Rittenhouse Verdict: What Laws Were Broken?

Kyle Rittenhouse, then 17, travelled to Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020, armed with an AR-15-style rifle. He was among a group of people who responded to calls on social media to come bearing weapons to protect the city from damaging protests. Rittenhouse shot three men, killing two of them, and was subsequently charged with several crimes, including first-degree intentional homicide. However, he was acquitted of all charges, with his lawyers successfully arguing that he acted in self-defence. One of the key questions in the case was whether Rittenhouse was legally allowed to possess the rifle he used.

Rittenhouse's possession of a gun

Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of a gun during the Kenosha protest in 2020 raised questions about whether he had broken any laws. Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, had travelled from his home state of Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15 style rifle. This led to a legal debate about whether he had violated Wisconsin's gun laws.

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 was charged with a misdemeanour count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18. However, there is an exception in the law that allows minors to possess rifles and shotguns as long as they are not short-barrelled. Rittenhouse's rifle had a barrel longer than the minimum length allowed under state law.

The debate centred on the interpretation of this exception. Prosecutors argued that the exception effectively eliminates the prohibition on minors carrying weapons. They contended that Rittenhouse was not in Kenosha to hunt, which was the intent of the exception. However, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge, citing his "big problem" with the state statute. He agreed with the defence attorneys' interpretation of the law, stating that the statute clearly requires a weapon to be short-barrelled for the charge to apply.

The evolution of Wisconsin's laws on minors and guns has been murky, with multiple revisions over the years. The impetus for the hunting exception is unclear, but some speculate that it was part of a push by the National Rifle Association to get guns into the hands of children. The law's wording is not straightforward, and even Judge Schroeder initially expressed confusion over its interpretation. Legal doctrine calls for judges to interpret ambiguous laws in favour of the defendant.

While Rittenhouse's gun possession charge was ultimately dismissed, the broader debate about gun laws and self-defence rights in the US continues. The Rittenhouse case highlighted the complexities and grey areas of local gun laws, with some arguing that laws protecting gun rights make it less clear when shooting someone is illegal.

The legality of his self-defence claim

The legality of Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defence claim is a highly debated topic. Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he was in Kenosha to protect businesses from damage and looting and that the people he shot left him with no choice. They also argued that Rittenhouse's actions were justified under Wisconsin's self-defence laws, which allow the use of deadly force if one "reasonably believes" it is "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm".

On the other hand, prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks and created his own danger by bringing a semi-automatic rifle to the protests. They also claimed that Rittenhouse was a "wannabe cop" who was looking for trouble and fame.

Legal experts have differing opinions on the matter. Some believe that Rittenhouse's motives for being in Kenosha are irrelevant to whether he had a legal right to shoot when threatened. Others argue that Rittenhouse's claim of self-defence is invalidated by the fact that he brought a gun to the protest and escalated the situation.

Ultimately, the judge in the case, Bruce Schroeder, ruled that Rittenhouse's actions fell under the self-defence laws in Wisconsin and dismissed the charges against him.

Whether Rittenhouse was the aggressor

Rittenhouse's lawyers argued that he was in Kenosha to protect businesses from damage and looting, and that he was acting in self-defence. They pointed to the fact that Rosenbaum and Huber tried to wrestle Rittenhouse's rifle away from him, leading Rittenhouse to fear he would be shot with his own weapon. Rittenhouse's lawyers also wanted to introduce evidence that police had thanked him and other rifle-carrying citizens, which they argued contributed to Rittenhouse's belief that there was nothing wrong with his presence on the streets that night.

Prosecutors, on the other hand, portrayed Rittenhouse as a "wannabe cop" who was looking for trouble and fame. They argued that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, and that he had brought a rifle to the protest with the intent to violently clash with those opposed to his beliefs. They also disputed the idea that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to protect businesses, saying instead that he had come to join other armed counterprotesters with whom he sympathised.

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 to the protest with a rifle, and that in doing so he forfeited his claim to self-defence.

The gun's ownership

Gun control in the United States is a highly contentious issue. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This has been interpreted in different ways, with some believing that it creates an individual constitutional right for citizens to own firearms, while others argue that the amendment was intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defence.

The right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record-keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. Federal laws include the National Firearms Act (1934), the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986), the Undetectable Firearms Act (1988), the Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990), the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004).

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain classes of people from buying, selling, using, owning, receiving, shipping, carrying, possessing or exchanging any firearm or ammunition. These include fugitives, convicted felons, unlawful users of controlled substances, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, illegal immigrants, dishonourably discharged military personnel, and those subject to certain court orders.

The laws surrounding gun ownership in the US have been criticised for their lack of clarity, with the Rittenhouse case highlighting the grey areas of local gun laws. Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the Kenosha shootings, was initially charged with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18. However, this charge was later dismissed by Judge Bruce Schroeder, who ruled that a hunting exemption meant Wisconsin law did not clearly bar Rittenhouse from carrying the weapon.

The evolution of the law on children and guns has been described as "murky", with the current wording of the law stating:

> "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

However, there is a subsection that reads:

> "This section 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 subsection is not specific to minors and instead forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle. Rittenhouse's rifle had a barrel longer than the minimum length allowed under state law, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

The Rittenhouse case has brought to light the complexities and ambiguities surrounding gun ownership laws in the US, particularly when it comes to minors. While the hunting exemption may have been intended to allow children to hunt, it has also created a loophole that can be exploited in other contexts, such as during protests or insurrections.

The role of the judge

One of the most notable rulings made by Judge Schroeder was the decision to dismiss the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, a misdemeanour charge that could have carried a maximum sentence of nine months in jail. The judge agreed with the defence's interpretation of an exception in the law, which they argued allowed minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they were not short-barrelled. This ruling meant that the jury did not consider the gun possession charge when deliberating Rittenhouse's guilt.

During the trial, Judge Schroeder also blocked prosecutors from introducing certain evidence that they believed supported their case. For example, the judge ruled that a video of Rittenhouse commenting on men exiting a CVS pharmacy 15 days before the protest shootings was not relevant to the charges and would not be allowed. Additionally, Schroeder prevented prosecutors from connecting Rittenhouse to the far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys, despite a photograph of him with members of the group in a bar.

Another significant ruling by Judge Schroeder was allowing the defence to introduce evidence of Rittenhouse receiving water from police officers and being told, "We appreciate you guys, we really do." The defence argued that this interaction contributed to Rittenhouse's belief that there was nothing wrong with his presence at the protests and undermined the prosecution's argument that he acted recklessly.

In summary, the role of the judge in the Rittenhouse case was to preside over the trial, rule on evidentiary matters, and interpret the relevant laws. Judge Schroeder's rulings, particularly the dismissal of the gun possession charge, had a substantial impact on the outcome of the trial and the public's perception of the case.

Frequently asked questions