Anyone who shoots another in self-defense outside the home should expect to be arrested. The nature of the chaos surrounding such an event, combined with the stakes involved, is what causes police to arrest anyone involved and sort it out later. All that is to be expected, and it is the norm in the U.S. What is not normal, however, is for those who proclaim self-defense to be charged in court regardless of the evidence – or, in this truly shocking turn, in direct contravention of it.
On Tuesday, August 27, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Carli McNeill filed a criminal complaint against Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people at the Black Lives Matter riots in Kenosha, two days prior. But why? It certainly appears to have been in self-defense, and neither Wisconsin nor U.S. laws allow for the charging of criminal defendants to appease unruly mobs. I am not attributing bad motives to Ms. McNeill – I am looking to discover what reason she may have had to bring the charges she did. They are numerous and as serious as possible.
Sentence First - Verdict Afterwards
The complaint charges Rittenhouse with the following counts: First Degree Reckless Homicide, First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, First Degree Intentional Homicide, Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide, First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under the Age of 18.
The one legal reason Ms. McNeill could offer to justify the complaint – that her office possessed evidence to prove the charges beyond any reasonable doubt – is not present, as the charging documents make clear. Mr. Rittenhouse shot at four people. He killed two, injured one, and missed the fourth. Joseph Rosenbaum was the first person Rittenhouse shot. This was after, as the complaint describes, Rosenbaum chased and taunted Rittenhouse and tried to steal his firearm.
While there are some different standards regarding self-defense shootings across the U.S., one national standard exists: One may use force, including deadly force, to defend against attempted killing or infliction of serious bodily injury. To declare him guilty of murdering Rosenbaum, a jury would have to believe that Rittenhouse could not have reasonably feared death or serious bodily harm from him. Video footage of the event shows Rosenbaum running him down, throwing something at him, and – as the complaint describes – trying to grab Kyle Rittenhouse’s rifle. That is from the government’s best witness to the crime.
What other reasonable conclusions could Mr. Rittenhouse make, except that the man attacking him wished to do him harm?
Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings
The other people Rittenhouse shot at face a slightly different analysis with a similar outcome. Some of those men might have been acting out of the mistaken belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter or had committed murder. We need not examine such motivations for these criminal charges. All that matters is what Mr. Rittenhouse reasonably believed their intentions to be.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s attorney said:
“This is 100% self-defense. If this is not self-defense for Kyle Rittenhouse under these circumstances, then no one can protect themselves, no one can protect their family, and no one can protect their country.”
High-quality self-defense courses include modules on surviving not just an attack, but the aftermath, including the legal examination of the incident. How can you defend against a charge that simply ignores the facts and the law? They don’t teach that in law school, I can tell you. Oliver Stone wrote, “hell is the impossibility of reason.” Kyle Rittenhouse’s case lives there.
~
Read more from Scott D. Cosenza.
