Kyle Rittenhouse's reckless endangerment charge

Question

Kyle Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum four times, killing him. He was charged with murder for this, and also reckless endangerment because Richie McGuinness was some distance behind Rosenbaum. If he is acquitted of murder due to a self-defense justification, can he still be convicted of reckless endangerment? I mean any shot that endangered McGuinness must have gone through Rosenbaum. I guess the question is can there be a self-defense justification for reckless endangerment?

I'm interested both in this case and in the general case.

Answer 1

Each individual shot leading to death has to be justified for an affirmative defense to murder to hold. If each individual shot is justified, that is also an affirmative defense to any other charge related to firing the shots, like reckless endangerment. It is impossible to murder a person who is already dead, so in theory a shot could not be justified, but was fired after Rosenbaum was already dead and so only proves guilt of reckless endangerment, not murder. I doubt that that line of reasoning will be used in this case but it is theoretically possible.

Answer 2

I guess the question is can there be a self-defense justification for reckless endangerment?

If Kyle Rittenhouse established that his shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum was justified by self-defense, this would not necessarily mean that the reckless endangerment charge involving Richie McGuinness would automatically be dismissed. Each would be assessed individually.

It could be that a jury inclined to acquit Rittenhouse of self-defense would find that Rittenhouse did not recklessly endanger McGuinness, but that is a fact specific determination.

It wouldn't take many questions to establish the reckless endangerment charge without the murder conviction.

Q to Rittenhouse (assuming he testifies): "When you took aim at Rosenbaum did you look to see if anyone else in Rosenbaum's vicinity who did not pose a threat to you or others present was nearby?"

A from Rittenhouse (assuming he testifies): "No."

Q: "So you didn't perceive that McGuinness was a threat to you or anyone else, did you?"

A: "No."

Q: "Do you agree that if you waited two seconds before firing upon Mr. Rosenbaum that Mr. McGuinness, who testified earlier that he was running at a right angle to your line of fire, would have been out of your line of fire?"

A: "Yes."

Q: "Did you believe that Mr. Rosenbaum was armed with a firearm?"

A: "No."

Q: "Was the threat that you perceived was presented by Mr. Rosenbaum to your life or the life of others so imminent that you couldn't have waited two more seconds before firing to protect other people's lives?"

A: "No."

Who knows what the testimony will be at trial. But, if those questions were answered in this way, the reckless endangerment charge would be established, even if Rittenhouse were acquitted of murder on the grounds of self-defense or defense or others.

Answer 3

can there be a self-defense justification for reckless endangerment?

The answer to that question is yes. Wisconsin statute 939.48(3) says:

The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

It would not be a defense to reckless homicide or reckless injury, but reckless endangerment is not on the list, so it would be a defense.

Also, even though it wouldn't be a defense to reckless homicide or reckless injury, recklessness has an unreasonableness standard, and what the jury decides is unreasonable will be in the context of the defendant's life-or-death situation.