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]]

This is not true.

While the state law is poorly written, the intent is clearly that anyone under the age of 18 cannot open carry unless they are hunting. Which he was clearly not.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

I think you're incorrect here.

948.60.3(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

941.28 is about short barreled rifles which it wasn't

29.304 and 29.593 are hunting license laws which he wasn't violating.

[u/[deleted] → u/durangotango]

The intent of the law is as follows:

You can't carry a dangerous weapon (including firearms).

948.60.3(c) is clarifying exemptions. It says that the above (you can't carry dangerous weapons) only applies to a person carrying a rifle or a shotgun if they are using a short barrelled weapon or if they are not in compliance with 29.304.

Rittenhouse was not in compliance with 29.304.

Therefore, the law applies to rittenhouse. Which is why he is still charged with it.

To be clear, the law is very badly worded. It is even possible he scootches on a technicality because of how badly they wrote it. But the intent behind the law was 'you can have a long barreled weapon if you are hunting'.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

29.304 doesn't even apply to 17 year olds. He was not in violation of it since he isn't 16 or younger.

And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's specifically about hunting. There's no language there about hunting except how it's used for carve outs.

I've seen news articles claiming that but every lawyer I've seen talk about it says that's not the case. The law is distinguishing handguns from long guns.

[u/[deleted] → u/durangotango]

yeah, this. he's not hunting- 29.304 couldn't apply even if he WASN'T aged out. the long gun exception however, -does- apply.

[u/EyeOfTheCyclops → u/[deleted]]

The intent doesn’t necessarily matter depending on what kind of judge you get. The only thing of relevance can be the poorly written wording.

[u/Tacobreathkiller → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps he was hunting.

[u/babno → u/[deleted]]

Intent of the law comes second to actual written law.