Did Rittenhouse Break Laws Or Not?

Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with five felony charges, including first-degree intentional homicide, after shooting three men, killing two, during a protest in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time and armed with a Smith and Wesson AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle. The case sparked debate about gun laws in the US, particularly regarding minors. Rittenhouse's defence lawyers argued that he did not violate the state statute because of his age and the length of the rifle's barrel. The judge dismissed the gun possession charge, but Rittenhouse still faced other criminal charges. The jury ultimately acquitted Rittenhouse on all counts, agreeing that he acted in self-defence.

Rittenhouse's gun possession and the law

Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, was initially charged with the illegal possession of a firearm by a minor. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that the length of the barrel of his gun meant he did not violate the state statute in question.

The gun Rittenhouse was carrying was a Smith and Wesson AR-style semiautomatic rifle. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except in limited circumstances. The statute says it applies to minors carrying a rifle or shotgun only if they are not in compliance with at least one additional statute. These include regulations on "hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age" and the prohibition of 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 gun possession charge.

The law on children and guns in Wisconsin is complex and has evolved over time. Prior to 1987, the state banned children from possessing pistols. In 1987, then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, a Republican, signed a law that expanded the prohibition to include short-barreled firearms, electric weapons, brass knuckles, throwing stars, and nunchakus. In 1991, Thompson signed another law extending the prohibition to any firearm. However, this law also allowed minors to possess long guns for hunting as long as the barrels were at least 12 inches long.

The wording of the law is not straightforward, and even Judge Schroeder said he found it confusing. The law seems to be focused on hunting, and the exception for long guns was likely intended to ensure that children could participate in hunting activities. However, the law does not specify this, and so the exception was used in Rittenhouse's case to allow him to carry a long gun at a protest.

Some lawmakers are now pushing to change the law to clarify that the exception for long guns only applies to hunting. They argue that the current law is dangerous and allows minors to carry guns in situations where they should not be permitted to do so.

The gun possession charge dismissal

During the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the gun possession charge was dismissed by Judge Bruce Schroeder. Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time of the shootings and was armed with a Smith and Wesson AR-style semiautomatic rifle. The dismissal of the gun possession charge was based on two main arguments put forward by the defense lawyers. Firstly, they argued that Rittenhouse's age and the length of the rifle barrel meant that he did not violate the Wisconsin statute in question. The relevant statute prohibits minors from possessing rifles or shotguns unless they are in compliance with additional regulations, including the regulation of "hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age" and the prohibition of rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches. Rittenhouse's rifle had a barrel longer than 16 inches, and as he was 17, the judge threw out the charge.

The second argument put forward by the defense lawyers was that there was an exception in the law that allowed minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they were not short-barreled. The relevant subsection states that the law "applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28". This section is not specific to minors but forbids any person from possessing a short-barreled shotgun or rifle. The defense attorneys argued that Rittenhouse was legal in possessing the firearm due to this exception.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that Rittenhouse's possession of the gun was illegal and that the jury should decide on the charge. Assistant District Attorney James Kraus further contended that the exception rendered the state's prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. However, when he acknowledged that the rifle's barrel was longer than the minimum length allowed under state law, the judge dismissed the charge.

The dismissal of the gun possession charge was significant as it was seen as the prosecution's best chance to convict Rittenhouse of something. While the charge was only a misdemeanor, it might have offered the jury a way to convict Rittenhouse of a lesser crime if they were persuaded by his self-defense claims but agreed that he made a poor decision to carry a rifle. The dismissal of this charge could also have influenced the jury's perception of the prosecution's overall case.

The self-defence claim

Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defence claim was based on the argument that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and therefore had the right to use deadly force to protect himself.

Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he had acted in self-defence when he fatally shot two men and injured a third during a night of unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The two men who were killed, Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, had tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun, and the third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, had pointed a firearm at him. Rittenhouse testified that he feared for his life and believed he was protecting himself from imminent harm.

Wisconsin law allows individuals to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. This is known as the "stand your ground" law and is an important concept in American criminal law, upholding the sanctity of human life and ensuring that deadly force is a last resort. The law holds that an individual who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force when they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger. The key word here is "reasonably"—the person's assessment of the danger must be reasonable, meaning that a hypothetical "reasonable person" would consider the threat sufficiently dangerous.

