In a two-week trial that reignited debate over self-defense laws across the nation, a Wisconsin jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting three people, two fatally, during a racial justice protest in Kenosha.
The Wisconsin jury believed Rittenhouse’s claims that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense after he drove about 20 miles from his home in Antioch, Illinois – picking up an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha – in what he claimed was an effort to protect property during violent protests. The lakeside city of 100,000 was the scene of chaotic demonstrations after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, an unarmed, 29-year-old black man, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.
In delivering its verdict, a Wisconsin jury decided that Rittenhouse’s conduct was justified, even though the prosecution argued that he provoked the violent encounter and, therefore, should not be able to find refuge in the self-defense doctrine.
As prosecutor Thomas Binger said in his closing argument: “When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”
The Wisconsin jury disagreed, and its decision may portend a similar outcome in another high-profile case in Georgia, where three white men are on trial for the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery after they claimed the Black man was a suspect in a rash of robberies. Like Rittenhouse, the three men claimed they were acting in self-defense.
Self-defense arguments are often raised during trials involving loss of life. Juries are then asked to determine whether a defendant’s conduct is justified by principles of self-defense or whether the offender is criminally liable for homicide.
Complicating matters is that each state has its own distinct homicide and self-defense laws. Some states observe the controversial “stand your ground” doctrine, as in Georgia – or not, as in Wisconsin – further clouding the public’s understanding on what constitutes an appropriate use of deadly force.
Five elements of self-defense
As a professor of criminal law, I teach my students that the law of self-defense in America proceeds from an important concept: Human life is sacred, and the law will justify the taking of human life only in narrowly defined circumstances.
The law of self-defense holds that a person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force against an adversary when he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This is the standard that every state uses to define self-defense.
To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.
First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. It’s not proportional.
Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm. The threat by the aggressor must be immediate. For instance, a person who is assaulted cannot leave the scene, plan revenge later and conduct vigilante justice by killing the initial aggressor.
Third, the person’s assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable, meaning that a supposed “reasonable person” would consider the threat to be sufficiently dangerous to put him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. A person’s own subjective view of this fear is not enough to satisfy the standard for self-defense.
Fourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification. Only those with “clean hands” can benefit from this justification and avoid criminal liability.
Finally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. This reaffirms the law’s belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort.
‘Stand your ground’
The proliferation of states that have adopted “stand your ground” laws in recent years has complicated the analysis of self-defense involving the duty to retreat.
Dating back to early Anglo-American law, the duty to retreat has been subject to an important exception historically called the “castle doctrine”: A person has no duty to retreat in his home. This principle emerged from the 17th-century maxim that a “man’s home is his castle.”
The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.
“Stand your ground” laws came under national scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
In that case, Martin, 17, was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.
It remains unclear whether a fight ensued, who was the aggressor and whether Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his claims of being beaten up by Martin. Zimmerman was the sole survivor; Martin, who was unarmed, died from a gunshot wound.
In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin around and kill him without being liable for murder.
But, in a stand-your-ground state such as Florida, Zimmerman had a lawful right to patrol the neighborhood near Martin’s home. As a result, during his trial, all Zimmerman had to prove was that he was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.
In Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was also able to put in evidence that he was in reasonable fear of death. “I didn’t do anything wrong,” Rittenhouse testified. “I defended myself.”
The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for his safety. This represents a high bar for the prosecution. They were unable to surmount it.
Ronald Sullivan is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
FlaglerLive relies on a strong core of donors. But they’re just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who daily depend on FlaglerLive for reliable, fearless reporting and analysis you cannot get anywhere else. If you’re still on the sidelines, we need you to join the Friends of FlaglerLive today. Elections, storms, the latest catastrophe - when dependable and factual local reporting will be more essential than ever, take a stand for integrity and have a direct voice in fostering serious journalism in your community. As little as $10 makes a difference, or better still, become a monthly donor: Become a "Friend of" FlaglerLive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible. Think of it as buying a "scoop", in every sense of the term!
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Thank goodness says
In this case I believe he was not the aggressor simply by being present.He broke no laws by having his firearm present and his defense provided ample evidence that he himself feared for his life.The jury has spoken,and they have spoken clearly.I hope this young man gets his day now in civil court with high dollar results from the media both for slandering his name as well as defimation of character-wich he will most likely win being he was AQUITTED of ALL charges.You can NOT and should NOT ever be tried and found guilty by court of public opinion and thus far there is no better way then taking a jury of 12 of your peers randomly selected by both prosecution and defense and presenting them with evidence on both sides to come to a conclusion.We all seem to forget a human is innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond ANY SHADOW of doubt.The burden lies with prosecution to be able to prove this.This will always be the best formula because it is always best to let a guilty man be free than an innocent man locked away
Michael Cocchiola says
So, you travel across state lines illegally armed with a semi-automatic assault-like weapon. He was, after all, underage. Then you confront protesters with your weapon. And when they, unarmed, fight back, you shoot and kill them.
So, what does this tell us? 1. gun laws don’t work because the judge arbitrarily dismissed the law covering underage people from wielding a firearm. 2. Pack the jury with White people afraid of losing their privileges. 3. Try the case before an obviously prejudiced judge with a pre-determined outcome. Frightened White justice worked exactly as planned.
Justsayin says
Get your facts straight. The gun NEVER crossed state lines.
The first victim tried to take his gun, the second victim attacked him with a skate board when he was on the ground. The third victim pulled a gun on him. Where the hell is the FL fact checkers.
Thank Goodness says
With all due respect,because we can respectfully debate-he broke no weapon laws-please look into Wisconsin law before spreading misinformation.His weapons charge was dropped because Wisconsin law states a minor must not be in possession of a short barrel firearm.The firearm he possessed was indeed a long arm rifle.That is why that charge was dismissed.Again,please understand this is not about opinion and never should be.It’s about what laws on the books where NOT broken.He LEGALLY had every right to be standing there with his rifle.The assailants had no legal right to charge him.
Bill C says
If BLM protesters show up LEGALLY armed with AK’s to protect themselves, considering your argument, I assume you would have no objection to that.
Ron says
Correct. They too have a Second Amendment right. However the protestors behavior, starting fires, destroying cars and store fronts, and other illegal acts might put the self defense stance in jeopardy. Moral of this story is don’t bring a skateboard to a gun fight 😉
Deborah Coffey says
Class A misdemeanors, the most serious misdemeanor crimes in Wisconsin, are punishable by up to 9 months in jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both jail and a fine. Theft of property worth less than $2,500 is a Class A misdemeanor. (Wis. Stat. § 939.51 (2019).) YOU read the law! Rittenhouse broke it!
Dave says
Theft? He was given the weapon. It was not stolen.
Ron says
Exactly how did he break the law again? You provide 1/2 an argument
Ryan says
Ok wow where to begin. Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with violating Wisconsin statute: 948.60
Subsection 2 Paragraph a:
“Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
However if you read the full statute it clearly states:
Subsection 3 Paragraph c:
“This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of Statute 941.28 or is not in compliance with Statutes 29.304 and 29.593
Since Rittenhouse was carrying a rifle and those other statutes did not apply in this case it was 100% legal for him to carry the rifle.
Mark says
This tells us you don’t have a clue.
George says
Wow, just wow. He didn’t cross state lines illegally with a gun. Did you even watch the trial, or are you just regurgitating MSNBC talking points? If you’re going to respond at least have your facts straight. You do realize the gun was in WI, right? You do realize the gun charge was dismissed, right?
Susan Smith says
Facts from the trial. His rifle was kept in a safe at his best friends stepfathers house in Kenosha. Under Wisconsin law, he was entitled to possess the AR-15 as a 17-year-old. The judge dismissed the gun charge, which the prosecution never should have brought.
dan beasley says
unarmed, one had a weapon which he pointed at the kid, another hit him with a skateboard, another felon (thug) attempted to kick his head in. Get a grip dude, justice prevailed and the 17 year old will have a life, not be somebodies bitch in prison. I applaud the good citizens on that jury.
Dennis says
Out of touch with reality on what happened. He did not cross state lines with the gun. He followed the law, was found not guilty and the racist part of America cries he’s innocent because he’s white. Tired of hearing the race card being played all the time.
