criminal-law wisconsin
What crimes did Rosenbaum commit when he engaged Rittenhouse?
<p>The jury has found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty of murder of Joseph Rosenbaum based on the defense's claim that he acted in self defense.
Given the facts outlined by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057571558/what-we-know-3-men-kyle-rittenhouse-victims-rosenbaum-huber-grosskreutz" rel="noreferrer">this NPR article</a>, it appears that the strongest evidence for such claim comes from the testimony that Rosenbaum tried to &quot;grab&quot; Rittenhouse's weapon.</p>
<p>Had Rosenbaum survived the shooting, would it be possible for him to be criminally charged with violating any laws?  If so, which specific Wisconsin statues would he be likely in violation of?</p>

<p>NPR left out things that don't fit their narrative.</p>
<p>According to testimony presented during the trial, from both <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-during-homicide-trial-transcript-november-10" rel="noreferrer">Rittenhouse</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waz7T_9d-IM" rel="noreferrer">Ryan Balch</a>, Rosenbaum had told their group that “If I catch any of you fuckers <strong>alone</strong>, I’m <strong>going to fucking kill you</strong>.”</p>
<p>Given that Rosenbaum had &quot;spent most of his adult life in prison starting at age 18 for sexual conduct with five preteen boys&quot; (in the NPR article), was straight out of mental hospital and was (from both earlier video and other testimony) acting in a psychotic manner earlier in the evening, including using the N-word at black protesters, while ostensibly protesting racism, the jury believed that he was disturbed enough to have made such a threat.</p>
<p>Rittenhouse was running away from an older bigger and stronger man who has made an explicit threat to kill him in that exact scenario (alone), was chasing him in an apparent attempt to make good on his threat, did not stop chasing him even he pointed an AR-15 at him and tried to run away some more and only shot at literally the <strong>last second</strong> when Rosenbaum had caught up, had his hand on the gun and Rittenhouse could not run away any more.</p>
<p>The above is sufficient for self defense, but in terms of specific crimes: making death threats, assault and apparent attempted murder.</p>

<p>Johnny Hurley shot and killed Ronald Troyke after Troyke had shot and killed Officer Gordon Beesley.  Hurley was shot and killed by Officer Kraig Brownlow.  Hurley has been declared a hero by various people, including Arvada‘s Mayor and District Attorney.  Brownlow was not charged and will not be charged because he MISTAKENLY but honestly believed that his actions were necessary in order to save the lives of himself and others.</p>
<p>It is not necessary for anyone to have <strong>committed</strong> a crime for someone to act in self defense.  Self defense requires someone to reasonably <strong>believe</strong> that a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm <strong>will</strong> be committed.</p>
<p>If Rosenbaum had stopped anytime before getting shot, he would most likely not have been charged with anything.  Since he was shot when he caught up with Rittenhouse, if he had survived being shot, he could possibly have been charged with harassment (a misdemeanor), attempted battery, battery, aggravated battery or felony murder if battery and Huber had still died or Rittenhouse had been killed by any of his attackers.</p>
<p>Given the evidence, both Huber and Grosskreutz would have had a good case for self defense/defense of others if they had killed Rittenhouse (Huber better than Grosskreutz I believe, because unless it was someone else, Grosskreutz is on tape being told by Rittenhouse that Rittenhouse was going to the police, which might sway a jury).</p>