In the case of Rittenhouse, the prosecution had to disprove his self-defence claim beyond a reasonable doubt, which they ultimately failed to do. The jury agreed with Rittenhouse's self-defence claim, acquitting him of all charges. This decision was not surprising to legal experts, who noted that Rittenhouse had a strong self-defence case from the beginning. They argued that the prosecution had a very high bar to overcome and that the evidence presented was often dark, blurry, and inconclusive.

It is important to note that the Rittenhouse case has reignited debates over self-defence laws across the United States, with some arguing that the verdict sets a dangerous precedent by justifying reckless behaviour and vigilantism.

The role of the judge

The role of a judge is to interpret the law and ensure that it is applied fairly and justly to all parties involved in a legal proceeding. In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, the judge, Bruce Schroeder, had to navigate and interpret complex and ambiguous gun laws.

Judge Schroeder's most notable ruling in the Rittenhouse case was his dismissal of the gun possession charge. Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, was initially charged with the misdemeanor of possessing a dangerous weapon as a minor. This charge was in relation to Rittenhouse carrying a rifle during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, which resulted in him shooting three people, killing two of them.

The defense attorneys argued that there was a loophole in Wisconsin law that allowed minors to possess rifles as long as the barrels were longer than 16 inches. They cited an exception in the law that permitted minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they were not short-barreled. Rittenhouse's rifle had a barrel longer than 16 inches, which was within the legal limit.

Judge Schroeder accepted the defense's argument and dismissed the gun possession charge, stating that he had a “big problem” with the state statute. This ruling was significant as it removed what many considered to be the prosecution's best chance at convicting Rittenhouse of at least a lesser crime.

In addition to the gun possession charge, Judge Schroeder also dismissed a curfew violation charge, ruling that prosecutors did not present enough evidence. These rulings highlight the role of the judge in interpreting and applying the law, even in ambiguous or complex legal situations.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schroeder also made other notable decisions. For example, he blocked prosecutors from referring to the people Rittenhouse shot as "victims," suggesting "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" as alternative terms if the defense could provide justifying evidence. Additionally, on Veteran's Day, he encouraged the courtroom, including the jury, to applaud any veterans present, one of whom was a defense witness.

The consequences of the acquittal

Impact on Gun Laws and Legal System

The acquittal highlighted a gap in gun laws, particularly in Wisconsin, where a loophole allowed 17-year-olds to carry weapons with longer barrel lengths. This case may prompt a re-evaluation of gun control laws, with some advocating for stricter measures, such as making it a felony to carry a weapon in public during a curfew. The complex and confusing nature of gun laws also came to light, underscoring the need for clearer and more concise legislation.

Public Perception and Vigilantism

The verdict was perceived differently by gun rights advocates and gun control supporters. While the former saw it as a victory for the Second Amendment, the latter viewed it as a miscarriage of justice. Rittenhouse's actions and subsequent acquittal have the potential to encourage vigilantism and normalize armed confrontations, particularly during protests or civil unrest. This could lead to an increase in politically motivated violence.

Racial Dynamics and Far-Right Extremism

The case of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is white, also has implications for racial dynamics in the United States. While the victims in this case were also white, the threat of far-right vigilantism is more visceral for people of color. The presence of unidentified federal officers at protests and the blurring of lines between law enforcement and civilians have contributed to a sense of unease, particularly for marginalized communities.

Impact on Policing and Law Enforcement

The Rittenhouse case also brought attention to the failures of law enforcement in addressing the violence in Kenosha. The Kenosha police were criticized for their handling of the Jacob Blake shooting, which sparked the protests, and their inability to maintain order during the unrest. The case underscored the need for better training, resources, and strategies to manage volatile situations effectively.

Societal Impact and Normalization of Violence

The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse sends a message about the normalization of violence in society. Armed confrontations, militia groups, and the presence of weapons at protests or during civil unrest become more commonplace. This shift has the potential to erode trust in law enforcement and the legal system, leading to a breakdown of social cohesion and an increase in divisive rhetoric and actions.

Frequently asked questions