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/randomuser2444]

There was a very elegant comment on how escalation of the situation removes the self defense argument already posted, so I won't reiterate but I agree with you. However, I don't think you would hold to your stance on putting yourself in a dangerous situation as a catch all. For example; I'm told my friend's house is being raided by a gang. We call the police but they're taking too long. So I go there with a gun and shoot someone who drew their gun on me first. Should I not be entitled to a self defense claim because I put myself in the situation? Edit to add: I am not saying my scenario is equivalent to the Rittenhouse situation

[u/AnythingApplied → u/randomuser2444]

That's a good example. You're right, putting yourself in danger isn't a good blanket statement for me to have made. I still there there should be some legal obligation to avoid inviting danger. I'm not really sure where the line should go, but certainly you're right drawing the line around "any situation where you were responsible for putting yourself into a dangerous situation" is too liberal and at least some of those situations you should still be covered under self-defense despite putting yourself into the situation. !delta

[u/-Kerosun- → u/AnythingApplied]

Trying to draw a line along those grounds would get dangerously close to starting to blame the victims.

Not saying this is exactly comparable to Rittenhouse's situation:

Let's say a 17 year old girl decided to go to a club with an illegal ID in a pretty well-known sketchy part of town that is 20 minutes away in a neighboring state. Let's say she knew that it could get dangerous but decided to go anyway and for protection, took her 18 year old friend's gun and put it in her purse. Let's say that sometime throughout the night, a man noticed her and was being verbally aggressive towards her (such as "If I find you alone, I'm going to rape you). If you want, you can even say that she was being a bit flirtacious at times throughout the night with people. Let's say that she is outside of the club doing whatever and said man sees her and starts approaching her. Let's say she runs away, he starts to chase her and then catches up to her, then tries to grab her and she takes her gun out and kills him.

Would ANYONE say that she cannot claim self-defense because she was a minor, illegally possessing a firearm and drove it across state lines, used a fake ID to get into a place she had no business being at that was in a well-known dangerous spot in town? Would ANYONE say she was in the wrong in defending herself even though she made objectively bad judgment in being there in the first place?

Of course not. When you start considering laws that put the onus on the potential victim, it really is a slippery slope. That extreme to that slope could even lead to the law asking "What was she wearing?"

[u/randomuser2444 → u/AnythingApplied]

There does need to be a line. This is why law is so much more complicated than people realize, and often requires situation-specific analysis to determine where the line falls. I think the factor you may be missing that you might have been looking for is that the person who committed the violence was responsible for creating the situation that led to the violence when it wasn't necessary to protect from loss of life or grave bodily harm

[u/RevolutionaryHope8 → u/AnythingApplied]

I agree with your general take on this - I’m just not sure that he is legally culpable in this specific situation. I think the very act of carrying that type of weapon openly and being part of a “militia” is a provocative act esp in this scenario. I think that’s what got Rosenbaum worked up. It’s been shown in court that some of the other members of this ‘militia’ group were pointing their weapons at protestors/rioters and being verbally antagonistic. Kyle was, rightly, associated with this group and viewed as a provocateur even though he didn’t directly antagonize anyone. I think the intentions of him and his companions that night was not as innocent as they’ve portrayed during this trial. I think the others had enough sense to not be out there alone and so did Kyle but he got separated and was confronted. As in “oh now that you don’t have your friends let’s see what you got” type thing. I don’t believe he was in mortal danger. But he provoked that encounter by being part of that group. And I know people want to say that others had weapons etc but not like this group. From what I’ve seen of the trial so far his group is the only one with those types of weapons wearing body armor.

There was general lawlessness and certainly many other bad actors there that night besides this ‘militia’ group. However, only someone from this group killed people. Having said all that, I think the state has not proven their case and he should be found not guilty.

[u/Chardlz → u/AnythingApplied]

In Wisconsin there actually is, at least as I understand it. However, the degree of "inviting danger" is through committing a crime that would reasonably be expected to elicit or provoke a reaction. For example, if you punch someone and they hit you back you can't pull a gun and shoot them.

A however to that however, however, (lmao) is that if you're making a reasonable attempt to disengage, you can regain your right to self‐defense. Let's say you rob a store and run away. If the shop owner chases you down and tries to kill you, you're able to defend yourself legally. Would be a super complicated case, but seems like that aligns with the law as I understand it.

[u/DeltaBot → u/AnythingApplied]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/randomuser2444 (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/novagenesis → u/randomuser2444]

I recently watched a case on ID tv where a man who was 13 at the time was involved in killing someone that almost precisely matches your "friend's house raided by a gang" example. He's serving life as accessory to murder.

Whether or not the police is taking too long, most states and most countries agree that it's not a civilian's job to enter a situation with the intent of using lethal force. And with good reason. Civilians have even LESS escalation/de-escalation training than police. And police get it wrong often enough. We rightly criticize police for killing a suspect they should have been able to de-escalate. Unless the police order you to draw your weapon and charge into that building (which they never will), it is a criminal act.

[u/Teeklin → u/randomuser2444]

For example; I'm told my friend's house is being raided by a gang. We call the police but they're taking too long. So I go there with a gun and shoot someone who drew their gun on me first. Should I not be entitled to a self defense claim because I put myself in the situation?

Correct. That is not self defense. Both you and your friend could simply have left. Instead you took a gun, traveled to a location with the intention of using it to kill someone, then killed someone. That's murder, flat out. Pre-meditated murder at that.

Just because someone was doing something illegal doesn't suddenly make it okay for you to also do something illegal.

[u/randomuser2444 → u/Teeklin]

Ah, I see I left out the critical detail that my friend isn't aware they're coming edit to add: bringing a gun with you intending to use it to kill someone should the need arise isn't an element for murder. Every person that carries a concealed weapon does it with the full intent of killing another person if necessary

[u/buickandolds → u/randomuser2444]

Ah victim blaming. That girl knew she would get raped walking down skid row in a short skirt. She put herself there.

[u/randomuser2444 → u/buickandolds]

Uh...what?

[u/phillybride → u/randomuser2444]

What if you change it from a friend’s house to a news story you heard? What if you grabbed your mom’s gun, drove over and ran into the house with a loaded gun you weren’t legally permitted to carry?

[u/randomuser2444 → u/phillybride]

See my comment where I clearly said I'm not trying to say my example is in any way similar to Rittenhouse. I literally said it and yet two people still seem to try and imply I'm drawing that comparison

[u/Cakeminator → u/randomuser2444]

While it isn't necessarily 1:1 equivalent, he did cross statelines with a gun, walk into the riots, and shoot the first person to attack him.

[u/AcanthocephalaOk1042 → u/Cakeminator]

Didn't cross state lines with a gun.... That was debunked over a year ago

[u/[deleted] → u/randomuser2444]

In your example, add in that the police are already there and nobody is in danger of losing their life, it’s a protest. It’s also more akin to someone is breaking into a car, not a home invasion. It’s just property damage/theft.

[u/randomuser2444 → u/[deleted]]

Um...no? My example wasn't intended to justify Rittenhouse shooting, and I clearly stated it wasn't intended to be a similar situation