Rittenhouse Reaction

 I debated posting about this for two days, in part because I wanted to be sure I understood all the legal stuff involved. Now, after reading and seeing analysis from several sources, I'm ready to say my piece.

First, while the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse was, in no way, the correct moral outcome, it seems to have been the correct legal one--and it is important to note that legality and morality do not always go hand in hand. Apparently, self-defense under Wisconsin law, is a comparatively low bar to make. Let me explain: In any jurisdiction, self-defense is what's called an affirmative defense. That means that the defendant doesn't have to prove he was acting in self-defense, the prosecution has to prove he wasn't. Based on what I've found out, the standard in Wisconsin is "did the defendant reasonably believe his life was in danger?" That's a tough position for a prosecutor to fight against--it basically asks the jury to read the defendant's mind. 

The prosecution can try to argue that no reasonable person would fear for his life in the same circumstances or, as they did in the Rittenhouse trial, that he put himself in the dangerous position. Trouble is, the law--at least in Wisconsin--considers only the imminent danger, that is, the situation at the moments just before the decision to use deadly force. That Kyle Rittenhouse should have reasoned that just by going into a volatile situation he was putting himself at risk is, it seems, immaterial. All that matters is his state of mind as his attackers acted against him.

And the attackers' intentions are equally immaterial. Was their only intention to disarm Rittenhouse? Doesn't matter. If Rittenhouse thought they intended to cause him bodily harm, that's all that's required to successfully argue self-defense.

So, there's the legal side of it. Now for the moral side of it.

That requires us to ask the question that the legal standard ignores: Why in hell did Kyle Rittenhouse travel 20 miles to a city where he didn't live to confront a mob with a military-style rifle? Even if we accept his testimony that he was there to protect property, we have to ask, why did he feel that was his job, his responsibility? Had it been his property, his neighbors' property, his city, we might be able to agree--he had a right and a duty to defend it. But what made it urgent for him to go to Kenosha that night?

I'm afraid that, morally, I can see no justification for him to even be there--let alone armed as he was. To my mind, he just felt the need to be on the scene, to take the opportunity to do something "heroic" in the eyes of the right-wing crowd he admired. "I will stand up against the mob," he seems to have been thinking--even though, by the time he got there, the "mob" was largely dispersed, those who were left were mostly peaceful, and there was no substantial property damage or human damage that night. (Only three shots were fired that night--all by Rittenhouse--and the only deaths were the ones Rittenhouse caused.)

So, there's my stance: I hate that he got off, but I think the jury had no choice.