Rittenhouse Verdict: Lawful Or Legal Loophole?

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, was accused of shooting three people during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and wounded a third while carrying an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle. The case sparked debates about whether Rittenhouse broke any laws regarding gun possession and self-defence. While some argued that Rittenhouse was within his rights to carry a rifle and act in self-defence, others claimed that he violated gun possession laws and used excessive force. The outcome of the trial and the interpretation of the relevant laws had significant implications for the broader discussion surrounding gun rights, vigilantism, and racial injustice in the United States.

Did Rittenhouse violate Wisconsin's gun possession law?

In 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse, then 17, shot three people, killing two, with a semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha, Wisconsin. This led to a legal debate about whether Rittenhouse had violated Wisconsin's gun possession law.

Wisconsin law states that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanour". 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 rifle in question was a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 with a 16-inch-long barrel.

The law includes exceptions for 16 and 17-year-olds to possess a rifle or shotgun for hunting, military service, or target practice. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that the hunting-related part did not apply to their client because the hunting-related restrictions that the statute refers to only apply to children under 16.

Ultimately, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the gun possession charge, saying he had a big problem with the state statute. The ruling resolved a byzantine legal debate over a Wisconsin statute that began after Rittenhouse was charged.

Was Rittenhouse's rifle too long to be in violation of the law?

The length of Kyle Rittenhouse's rifle was a significant factor in the judge's decision to dismiss the gun possession charge during his murder trial. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that the barrel of his rifle was too long to be in violation of a Wisconsin statute that prohibits minors from possessing dangerous weapons.

Wisconsin law states that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanour." The statute defines a dangerous weapon as "any firearm, loaded or unloaded." However, an exception in the law allows minors to possess rifles as long as they are not short-barreled. The law specifically prohibits rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches.

Rittenhouse's rifle, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, had a 16-inch-long barrel, which exceeded the minimum length allowed under state law. As a result, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the gun possession charge, concluding that Rittenhouse did not violate the statute due to the length of his rifle's barrel.

The dismissal of the gun possession charge was a significant development in the trial, as it removed a potential avenue for the jury to convict Rittenhouse of a lesser crime if they were persuaded by his self-defense claims but believed he made a poor decision to carry a rifle.

Did Rittenhouse act in self-defence?

The question of whether Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defence when he shot three men, killing two of them, during a protest in Wisconsin in 2020 is a highly contested issue. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he was within his rights to use deadly force, as he was acting in self-defence. However, others have argued that Rittenhouse was not justified in using deadly force and that his actions were criminal.

Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he was acting in self-defence when he used deadly force because he felt threatened and feared for his life. They claimed that Rittenhouse was being chased and that the people he shot were trying to take his gun. They also pointed to the fact that Rittenhouse was hit with a skateboard and that one of the men he shot was armed with a pistol. Rittenhouse's lawyers also argued that he was protected by Wisconsin's "stand your ground" law, which allows individuals to use deadly force if they feel threatened without first attempting to retreat.

On the other hand, prosecutors and critics of Rittenhouse's actions have argued that he was not justified in using deadly force. They claimed that Rittenhouse escalated the situation by bringing a gun to the protest and that he did not attempt to retreat or de-escalate the situation before using deadly force. They also highlighted the fact that the men Rittenhouse shot were unarmed, and that Rittenhouse was the only one with a gun.

The question of whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defence was ultimately decided by a jury, who found him not guilty of all charges. The jury deliberated for about 3.5 days before reaching their verdict, suggesting that they carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. While some have celebrated the verdict as a victory for gun rights and self-defence, others have criticised it as a miscarriage of justice, highlighting the racial dynamics at play and the fact that Rittenhouse travelled to the protest from out of state.

Was Rittenhouse in a gun-free zone?

On the night of the shootings in Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old and armed with an AR-15 style rifle.

According to Wisconsin law, "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 that allows 16 and 17-year-olds to hunt. Rittenhouse's lawyer, Lin Wood, argued that Rittenhouse did not carry a gun across state lines, and that the gun belonged to his friend and never left the state of Wisconsin.

John Monroe, a lawyer specialising in gun rights cases, and Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defence lawyer, both believe that the exception for rifles and shotguns could apply in Rittenhouse's case. Grieve commented that the law is poorly drafted, and that he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favour of the defendant.

However, Rittenhouse could have been in violation of having a gun within a gun-free zone, such as an area covering a school.

Ultimately, the gun possession charge against Rittenhouse was dismissed by Judge Bruce Schroeder, who ruled that Rittenhouse did not violate the state statute in question because of his age and the length of the barrel of his semiautomatic rifle.

Could Rittenhouse legally possess a gun in Illinois?

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shooting, would not have qualified for a permit. Furthermore, Illinois law requires anyone who owns any kind of firearm in that state to have a Firearm Owners Identification card, which is only available to those 21 or older, or those with a sponsor who is 21 and eligible for a card.

An Illinois state prosecutor said local police could find no evidence that Rittenhouse ever physically possessed the firearm in the state. An investigation conducted by local police in Antioch, Rittenhouse's hometown, revealed that the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored, and used in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse's lawyer, Lin Wood, also stated that his client never had possession of the gun outside of Wisconsin.

Therefore, Rittenhouse could not legally possess a gun in Illinois.

Frequently asked questions