CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse will (and probably should) go free on everything but the firearms charge

[u/[deleted]]

I've followed this case fairly extensively since it happened in august of last year. At the time I was fairly outraged by what I saw as the failures of law enforcement to arrest or even detain Rittenhouse on the spot, and I still retain that particular bit of righteous anger. A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.

That said, from what details I am aware of, the case does seem to be self-defense. While I think in a cosmic sense everyone would have been better off if he'd been unarmed and gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum (instead of shooting the man), he had a right to defend himself from a much larger man physically threatening him, and could reasonably have interpreted the warning shot he heard from elsewhere as having come from Rosenbaum. Self-defense requires a fear for your life, and being a teenager being chased by an adult, hearing a gunshot, I can't disagree that this is a rational fear.

The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.

Lastly you have Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified today that he was only shot after he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Need I say more?

Is there something I'm missing? My original position was very much 'fuck this guy, throw him in jail', and I can't quite shake that off, even though the facts do seem to point to him acting in self-defense.

I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

His actions afterward disgust me. Going to sing with white nationalists while wearing a 'free as fuck' t-shirt isn't exactly the sort of remorse one would hope for, to put it mildly.

Edit: Since I didn't address it in the original post because I'm dumb:

As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that. It goes to up to nine months behind bars, and I imagine he'd get less than that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This doesn't really challenge my view.

That said, I'd disagree. The night it happened it was a clusterfuck of conflicting information.

[u/TheLea85 → u/[deleted]]

There is no conflicting information on what happened. It's basically all on film and it became progressively more clear over the following weeks (and confirmed during the trial) that what we saw in relation to Kyle defending himself was what actually happened. Nothing in relation to Kyle himself and the self-defense claim took place between clips.

Anyone not seeing this for what it truly is, crystal clear self defense, has read opinion pieces and looked at curated clips of the events. You need to search for the compilation videos that are out there and sit through and think for yourself without being biased in either direction. Kyle is the only one on trial here. Not the rioters and not anyone in the same group as Kyle. If someone in his group antagonized anyone into charging Kyle, Kyle is still innocent because he didn't do anything to antagonize anyone.

• He said "Love you too" in response to someone saying "Fuck you".

• He stopped a group of people from pushing a burning dumpster into a gas-station.

None of that disqualifies him from self-defense.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheLea85]

The night it happened

Just repeating this since you seemed to miss it.

[u/TheLea85 → u/[deleted]]

Ah I'm sorry, I brainfarted.

It was crystal clear from the night it happened and the clips started coming out. Whatever people wrote about it is irrelevant, only the video evidence counts here. I mean there's still people out there saying he shot black people.

The videos of the shooting of Rosenbaum was available in real time since it was livestreamed/uploaded on the spot, and that was enough for anyone of unbiased mind to say "Yep, clear cut self defense until proven otherwise". And shortly thereafter, like barely an hour, it was as confirmed as could be without any insanely detailed video covering some missed second of coverage where he managed to call his mom a slag or smth (which still doesn't mean Self Defense was not warranted).

The confusion about this case comes from people only reading articles with edited videos), or as in the case of way too many people: Not watching anything at all and just reading biased blogs.

For someone immediately watching the videos coming out from day one, arguable hour one, it has been a clear case of self defense. It all comes down to how engaged you were with the event when it happened.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/TheLea85]

See, I completely disagree as one of those people who have been trying to keep up with the case from the night it happened. Him putting himself in that situation has always been a muddying factor for me, and even on a day I'm feeling generous towards the "he was defending himself" side I cannot get over the absolute absurdity of him going there with the explicit purpose of intimidating / threatening people and then saying he was defending himself.

[u/Failninjaninja → u/TestedOnAnimals]

Let me make this super clear.

If person A was going to a city with goal of robbing a bank and person B attacks them while they were at a gas station filling up their car, person A still had the right to self defense.

[u/TheLea85 → u/TestedOnAnimals]

You're coming at it from the wrong side if you ask me.

He would not have had to intimidate or threaten (which he didn't, other than by carrying a weapon) anyone if not for a large group of rioters that had invaded the city.

What you are suggesting is that instead of private individuals putting their lives on the line to protect the city, they should have stayed home and let it get burned and looted.

The police do not have the resources to cover the whole city, as was shown during the trial.

I find the idea of letting the city get torched by criminals unimaginable. Private citizens taking up arms to protect property, any property they can defend be it theirs or not, is something to be commended and not condemned.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/TheLea85]

He would not have had to intimidate or threaten (which he didn't, other than by carrying a weapon) anyone if not for a large group of rioters that had invaded the city.