Carl Jones says
What planet are you on man? Everything about this case is racial. Everything about this country is racial. This is why our kids’ kids will be dealing with a racist country because of like-minded people like you. When did he start following the law? There was a curfew, right? Doesn’t that mean that all law-abiding citizens should have been inside? Are curfews supposed to be followed Sir?
PLEASE explain to me who makes up this “racist part of America!” Please clear that up for us, we’re listening. And dare you say, as I think you are implying, that its black people! Because if you are saying that the “racist part of America” is black people, you are part of the problem. Racism will ALWAYS exist as long as people like you think that when black people speak out about police brutality, killing of unarmed black men, women, and kids, racial injustice, and an equal justice system we are playing the race card, we’ll never be a country were race is not an issue.
And how many “law-abiding” 17 year old black kids own an assault rifle? The people at that rally should not have been there breaking the law? So why does he have every right to be there with a semi-automatic assault rifle enforcing the law, after curfew, he’s not the police, or was he sworn in after he cleaned graffiti off the school?
Keith P. says
Dear Carl,
No one in this thread is implying that blacks are racist except you! So many inaccuracies in your post. I’m curious what you base your accusations of “Everything about this case is racial” on?
A white man shot three other white men in self-defense while protecting property and rendering aid to injured “protesters”. According to the law, this man did nothing to violate it. I imagine that you’re too blinded by your own inherent prejudices to see the truth…
Perhaps instead of pointing the race card at everyone else, you could do something to stop the violence? Encourage BLM, Jessie Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and their millions of supporters to do something about the fact that on average over 200 young black men are murdered every weekend in major cities in America. Not by police, whites, or other races but by other blacks.
BTW, I am one of those people who speak out about police brutality, killing of unarmed black men, women, and kids, and racial injustice. Stop making baseless accusations and Take action to better your community.
Jeremy M Preston says
Except there was no evidence of him “enforcing the law” what there was evidence of him doing that day was cleaning graffiti, running around with his little first aid kit asking people if they needed first aid. And using a fire extinguisher to put out a flaming dumpster. Oh and also evidence of the man pushing the flaming dumpster acting erratic and hostile, chasing Kyle, a gun going off from the crowd behind Kyle, and that same unhinged man lunging and trying to grab Kyle’s rifle. And of Kyle discharging four rounds into the attacker (and later of a mob knocking Kyle to the ground and beating him and two of the attackers getting shot…. and then of Kyle trying to turn himself in to the police).
I know you desperately want this to be a crazed vigilante who went there thinking “oh man I can’twait to shoot people for looting” … why? I can only speculate but I suspect it may have to do with the fact that you’re narrative has a tendency to fall apart any time it’s challenged and cognitive dissonance is a harsh mistress.
But the fact of the matter is the things that can be proven. The things which there is evidence for (including pretty comprehensive video footage) is that a naive teenager thought he was going to go out and save lives with his lifeguard training, bandaids and gauze, and got attacked by an unhinged pedophile twice his age for his trouble. It also suggests he brought the gun from his friends house because those protests had a habit of turning violent and lo and behold, he wound to needing that rifle to protect himself from a potentially lethal attack so it sounds to me like foresight more than anything.
Also…. and I’m not saying you did. But why does everyone keep bringing up this “crossed state lines” crap? Last I checked US citizens were allowed free travel between the states, and as long as you’re allowed to possess the firearm in the state you’re going to, you’re allowed to cross state lines with it…… also it’s odd that the political faction with such a problem with borders suddenly is so concerned with a state border. Seems disingenuous frankly, like they only care because they think it wins them a point in the argument, but because of any real principles.
The only thing the state lines issue could have changed is moved the case to federal court, where he would have just been acquitted there too
Ariel Israel Ben-Zion says
Amen!!! Well said!!! I am beyond sick of these lying leftist zombies
Armed on Westerlee says
Kyle traveled across state lines. The weapon did not. He was supplied the weapon in Wisconsin. While he was a minor at the time, the gun laws in Wisconsin permit minors to possess firearms and carry firearms in the open.
Watch the videos again. Kyle was attacked (struck with closed fists and a skateboard) and after being attacked his attackers tried to take his weapon. Those unarmed attackers (protesters? rioters?) made poor decisions about their actions and paid for those decisions with their lives.
The Wisconsin gun laws worked just fine. The Wisconsin jury brought back a verdict in line with their laws.
Joey says
1. The gun did not cross states lines – review the facts of the case.
2. The judge directly pointed out, Mr.Rittenhouse was legally allowed to shoot that weapon. Under Wisconsin law, he could not purchase the weapon, but he was in fact allowed to handle and shoot the weapon. – Please review the facts of the case.
Mark Bialkoski says
Michael Cocchiola I am not sure what trial you followed, but it obviously not the one in the article. The only illegal gun was the one being held by one of the three CONVICTED FELONS. Which by the way is another Felony this aggressor committed. Kyle did NOT bring the firearm across state lines. Grosskreutz (convi ted felon) testified he brought a gun to the scene and even pointed it at Kyle, giving Kyle EVERY RIGHT to shoot him. Kyle has his head stomped upon and did not fire the firearm at that aggressor, Maurice Freeland, who has a lengthy criminal history. Then Anthony Huber swung his skateboard at Kyle, the skateboard immediately became a dangerous weapon so Kyle defended himself by firing his firearm.
The only VICTIM in this entire incident was Kyle Rittenhouse. The jury got it 100% correct.
Jeremy M Preston says
Honestly, id even be willing to say Huber and Grosskreutz were victims assuming they thought they were stopping a mass shooter….. however GG said that is not what he thought at the time. Huber still might have. But if that’s the case, they’re victims of Joseph Rosenbaums unhinged behavior and the crowds bloodlust, not Kyle rittenhouse.
Frankly if Rosenbaum was still alive I’d say he should be prosecuted for felony murder for Hubers death, since his felonious actions are what lead to it
JEFFERY FELIX says
Kyle did not travel illegally across state lines.
The rifle was in Wisconsin.
The weapons charge was dismissed.
Videos clearly show Rossenbaum tracking Kyle.. Forensics and witnesses show he was trying to take the gun away.
Huber attacked Kyle with a skateboard. That’s attempted murder.
GG has a Glock 27 pointed at Kyle’s head.
12 jurors found him not guilty.
Game over.
Art says
He did not travel across state lines illegally armed. He went to the city he worked the day before and spent the night at his best friend’s house in that city and at that house grabbed a gun he was always perfectly entitled to carry. Further, it is technically the case each person, but Jump Kick Man, who attacked Rittenhouse, were armed with a gun.
Once Rosenbaum grabbed the gun, he was in the process of arming himself with a gun. Once Huber grabbed the gun, he was in the process of arming himself with a second weapon, the gun, and it is almost certain his jolting pull on the gun into his body caused the shot, meaning he shot himself very likely. But even if you don’t process that legal concept, it is in fact possible to injure or kill a person with your hands, your feet, a skateboard (which is a 10-pound blunt object) or a gun. You know you can injure or kill someone with a hammer, knife, chain, rope, bat, etc.
So why lie about them being unarmed?
The judge in this case is a democrat who harmed the case badly against Rittenhouse allowing things in no judge would and not ruling on obvious misconduct. Of course, he knew the case had no merit so he probably didn’t worry about that.
Thomas B says
Is this the same Michael Cocchiola that is with the local chapter of the ACLU? If so, what a complete and irresponsible statement coming from someone that “supports” civil liberties. But perhaps it’s only for people of the correct political affiliation.
Carl Jones says
There Is A Shadow Of Doubt!
In the aftermath of the August 2020 police shooting of Jacob Blake, protests, riots, and civil unrest occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and around the United States as part of the larger 2020–2021 United States racial unrest and Black Lives Matter movements. The demonstrations were marked by daily peaceful protesting followed by confrontations with law enforcement and rioting and arson at night. (the peaceful protestors went home). A state of emergency was declared on August 23, and the National Guard was activated the following day. (My understanding Kyle was not a member of this guard unit). Further confrontations arose when armed militia members, whom Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth described as “like a group of vigilantes”, (armed like Kyle) arrived with the expressed intent of protecting businesses in the city. (Why not let the National Guard do their job, they did not call for armed assistance from the people of Kenosha, did they?) If they did, he still would not have been called, he is not from Kenosha! We know why the protestors were there, why did this young man take it upon himself to prowl the streets armed with an assault rifle, (to protect businesses)? The protestors were not armed. Yes riots broke out but it’s not the BLM movement that started the riots.
