Andrew HavranekVerified account

Chirafisi said the only logical conclusion - if they were convicted - is that the defendant had utter disregard for human life if self defense isn't accepted.

The judge will NOT allow the jury to consider 2nd degree reckless homicide in addition to the 1st degree reckless homicide charge

We're now discussing Cout 2, which is the first degree reckless endangerment of Richie McGinniss, who was standing near the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum. State wants the jury to be allowed to consider 2nd degree here as well.

Chirafisi objects, saying that it has to be the same for McGinniss, saying there were no wild shots. Kraus argues saying not all four shots went into Rosenbaum, as one grazed Rosenbaum's head. Judge is gonna consider it, but said his inclination is in favor of allowing this

But he said not to be terribly surprised if he doesn't.

Now we are talking about the fourth charge: which is 'jump kick man' FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON The state wants 2nd degree considered here too.

Chirafisi said it's not a logical argument. he thinks the appropriate argument is that they're going to accept self defense or not. Chirafisi doesn't buy the argument that Rittenhouse wasn't showing utter disregard for human life just because he missed or stopped shooting

Judge: I don't think there is a dispute in the evidence in regards to jump kick man. Video depicts he kicked the accused in the head, and he fired and missed. What ground could the jury convict him on the lesser and not the greater?

Kraus: I think the first degree is the appropriate charge, but a jury could ask why did he stop firing?

Judge: What the defendant was doing, firing a gun at a human being. He didn't allege he wasn't firing at him. Why he was engaged in it. He gave his reasons. I don't think the state disputes them. What he was doing was purposeful.

He was doing it to prevent the man from attacking him and the state said the man had the right to attack him. Kraus argues Rittenhouse testified he didn't know it was dangerous.

This is what Kraus is arguing.https://twitter.com/Andrew_Havranek/status/1458550849232384007?s=20 …

Judge will not allow the instruction on the lesser charge for the reckless endangerment for jump kick man.

I've deleted two tweets to correct an oversight on my part. I was reading the wrong charge. Here's the correct info:

Now we're on this charge: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON for killing Anthony Huber. The state wants the jury to be able to consider several lesser charges here, including 2nd degree intentional

The defense is not objecting to 2nd degree intentional or 1st degree reckless for this charge, is objecting to 2nd degree reckless. "2nd Degree Reckless doesn't fit" - Chirafisi

Now we're on to ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON for injuring Gaige Grosskreutz. Judge is going to consider the lesser charges, says he's inclined to agree with ADA James Kraus' arguments as to why.

Chirafisi objected to the reckless aspect of the lesser charges because he doesn't believe you can "attempt" a reckless act. Again, judge said he's inclined to agree with Kraus

Now they're discussing POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18. I missed some of the initial discussion here, but they're arguing about evidence being submitted here. Kraus said the defense had every opportunity to measure the barrel of the gun.

Judge said that burden isn't on the defense, Kraus agrees, but said that issue was never raised. This is a charge the defense has wanted thrown out.

Chirafisi said it's a violation if you're under 18 and possess a short barrel shotgun or rifle OR are in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304. Said that only applies to 16 or younger. "It can't apply to him because of his age."

"This statue doesn't apply t 16 and 17 year olds, period." Judge said the motion to dismiss attacks the complaint, which is why he denied the motion. Judge said state has to prove he was under 18, AND the barrel length was not allowed by law.

State does not believe defense never raised the issue of the barrel length, saying the state doesn't have to prove that.

Chirafisi now explaining that he's not focusing on the hunting part of the statute. "If you're 16 or 17, there is an exception to possess a firearm. Semicolon. Done."

Kraus said there is no ambiguity. Richards and Schroeder's faces nearly identical with frustration

Schroeder: "I know there are a lot more brighter judges in this world than me" as he said he wrestles with this specific statute.

Kraus said there was testimony that made clear that under 18 can not possess a dangerous weapon. Said Dominick Black and Dominick Black's stepfather both knew Rittenhouse couldn't have the gun.

Schroeder asks how ordinary people supposed to know what's against the law. Kraus said 2a is very clear in the statute.

Judge said his intention is to instruct on what's submitted, said state can go back through the evidence submitted to see if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt about this charge

Right now they're discussing provokation. This is the argument that was made yesterday about the enlarged photos. State said Rittenhouse raised his gun first, as they claim can be seen in that enlarged photo.