I am upset. Having seen some of the footage before the trial, read some of the media coverage, and conversed with people who had consumed more, I was not prepared for how corrupt of a trial this would be.
Kyle Rittenhouse acted in accordance with the legal expectations and definitions of Self Defense.
I watched the prosecution grill Rittenhouse yesterday for hours. When we finally got to the shootings (which took over an hour), the argument presented was, quite literally, “You didn’t have to shoot him[Rosenbaum/Grosskruetz/Huber] because you’re still here today.” I… I don’t even know how to process that. It is so contrary to my world view, to my experience, to my training, that the prosecutor might as well have been speaking Chinese. The idea that you aren’t in danger because you are alive today is such a stupid position.
This trial bothered me from the start, but I thought that, perhaps, maybe, I hadn’t heard everything, or I had heard some serious slant, and that it maybe, just maybe, wasn’t as cut and dry as I thought. But no, every witness, both Prosecution and Defense, confirms the same tale: Kyle was out there and he was threatened and assaulted by four people, shooting three and killing two. It was dark, he was alone, and after the first shooting, he attempted to flee to police custody. This was, of course, after he attempted to flee Rosenbaum and failed.
Things I did learn: Rosenbaum was threatening him on multiple occasions prior to the final conflict. The inciting incidents appear to be Rittenhouse trying to help people. Rittenhouse used exceptional weapon control. Rosenbaum had just been released from a mental hospital for being suicidal. Grosskruetz was carrying a concealed weapon illegally. Nobody was being prosecuted for violating curfew except Rittenhouse.
In discussing this trial with others, I’ve encountered a few arguments for how Rittenhouse might have some amount of responsibility for what happened. I’m going to do my best to form a coherent argument against these. I’m also going to point out exactly how utterly insane the prosecution was yesterday and if you ever need a reason why I never trust my government, that prosecutor and his arguments can be your exhibit A.
He shouldn’t have been there
This is the line I hear most often. First of all: why not? Out of all the dumb arguments, should and ought are some of the worst. Who is the grand authority here on what you should or should not do? He went there because he was asked to help protect the car lots. Trying to protect things is a noble thing to do. Rittenhouse clearly sees Kenosha as his community, and wanting to protect it is a noble thing. Was it foolish? Yeah, probably. But being foolish isn’t a crime, nor is it a good argument that his actions constitute a crime.
Honestly, if you want to convict someone for going somewhere dangerous because they wanted to prevent arson and provide first aid… like there is a lot of people on that list. We should just throw every good samaritan in jail, right? Rittenhouse doesn’t count because he was carrying a gun? Sorry, the second amendment isn’t abolished yet. You can’t argue that he was wrong for doing things as you’d like the law to be.
He lied about his experience
This is such a non sequitur. What does his actual experience have to do with anything? Is there some lawsuit against him for medical malpractice? I thought this was a murder trial. Oh, right, this is about the first one: He shouldn’t have been there.
I want to set fire to that entire line of thinking: Kyle Rittenhouse was there to attempt to prevent arson and provide first aid. This wouldn’t have been necessary if arson and injuries weren’t happening. Kyle was trying to do what he could when people who also shouldn’t have been there were damaging his community. “He lived in Antioch” so what? No, really, so fucking what? I’ve lived in cities where I wasn’t part of the community before. That actually describes most of my life to be honest.
Talking about people who shouldn’t have been there: there was a curfew. None of those people should have been there. Maybe if Mr Rosenbaum had gone home instead of picking on a 17 year old Rittenhouse, he’d be alive today. Arguing that Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there is an Isolated Demand for Rigor (in regards to that law instead of science in this case, but the fallacy stands).
He was carrying a gun, what did he expect?
I’m sorry, but we literally shoot this argument down in every other situation, I can’t accept it here. Carrying a gun is not a crime. Let’s say that again really slow:
Carrying… A… Gun… Is… Not… A… Crime.
