Self Defense: How Kyle Rittenhouse Escaped Life in Prison

Rittenhouse, now 18-year-old, was acquitted of murder on the basis of self defense. Source: Forbes

Since the beginning of November, the media has obsessed over the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18 year old who killed two men and injured a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin last summer. Last August, police shot a black man named Jacob Blake which sparked protests in Kenosha. Looting and rioting ensued, resulting in Rittenhouse’s presence in Kenosha. According to Rittenhouse’s defense, he only attended the protests in order to protect private property from arson and looting by protestors. 

From the onset, the media and many Democrats characterized Rittenhouse as a white supremacist who had the intention of killing protestors, omitting key pieces of evidence to substantiate their claims. However, cases are not decided in the media and require adherence to legal statutes. Rittenhouse’s defense centered around self-defense. Wisconsin law states the use of deadly force to be permissible when a person has a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. Due to the defense’s claim of self-defense, the burden was on the prosecution to prove that Rittenhouse had no reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. According to Julius Kim, a defense attorney and former prosecutor in Milwaukee, the self-defense law would allow Rittenhouse to use as much force as necessary if he felt threatened. 

Prosecutors began their case by blaming Rittenhouse for putting himself in the situation and claiming he was only there to kill people. They questioned dozens of witnesses, which at times appeared to be defense witnesses rather than prosecutorial ones. This is because the prosecutorial witnesses sometimes benefited the defense more than they did the prosecution. Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived being shot by Rittenhouse, admitted he pointed the Glock he was carrying that night and was shot by Rittenhouse thereafter. Furthermore, Grosskreutz testified he believed Anthony Huber, one of the two men killed by Rittenhouse, to be attacking Rittenhouse with his skateboard prior to being shot. This was not the only testimony that damaged the prosecution’s case. They also called two witnesses that accompanied Rittenhouse that night. These witnesses both characterized Joseph Rosenbaum, the second man killed by Rittenhouse, as being “hyper aggressive.” Witness testimonies contradicted the prosecution’s claim that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and instead sometimes portrayed him as the victim.

The prosecution also claimed that Rittenhouse was the instigator in order to nullify the self-defense argument. If they could prove Rittenhouse initiated the contact with the men he shot, his self-defense argument would not be valid. Additionally, they made claims that Rittenhouse was an “active shooter” — which is why the three men pursued him. However, these claims were not substantiated by evidence. They had only one video to support this claim, but the video was dark, blurry and from a far distance leaving it difficult for the jury to determine if the people in the video were in fact Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. The argument that Rittenhouse instigated the attack carried little weight due to witness testimony that Rosenbaum was already aggressive and to Rittenhouse’s testimony. Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum chased him and that he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, hoping that it would deter him. However, Rosenbaum continued to pursue Rittenhouse and reached for Rittenhouse’s gun before being fatally shot. Rittenhouse’s personal testimony, in conjunction with other testimony, showed no evidence of Rittenhouse being an active shooter. As a result, Kim stated, “there were times where I had to remind myself who called him as a witness” because the prosecutorial witnesses benefited the defense more than they did the prosecution. 

After nearly three weeks, and more than 25 hours of deliberation by the jury, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five felonies he was charged with. Legal experts attribute the acquittal to not only the poor performance of the prosecution, but also to Rittenhouse’s critical testimony. University of Wisconsin law professor Steven Wright believes the defense remained disciplined throughout the trial and were effective in portraying Rittenhouse as only being there to protect private property with no intention of attacking anyone. Other legal experts concur, believing Rittenhouse had a strong testimony which made him appear as a normal teenager. 

For the families of the victims and those looking for a guilty verdict, the acquittal was a shock. In the midst of the outrage, they questioned how the jury found Rittenhouse not guilty. However, legal experts claim the verdict was not a surprise and noted some issues in the prosecution. Ellie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, believes the prosecution made the mistake of trying to “oversell” the case by labeling Rittenhouse as an active shooter. Other experts attribute the acquittal to the fact that the defense simply had a better case. However, they also stipulate that the prosecutor’s focus on the value of life over property had an effect considering the issue of the case was self-defense, not protection of property. This is evident in the judge’s instructions to the jury. The jury was informed that they must view the events that night through the eyes of a 17 year old. This would imply self-defense considering Rittenhouse was 17 when involving himself in the protests. 

The trial has deepened the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties immediately aligned themselves with one side of the case. Republicans chose to support Rittenhouse because he represented order in the midst of chaos in Kenosha and used his weapon for defense. Democrats supported prosecuting Rittenhouse. To many Democrats, Rittenhouse embodied white supremacy and exemplified the inequality between white and black Americans; some argued that if Rittenhouse were a black man, there would be no justifying his actions. 

A concern for Democrats is how the precedent set by this case will influence protests in the future. Some fear it will allow armed protestors to flood the streets and permit them to kill others while claiming self-defense. Thus turning protests violent rather than peaceful. Although the violence could come from both sides, the Democrats are concerned this will incentivize right-wing groups to be armed and be violent without any repercussions.

Ultimately the case was not about Rittenhouse killing the two men and injuring the third. It was whether or not he acted in self-defense. The prosecution had a weak case from the onset. Furthermore,  calling witnesses who benefit the opponent was a mistake which resulted in the acquittal. Now, should Rittenhouse have been there in the first place? Maybe not; however that was not the legal issue at hand.