The Debate Over Kyle Rittenhouse

The police shooting of Jacob Blake on August 23rd caused protests, both peaceful and violent, to erupt in the streets of Kenosha Wisconsin. For almost a week, several have marched to bring attention to racial injustice in the United States. On several occasions, however, armed militias met many protestors and clashes occurred throughout the week. One confrontation ended in the death of two protestors and the injury of a third. The incident, captured on video, shows a teenager named Kyle Rittenhouse brandishing an AR15 in the midst of impassioned protestors. Rittenhouse then began to fight with and fatally shot two protestors and injured another. The next day, Rittenhouse was arrested at his home in Antioch, Illinois on charges of First-Degree Reckless Homicide, Attempted First-Degree Intentional Homicide, Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18, and two counts of First-Degree Reckless Endangerment. The Rittenhouse case garnered national attention as videos of the shootings captured by protestors went viral. Many disagree on whether or not Rittenhouse is guilty of the crimes he is accused of committing. Many on the Democratic side of politics, including CNN, assert that Mr. Rittenhouse acted in a malicious manner and that he had intent to harm others. Whereas many on the Republican side, including Tucker Carlson of Fox News, assert that Mr. Rittenhouse acted in self-defense and he simply "had to maintain order when no one would." Whether or not Rittenhouse is guilty of the crimes accused is up to the courts; although, by understanding the relevant Wisconsin statutes and the facts of the case, we can fairly accurately predict the verdict.

Before we examine the statutes and formulate predictions, we first must examine the facts of the case, many of which will undoubtedly be disputed by the prosecution and the defense. On Tuesday August 25th, Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin from his home in Antioch, Illinois. He crossed state lines with an AR15. Rittenhouse then met up with a self-proclaimed militia group. What Rittenhouse did in between the time he met with the militia is largely unknown, however, in a video allegedly captured 2 hours prior to the shooting, Rittenhouse talks about his purpose in Kenosha on that night. He claims that he and his militia group have gathered to protect storefronts and to help people. He explains that “people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is also to help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself obviously. But I also have my med kit.” Later, in that same video, a police officer seems to thank Rittenhouse for his work even though the Kenosha police did not request aid from outside militia groups. Rittenhouse then proceeds to move towards a car dealership where an argument starts between protesters and Rittenhouse's militia group. According to witnesses, the first victim of the shootings, Joseph Rosenbaum (who is unarmed) appears to be arguing with Rittenhouse, he then proceeds to throw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse but misses. The arguments continue and someone reportedly fires a gun that strikes Rosenbaum and kills him. Rittenhouse, however, can be seen jogging away from the scene with his rifle still slung around his shoulder. According to witnesses, as Rittenhouse is jogging away from the scene, he makes a phone call directly after the alleged shooting and is heard saying, "I just killed somebody." As Rittenhouse jogs away, several begin to videotape and chase after him, yelling phrases like: "beat him up," "hey he shot him," and "get him, get that dude." As protestors chase Rittenhouse down the street, he begins to run faster. As he picks up speed, he falls. It is unclear as to how Rittenhouse ended up on the ground but most believe that he had tripped. However, there is a theory that Anthony Huber, another victim of the shooting, pushed him. Huber is the first to reach Rittenhouse's. As Rittenhouse falls, Huber hits him on the right shoulder with a skateboard held in Huber's right hand. Rittenhouse then turns and fires his weapon once. Huber can be seen stumbling and then falling to the ground as he dies of his wound. A third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, approaches Rittenhouse allegedly attempting to reach for his AR15 style rifle. From the ground, Rittenhouse fires his weapon 6 times and only strikes Grosskreutz once in the arm. Rittenhouse then proceeds to get up, and jog farther down the road until he reaches several armed vehicles belonging to police. Rittenhouse proceeds to puts his hand up and walks towards police. Several protestors, who continued videoing after the shootings, can be heard yelling at officers to apprehend Rittenhouse saying "that dude just shot someone over here, that dude right there." However, Rittenhouse walks right past police and is believed to return to his home in Antioch, Illinois where he was later arrested.

Examining the facts may cause one to begin to form an opinion of Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence; however, we must first understand the statutes and how the facts relate to accurately predict the verdict of the case. The Rittenhouse case hinges on one argument: whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse can legally claim self-defense. Wisconsin state law says that: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." Through Wisconsin's definition of self-defense, it seems fairly easy for defense attorneys to prove that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense as all he needs to do is claim he believed that his life was in imminent danger. However, there are several subsections to this law that make it much more difficult to prove that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. Wisconsin state law says that: The self-defense privilege lost by provocation (starting a fight) may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant or vice versa. This, coupled with proving the Rittenhouse did not have reason to believe his life was in danger, may grant the prosecution the ability to swat down the defense's self-defense privilege. Prosecuting attorneys will likely argue that, with Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse did not actually believe his life was in danger (as Rosenbaum was unarmed and only threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse.) Furthermore, the prosecution may argue that when interacting with Huber and Grosskruets, Rittenhouse had no right to believe his life was in danger as he was only attacked by a skateboard and not a deadly object. However, this may prove more difficult to argue than the shooting of Rosenbaum due to the fact that a skateboard or a blunt object (coupled with the threatening comments Rittenhouse received) could be reasonably interpreted as a threat on Rittenhouse's life. As is evident, there is no clear-cut answer as to which side will prove whether or not Rittenhouse can claim self-defense.

