I guess the question is can there be a self-defense justification for
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?"
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?"
Q: "Did you believe that Mr. Rosenbaum was armed with a firearm?"
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?"
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.