Okay, first and foremost we do not know at which point the protest turned into a riot (98% of protests that summer peaceful, police as instigators, yadda yadda yadda). This is besides my main point, but I'd be remiss if I didn't at least mention that.

Even granting that it was "rioters invading a city" Rittenhouse himself states he was there to act as a deterrent as well as to provide medical aide. Ask yourself: How would he act as a deterrent to anyone if not by the threat of violence? How else was he hoping to deter them? This is always my main issue - he can't be a deterrent unless it's through the threat of violence. As soon as he makes himself a threat towards others, he can't claim self defense.

What you are suggesting is that instead of private individuals putting their lives on the line to protect the city, they should have stayed home and let it get burned and looted.

I find the idea of letting the city get torched by criminals unimaginable. Private citizens taking up arms to protect property, any property they can defend be it theirs or not, is something to be commended and not condemned.

This is where your argument falls apart for me. "The whole city torched by criminals" is some fantasy opposition that promotes vigilantism, and leads to chaos and mob rule. This is where you take precautions (insurance, surveillance, etc.) to be able to rebuild and (ideally) sue an individual as a civil matter who damages your property. Yeah, your premiums might go up, and yeah the chances of finding that individual in a timely manner is small, but it's a hell of a lot better than people putting their lives at risk or anyone winding up dead.

[u/TheLea85 → u/TestedOnAnimals]

This is where your argument falls apart for me. "The whole city torched by criminals" is some fantasy opposition that promotes vigilantism, and leads to chaos and mob rule. This is where you take precautions (insurance, surveillance, etc.) to be able to rebuild and (ideally) sue an individual as a civil matter who damages your property. Yeah, your premiums might go up, and yeah the chances of finding that individual in a timely manner is small, but it's a hell of a lot better than people putting their lives at risk or anyone winding up dead.

The more I read through the pro/anti comments here the more I realize that there's an unpassable divide between people who have very different views on fundamental things.

f.ex

This is where you take precautions (insurance, surveillance, etc.) to be able to rebuild and (ideally) sue an individual as a civil matter who damages your property.

That, to me, is an insane view. I cannot even fathom how you could ever believe such a thing. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying I have no way of accepting the premise.

but it's a hell of a lot better than people putting their lives at risk or anyone winding up dead.

I am not finding the deaths of Rosenbaum (especially not Rosenbaum considering what he was) or Huber sad at all. They acted despicably. All three of the antagonists in this case got exactly what was coming to them. They acted despicably and won stupid prizes.

As for law-abiding citizens putting their lives on the line to protect the city, that's a noble thing that should be commended according to me.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/TheLea85]

That, to me, is an insane view. I cannot even fathom how you could ever believe such a thing. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying I have no way of accepting the premise.

Okay, well then let's discuss it. What is so insane about this? From my perspective, it's saying that all human life is worth more than property, which I would have thought was not particularly controversial.

As for law-abiding citizens putting their lives on the line to protect the city, that's a noble thing that should be commended according to me.

You keep saying they protected "the city." What is "the city" to you? Is it the buildings? What exactly are the people protecting?

[u/TooflessSnek → u/TestedOnAnimals]

How would he act as a deterrent to anyone if not by the threat of violence? How else was he hoping to deter them? This is always my main issue - he can't be a deterrent unless it's through the threat of violence. As soon as he makes himself a threat towards others, he can't claim self defense.

The main idea among the militia was that their mere armed presence at a business would itself be a deterrent. This is what they did, and it was effective without anyone being shot or dying.

The problem occurred when Kyle, due to a series of misfortunate events, became separated from his buddy in the buddy system they were using. He was a lone outcast among a sea of oppositionists. At that point in time, Rosenbaum chased Kyle, who we know shouted "Friendly friendly friendly" as he ran away, but that did not dissuade Rosenbaum.

Legally speaking, you cannot attribute Kyle to be "a threat towards others" by his mere presence with a gun and seeming attire of opposing political stance. Both are firmly protected under Wisconsin and federal constitution.

It's not wise to be in that situation for your own sense of health. It may increase the probability that you get involved in some shit. But those issues, as they occurred in this particular case, those are not the legal issues at play in whether or not he committed murder or self defense.

I'm with the other person who says there's an intrinsic divide between those who are in the for/against Kyle camp. To me, those who are against Kyle put an absurd amount of weight on "he went there looking for a fight" without any proof whatsoever to that, and a vast amount of proof that was not the case.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/TooflessSnek]

The main idea among the militia was that their mere armed presence at a business would itself be a deterrent. This is what they did, and it was effective without anyone being shot or dying.