Let’s take a closer look at whether or not Rittenhouse is actually guilty of the crimes he is accused of committing. To understand the dichotomy of beliefs relating to this case, it may be helpful to examine each charge levied against Rittenhouse individually. The first charge levied against Rittenhouse is possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. Wisconsin law states that this statute only applies to those who possess a weapon under the age of 18. However, the law provides an exception to those who are using a dangerous weapon for "sanctioned purposes" and who are under the supervision of a responsible adult. The prosecuting attorney will most likely argue that Rittenhouse, being 17, was not using a dangerous weapon for sanctioned purposes (such as target practice or hunting) and due to the fact that there was no adult present while he was wielding the gun, and therefore, he must be found guilty. However, the defense may try to exploit ambiguity in the term "sanctioned purposes" and claim that Rittenhouse should not be found guilty because of the ambiguity in the law. However, even if the court accepts the defense's argument of ambiguity, it will still be difficult to prove that Rittenhouse is not guilty of this crime as there is no responsible adult watching his use of a dangerous weapon.

The second crime Rittenhouse is accused of committing is two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The statute says that: "Whoever recklessly endangers another's safety under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of first-degree reckless endangerment." This means that the prosecution must prove that Rittenhouse was acting in a manner that showed "utter disregard for human life." The prosecution will most likely argue that Rittenhouse was openly brandishing his weapon in a dangerous manner. The prosecution may attempt to prove this fact by showing that Rittenhouse's pointed his rifle at several people in an attempt to make them comply. Furthermore, it may be just as simple as proving that, because Rittenhouse possessed a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, he therefore endangered the public by committing that crime. The defense however, will most likely argue that Rittenhouse was acting righteously in self-defense and was not wielding his weapon in a manner that purposefully endangers the lives of others. Furthermore, they will most likely argue that, if they find Rittenhouse not guilty of possession of a weapon under the age of 18, Rittenhouse was a skilled marksman and in no way endangered the lives of anyone. They may also play Rittenhouse's interview given earlier claiming that he was there to help people and was merely using the gun for self-defense.

The other double count Rittenhouse is accused of committing is first degree reckless homicide. The statute says that: "Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class B felony." If the defense can accurately prove that Rittenhouse can claim self-defense; then Rittenhouse will be found not guilty of both counts of first degree reckless homicide because through the self-defense argument, the defense attorneys will have proven that Rittenhouse did not act in a reckless manner and that he was justified in killing two of the victims. Although, if the prosecution is able to accurately prove that Rittenhouse cannot claim self-defense, it will be fairly easy to prove his guilt as they would only need to explain that Rittenhouse has acted recklessly (e.g. shooting his gun.) and through that reckless action has attempted to kill another person. Although one may argue that there is no possible way to know that Rittenhouse was attempting to kill his victims, it would be very easy to prove that Rittenhouse understood that shooting a gun at someone's chest (where the two men were struck) would most likely kill them. Therefore, because he understood the consequences of his actions yet still carried them out, he is therefore guilty of the crimes accused.

The last count levied against Rittenhouse is attempted first degree homicide. Interestingly, the court decided not to charge him with attempted first-degree reckless murder, but rather attempted first-degree intentional homicide. With first-degree intentional homicide, the prosecution must prove that Rittenhouse had planned and attempted to kill Gaige Grosskruets, but he had failed. This is different, of course, then first degree reckless homicide, which only requires prosecuting attorneys to prove that the defendant acted recklessly rather than with an intent to kill. The reason that prosecuting attorneys charged Rittenhouse with attempted intentional homicide, rather than attempted reckless homicide, is because the prosecution believes that Rittenhouse, having already killed two people at the time of the attempted murder, therefore understands that his actions against Grosskruets will kill him. Yet, similar to the first-degree reckless homicide his decision to shot Grosskruets makes him guilty of one count of attempted first-degree homicide. This charge, of course, becomes easier to prove for the prosecution if they are able to argue that Rittenhouse cannot claim self-defense. They will show that Rittenhouse knew the effect this action had and continued to shoot Grosskruets regardless. However, if the defense is able to prove that Rittenhouse can claim self-defense, it becomes nearly impossible to prove that Rittenhouse is guilty as he has a valid excuse to discharge his weapon and injure Grosskruets.

As with all court cases, there are several variables that cannot be predicted. Several trials, including the trial of O.J. Simpson, were considered a slam dunk before they began. However, they ended with a much different outcome. With a case as debatable as this one, it becomes even more difficult to predict the outcome of the case even if you were to closely examine the facts and statutes. The case hinges on which side can prove whether or not Rittenhouse can or cannot claim self-defense. If the prosecution can prove he cannot claim this privilege, then Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on all counts; however, if the defense can prove that Rittenhouse can claim self-defense, then it will be fairly easy to prove that Rittenhouse is not guilty on all counts.

Citations:

Karimi, F. (2020, August 28). Kenosha shooting suspect called a friend to say he 'killed somebody,' police say, and then shot two others. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting/index.html

(n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Vielmetti, B. (2020, August 28). What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

O'Kane, C. (2020, August 28). Tucker Carlson draws backlash after saying 17-year-old Kenosha shooting suspect "maintain[ed] order when no one else would". Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-shooting-suspect-backlash/

Baca, S., & Elgas, R. (2020, August 29). Antioch teen Kyle Rittenhouse appears in court on murder charges for Kenosha protest shooting, lawyers say he acted in self-defense. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://abc7chicago.com/kenosha-shooting-protest-kyle-rittenhouse-video/6393073/

Shooting of Jacob Blake. (2020, August 29). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake

Mitchell, C. (2020, August 28). Charges Against Kyle Rittenhouse Detail Chaotic Kenosha Shootings. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.wbez.org/stories/charges-against-kyle-rittenhouse-detail-chaotic-kenosha-shootings/02de9af4-6a07-40bc-85ea-148c50a7ff14

(n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

Reckless Endagering Safety. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iv/30

First Degree Reckless Homicide. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/i/02