So to reply to your comment (Thank goodness says)…
First, you can’t go to a protest armed to the teeth and say this is not an aggressive move, it is. I was trained in Confrontation Management, we NEVER responded to a riot armed, yes we had all the lesser means of force but not weapons, not for crowd control. We had armed officers but they were not the first line of defense. During civil unrest you have crowd control procedures, none include strapping oneself in close-quarter combat rigging. He claimed he was going to volunteer to clean graffiti off the school, good for him, question, “how did he end up armed in the midst of a riot?” You say he feared for his life, question, “why go there if you feared for your life?” He was not ordered by his superiors, to come save the day, was he? Did he raise his right hand and take an oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic? He was not! It makes no sense.
Let me qualify myself, 26 year retired senior non-commissioned officer, US Air Force Security Forces, duly sworn in officer of the law, decorated and combat-tested, Iraq and Afghanistan…I have been in situations where I feared for my life but I was trained, called and expected. Was Kyle deputized to protect businesses during this riot? He was not! If he went there armed and loaded, was he on a “changing hearts and minds’ mission? No, he was there to do exactly what he did, “kill someone”. There was ZERO reason for this under-aged armed vigilante to be on the streets, after curfew, now claiming he was there to save lives, who called him?
Now you want him to get “high dollar” results, for WHAT? Killing unarmed people? White people even! Are black people supposed to be happy that it wasn’t us? No we are more pissed because, if white vigilante’s can get off scot-free for killing your own race, it’s open season on black folks. Should every other person that is not white be arming “THEMSELVES” in self defense, just like Rep. Cawthorn has suggested white folks do? No, but some of us are already armed but we don’t respond to riots claiming we are there to save lives and kill unarmed people then claim self defense. The last time black folks armed themselves in self defense was in 1966, against what? Police brutality. Not because we just wanted to feel big and strong, we did it for self defense. But you won’t see white supremacists and the KKK funding the defense of someone of color, because they killed two black folks, in “self-defense”.
Of course he was acquitted, he is white, yes, he was acquitted because he is white. That’s the elephant in the room. Now you have elected white supremacist claiming he should be an intern for their office, why? Is it because he killed two people and injured another? Is it because he claimed his life was in danger, he was there to save the day, he a hero? BS!!! You claim he was acquitted by 12 of his peers, if that is true why put one person of color on this “peer” list, is that “Affirmative Action?” That “being judged by 12 of your peers”, is BS. I guarantee you there are 12 white people on the “peer list” on the Arbery jury as well. If so, I’m sure the three “racist” that killed him will see the same “white privilege” as Kyle received. The judge even admitted that there “seem to be racial discrimination on the jury selection”. BUT, when you have 12 of your white peers in the jury box, claim self-defense and make the prosecution prove that you were not in fear for your life. The “Just-Us System”, is just that, the “Just-Them System!
Fion Cathal says
Just because you believe service makes your opinion more important is false. You also swore to defend the constitution which gives him the right to that firearm. Both the curfew charge and gun charge were dismissed because he was following the law. Wisconsin states if your 16 or 17 you can posses a long gun or shotgun and if you are being honest in your comment you know that people saying assault rifle are wrong since that would require it to be select fire. Another thing you should now having sworn to protect the constitution is that he wouldn’t need to be deputized since the second ammendment declares that the people are the militia. Just like the protestors earlier that day, before the rioters came out, he has the right to his practice his first ammendment and just because he practiced his second ammendment does not remove his right to freedom of speech or self defense. You can believe what you want but you are either ignorant and didnt watch the trial you want to comment on or you are actively lying. The states own witnesses testified to self defense with the points being medical examiner saying the only way for the pedophile Rosenbaum’s wound would be if he grabbed the barrel and the hip shot which was not certain to be the first shot due to them only being able to determine 1&2 and 3&4 but not the order could only have come from a lunge. And Gaige testifying that skateboards and any chance of head trauma aka kick to face are dangerous and that he himself wasn’t shot till he pointed the gun at Kyle. Also Gaige’s carry license was revoked so he traveled further than kyle with a weapon that is used in the majority of gun crime with while being a prior felonies an actual illegal weapon. The prosecutor trampled on Kyle’s fish ammendment twice, brought evidence forward that was deemed inadmissible and by every law analysis I’ve seen agree that those alone should have had a mistrial with prejudice called . The krauss who claims to know nothing about how video compression works has handbrake an application for compressing video. With those the only injustice is that a prosecutor got away with so much misconduct. Also the video which if given the proper quality would have allowed the defense to show how not only would Kyle had to have used a right handed gun with his left hand he it also was in a way he never held the gun alright, and even playing devils advocate Wisconsin law states that if you provoke a fight but then run your right to self defense is returned. Finally it was a jury of his peers. I have no idea who was on there, whether they were black or white, and I wouldn’t matter either way. They took their time looked at all the evidence and found him not guilty. Apparently the why did you wear that short skirt argument or litterly why didn’t you take your beating argument from krauss didnt sway the jury, not very surprising really. Also if you actually did take the oaths you claim then you either didn’t understand them or never really cared for the rights you swore to uphold.
-Slan
Thank goodness says
I may point out,again you are going outside the lines of law and inserting your OWN personal opinion and feelings about the case in itself.The only thing you MAY even have a point on is a curfew wich I will research for myself.That being said,that is the ONLY ordinance that MAY have been broken.Law is not about opinion,rightousness or public opinion,or morals in any way shape or form.Its about what laws that are ON THE BOOKS in that state that have been broken.Wether you agree with the law or not is a different story.As far as peers considered for a jury,you should be informed that jury duty requests are sent to people based on color,race,heritage,religion or sex.A jusry is selected by BOTH the defense and the prosecution.A jury of peers is defined as fellow US citizens.I’m Puerto Rican for example.If accused of wrongdoind should I expect my jury to be made up of mostly Puerto Ricans?A native american Indian should expect a jury of Native american indians?You DO see how that woul;d be percieved as well,right?And last,as a final reminder that the burden is on prosecution to prove BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT that the accused is guilty.If any doubt or shadow of can or is to be raised by the defense the prosecutions arguement is moot.This is based on premise that is absolutely correct that it is ALWAYS better to let a guilt man free than to lock away in prison an innocent man
Mark says
“after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, an unarmed, 29-year-old black man, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.” Even the unarmed , 29-year-old black man admitted that he was armed. Not very good with the facts are you.
FlaglerLive says
Blake’s knife was recovered from the floorboard of his car, not on his person.
Lin says
Blake is heard on audio “yeah I had my knife”
Paul says
Because he dropped it when he was shot. There is clear video of him with knife in hand as he went to get back in the car.
Atty. Andrew F. Branca says
We have photographic evidence of the knife in Blake’s hand as he walks to door of car with police, guns drawn, behind him.
George Rogero says
He was attempting to put the knife ON HIS PERSON while the police officer told him not to. If you don’t want to get shot by the police or others don’t do stuff to make them shoot you.
Wallace Dunn says
You can see the knife in his hand, the cops saw it, and his RAPE victim saw it.
Stephen Bozich says
Knife or no knife, Blake was in the process of getting into the driver’s seat of a vehicle that he didn’t own, with the keys in his possession, and there was at least one child in that vehicle that he didn’t have legal custody of.
That’s kidnapping, and justifies the use of deadly force. In the context of a domestic violence situation, it becomes all the more important that he not be allowed to start the engine of that vehicle.
Jackson1955 says
The new standard of self defense appears to be simply feeling threatened. Not a good a good precedent in a country that is armed to the teeth. We’re going to see a lot more “threatened” vigilantes out there. Welcome back to the wild west folks.
It’s time for our allies to start offering political asylum to U.S. citizens. I’m looking for an exit ramp.