If you are scared of someone carrying a gun in a safe and controlled manner (on a sling or in a holster), that is a you problem. You don’t have a right to assault someone for carrying a gun. Having a gun is not assault. He didn’t point the gun at anyone unless he was being assaulted by them. He fled first and fired second. In nearly every state in the nation, attempting to flee and being prevented grants one the right to self defense.
But let’s look at other examples for comparison: If you park in a bad neighborhood and you car is stolen or looted, whose fault is that? Do you bear any responsibility for that? No, of course not. It’s stupid to suggest it and victim blaming. Speaking of victim blaming: if someone is wearing lascivious clothing, are they asking for it? Do they deserve to be sexually assaulted? Obviously not. Such thinking is gross and despicable.
So he was protecting the lot, why did he go into the crowd?
Rittenhouse answered this himself but I think the reason is pretty obvious: He went out to help people. He wanted to put out fires and render medical aid. Which, I might add, is a brave and noble activity. We regard firefighters and EMTs as heroes. This is a good thing.
So why go out armed? I don’t know, maybe the previous nights of violence, the threats that same evening, and the national news of violence around the country might have encouraged him to bring a weapons he could use to defend himself. Again, carrying a gun isn’t a crime. It doesn’t imply intent. It doesn’t suggest you’re trying to pick a fight.
But did you die?
This is aimed at Mr. Binger. I have never, ever, felt so thoroughly disgusted observing legal proceedings, as when Mr. Binger argued that Rittenhouse must have wanted to kill people because he couldn’t have been defending himself since he was here today. “You have a rifle, he’s unarmed, he’s no threat to you,” is such a logical fallacy. Being unarmed doesn’t make a human not a threat. We killed each other and hunted for prey before we figured out throwing rocks. Primates are good at killing each other.
Even worse was “Grosskruetz has a pistol, you have a rifle, you have the bigger gun,” as if pistols can’t kill just as easily. I don’t even understand how such an argument forms in ones head. Mr. Binger, of course, demonstrated how little he understands firearms earlier with his “Hollow point rounds are designed to explode when they enter a body” which is simply not how any of this works.
If you can only be acting in self defense if you don’t walk away from the incident, we have made self defense impossible. That isn’t the definition that is down in the lawbook, and it certainly isn’t a society I want to live in. Mr. Binger should be ashamed of his reasoning yesterday and should be giving Rittenhouse an apology and dropping charges.
Why do I even care?
After watching the trial yesterday, I was upset. I was in a bit of a fugue, feeling demoralized and depressed. So I worked through why I felt that way. The reason isn’t terribly complicated. I could see myself in those shoes which Rittenhouse currently has. I could imagine being armed, being assaulted, and having to defend myself. And I could imagine having a lawyer grill me about how I intended to murder people simply because I was armed. That simply isn’t how any gun owner I know thinks.
Owning a gun is a right and a responsibility. One carries not just to protect themselves, but to protect others. Gun owners are responsible for less crime than the general populace. We understand that when carrying a weapon, we are capable of ending lives, and we take that seriously. Individuals like Rittenhouse, myself, and others I know, do not want to kill anyone. The idea is not that we desire to make that choice, but that given a choice between someone else and ourselves, we’re picking us.
Why is such a choice even relevant? Well we see it in the Rittenhouse trial. It’s there, plain and obvious. He comes under attack. He has the option to take whatever his assailants will give him, or strike back. Humans are not some angelic entities which never hurt each other. We’re capable of great harm, even without weapons. To disregard this is to deny reality. Given a choice between an aggressor and myself, I’ll pick me, every time.
Happy Veterans day
-Wo’ah the Wise
The Rittenhouse Trial
How dare you write something so coherent and apply logic thoughtfully.
Well said.
I realize Kyle was under extreme pressure there but it didn't exactly help that he (being so young and inexperienced and dare I say borderline dimwitted) couldn't rationalize his position to this slimey prosecutor better. I mean he barely withstood the onslaught of sophistry and could have used some of your reasoning skills and language. :)