<h1>No Criminal Inference</h1>
<p>It is not possible to conclude that a crime was committed just because someone discharged a firearm in self-defense.  We need look no further than Gaige Grossgkreutz.  He claimed to be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Second_confrontation" rel="noreferrer">observing the protests</a> as a legal observer for the ACLU.  He heard shots fired and saw a commotion and ran over to Kyle Rittenhouse.  He testified that he believed Kyle Rittenhouse was an active shooter (clearly a correct assessment after the fact).  He tried to subdue Rittenhouse, in case Rittenhouse had, in fact, committed a criminal act, and to deter further criminal use of his long gun.  To this end, he says he pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse (though he also says it was &quot;unintentional&quot;).  What he didn't do is pull the trigger.</p>
<p>However, Kyle had already pointed his rifle at Gaige before he drew his handgun, and he <a href="https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-george-floyd-homicide-cbd8653c42406417c2d3d8559632e3bb" rel="noreferrer">testified</a> that he thought he &quot;was going to die&quot;.  Therefore, if Gaige <em>had</em> pulled the trigger, then he would apparently have had the exact same defense as Kyle.  He didn't, because:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“That’s not the kind of person that I am. That’s not why I was out there,” he said. “It’s not who I am. And definitely not somebody I would want to become.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, Gaige had every reason to believe that Kyle was going to shoot him, because he saw Kyle <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha" rel="noreferrer">re-rack his rifle</a> while it was pointed at him.  Gaige would have had an open-and-shut self-defense case if he had fired first, given the outcome of Kyle's trial.</p>
<h1>No Criminal Charges</h1>
<p>Most importantly, it should be noted that up to <a href="https://meaww.com/will-gaige-grosskreutz-maurice-freeland-and-ziminski-be-charged-after-rittenhouse-verdict" rel="noreferrer">this moment</a>, Gaige Grosskreutz has not been charged with any crimes relating to the Kyle Rittenhouse slayings, despite Kyle shooting him &quot;in self-defense&quot;.  This should be the clearest evidence yet that the victim of a self-defense shooting need not be a criminal.  In a very unusual outcome, it could have been the case that both Kyle and Gaige shot each other.  If they had both survived, they could have both claimed self-defense.  And presumably, they could both possibly win on their claims, proving that the &quot;aggressor&quot; in a self-defense case need not be engaging in criminal activity to justify a self-defense argument.</p>

<p>The attempt to &quot;grab&quot; the gun might have been charged as assault. Whether a prosecutor would have brought such a charge, and whether a jury would have convicted, is impossible to say. But the action seem to fit within the formal definition of assault.</p>
<p>Less likely, a charge of attempted theft might have been brought. But there seems no evidence that Rosenbaum  intended to permanently deprive Rittenhouse  of the gun, so that would be much more dubious, in my view.</p>

<p>If A successfully argues self-defense in killing B, then the jury has agreed that B was acting in a way that made A reasonably fear for their life or great bodily harm; and by definition <a href="https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault" rel="nofollow noreferrer">making someone fear in that way is, legally, Assault</a>, which is a serious criminal charge (&quot;felony&quot; in the US). Of course depending on circumstances there could be additional or alternative charges such as battery (if any blows actually landed) or attempted murder (if such an intent could be proven). I'm not in a position to cite Wisconsin statutes, so my apologies on that count, but assault, battery and attempted murder, I think, are widely standardized. There might be local variations in how such charges can be combined, whether separate charges could be brought relating to successive interactions over the course of a prolonged conflict, and so forth. But by definition I think we can say that if A has killed B in legit self-defense, then B as at least committed Assault against A.</p>

<p>It was, at least in the broadest reading of the federal statute, terrorism, but I'm not aware of any Wisconsin terrorism statutes. It's common for theft of a firearm to be treated as more serious than theft in general. In Wisconsin, 943.20(3)(d)5 makes theft of a firearm a class D felony. There's also assault, and arson. You said &quot;when he engaged Rittenhouse&quot;, and he wasn't engaging in arson at that moment, but it could be considered to be in furtherance of his previous arson (his purpose was to keep Rittenhouse from interfering with his arson). Given that Rittenhouse said he felt cornered, there's possibly false imprisonment argument to be made. If everything had played out the same except that Rosenbaum survived, there would also be a case to be made for felony murder, as there was a clear nexus between his actions and Huber's death.</p>
<p>However, I am not aware of any evidence that he violated any Wisconsin statues. :)</p>
