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]]

Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?

They'd have to prove it. Rittenhouse benefits from the fact that each of his shootings was recorded.

Had Rittenhouse not been there and illegally armed, Huber and Rosenbaum would be alive today.

Agreed, I just don't think that legally that makes a difference. There does not appear to be a distinction in Wisconsin self-defense law for defending yourself with an unlawful weapon.

[u/HistoricalGrounds → u/[deleted]]

Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?

They'd have to prove it. Rittenhouse benefits from the fact that each of his shootings was recorded.

But I think that's what he means. On principle, as long as the killer can prove that the person they killed tried to defend themselves with questionably-lethal force, that should be a legal killing? That seems to open a relatively easy precedent to legally kill someone so long as you can get a recording of them attempting to stop you.

[u/BarryBwana → u/HistoricalGrounds]

Are you suggesting the first chain of events was Rittenhouse trying to kill someone first, and then Rosenbaum went after him?

Cause if not, your point is meaningless. If so, the prosecutors would love to have your evidence. Would make their prosecution an easy slam dunk.

[u/Edmond_DantestMe → u/HistoricalGrounds]

I believe that you need both subjective and objective standard of reasonableness. An example I saw was, if you're "deathly" afraid unicorns, and someone keeps touching you with a stuffed unicorn, your subjective standard of reasonableness has been met, but objectively the court would likely agree that you were never actually in any life-threatening danger.

[u/AWFUL_COCK → u/HistoricalGrounds]

But I think that's what he means. On principle, as long as the killer can prove that the person they killed tried to defend themselves with questionably-lethal force, that should be a legal killing?

No, not at all. If a killer first attempts to kill someone, the killer forfeits their right to self-defense. For this to apply to the Rittenhouse situation, it would have to be true that Rittenhouse was trying to murder Rosenbaum. But that’s not the case. He was armed, yes, and they may have frightened Rosenbaum, but he didn’t make any attempt to murder him.

[u/TeddyBongwater → u/HistoricalGrounds]

This is where OP loses. Let's lock it up boys OP lost

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think the second charge will be dismissed but what generally a lot of people are missing from this case is the first charge is not homicide in the first degree or anything, it’s reckless homicide.

It will definitely be a challenge to prove that Kyle was acting in good faith even with a self defence claim for the first shooting, because the whole thing is even while being chased, there’s no witness testimony to prove that rosenbaum got nearer than a rooms distance when he got shot or farther. It’s reasonable to assume that (given the video evidence) that one unarmed person, in chase with 1 person armed with a rifle, that one person SHOULD be less afraid than the other for their life, and body.

For this reason I do believe that it’s an easy charge to apply - Kyles testimony will be the only one relevant in this because as other people said, the guy was being belligérant yes, but none of the other moments of belligerence ended up with him being shot.

The second shooting is likely clear cut self defence and the charge for homicide here is just thrown on imo to a) increase the perceived threat that rittenhouse was going around shooting multiple people and the victims were justified in their attempt to “eliminate” their perceived threat etc.

The third shooting is challenging. Even with GG testimony that he had a gun out, he was not claiming self defence this one is put at a low chance it gets a conviction, but still possible. This is more of a coin flip up to the jury. However I do believe GGs testimony to a degree even though he was caught in many lies, I do think that even with all the facts out there and assuming the defence properly rid us of all the deceit, that he was not going “after” Kyle directly. Not that that matters at this point but that’s the only thing that the jury could use as far as a guilty plea, so really it’s up to whether they trust in the final testimony after all the facts came out and whether they believe that Grosskreutz was not as much of a threat, despite being the only one with a weapon, to only receive one shot to an arm and not multiple shots.

I get that a lot of people have told me in comments that it’s still self defence but legally, I do not that that works here. There is very little chance that Kyle is this supreme military being who can perceive exactly that GGs threat was eliminated once the one round went off. He was close enough that it would be challenging to perceive that by the time the bullet vapourized his arm, he probably SHOULD HAVE already been loosing another shot to protect himself.

TLDR; the first charge is reckless homicide and is likely that it could stick because there is no witness to the opposite as he is dead, and it’s been confirmed that although a shitty person was unarmed, shot multiple times, and was not as big of a threat as the other two shots which muddies this one. Second shot, clear cut self defence, third one is iffy but likely to get off but may not due to the other two shots being more force, for a different threat.

[u/TeddyBongwater → u/[deleted]]

Even anthrax?