In keeping with FL, IA and OK passing laws to legalize running down people in crowds. All a murderer has to do is say, “I was trying to get away. I feared for my life.”
The likelihood that a “Conservative-Super-Citizen” will KILL-PEOPLE over their “political-beliefs” has just gone WAY-UP!
Be Safe Out There!
Jimbo99 says
To some extent this jury decision does a lot for folks that are outnumbered or chased in a riot. Anyone would feel for their life to some degree. Being kicked & beaten is just as deadly as having a gun. If nobody confronts Kyle Rittenhouse while he is open carrying a loaded rifle, doubt anyone gets shot ? If one is not intelligent enough to steer clear of a Kyle Rittenhouse as a loaded open carry, not sure anyone can help that kind of dumb & stupid. Best way to be for that, safe at home on your couch watching TV or doing whatever lower risk hobby it is that gets you to another day.
I was shocked he was acquitted, but they took several days to deliberate, reviewed videos again. WI needs to make it official, that they have an extended castle doctrine like FL and that state reciprocity applies if where you are from extended castle applies. The defense team after the video requests, the defense sought the judge to declare mistrial with prejudice, which meant they weren’t even sure where the days long deliberation was heading for a decision. They must’ve felt the videos were going to have more impact on the decision than the rest of the case ? At any rate, don’t see any real news that anyone is rioting in the streets, looting even ?
John Yesford says
While the author did a very good job of laying out the elements of self defense, he did a poor job of actually applying them to this case (or to the Trayvon Martin case). The fact is that it does NOT require just showing you feel threatened. And the prosecution in each of the cases mentioned failed to show that any of the 5 elements were not met by the defense or proven to have not been met beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
Makeitso1701 says
Would have been a different outcome if this kid was black.
Tim says
No it wouldn’t , did you watch any of the videos.
Stone says
“It would have been a different outcome if this kid was black.” – A couple of comments about that irrelevant and demonstrably false comment: wasn’t Dababy just acquitted for a self defense shooting i a Walmart? You are really making an assertion that one injustice deserves another?
The fact is, you cannot project what the outcome would have been had any material facts been different. This argument shows a terrible lack of critical thinking skills.
The dude says
And the ammosexuals rejoice!!!
They’ll probably dress up in their militia costumes and plumage and march around a little in celebration…
A.j says
You kill 2 people you file suite you win big. Sound good, the victims family should file suit against him and win big. The person that was shot should file suit also and win big.
Justice Served says
Yes. Sue an 18 year old that hasnt worked since this ordeal started and win BIG! You cant get blood from a stone, but you can get blood from little fellas that put their hands on other people.
A.j says
You can’t get blood from a turnip, but you can kill a murderer. Prove me wrong.
Dennis C Rathsam says
BECAUSE JUSTICE PREVAILED…. AND ITS NOT HOLLOWEEN!!!!
Satan's Legal Counsel says
Not to mention he was only 17 years old at the time and brandishing, illegally, across a state border from his home, an assault rifle. So there’s your new precedent folks. Get used to seeing more of this now.
Yes if this were a black 18 year old kid/man, the outcome is the opposite. That’s not a race card, that’s a fact card.
What happens next? He does it again. He may even do it as a law enforcement officer. After all, that’s what he is studying to become. So he’ll shoot and kill again, no doubt about it, and others will look at this as their reasoning to arbitrarily go around picking fights and killing too. Because, well, they’re gutless cowards.
Hell in a handbasket.
Mark says
Please show me where he did as you say “brandishing, illegally, across a state border from his home, an assault rifle.” Was he charged with said illegal activity? I guess the inept prosecutors forgot that one. “assault rifle”? You mean a semi-automatic rifle that scares you?
A fact? Prove it. Just because you say something doesn’t make it true or a fact. If I was on this jury and it was a black person I would never convict. Everybody is not a racist even thought you would like them to be.
What happens next? Life goes on.
Bob says
He was found not guilty by reason of self defense. The jury was unanimous in their decision.. He could have been black,brown or white or whatever color . He was found innocent. Our President should have said the same thing instead of fueling people’s emotions by saying he is angry and concerned. One should not go around labeling people to get votes.
The Truth says
Did you make those same comments about the former President when he added fuel to everything that occurred in our country? He created this toxic environment we live in today, but I would imagine you weren’t as vocal when he stepped out and made outrageous claims.
beachcomberT says
Biden should have said simply the jury’s verdict should be respected, as he initially did. But then he had to add a political comment, about being disturbed by the verdict, as did Harris, and now Sen. Nadler is calling for a federal investigation. Thank you, professor, for laying out the fine points of self-defense, but can we expect angry people roaming the streets, setting fires and shouting obscenities to exercise self-control. The jury did the best it could in interpreting various videos accepted as evidence. In days to come, we might learn more about the deliberations that took place. There were probably arguments among the jurors but they did announce their verdict as unanimous. Period. End of story.
beachlover says
I guess Harvard standards have be lower to a point where reason and logic is no longer a standard. Clearly the jury has spoken, the people who disagree with the verdict are pushing a narrative that most people disagree with, obviously this is political
Pope says
I had guns pulled on me 4 times when I was a PI (I didn’t carry a gun). Was I completely in the right to fight and try to get that gun out of my face each time? Yup, but I didn’t and was able to get out of each situation each time using my wits. Nobody got hurt. Every conflict is a x + y = z situation and you can only control your variable. All politics and morality aside, if you engage in conflict with someone you’re consigning to the possibility of death, a simple punch to the head can kill. All these men and this child are fools. Yes, Kyle is still a minor and brains don’t fully develop until age 25 so at least I can understand him being stupid. Those other MEN (one a child rapist BTW) could have simply handled this different. I don’t believe people are arguing about this, it’s all so stupid and obvious. A rattlesnake may not belong in my yard but if I try to punch it and I get bit and die is it the snake’s fault or my own?
Dave Czonke says
Good statement! This could have all been avoided if everyone had stayed home.
NotWoke says
American Justice System 1
Mob Justice 0
Edith Campins says
Today justice failed two unarmed Americans and every decent human being in this country.
All of you cheering for this outcome better think about it carefully. This gives permission for anyone with a grudge to come after you, even if you are unarmed, kill you and say they did it because they felt threatened. I will keep that in mind the next term I attend a school board meeting and feel “threatened” by any of the “patriots? in their pseudo military gear.
Dave Czonke says
Edith, They were not unarmed and they attacked the kid first – it’s in the sworn testimony and on video tape. You are parroting the lies put out by MSNBC and CNN. Anyone who actually watched the trial now knows why the kid was found not guilty. Be aware you are repeating lies and mis-characterizations (propaganda) put out by a media out to make money by inflaming the public. They love these riots – it protects their job security and pay checks. Every time someone is killed they make millions. They are not reporting news, they are producing cash for them and their bosses. You are being lied too!!! And that includes Fox – they are all out to make us mad at each other. Divide and Conquer!
Justice Prevails says
Yawn………. Kyle was found INNOCENT of the charges. Maybe next time when criminal rioters want to start shit, they will think twice.
Congratulation Kyle, …….. AMERICAN PATRIOT HERO
Marvin says
Hopefully Kyle will be able to successfully sue CNN, MSNBC and other liberal trash media for defamation, much like Nick Sandman. Biden is on the cusp of being sued also for insinuating he was a white nationalist. Time to turn the tables.
Steven N. Gosney says
The headline does not match the content of this article. Also, the article leaves out important details as well as making political comparisons between cases that should be judged each on their individual merits. A person accused by the state is not a political football. The author also wrongly describes the law surrounding the Zimmerman case. The Zimmerman case was a traditional self defense case, not a stand your ground case as stated by the author. Further, stand your ground does not eliminate traditional self defense but adds certain protections for accused defendants. The best coverage on this case (and the Zimmerman case) has been at legalinsurrection dot com where defense expert Andrew Branca has provided detailed coverage.
Steve Rankin says
So true on every point. Thank you.