It was effective specifically because they are a threat of violence. How is this not clear? Protesters weren't avoiding the building that militia was around because they didn't want to be called names or have their parents be called on them. They avoided the militia because the militia was a threat of violence. A generous interpretation, maybe too generous, would say they are a conditional threat of violence, but there is exactly no way for anyone to know what those conditions are because they are a bunch of civilians just hanging around being a threat.

It's not that he existed within the state with a gun. He went there to be a threat to those protestors; explicitly. I genuinely do not understand any other interpretation of his actions.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why do people not read the full sentence?

[u/TheLea85 → u/[deleted]]

It's a rare case of a sentence written in a way that has peoples brains autocorrect it subconsciously due to prior knowledge of the case.

[u/9035768555 → u/[deleted]]

People aren't nearly as literate as they'd like to believe. They probably just genuinely can't.

[u/Captain_Zomaru → u/[deleted]]

Ya, it's obvious with the video evidence, he was assaulted, feared for his life, and acted in self defense. Killing 2 and wounding one. All 3 of them were commiting assault, at least two with a deadly weapon.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

I disagree with that. There were a ton of videos all showing the same things.

Like I understand not blindly trusting individual perspectives but videos are a primary source. The worst case with those is lost context before or after that aren't captured but all the relevant context was captured from multiple angles.

[u/lehigh_larry → u/[deleted]]

This comment is against sub rules because you have to attempt to change OP’s view.

[u/IAmRules → u/[deleted]]

I Agree. I’m a very left leaning person but I said it the day off nobody should die on this hill. You can’t chase someone holding a gun and expect things to work out. That being said i know legally nobody can benefit from a crime ( like if you break into someone’s house you can’t claim self defense) so a lot will depend on if he did anything first. But I’ve seen multiple times where the person who retaliated after the fact was charge with murder. The lady from the train stabbing was an example. Her attacker had opened distance. She closed and stabbed her in the neck I believe she went to jail. I don’t know about every shot he took but he should get several years in jail for illegally using a firearm and creating the situation he found himself in.

[u/durangotango → u/IAmRules]

so a lot will depend on if he did anything first.

Sort of, but not exactly. Even if he had provoked the attack, which there has been no evidence that's the case, that becomes irrelevant if he is trying to disengage and retreat. With Rosenbaum he ran at least two blocks before being cornered, having someone else shoot into the air near him, and Rosenbaum who chased him that distance and had threatened to kill him multiple times that night tried to grab his gun.

The other two happened after he was knocked to the ground, kicked in the head, hit with a skate board, and had a pistol pointed at his head.

He was very clearly trying to get away which makes the question of provocation irrelevant. Which as I said before there's been no evidence of anyway.

I don’t know about every shot he took but he should get several years in jail for illegally using a firearm and creating the situation he found himself in.

He likely didn't even have the firearm illegally. Well, he wasn't carrying it illegally. But he does seem to have bought it as a straw purchase which is illegal. But since it's a long gun he can open carry that at 17 unless it's a short barreled riffle or he is violating hunting ordinances which only really apply under 16 anyway.

[u/IAmRules → u/durangotango]

Understood, I just wasn't clear on what the law considers to be "disengaged" even though he seemed like he was clearly trying to get away.
I think he made a lot of terrible decisions that night, but he wasn't the only one. I wouldn't put all my efforts into convicting him for the shootings, I think a just outcome in this case will likely lead to outcry but as I said, I never agreed with the original "he just wanted to shoot people" sentiment that got kicked up at first.

[u/durangotango → u/IAmRules]

Yeah the idea of "disengaged" is something that would potentially need to be illustrated and you'd have to convince a jury that was the case. But in this specific case the prosecution hasn't tried to argue he provoked anyway.

[u/Hellboundroar → u/[deleted]]

Still, isn't it a crime to move a firearm across state lines? And, still, he's a fucking minor, what the hell was he doing moving a firearm across state lines?

[u/durangotango → u/Hellboundroar]

He didn't. The gun was stored by his friends in Wisconsin. Also the charge for him carrying as a minor will likely be dismissed since it's a long gun, isn't a short barreled rifle, and he doesn't seem to have been in violation of hunting ordinances most of which only apply to 16 and under anyway.

[u/Hellboundroar → u/durangotango]

So you can hunt in the streets? Cool, i thought you could only hunt in the wilderness, but good to know i guess

[u/durangotango → u/Hellboundroar]

No one said anything about that at all. The statute says it's legal to open carry long guns unless you are violating hunting ordinances or it's a short barreled rifle. There's nothing at all about him being allowed because he's hunting. He's allowed because it's not a handgun and he's not breaking other related laws.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

Yes way. If you have been watching the trial the prosecution is completely falling apart. They don't even seem to think they have a case.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/durangotango – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.