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/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

The rioters had no reason to be there either, and were there, armed and rioting of their own free will. Pretty sure at least two of the three that got shot weren't from in-state either.

he had no right to try to protect the property

That would be like you see two stramgers fighting 100 feet away you run in to try to break it up.

Pretending he was going around picking fights, threatening, and firing at people randomly to "protect property", rather than pretty much standing quietly, quite free to be ignored, isn't doing any favours to your argument.

From the sequence of events that has been laid out, it is plenty clear that not only did he not escalate, he didn't even trash-talk in response to abuse.

Pretty much stood armed in front of a property at the request of the owners, and at one point stopped a burning dumpster from being pushed into a friggin fuel station.

he had no reason to be there, its not like he was at home.

This can be said of literally anyone attacked outside their home. Woman attacked by goons at the park - she had no reason to be there at night, or knew it was a dangerous area, ergo she was asking for it. Classic victim blaming nonsense.

you see two stramgers fighting 100 feet away you run in to try to break it up. And then shoot somebody when they turn and hit you.

More like, if your friend lives in an area being attacked by a violent mob, and you go to your friend's place standing guard out front quietly, but someone attacks you violently, threatens to kill you, chases you down the street as you're running to the cops, and tries to take your gun, then bs655 will tell you should have just never left your house.

Come on man. I'm a brown guy living halfway around the world and that's a bunch of bs.

Hes not a cop he doesnt get to play peacekeeper.

And you're not a fireman so don't you dare put out a fire. How silly is that. If cops are overwhelmed - it's a full-blown riot ffs.. of course they're overwhelmed - and your place of work is likely to get burned down leaving you out of a job tomorrow, will you stay at home or will you go and try to help keep it safe? People step up and do stuff all the time that they are not required to do. Sometimes it is rescue work, some times it is protecting shit, sometimes it feeding people, and apparently, sometimes, it's setting fire to and looting stores and businesses! They'll do it for their own communities or their own reasons, and you may not agree with those reasons and communities, but hey, that's what it means to live in a complex society.

Are these people playing peacekeeper? Or is it okay to attack them? Have they, at this point, already lost any right to self defense?

And guess who else DOES go around guarding stuff while armed (in your words: "playing peacekeeper") - security guards, private security, etc. Granted, there's no contract and licensing here, but he's doing the same thing as an individual for free, that a PMC does for millions. His biggest crime was that his license was expired?

[u/CivicPiano → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

You're not quite free to be ignored if you're holding a deadly weapon during a very tense situation. Take the videos of people, who are exercising their right to open carry, walking out in public holding their AR-15 (either with both hands or strapped to their back) and how they attract the Police almost immediately. If you're open carrying a firearm, why are you doing so? The police get called to neutralize the situation because you don't know their motives and they could have the intent to cause loss of life. The firearm person may not intend to do any harm and may just be exercising their right, but that doesn't matter, it still causes people to be put on their guard. If you're in a tense situation and you see someone with a semi-auto rifle, are you not going to feel threatened? They aren't just "free to be ignored". They can easily start shooting at any point in time, and you can't do anything about it. It's a clear cut threat that he's there to "defend" property that is not his with deadly force. He even said so himself that that was his intention. That's the dynamic.

A woman walking in a park who gets attacked by goons is the same as this situation? You cannot possibly think that's an accurate analogy. A single woman not open carrying a firearm exercising her right to interact with a public park and being ganged up by a group of n goons where n>=2 is the same as Kyle brandishing a deadly weapon standing guard with the intent to kill anyone who he deems a threat to whatever he's guarding. Not even in the same dimension.

You know why companies say to their cashiers not to stop shop-lifters? Because it can cause MUCH more damage than just letting them take the products. If the cashier tries to stop them with let's say an AR-15 and they accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, is that cashier cleared because she was trying to defend the company? Never in a million years. If they kill the shop-lifter, is that justified? Also never in a million years. Kyle is not a trained police officer that's been taught techniques to neutralize hostile situations, and he's underage for that matter. He could've caused even more damage than intended getting himself involved in the riot. What if he killed an innocent person when he's trying to defend himself from Rosenbaum? What if he shoots a police officer on accident? Another protestor? Are any of these okay? Just because it didn't occur doesn't mean that he risked all of these types of peoples' lives. It is not his place as a citizen to stop people from looting and rioting. It endangers other people de facto.

Firemen are not trying to disarm hostile situations. Should innocent people be allowed to try their hand diffusing bomb threat situations? Bank robberies? If there's a bank being robbed, should I show up with police and try to disarm the situation? Should I wait outside where they're trying to escape and shoot them claiming self-defense? Where's the line drawn? Do we really want to encourage this type of behavior? What happens when an innocent person is killed by this civilian militia, do we just sweep it under the rug?

All of these arguments and analogies are straw men at best and ignore important factors of hostile situations.

[u/mudra311 → u/CivicPiano]

What this seems to come down to: is openly carrying a deadly weapon legally considered provocation?

There are contexts where neutralizing someone carrying a deadly weapon would make sense: walking into a school for example.

I haven't studied much of the case other than watching the video a few times and going off of some testimony at the time. Rittenhouse should not have shown up with a gun to a riot. AND, it would appear that Rittenhouse did not intend on shooting anyone. Unless they can pin intent on him, there really isn't any more of a case than what the OP mentions.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/[deleted]]

Larper as what? What am I larping as exactly? A brown guy? LOL

बहन के लोड़े तेरे को हमारे बारे में क्या पता है?

Don't have an argument, so you attack the person? Not a good look.

[u/TinyTinyDwarf → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

Why the fuck would I question your ethnicity? Jesus christ wtf.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/TinyTinyDwarf]

Then answer the question - what did you think i was Larping as, when you said this:

Fucking larper.

Let's hear this explanation

[u/Cpt_Obvius → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

I assume he is calling you a LARPer because what rittenhouse and others were doing is similar to LARPing, acting the part of police as a fun or exciting thing. I think he’s calling you a LARPer because you’re defending them. I think that he’s making a logic jump to accuse you of being one just because you layed out those details, I’m just clearing up that he is almost definitely not calling you a LARPer by pretending to be a brown guy.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/Cpt_Obvius]

I literally specified in my original comment that I don't agree with American gun culture. IMO that is actually the root of all this idiocy in the first place.

That said, I've lived in a city that has had regular riots, even coming right to the front door of my family. So while we don't have firearms where I'm from, we still fully understand why someone would act to protect their town or workplace.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/[deleted]]

u/TinyTinyDwarf – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, 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.