Greg says
I’m a 71 year old man, disabled and handicapped. I have a bad heart and a hip that was shattered a year ago, and have my chest held together with clamps. Metal rods hold my hip and left leg in place. I have two artificial knees also. I am also a concealed permit holder. Never arrested in my life. I carry EVERY place i am legally able too. I will protect myself and wife against all threats of bodily harm. Even slight physical harm, such as a push to the ground could cause me severe physical damage. I pray I never have to defend myself, but will do so without a question. It would have been best that Kyle never went there. Especially with a gun. He broke no laws and was assaulted and had he life threatened. The jury felt he legally had the right to defend. He chose that right.
mark101 says
Correct, people really need to read the trial transcripts and stop listing to the slanted news and the uninformed.
Tom says
Certain things that will help get the country where it needs to be and ensure that actual American citizens are duly represented are Voter ID and a Constitutional amendment for term limits on Congress – both the House and Senate. There should be no more career politicians, and no more pensions for politicians. A politician should be a finite service to the country, not a career. Also, biden/harris should be removed from office, and the immigration laws on the books need to be enforced. That is what America needs now.
A.j says
Regardless to what you all say, we should hsve known from the get go he would be innocent. American way, Whites do whst they want to and get away with it. To one commenter, if you think Biden and Harris should be removed from office then you remove them since you are so bad. Do it the right way, vote them out of office like millions of smart Dems voted that loud mouth. lazy, no thinking poor excuse of a man, biggest liar of all times. We did it and I hope we will vote weak Trump puppet DeSantis out of office. I know we can but will we?
Paul says
Vigilantes working in concert with law officers, biased judges ?
This sounds like a tale from the 1880′- from the Wild West.
Facrually, a white teenager from out of state, joined a group of vigilanres, gathered to oppose a BLM protest, he armed himself with a military style rifle he had paid for but wasn’t legally allowed to own or carry because he was underage.
While the other armed vigilantes stayed in groups did their thing without even feeling the need to fire a shot, the teenager went off with his gun and wandered theough the hostile protesteres. He then ran alone, with his rifle, through this hostile crowd felt threatened, panicked, shot and killed someone. When people tried to disarm this active shooter he fired at them. When he tried to turn himself in to police on the scene
they declined to take action.
Then the trial judge, after declaring that underage firearm possession was somehow perfectly legal. proceeded to interrupt and harass the procecution throghout the trial while siding with the defence, and hey presto, not guilty on all charges.
Now this teenage vigilante is embraced by the gun toting far right, declared a hero.
We know the All Whitr Far Right want to roll things back to the ‘good old days’ but isn’t this a step too far ?
Ryan says
The judge declared it was legal to possess the rifle because the text of the law he was accused of violating literally says it does not apply to 16-17 year olds who are carrying a rifle or shotgun.
The judge interrupted the prosecution for doing things like trying to introduce stuff that had already been banned from the trial. Things they had asked to mention and been told no repeatedly.
Or saying that Rittenhouse not talking about that night was proof he was guilty, no big deal right, it’s not like the 5th amendment of the US Constitution matter.
Or you know withholding evidence from the defense.
There were literally multiple times the Prosecution violated the rules badly enough for the judge to just declare the trial over and Kyle was free.
But it’s not surprising you don’t know that, your story of what happened is so ludicrous it’s obvious you haven’t actually watched what happened in this case.
Debbie says
I would like to ask how many of you have Family, Friends, Co-workers, or acquaintances who have served their Country, and those of you who experienced their loss while they made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. It is the Men and Women serving our Country who have defended our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are the ones who ultimately protected our judicial system as well. However, it’s the domestic, not the foreign element that’s the threat today. Mr. Rittenhouse’s acquittal represents the people’s decision of justice. I can guarantee you that those rioting in the streets tonight are not in your circle of Family, Friends, Co-workers, or acquaintances. They represent themselves, along with their distain for what is right. It is We the People that shall always prevail.
Attorney Andrew F. Branca says
First, Professor Ronald Sullivan lifts this “5 Elements of Self-Defense Law” wholesale from my own work, without any attribution whatever–honest people call that intellectual theft, Professor Sullivan. Shame on you, sir. Is this the state of Harvard Law School academia in 2021? Harvard University has always been liberal, but when I attended at least it didn’t advocate the wholesale stealing of the intellectual work of others.
And no, merely re-ordering the elements does not mitigate the intellectual theft.
Second, Professor Sullivan is then unable to properly and competently apply the “5 Elements of Self Defense Law” analysis he so dishonestly stole from me. The element of Innocence, the doctrine of being the non-aggressor, refers to not being the first person who uses or threatens to use physical force. It does not mean a person who merely follows another without threatening or using physical force. It does not mean a person who is lawfully armed without threatening or using physical force.
Third, Professor Sullivan then compounds his mistaken legal understanding by plugging lies into analysis. This statement is an outright and demonstrable lie, and anyone using it to make legal argument without doing the work to know this is fundamentally incompetent to engage in legal analysis: “Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.” That never happened. Ever. Not once. Anyone who bothers to listen to the few minutes of 911 recording that is the ONLY conversation between the 911 operator will be unable to identify any moment in that recording when the dispatcher told Zimmerman to remain in his car. I’m happy to wager $1,000 on the issue–but presumably with something other than simple professional honor at stake the good Professor will now prudently bother to check the actual facts.
Best regards,
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Bill C says
If this is your understanding of “legal” then the laws need to be changed.
Steven N. Gosney says
Wow! A visit from Mr. Branca on the humble Flaglerlive web site! Mr. Branca delivered the best coverage by far of the trial, as I stated in an earlier post. If you want more information on either this case or the Zimmerman case, check out his postings at legalinsurrection dot com where he provided detailed coverage.
Steve Rankin says
I followed this case from Day 1. While I fully understood that I didn’t have all the facts until the trial unfolded. Even then some facts may be disallowed by the judge for trial legality reasons not because they weren’t facts. However, instead of the biased reporting of the media, I investigated other sources that provided far less biased information and review of the case. My own training in self-defense law (more than most police and attorney have) told me that Kyle was probably within his rights to exercise self-defense. On the other hand, what is painfully clear when I see a legal analysis by someone such as Harvard Professor Ronald Sullivan is that he is trying Kyle in his personal court of law based on laws of Massachusetts. Harvard is in Cambridge, Massachusetts, so this might be natural for Professor Sullivan, but a law professor should know enough to apply the laws of the land where the trial is rather than trying to impose his political views on the trial. Professor Sullivan goes so far as to refer to the George Zimmerman trial and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws were at fault. If only Florida was as archaic as Massachusetts and still had duty to retreat laws, Zimmerman might have been convicted. The fact is that stand your ground laws do not give anyone permission to shoot anyone as Professor Sullivan and the media suggest. Stand your ground laws merely allow someone to defend themselves where they are without an artificial duty to retreat, as long as they had a legal right to be there. Stand your ground laws do nothing to relieve anyone from any of the other requirements before they can use force to defend themselves. As usual, the media presentation of legal issues is biased and rarely mentions important details. Instead of pushing his narrative for a duty to retreat, Professor Sullivan should inform his readers that at least 35 states never had a duty to retreat or have abandoned a duty to retreat by statute or case law.
Art says
You quoted Binger incorrectly citing WI law as a rationale for why the Rittenhouse case flies in the face of the actual law? Have you practices law, or, you know read law? Obviously, no one who has seen the evidence in this case, heard the witnesses and watched the trial is under any confusion as to whether Kyle did, or did not, provoke any part of the conflict that night. He clearly did not.
But, assuming he did, he absolutely still can defend himself allowing for a specific criteria being met. Read WI law and see if you can figure out. It was on full display in the videos of that night. Open retreat, running away, multiple times, from multiple people, re-establishes his right to defend himself EVEN if he provoked, which he did not and clearly did not.
Not only is it unclear you’re familiar with the legal elements of WI law as it relates to self defense, or self defense generally, you also had factual errors. For example, you said Blake was unarmed. He was armed. He was also stealing a car, kidnapping children and terrorizing a woman he had previously sexually assaulted who had a restraining order out against him he ignored and she called begging for help.
When you falsely categorize the Blake case it likely means you are an activist. When you willfully neglect to display a hint of knowledge as to the Rittenhouse case, such a status is confirmed. If you’re teaching people at Harvard the fiction of your reading of any law in any state on self defense, you are doing them harm. Please do better.
