General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Rittenhouse verdict should not have been a surprise [View all]Jedi Guy
(3,185 posts)In any trial the prosecution has to prove the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. But with this trial, they had to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a significant hurdle. The way WI's self-defense statute is worded, the only way the prosecution could undermine it was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse went there with the specific intent to provoke people into attacking him so he could shoot them.
That might be why they resorted to taking risks like mischaracterizing what the video evidence showed, skating right up to the line of violating Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights, and trying to sneak in evidence that the judge had forbidden.
Also, the prosecution's own witnesses didn't help their case. One of them was another person who showed up to the protests with a gun, and his testimony characterized Rosenbaum as hyperaggressive, hostile, unstable, etc. When Gaige Grosskreutz was cross-examined, he admitted to inadvertently pointing his gun at Rittenhouse prior to being shot in the arm. When the prosecution's witnesses are giving testimony that aids the defense, they're in trouble.