Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Illinois, was charged with first-degree intentional homicide after shooting three men, killing two, during a protest against police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he acted in self-defence, and he was ultimately acquitted of all charges. However, the case sparked a debate about gun laws in the US, particularly regarding minors. While Rittenhouse's possession of the gun was deemed legal, some argued that this exposed loopholes in gun legislation.
Characteristics | Values |
---|---|
Judge | Bruce Schroeder |
Gun Type | AR-15-style rifle |
Barrel Length | 16 inches |
Total Gun Length | 36 inches |
Gun Possession Charge | Dismissed |
Gun Possession Charge Type | Misdemeanor |
Maximum Penalty for Gun Possession Charge | 9 months in jail or a $10,000 fine |
Other Charges | Homicide and attempted homicide |
Plea | Not guilty |
What You'll Learn
Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by possessing a gun as a minor?
Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, was initially charged with the possession of a dangerous weapon as a minor. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that Rittenhouse did not violate the state statute in question because of his age and the length of the barrel of his semi-automatic rifle.
The relevant Wisconsin statute says that minors cannot possess dangerous weapons, which includes "any firearm, loaded or unloaded". However, there is an exception that states that this only applies to minors who possess a rifle or a shotgun if they are in violation of another statute that prohibits rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches. Rittenhouse's rifle had a barrel longer than 16 inches, and so the judge, Bruce Schroeder, dismissed the charge.
Rittenhouse's attorney, John Pierce, had planned to argue that Rittenhouse could be considered part of a "well-regulated militia" as mentioned in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and therefore Wisconsin's ban on firearms possession by 17-year-olds is unconstitutional. However, this argument is not likely to succeed as the Supreme Court has previously stated that the right to bear arms is "not unlimited" and federal courts have held that modern "under 21" restrictions on handgun purchases are "firmly historically rooted".
Indiana Labor Laws: Work Breaks and You
You may want to see also
Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self-defence?
On the night of August 25, 2020, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people—Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz—during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, killing Rosenbaum and Huber, and injuring Grosskreutz. Rittenhouse was armed with a Smith and Wesson AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle.
Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he acted in self-defence and, after a two-week trial, a jury acquitted him of all charges. The prosecution had argued that Rittenhouse had provoked the attacks and created his own danger by bringing a semi-automatic rifle to the protests. They also pointed out that Rosenbaum was unarmed when Rittenhouse shot him.
Wisconsin law allows a person to use deadly force in self-defence if they "reasonably believe" it is "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". However, if the person provokes the attack, they are prohibited from using deadly force unless they first try to escape or otherwise avoid harm.
The success of a self-defence claim often depends on the circumstances of the incident, the state law on self-defence, and the politics and emotions surrounding the case. In Rittenhouse's case, the jury had to decide if he really believed he faced a lethal threat and if that belief was reasonable.
Some legal experts and commentators have criticised the verdict, arguing that Rittenhouse instigated the violence and needlessly killed two people. They also point to the fact that Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon and that he brought an assault weapon into a dangerous situation.
However, others have defended Rittenhouse, claiming that he was protecting private property and acting as a medic. They argue that he was justified in using deadly force because he reasonably believed that his life was in danger.
The Rittenhouse case has sparked passionate reactions from the American public, with some seeing him as a champion of gun rights and others as an irresponsible vigilante. The trial and verdict have also brought attention to the issue of self-defence laws in the US and whether they adequately address the increasing prevalence of guns and vigilantism.
Understanding Your Legal Lunch Break Rights
You may want to see also
Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by violating curfew?
Kyle Rittenhouse was initially charged with violating the curfew in place in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on the night of 25 August 2020. However, the charge was dismissed by Judge Bruce Schroeder, who ruled that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Rittenhouse had violated a lawful order.
Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, had travelled to Kenosha from his home in Antioch, Illinois, after learning of a call for militia to protect local businesses. Kenosha was experiencing several nights of chaotic street demonstrations after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, in the back during a domestic disturbance, leaving Blake paralysed.