Jeremiah says
Now that this case is decided, instead of debating the outcome of the case or prophesying the downfall of the country because of it, how about we discuss how to prevent it. Why was Kyle even there? To protect people and property. Why? Because those whose responsibility it was, the police, had abandoned that responsibility leaving the rioters, arsonists, and looters to have their way. If the police had been out protecting people and businesses as they were supposed and expected to do, then maybe ordinary citizens would not have felt it necessary to do their job. Another commenter stated something about a return to the wild west. The Wild West was wild because of a lack of law and an authorized enforcer of the law. Who is it that is really seeking to remove those things? The phrase “defund the police” comes to mind. There are people who believe that our system of law and order is totally corrupted and cannot be salvaged, so it must be destroyed entirely and rebuilt from scratch. While I agree that the system isn’t perfect and there is corruption, that is because the system is made up of imperfect individuals. However, the system overall is good and can be fixed. I guarantee that fixing it will be much easier and will require less suffering than destroy and rebuild. But the system is powered by WE THE PEOPLE. We have to start thinking for ourselves, not directed by a corrupt media, and voting for REAL people. There has to be an election revolution. Every politician in office right now should not be after the next election. Since trying to figure out who is corrupt and who isn’t would be difficult, just remove them all. Until and unless politicians begin to realize that we can and will replace them if there’s a hint of corruption, then there will never be a sense of urgency to represent OUR interests instead of their own. Let’s vote in the people who spend the least amount of money instead of the most.
Ray W. says
I agree with Steve Gosney that the Stand Your Ground (SYG) statutes in Florida act as a supplement to the traditional codified common law traditions of self-defense, thereby expanding the scope of traditional self-defense statutes. However, my recollection of progression of the Zimmerman trial was that the able defense team elected to forego the option of filing the normal pre-trial immunity motion afforded defendants under the SYG statutes. At the time of the Zimmerman trial, the statute placed the burden of proof on the defense (the law on burden of proof has since been changed). The defense team elected to keep Zimmerman off the stand prior to trial, so the defense team’s decision made sense to me. In this way, Steve is right. During trial, however, the defense team fully utilized all applicable provisions of the SYG act, building Zimmerman’s SYG defense from the testimony provided by the State’s witnesses, with SYG provisions supplementing the traditional self-defense provisions. In this way, Steve is partially right and partially wrong at the same time. The defense team sought and received SYG jury instructions and they zealously advocated to the jury the SYG option, including asking the jury for a verdict of not guilty by reason of SYG. Since I know Steve well enough to know that he will agree with me that no one knows why a jury does what it does, because jury deliberations are tightly guarded by the trial court and all appellate courts. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that most of the commenters on this site might be right in arguing that SYG factored into the Rittenhouse jury’s decision. On the other hand, it is also reasonable to argue that most of the commenters on this site might be wrong, because for all anyone knows the jury decided what it decided on something other than what the attorneys argued and what the judge instructed. In other words, this simply may have been a jury pardon, not a jury position on the correctness or even the applicability of the Wisconsin SYG statute. While I heard a replay of the reading of but a portion of the jury’s verdict of not guilty, the verdict as announced was a general verdict of not guilty, not a specific verdict of not guilty by a finding of certain facts necessary to support the applicability of the SYG statute. Jury pardons, while real, are very rare, with many legal experts arguing that most jury pardons occur when juries perceive the applicable law to be unfair. For all we know, the Rittenhouse jury believed he was guilty of murder, yet they decided to acquit him because they disagreed with the law as presented to them.
About 25 years ago, another prosecutor tried one of my cases when I was busy with another trial. It was a simple case, with the defendant alleged to be in possession of obscene photographs taken of one of his then-underage daughters. He had already been to prison for sexual activity with that daughter and had lived at home for several years after his release to probation when officers found Polaroids of the nude daughter in one of his dresser drawers during a search, depicting her at an age that proved the photograph had been taken prior to her father’s prison stint. I was told that he testified to the jury that he had found several of his wife’s purses in a closet after he returned home from prison; he said he emptied the contents by dumping it all in the drawer without looking at anything before throwing away the purses. After he was found not guilty by the jury, I prosecuted him on the allegation of violation of his probation, which carries a different burden of proof. The trial judge determined he had violated his probation by possessing obscene Polaroids and sentenced him to the maximum under the sentencing guidelines at that time: 9 years in prison. A year or two later, I interviewed a husband and wife as witnesses in another case. They asked me what was going to happen. I told them no one can tell why a jury does what it does and talked about the Polaroid case as an example. The husband raised his hand and told me he had served on that jury. I told him that jury deliberations were privileged and that I could not ask him to tell me what happened. He said he didn’t mind telling me and explained that the jury foreman had held up the Polaroids and said there were no smudges on the edges of the photographs and, therefore, the defendant could not have touched them after his release from prison. I talked to the trial prosecutor. He said no one raised that argument during trial. How the jury foreman persuaded five other jurors that a lack of smudges proved that no one ever touched the photographs after the defendant’s release from prison remains a stretch to me, as smudges can be wiped off. But the juror said that is what they decided. To me, possession did not require the State to provide proof that the defendant actively looked at the pictures by holding them and leaving smudges. To the jury, I guess, possession required proof of handling them, too. I did not quiz the husband on the jury’s deliberations. He said what he said and I dropped it.
Steven N. Gosney says
Hey Ray! As usual we are pretty close in agreement as to the SYG law (the law is as it is) … on Zimmerman, my understanding of the facts were that the defense theory, which was supported by physical evidence, was that Mr. Martin was on top of Mr. Zimmerman pounding Mr. Zimmerman’s head into the concrete pavement. Pounding a head into cement is deadly force. At that point, Zimmerman fired one round into the chest of Martin from below. The fact that Mr. Martin was on top of Mr. Zimmerman was supported by gunshot residue on the shirt or Martin showing that the shot was close and that the shirt was draping down away from Mr. Martin’s body. Under these facts, traditional concepts of deadly force in self defense would apply, correct?
Ray W. says
I agree with you that traditional self-defense concepts were used in the Zimmerman trial. I also think you will agree with me that the defense team blended the new SYG language into their overall argument to the jury. Why not use every legal tool available to support a broad self-defense argument? In that way, I argued that you were partially correct, as traditional self-defense arguments were raised. I simply added that SYG arguments were also used. It was no secret that the defense team, Mark O’Mara and Don West, considered the option of filing the available pre-trial motion seeking immunity from prosecution, but they apparently felt it a better tactical decision to keep Zimmerman off the stand. Full agreement on the facts as you depict them does not preclude the use of multiple self-defense arguments. In the end, the defense team zealously defended Zimmerman as they were professionally obligated to do and his voice was heard in the courtroom. Procedural due process was satisfied. Of course, no one knows exactly why the jury acquitted Zimmerman, just as no one knows why a different jury acquitted Casey Anthony. Finally, and most relevantly to this discussion, no one knows why the jury acquitted Rittenhouse. Many commenters on FlaglerLive seem to think they know why Rittenhouse was acquitted. We know the arguments that were made to the jury. We just don’t know why each juror did what he or she did.
Steven N. Gosney says
This is from Mr. Andrew Branca, who posted a response and was praised earlier by me: RE SYG in Zimmerman. The “stand-your-ground” law expands the scope of the Castle Doctrine beyond your home to every place you have a right to be. So, even if there were a safe avenue of retreat reasonably available to you, you no longer have a legal duty to attempt to make use of it before using deadly force in self-defense.
The duty to retreat itself, however, only applies where safe retreat is possible. If there is no safe avenue of retreat, there is no duty. If there is no duty, the “stand-your-ground” statute that relieves you of that duty is irrelevant.
WHY STAND-YOUR-GROUND WAS IRRELEVANT IN ZIMMERMAN CASE
This was this situation in the Zimmerman case. When George Zimmerman made the decision to use deadly force in self-defense he had already been trying to escape for at least the 45 seconds he was screaming for help and getting his head smashed into a sidewalk. There simply was no reasonably safe avenue of retreat available to him. Therefore he had no duty to retreat, and without any such duty “stand-your-ground” has no role to play in lifting that duty.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/the-marissa-alexander-case-wasnt-about-stand-your-ground-either/
Ryan says
The dispatcher never told Zimmerman to stay in the car.
