse began to turn and shoot. So, I'm thinking the Rittenhouse's decision to shoot rather than continue to run was heavily influenced by that object being thrown. I don't know what that object was. I can't tell from the video, and the prosecutor says it was a "plastic bag", but plastic bags don't move like that. (at least not the ones in the grocery store) Rittenhouse was close enough to see what the object was and the object was well-illuminated by the light. He was also looking in the right direction to see it.
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. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
It didn't look like the person who fired the shot into the air was chasing Rittenhouse. It didn't look like a mob was chasing him. But yes, the shot in the air immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. I hadn't considered that Rittenhouse may have thought that Rosenbaum had opened fire.
Definitely agree that his actions should not be emulated, and that he bears substantial moral blame for what happened. He was looking for trouble, and he found it. If anything, I begin to think he may have wanted to kill someone that night, and that he was baiting them. If that's the case, then self-defense doesn't apply at all.
You can have all the private suspicions you want but the state won't be able to prove that to a jury
I'm actually pretty convinced that the gunshot in the air is what caused Rittenhouse to turn and fire, mostly because it immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. The chase, the throwing of the object, and then the gunshot (which he may have assumed came from Rosenbaum) all taken together, may form a reasonable basis for an objective belief that great bodily harm was imminent. Especially if there were threats from Rosenbaum leading up to the event, then it may be more than enough for me to be convinced, I think. A little curious about the location of the muzzle flash in the photo. It's not clear what direction it was in or how far it was. Also wondering how easy it is to estimate distance and direction of gunfire using only your ears. The existence of gunfire would dispense with any alternative imo.
Who are the parents? What were they doing?
Tough one as well. I am neutral. At one point, he was being attacked, but at the same time, he shot them in the head. You don't aim for the head, you aim for the foot or a non lethal part of the body in general. This happened in my town recently with a kid 16yr old kid who stabbed a kid because he was getting curbstomped. He used a knife and stabbed him in the stomach. Anyway, I don't think he was a registered carrier as well, so I think it's murder IMO.
Ok, I see. So he could get slapped with a weapon crime is what you're saying?
