Wisconsin’s rules for self-defense are well within the national mainstream. If people reasonably believe they are at risk of death or great bodily harm, they can use deadly force. Most states say that someone who provokes violence or is acting illegally waives the right to self-defense, but Wisconsin allows it if the person has “exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm.”
Sounds reasonable enough, but were Rittenhouse's actions reasonable?
You have to take into account that Judge Schroeder ruled prosecutors could not refer to men Kyle Rittenhouse shot as victims but allowed the defense to refer to them as looters. Were they looters? Does anyone know that for sure?
On the surface, this seems exceptionally prejudicial in favor of the defendant, but Schroeder’s ruling was based on his determination that using the word “victim” would telegraph that a crime was committed against that person, and that would be prejudicial when presenting a case where the shooter says he acted in self-defense.
One of Rittenhouse's victims....I mean looters, Gaige Grosskreutz, told the jury:
I thought that the defendant was an active shooter.
This brings up an interesting scenario. Here's the chain of shooting events as published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Later, Rittenhouse walks alone to the business' third location four blocks away, and encounters Rosenbaum, who chases him before Rittenhouse fatally shoots him.
As Rittenhouse walks away, he falls to the ground. He fires at a man who tries to kick him, then kills Anthony Huber, who had hit him [with] a skateboard. Grosskreutz, who was approaching with a handgun, is wounded.
Rittenhouse then walks toward several police tactical vehicles at the nearby intersection, his arms raised in an apparent surrender. The police vehicles drive past him toward the shooting victims. Rittenhouse meets back up with Black, who drives him home.
Think about this. Rittenhouse has an automatic weapon and fires at Rosenbaum, just released from the hospital, heavily armed with a plastic bag containing a toothbrush, toothpaste, socks, deodorant and some papers. From NPR:
According to Rittenhouse's lawyers, Rosenbaum approached Rittenhouse and attempted to "engage" him. Afraid, Rittenhouse took off running and Rosenbaum gave chase. Videos of the incident show that Rosenbaum eventually threw the plastic bag he was carrying at Rittenhouse, who responded by firing four shots at the man.
The defense said Rosenbaum was a felon, therefore Rittenhouse decided his life was in danger. How did he know Rosenbaum was a felon? Was he wearing a sign, "Hi, I'm a felon armed with a bag of socks, shoot me?" He was unarmed. Rosenbaum may have been chasing him, so you shoot him? That's okay, according to the state of Wisconsin.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explains the timing of the second and third shooting
Just as Rittenhouse shot Huber, Grosskreutz was walking up to Rittenhouse. He briefly stopped and raised his hands after Huber was shot, holding a handgun in his right hand. Rittenhouse, still seated on the pavement, looked up and shot Grosskreutz in the right bicep. Prosecutors charged attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
What part of hands in the air, even with a gun held upwards, would telegraph to the shooter that he was in immediate danger? Last time I looked, hands-in-the-air was a posture of surrender. Seems to me Rittenhouse was shooting to kill and Grosskreutz got lucky. If Grosskreutz fired at a man pointing an automatic rifle at him, thereby killing Rittenhouse, would that have been self-defense? One would naturally conclude that. According to Judge Schroeder's way of thinking, that would make Rittenhouse the looter, not Grosskreutz.
Here are the pictures. It almost looks like a scene from West Side Story...but it's not. It's real.
So, if Rittenhouse thought he was "helping" and Grosskreutz thought he was "helping," was anyone really helping? Or was this a caught-in-the-crossfire kinda moment? Perhaps the biggest elephant in this particular room, however, is why he was not stopped by a cop even after shots were fired. How is it Kyle Rittenhouse got to go home after killing two people and injuring a third without once being stopped by a cop? (You think the color of his skin might have had something to do with that?) Despite how the law is written, why doesn't the choice to come locked and loaded mean something...anything...in assessing responsibility for his actions?. He came armed. He came ready to kill. Doesn't that count? He didn't just think about it...Rittenhouse took steps to insure something did happen
Which then begs the bigger question: what are the extended ramifications of this decision? Is this carte blanche to conceal, carry, and fire at will? "Oh, officer, he looked at me funny and he has a bulge in his pocket. I decided it was a gun and my life was in danger so I fired my AR-15 point blank at his chest."
Despite yards and yards of phone and security footage showing teen-ager Kyle Rittenhouse at various points in his progression through Kenosha, he walks away with no ramification for his action. He leaves two corpses on the sidewalk and is assigned no responsibility for their deaths. He just wipes his hands clean while the families of Rosenbaum and Huber bury their dead children.
I am anxious to see what happens to Ahmaud Arbery's case in Georgia. It scares the shit outta me because if they acquit, it will mean lots of people will think vigilante justice is just fine.
Is it? You decide.
Something to consider: at the time of the Aurora, Colorado movie massacre, Ziggy was particularly distressed by gun enthusiasts who believed that had people been permitted concealed carry in that state, someone would've taken the shooter out.
Perhaps, but how many more people would've been caught in the crossfire of "helpful citizens" trying to stop a live shooter? Seems that this is pretty much what happened in Kenosha.