The entire conversation was recorded and made public.
Zimmerman was an idiot for getting out of his truck, but he was never told or ordered not too.
He got out of his truck right after the dispatcher asked which direction Trayvon was running, and it was several seconds later when the dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following.
At that point he was only told, “We don’t need you to do that.” At that point if he moved at even average jogging speed he would have been past the point where the confrontation occurred, which means Zimmerman had to go back through the area where he encountered Trayvon to get to his truck.
Jacob Blake was also not unarmed, he has publicly stated he had the knife in his hand when shot.
You would think a law professor would take the effort to ensure the accuracy of their claims.
George Rogero says
One point I don’t see being made is if Kyle what is a “white supremacist” and or a racist and these were racially motivated shootings, setting aside the fact that all people killed or injured were white, how come the prosecutor didn’t add a single hate crime charge? With as many charges as this prosecutor came up with it would seem to me that multiple additional hate crime charges would be a slam dunk.
I also don’t understand the “the outcome would’ve been different if Kyle had been black” statement. Are you saying if the situation was reversed and a black person had been attacked by three other Black people, one who attempted to take a persons gun away and two people who attacked using deadly physical force in the form of skateboard and handgun that was illegally possessed, that victim who defended himself would’ve not had the same verdict? Really? With a 11 or12 black people on the jury?
The writer should take a class from the Law of self Defense or at least order the book that is free, you just pay for shipping and handling of less than $10.
Stephen Bozich says
“The proliferation of states that have adopted “stand your ground” laws in recent years has complicated the analysis of self-defense involving the duty to retreat.”
Quite the contrary. Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws have simplified the analysis of self-defense, insofar as it is no longer incumbent upon the defender to prove, to the satisfaction of a prosecutor reviewing the facts and circumstances from the safety of his office, that he exhausted his duty to retreat prior to using deadly force in defense of self.
If human life is sacred, then imposing such a duty places an undue burden on the defender, who must, in a few short seconds, determine if they have met a subjective legal test while simultaneously defending their life from impending assault.
SYG Laws simplify the analysis, and give individuals the confidence that their absence of retreat will not be used as a legal cudgel against them, any more than the physical cudgel that forced their hand.
There are other glaring mistakes in your piece, but I’m not remotely confident that this will published as is, so I won’t invest any more time. Nonetheless, I do want to state that for the record, should I be – pleasantly – mistaken.
Stephen Bozich says
I stand – pleasantly – corrected. I welcome the opportunity to be wrong, if for no other reason than it provides a respite from the monotony of being right.
Thank you.
That said, I’ll point out some other issues with your analysis:
“The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.”
There are various forms of “castle doctrine”. In “strong” castle doctrine states, the law presupposes that the lawful occupant of a home (or motor vehicle or work place, in states that have expanded castle doctrine to spaces outside of the home) held a reasonable fear of imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault when using force intended or likely to case death against another who has unlawfully and forcibly entered their home (or motor vehicle or work place, where applicable; for the sake of this discussion, let’s keep it limited to the home).
Alternatively, in “weak” castle doctrine states, the law simply removes the duty to retreat from the lawful occupant of a home, should someone unlawfully and forcibly enter. The law does not grant the presumption of a reasonable fear of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and thus the lawful occupant does not have the right to use deadly force, absence a clear and imminent threat.
I think it is important to draw this distinction, because “weak” castle doctrine states simply create a “Stand Your Ground” provision under the law in the home, whereas in “strong” castle doctrine states, the lawful occupant of a home enjoys the presumption of an a fear of imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault.
“In that case, Martin, 17, was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.
It remains unclear whether a fight ensued, who was the aggressor and whether Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his claims of being beaten up by Martin. Zimmerman was the sole survivor; Martin, who was unarmed, died from a gunshot wound.”
The 911 operator told Zimmerman that “he didn’t need to [follow Martin]”, not to go back to his car; although he did. As he was going back to his vehicle, the fight ensured.
I’ll concede, for the sake of argument (or rather, lack thereof) that we don’t know “who was the aggressor”, but we do know that Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, at which point the Stand Your Ground provision of Florida law become moot, because Zimmerman had no ability to retreat.
Therefore, even if Zimmerman was the aggressor (which is not an established fact, but again, I’ll concede that he may have been, so we don’t end up quibbling), his Duty To Retreat was foreclosed by Martin’s assault and subsequent position.
The only relevant questions in that case are: was Martin’s assault based on a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (I submit that the facts established in the case determine that it was not), and was Zimmerman’s use of deadly force at the time excessive (again, I’d argue that given the ferocity and unreasonableness of the assault, it was not excessive).
I think you do your readers a grave disservice by not exploring some of these legal concepts in proper detail, while also not painting an accurate picture of the facts and circumstances – established in trial – of some of the events around which these legal concepts revolve.
Ammo is becoming more expensive than a good lawyer, and frankly, I’d prefer never to have to use either in defense of myself. Individuals such as yourself have a platform and a reputation that, I believe, could go a long way towards educating the public as to why, in my opinion, both juries got these cases correct.
Instead, I see material misrepresentation of both the facts and the law, which only serves to exacerbate confusion, ignorance, and passions.
A sober explanation of how the juries arrived at their verdicts, and the law as applied (even if you disagree with it), would go a long way towards having to have these discussions in the future.
Ray W. says
Reasonable minds may differ on whether the proliferation of different SYG statutes in the various states have simplified or further complicated the laws surrounding the ancient concept of self-defense.
Given the fact that the person wishing to preserve a self-defense argument under many of the different versions of the SYG statute adopted by the various states is better off by deciding in advance to kill his or her “assailant” in order to keep a different voice from being heard in the courtroom, is it reasonable to argue that modern SYG statutes are better described as “legislatively sanctioned premeditated murder acts.” If an “assailant” survives the encounter, he or she can oppose the defendant’s version of what happened in the courtroom. Judges might find it difficult to grant a motion seeking pre-trial immunity from prosecution where the sworn facts surrounding the incident are disputed by an “assailant” and a “defendant.” Fact-finding is the traditional job assigned to jurors, not to judges. Hence, once people figure out that they need to decide in advance to kill their “assailant”, in order to silence the “assailant’s” voice, the issue becomes one of premeditation. Once the “assailant” is dead, the defendant can make up any story he or she wants in order to fit the requirements of the SYG statute and no one can dispute their version. In that sense, Steven Bozich is correct that the SYG statutes have simplified the issue of self-defense. Decide in advance to kill your “assailant” and then make up whatever facts you want to present to investigating officers and the court and you gain immunity from prosecution, unless other witnesses and/or physical evidence, including video- or audio-recordings, contradict the made-up facts. Is it reasonable to argue that lying and premeditation takes precedence under the new SYG statute?. With the prosecution now saddled with the burden of proof under “improved” versions of the SYG act, it becomes even more difficult to get the facts of an incident to a jury.
I remain concerned about Steven Bozich’s assertion that human life is sacred under these statutes. Is it possible that Steven Bozich is completely wrong in his belief? As an example of proof that Steven Bozich might be completely wrong in his belief, one of the first SYG cases in Florida dating from about 15 years ago (I posted a comment about this case some time ago) involved a man who participated in a bar fight. He and his two buddies were ejected. Apparently, they stayed in their car in the parking lot until the opponent left the bar. After the shooting death of the opponent, the shooter and his two buddies claimed that the opponent ran up to their car as they drove through the parking lot. The opponent allegedly reached through an open back driver’s side window to grab one of the trio and the front seat passenger shot and killed him. Reaching through a motor vehicle window with intent to commit any crime is a qualifying violent felony under the SYG statutes. No independent witnesses. A dead “assailant”, so no opposing voice in the courtroom. No video-recording of the parking lot. The trial judge expressed his skepticism about the truthfulness of the stories that were presented to him, as did the appellate court, but the ruling was based on the only testimony available to the trial court. Both the trial court and the appellant court were of the opinion that the new statute compelled them to rule the way they ruled.