On the night of 25 August, Rittenhouse shot three people with an AR-15-style rifle during a protest against police brutality, killing two of them: Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber. The third person, Gaige Grosskreutz, survived a gunshot wound to the bicep. Rittenhouse claimed that he acted in self-defence, and a jury acquitted him of all charges.
In addition to violating curfew, Rittenhouse initially faced several other charges, including first-degree intentional homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. The gun possession charge was also dismissed by Judge Schroeder, who ruled that Rittenhouse did not violate the relevant state statute due to his age and the length of the rifle's barrel.
The dismissal of the gun possession charge was seen as a significant loss for the prosecution, as it was considered a more straightforward path to conviction compared to the more serious felony charges. The remaining charges carried a potential life sentence.
Lewinsky Scandal: Clinton's Questionable Legality
You may want to see also
Did Kyle Rittenhouse's gun possession break federal gun laws?
The gun possession laws in Wisconsin state that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanour". However, there is an exception for rifles and shotguns, which allows children aged 16 and 17 to hunt.
Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings and was armed with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle. The judge in his homicide trial dismissed the misdemeanour gun possession charge, ruling that Rittenhouse did not violate the state statute because of his age and the length of the barrel of his rifle. The rifle's barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum length allowed under state law.
Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that Wisconsin law did not bar him from carrying the rifle and that the gun possession charge was invalid. They also pointed to the hunting exemption, which they said allowed minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they were not short-barrelled.
Prosecutors had argued that Rittenhouse's possession of the gun was illegal and that the jury should decide on the charge. They also argued that the exception for hunting-style weapons would effectively eliminate the prohibition on minors carrying weapons.
The gun possession charge was one of several that Rittenhouse faced, including two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, two counts of reckless endangerment, and one count of curfew violation. He was found not guilty on all charges.
Giuliani's Actions: Lawful or Criminal?
You may want to see also
Did Kyle Rittenhouse's gun have an illegal barrel length?
Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with five felony charges, including first-degree intentional homicide, after he shot three men, killing two of them, during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020. Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time and was armed with a Smith and Wesson AR-style semi-automatic rifle.
Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he did not violate the state statute in question because of his age and the length of the barrel of his rifle. The judge, Bruce Schroeder, threw out the gun possession charge, agreeing that the length of the barrel was longer than the minimum barrel length allowed under state law.
The relevant Wisconsin statute says that minors cannot possess dangerous weapons, which are defined as "any firearm, loaded or unloaded". However, there is an exception that allows minors to possess rifles as long as they are not short-barreled. Rittenhouse's rifle had a barrel that was longer than 16 inches, which is the minimum length allowed under state law.
The gun possession charge was a misdemeanor, which carried a maximum sentence of nine months in jail. Rittenhouse was ultimately acquitted of all charges, including the five felonies, after pleading self-defence.
Did Griner's Actions Warrant Her Harsh Sentence?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The jury found Rittenhouse not guilty of five felony charges, including a murder charge. However, the question of whether he broke the law is complex. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and there was no dispute that he was armed with a Smith and Wesson AR-style semiautomatic rifle. The gun possession charge was dismissed by the judge due to a loophole in Wisconsin law that allowed for 17-year-olds to carry weapons so long as the barrels were longer than 16 inches.
The loophole in the law allowed minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they were not short-barrelled. Rittenhouse's rifle had a barrel longer than 16 inches, which was above the minimum length allowed under state law.
Rittenhouse faced a charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, which is a misdemeanor that carried a maximum penalty of nine months in jail or a $10,000 fine.
The judge, Bruce Schroeder, dismissed the gun possession charge due to confusing language in the law and the exception for minors carrying weapons with longer barrels.
Rittenhouse faced five criminal charges, including homicide and attempted homicide. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.