Rittenhouse: Lawbreaker Or Law-Abiding Citizen?

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, travelled to Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, where he fatally shot two men and wounded a third during a protest against police brutality. Rittenhouse's case raises questions about whether he was legally allowed to carry a firearm and whether he acted in self-defence. Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under 18 from carrying a firearm, but there is an exception for 16 and 17-year-olds to hunt with rifles and shotguns. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he was legally carrying a weapon under hunting laws, while prosecutors argued that he was not hunting and was, therefore, breaking the law. The judge dismissed the weapons possession charge, saying the state statutes were unclear. Rittenhouse also claimed self-defence, testifying that he knew one of the men he shot was unarmed but that he acted in self-defence as the man threatened to kill him.

Was Kyle Rittenhouse old enough to carry a gun?

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he shot three men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, two of them fatally. He was armed with an AR-15 style rifle and had travelled to the state from his home in Antioch, Illinois.

Rittenhouse was too young to legally carry a firearm in Wisconsin. The state's law stipulates 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 was charged with a misdemeanour count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18.

However, there is an exception for rifles and shotguns, which is aimed at letting children aged 16 and 17 hunt. John Monroe, a lawyer who specialises in gun rights cases, and Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defence lawyer who also specialises in gun cases, believe this exception could apply to Rittenhouse. Grieve said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favour of the defendant.

The gun possession charge against Rittenhouse was eventually dismissed by Judge Bruce Schroeder, who said he had a big problem with the state statute.

Was he in a gun-free zone?

There is some debate as to whether Kyle Rittenhouse was in violation of being in a gun-free zone. According to Wisconsin law, it is legal to carry any firearm openly if a person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time of the shooting and, under Wisconsin law, anyone under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanour.

There is an exception to this law for rifles and shotguns, which is aimed at allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to hunt. Rittenhouse's lawyer argued that this exception could apply to his client, although he was not in Kenosha to hunt.

Rittenhouse could also have been in violation of having a gun within a gun-free zone, if there was one covering, for instance, a school nearby. Additionally, Illinois law requires anyone who owns any kind of firearm in that state to have a Firearm Owners Identification card, but these are only available to those aged 21 or older, or someone with a sponsor who is 21 and eligible for a card. Rittenhouse did not own the gun, and his lawyer stated that the gun never left the state of Wisconsin.

Did he carry the gun across state lines?

One of the most persistent myths about the Kyle Rittenhouse case is that he brought a gun across state lines. Rittenhouse lived in Antioch, Illinois, about 20 minutes outside of Kenosha, Wisconsin, where the shooting took place. This fuelled rumours that Rittenhouse had travelled to Wisconsin with his rifle.

However, during his trial, Rittenhouse testified that he drove himself from Illinois to Kenosha on 24 August 2020, the day before the shooting. He stated that the gun had been stored at a friend's house in Kenosha, according to police records and court testimony. Prosecutors say that Rittenhouse's friend, Dominick Black, kept the gun in his trunk and turned it over to the police after Rittenhouse turned himself in.

Rittenhouse and Black testified that Black, who was 18 at the time, used Rittenhouse's money to purchase the weapon at a Wisconsin hardware store in May 2020. They agreed that Black would keep the gun until Rittenhouse turned 18 in January 2021. Black is now being prosecuted for participating in the illegal straw purchase of the weapon on behalf of Rittenhouse. However, Rittenhouse's possession of the firearm at the time was technically legal.

In conclusion, Rittenhouse did not carry the gun across state lines.

Was he acting in self-defence?

The question of whether Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence when he fatally shot two men and wounded a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020 is central to his case. Rittenhouse himself testified that he acted in self-defence, saying, "I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself."

Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that hunting laws allowed him to carry the assault-style weapon used during the shootings. They claimed that Wisconsin law prohibits minors from carrying only short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, and that other prohibitions fall under hunting laws, which say children under 12 can't hunt with guns. They also pointed to an exception in the law that allows 16 and 17-year-olds to hunt with rifles and shotguns.

Prosecutors, on the other hand, argued that Rittenhouse was a "wannabe cop" who went to Kenosha looking for trouble and fame, and that he forfeited his claim to self-defence by bringing a rifle to the protest. They also claimed that Rittenhouse was not there to protect businesses but to join other armed counterprotesters.

Legal experts say that under Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse has a strong case for self-defence. However, it is less clear whether prosecutors will be able to persuade the jury that Rittenhouse created a deadly situation by showing up with a rifle, thereby invalidating his self-defence claim.

Wisconsin law allows someone to use deadly force only if "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". It sets a two-part test for jurors: firstly, they must decide if Rittenhouse believed he was in peril, and secondly, they must determine if this belief was objectively "reasonable". Jurors will be instructed to consider whether any reasonable person in Rittenhouse's position would have also felt they had no choice but to shoot.

While Wisconsin law doesn't require someone in danger to flee before shooting, jurors can consider whether Rittenhouse tried to move away from danger when assessing the reasonableness of his self-defence claim. Additionally, self-defence cannot be invoked if the individual was the aggressor.

Was he hunting?

The question of whether Kyle Rittenhouse was hunting when he shot three people in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, is central to the debate over the legality of his actions. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that hunting laws allowed him to carry the assault-style weapon used in the shootings.

Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under 18 from carrying a dangerous weapon, but Rittenhouse's attorneys claimed that state laws only forbid minors to carry short-barrelled rifles and shotguns. They asserted that the other prohibitions pertaining to children fall under hunting laws, which say children under 12 can't hunt with guns. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings.

Prosecutors dismissed this defence argument, saying that if the defence wanted to argue Rittenhouse was hunting, they should tell the jury he was "hunting on the streets" of Kenosha. They challenged the defence to submit evidence that Rittenhouse had a certificate to hunt and was engaged in legal hunting during the protest.

While the hunting laws cited by Rittenhouse's lawyers may have provided a loophole that allowed him to carry a weapon, it is clear that he was not in Kenosha to hunt. He had travelled to the city during a period of civil unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, and joined a group of armed people who said they were there to protect local businesses. Rittenhouse himself said he needed a gun to protect himself while defending businesses.

In the series of confrontations that followed, Rittenhouse fatally shot two men who had tried to grab his gun and injured a third who had pointed a handgun at him. He was charged with multiple criminal counts, including homicide, and claimed self-defence at his trial. The jury found him not guilty on all charges.

Frequently asked questions