A Better late than never rant;
A 17 yo USA American crosses state border , carrys a gun to a protest and shoots 3 people and gets acquitted of murder- lets look at how.
Kyle Rittenhouse borrowed a gun and went to a protest and ended up shooting and killing two people and wounded a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020, which followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man. The events took place during the Kenosha unrest, which included both protests and riots. Here's what happened:
Kyle
Rittenhouse was accused of murder but found not guilty on all charges in
November 2021. The circumstances of the case were as follows:
1. On August 25, 2020, during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin shot and killed two men, Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and wounded a third, Gaige Grosskreutz. 12.
2. Rittenhouse drove himself from his residence in Antioch, Illinois, to Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 24, 2020, the day before the shootings5.
3. Rittenhouse stated that he went to Kenosha to protect people's property and offer medical assistance2.
4. Rittenhouse rifle he used was a Smith & Wesson M&P15, which resembled an AR-15-style rifle, is classified as a semi-automatic rifle (AR15 are fully automatic) used was borrowed from a friend's in Kenosha 5
5. The first shooting occurred when Joseph Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse in a parking lot. Rosenbaum grabbed Rittenhouse's rifle, and Rittenhouse fatally shot him5.
6. After shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd5.
7. Anthony Huber struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse fatally shot Huber in the chest57.
8. Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with a pistol. Rittenhouse shot and wounded Grosskreutz in the right arm59.
9. At least 16 other gunshots from other sources were heard during the incident7.
10. Kyle Rittenhouse faced seven charges in total, which included the following: 14.
- First-degree intentional homicide (for the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum)
- First-degree intentional homicide (for the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum)
- Attempted first-degree intentional homicide (for shooting and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz)
- First-degree reckless endangerment (for recklessly endangering others during the incident)
- Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (related to carrying the rifle)
- Failure to comply with an emergency order from local authorities (curfew violation in Kenosha)
- Use of a dangerous weapon with intent to commit a felony (related to the first-degree reckless homicide charge)
11. Charge 5 was dismissed by the judge before jury deliberations began, as the defense successfully argued that state law allowed someone under 18 to possess the firearm8.
12. For the others , Rittenhouse claimed he acted in self-defense. stating he used force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself5.The jury agreed with this claim after deliberating for about 26 hours4.
The case was
highly controversial and divisive, with some viewing Rittenhouse as acting in
self-defense and others seeing him as a vigilante who sought out conflict
How did he get off – Simply , a 2 step process
First the Judge throws out any issue regarding the illegal firearm use. Rittenhouse's Smith & Wesson M&P15 is a semi-automatic rifle that resembles an AR-15-style rifle. It is not an assault rifle by strict military and legal definitions, as it lacks the capability for fully automatic fire. According to state legislation he could carry it as it was over 16 inches and short barrell rifles under 16 inches are limited to 18yo and over. But this ignores other legal issues the judge dismissed. It wasnt Rittenhouses gun . Rittenhouse is only allowed to carry the gun for hunting or self defense , neither which occur in public streets especially at protests.
The Judge then directs the jury to look at the immediate moment of the shootings, thereby constraining them towards the immediate self defence not that he was acting in self defense when he went to the protests.
The jury in the Kyle
Rittenhouse trial was instructed to focus primarily on the immediate
circumstances of the shootings rather than the broader context of Rittenhouse's
presence in Kenosha that night. This narrow focus was due to several factors:
1.
Self-defense
claim: The jury was tasked with determining whether Rittenhouse's belief that
he was in imminent danger was reasonable at the moment he fired his weapon12. This
inherently narrows the scope to the immediate circumstances of each shooting.
2.
Jury
instructions: The judge's instructions to the jury emphasized considering
whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense and if he reasonably feared for his
life or great bodily harm2. These
instructions directed the jury's attention to the specific moments of the
shootings.
3.
Provocation
instruction: While the judge did allow a provocation instruction, which could
have broadened the jury's perspective slightly, it still focused on
Rittenhouse's actions immediately preceding the shootings rather than his
overall decision to be in Kenosha2.
4.
Rittenhouse's
testimony: His emotional testimony about fearing for his life likely had a
significant impact on the jury's perception of the events2.
5.
Evidence
limitations: The jury's requests to review video evidence suggest they were
meticulously examining the specific moments of the shootings rather than
considering broader questions about Rittenhouse's motivations for being in
Kenosha47.
While this
approach aligns with legal standards for self-defense claims, it did limit the
jury's consideration of the larger context surrounding Rittenhouse's presence
at the protests and his decision to arm himself before attending. This narrow
focus on the immediate circumstances of the shootings, rather than the broader
context, likely played a significant role in the jury's decision to acquit
Rittenhouse on all charges.
Kyle
Rittenhouse claimed he went to Kenosha to protect property, specifically a car
dealership called Car Source. However, several key points contradict the notion
that he was there legitimately to guard property:
1.
The
owners of Car Source, the Khindri brothers, testified that they never asked
Rittenhouse or anyone else to guard their property1.
2.
Rittenhouse
did not stay at the Car Source property throughout the night. He left at one
point and walked down the street, claiming he was looking to provide medical
help3.
3.
Rittenhouse
had no personal connection to the businesses he claimed to be protecting. The
properties were not owned by his family or friends3.
4.
Rittenhouse
traveled from his home in Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin, about 20
miles away4. This
suggests he deliberately went to an area of unrest rather than protecting
property near his home.
5.
The
rifle Rittenhouse used was stored at a friend's house in Kenosha, not brought
from his home3. This
indicates some level of premeditation in arming himself for the events.
While these
facts don't necessarily prove Rittenhouse intended to kill someone, they do
raise questions about his motivations for being in Kenosha that night. The
prosecution argued that by inserting himself into a volatile situation while
armed, Rittenhouse had provoked the encounters that led to the shootings4. However,
the jury ultimately accepted Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense.
Prosecutors
said that Rittenhouse had put himself in danger through a series of reckless
choices: He came to Kenosha during a period of violent and destructive riots;
he armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle; he stayed there past curfew and
after being separated from his group. They emphasized that he was the only
person there to shoot someone.
In the first killing Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and killed when he went to take his gun as if disarming him. Rittenhouse admitted knowing he was unarmed.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wednesday/index.html
Prosecutors said that the two men (last 2 shot) had believed Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" and were trying to disarm him. But Rittenhouse testified that he feared for his life.
The
Rittenhouse verdict fails to account for the broader context of his actions,
which suggest a premeditated intent to engage in armed conflict. Rittenhouse,
then 17, deliberately inserted himself into a volatile situation by driving
from his home in Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin picking up a gun and going to a protests. He claimed to
be protecting property, but had no connection to the businesses he purportedly
guarded. The owners of Car Source, the dealership he claimed to be defending,
testified they never requested his presence. Rittenhouse armed himself with an
AR-15 style rifle stored at a friend's house in Kenosha, then roamed the
streets during protests, effectively acting as an unauthorized, armed
vigilante.
This sequence of events - traveling to another state, arming himself with a powerful weapon, and patrolling an area of civil unrest without any official capacity or invitation - strongly suggests Rittenhouse was actively seeking confrontation. When he encountered resistance and attempts to disarm him, he resorted to lethal force, resulting in two deaths and one injury. The jury's narrow focus on the immediate moments of the shootings, while in line with legal self-defense standards, ignores this wider crucial context. By acquitting Rittenhouse, the verdict potentially sets a dangerous precedent, effectively sanctioning armed vigilantism and encouraging others to take the law into their own hands during times of civil unrest including for minors.
Comments
Post a Comment