- The self-defense case re Rosenbaum is based on whether a reasonable person could believe that Rosenbaum was (a) grabbing for the gun and (b) would have used it to shoot Rittenhouse if he had gotten it, versus he was not grabbing for the gun, or he was grabbing for the gun just to disarm Rittenhouse and he would not have used the gun himself. IOW, was the unarmed Rosenbaum defending himself against the armed Rittenhouse? (Will the prosecutor lay it out like that in his closing argument?) That’s a good argument, because it is not clear “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Rosenbaum was not grabbing the gun or would not have used it. Nevertheless, the defense should have had a backup plan – having an expert witness dispel the myth that you can’t shoot an unarmed man because an unarmed man does not present “deadly force.” The expert should have educated the jury that 6-700 people a year are killed by people who are unarmed vs. maybe half that by people with AR15s. Because the defense did not bring it up, the prosecutor is likely to raise it in his closing argument.