Shortly after this opinion was released, a case arising from Sarasota came out. I posted a comment about this case, too. An officer was doing paperwork in his parked cruiser when he heard shots ring out. He responded to a small community bar located in a residential neighborhood and spotted a man laying on the roadway. After the initial check, he ran back to his cruiser to collect emergency medical equipment. All the while, he was calling in information to help other responding units. Before he got back to the dying man, a crowd from the bar surrounding the wounded figure and refused to allow anyone to approach to dying man. Once the dying man breathed his last, the crowd melted away. Investigators collected spent casings from four different guns. While law enforcement formed a theory that the deceased man, an outsider to the community, was killed by a local man in a dispute over a drug debt, no one would talk to the detectives to support their theory. The defendant asserted SYG self-defense. Lacking any testimony from an opposing voice, the appellate court voiced its concern about the truthfulness of the defendant’s testimony but was compelled to grant immunity under the statute.
Can an argument be made and supported that it didn’t take very long for some individuals to figure out how to manipulate the new SYG statutes? I have long argued that any legal theory that is crafted by a legislature can be exploited and abused by those who want to use it to hurt someone else. I guess people will continue to find ways to kill others in the name of self-defense, only the legislature has made it easier for them to do so. All they need to know is how necessary it is for them to kill their “assailant”, thereby silencing their “assailant’s” voice, and hope there are no other witnesses or video-recordings. If there are other witnesses and/or video-recordings to contradict the defendant’s story, perhaps his or her untruthful story, then a jury has to sort it all out. Even little children intuitively know how to blame someone else for what they did. How hard is it for an adult, who may have had a lifetime of practice blaming others for what they routinely do, to come up with a story that will provide immunity to murder?
John says
I find it interesting that much of Professor Sullivan’s post appears to be derived without attribution from Andrew Branca, The Law of Self-Defense, now in its third edition. Specifically, the five principles of self-defense listed by Professor Sullivan are exactly what Mr. Branca has been presenting for some time now and are stated in language similar to his. Yet nowhere does Professor Sullivan indicate a source for his own list, least of all Mr. Branca’s work.
There are also inaccuracies in Professor Sullivan’s summary of the Zimmerman case. Professor Sullivan does not appear to understand stand your ground doctrine, which simply relieves a person from the necessity to retreat from a location where they may lawfully be prior to the use of deadly force in self-defense. All other requirements for self-defense use deadly force continue to apply. Further, Zimmerman was not following Martin. He moved from his vehicle to look around a building to determine if Martin was still in sight, then returned to his vehicle. It was there that Martin attacked Zimmerman, eventually winding up sitting astride Zimmerman, whose head he pounded against the cement sidewalk until Zimmerman fired a single shot. Zimmerman’s injuries were entirely consistent with deliberately inflicted head trauma.
Professor Sullivan should at least apologize to Mr. Branca for using the latter’s analytic framework without attribution. He should perhaps also be a little less cavalier about his fact checking in the future.
Steve Rankin says
If you didn’t know that Kyle put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.
If you didn’t know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
If you didn’t know that Kyles Dad, Grandma and Friends all lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time in Illinois.
If you didn’t know that Joseph Rosenbaum knocked him down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head. (Later determined it wasn’t Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum screamed threats and grabbed barrel of Rittenhouse gun)
If you didn’t know that Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard.
I didn’t know Gaige Grosskreutz, a felon in possession of firearm, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he admitted on the stand.
If you also didn’t know that in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).
If you didn’t know that Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do.
If you also didn’t realize that Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater. I didn’t know that Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also.
Then you must have gotten your information about this case from the media, which is a sure-fire way to be misinformed.
Is is a coincidence that the 100% of those Kyle shot had criminal records? Probably not. Could that possibly reflect on the criminal makeup of the other people involved in the riots? Absolutely.
If you believe that skateboards, fists, feet, and even Glocks don’t count as deadly weapons, then you don’t understand the law – or the fact that ordinary items and feet and fists kill thousands.
Pogo says
@Duh AmeriKKKan way
Lots of sound and fury; weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs. The gun nuts converge with their talking points in ammo cans. The feverish paranoia and sweaty anger at real and imagined enemies condenses in a cloud of gunsmoke, body odor and the smell of death. The river of blood flows:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gun+deaths+by+country
War stories, real and imagined, fill the hours. People on every side, who have prospered from the status quo, pontificate and prate.
The merchants and the undertakers silentlty smile and agree it’s been another good day:
Where did the money go?
https://www.google.com/search?q=record+gun+sales
Come on in.
https://www.google.com/search?q=record+prices+for+funerals
And so it goes.
A.j says
Someone commented that we should do what the cops say, so we will not get shot. That is a very good statement, but being Black and hated are some reasons Black men are shot and killed by cops. Thus country has always tried to keep people of color under control they are still doing that today. For those of you that are glad that this fat face white murderer was a quite on all charges, would you think different had it been your child that he murdered? Something to think about. The truth is he has to live with his actions. No Black person has to live with his pass murders THANK GOD. I do believe had he been Black and killed those two white men they would have found him guilty of all charges. The victims were white so that tells me that a white man csn and will kill anybody and get away free. This justice system is telling white men that they can now kill at will and the law will protect them. Kill anybody white men and don’t let Black people vote, and buy property, and live in nice places, and get an education. Ban Bkack authors books round up and put every black male in prison, sound like Jim Crowe to me.
Mythoughts says
We all witnessed a Mickey Mouse Judge not allow the prosecutors to submit evidence, we all witnessed the Judge takes sides through the whole trial, he kept leaning the jury. That wasn’t a fair trial and that clown Judge should be removed from the bench.
The Trump Cult now claims he is a hero since they are promoting gun violence since the NRA constantly donates money to their campaigns.
Matt Gaetz now wants to hire a kid as an intern so he can teach him how to rape under age girls and drug them across state lines like he did with an assault weapons. The evil always seems to stick together without any signs of morals or qualifications as a person with good character.
Thank God my Mother taught me and my siblings respect, honesty, treat all people as we want to be treated. Not to judge others that is no one right.
Kyle was raised by someone that obviously had a horrible upbringing as he is having now.
palmcoaster says
The verdict just sickening giving license to kill under the pretension of self defense. A killer let loose to kill again. No one is safe now.
A.j says
Men of color it is time for is to gun up and gon down. Regardless of what we do, we are suspicious, fit the description, they are uncomfortable by us and they feel threatened. They are so bold to ask us do we live in a certain area my response is do you live here. It us not their business where I live. They call the cops and they ask for our I.D. What ashamed. We as black have to always prove ourselves even if we walk in our own neighborhood. What a country.
YankeeExPat says
I liked Wisconsin when it was known for Cheese, not for this shithead !
clint says
Who outlined the “five central concepts” of self defense?
ReiverLaw says
Dear writer.
I hope you read this comment section, and understand the influence that you have over people’s ideas of right and wrong.
As a Harvard Law prof, surely you have the responsibility to do some due diligence and understand the case.
It is quite clear that you did not watch the trial.
If you saw videos, it is quite clear that you do NOT understand self defence law.
So far I have found three reasons to get something wrong.
1. Ignorance – you don’t know what is going on but decided to speak on it anyway, highly irresponsible.
2. Cowardice – you are being told what to say and are too meek of character to go against that, pitiful.
3. Malice – you have seen everything, and know you the answer, but have chosen to mislead people purposefully, disgusting.
In my honest opinion, I would never want to be taught by someone like this, because I would come out to be an UNETHICAL lawyer.
There is a lack of social responsibility in this article. There is no good outcome to posting this, because all it will do, AND HAS DONE is misinform people to the point that that do not know the truth in LAW – which is strange coming from a professor of law. Think of the consequences, or if you can’t do that for yourself (of which I have zero confidence in your ability to think) read the comment section and understand that people think that now they have license to do what YOU said happened, and be acquitted.
For those in the comment section, I don’t want you to go to another lawyer and see their opinion, just WATCH THE TRIAL.
Regards, from one of the thousands of law students that seems to either understand the law more accurately than a professor, or someone that has some accountability and responsibility, you can choose.
Stay safe everyone, and be diligent.