The shooting in Kenosha Wisconsin is the latest in a series of controversial violent events in the upper Midwest this summer. This is the first one not to directly involve a police officer, meaning that the rules which govern who is responsible are different. Just a quick recap, 17 year old Illinois resident Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha with an AR-15 to protect businesses from rioters. He was allegedly guarding a gas station when he was attacked by a group of rioters, some armed with guns. He showed enough restraint to allow one close enough to knock him over and club him with a skateboard. In an impressive recovery, we was able to shoot three of the rioters, two of whom died from their injuries, and make his escape. One of the victims was clearly armed with a pistol, but it is not clear who started shooting first. Kyle is currently charged with first degree murder, presumably to placate rioters. It appears that the DA should have the latitude to rule this as self defense with no charges, or charge anything up to murder one, but what charge is justified?
While we don't know the exact circumstances, nor the details of what happened, it is still worth examining the principles we would use to determine who is at fault, once the facts of the matter are established. I can't speak to what is legal, only to what I believe is right or wrong, and therefore I believe "should be" legal.
First off, he is a minor, and apparently not legally allowed to openly carry a gun. I think that is a reasonable guideline that should rarely be enforced for its own sake. Minor's have a right to self defense, but one could argue it is their parent's responsibility to protect them, not their own responsibility, and therefore they shouldn't need a gun. Regardless, I think the fairest way to handle the issue, is that if anyone over 14 or 16 is openly carrying a firearm, they automatically be treated by the justice system as an adult. If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to play be the same rules. On the other hand, if you want to charge him as an adult, you can't reasonably charge him with possessing a firearm that is otherwise legal for him to have.
Now that the age 17 issue is set aside, they are all out after curfew, meaning that they are shouldn't be on public property. I don't know what the legal rules around curfews are, but they shouldn't apply to people on private property with the owner's permission. This conflict started at a gas station, which is private property. If Kyle had the owner's permission to be there to defend the location from rioters, the curfew should not apply to him. The curfew would apply to the rioters, as they were either on public property, or trespassing on private property without permission. If Kyle didn't have permission to be there, this becomes a non-issue that cancels out, but if he did have permission, this should weight heavily in his favor. If the conflict started on private property (the gas station), even if he was pursued onto public property (running down the street), that should be in his favor.
Then there is the issue that someone was clubbing him with a skateboard. We don't know for sure who threw the first punch, or initiated the violent contact, but it seems unlikely that it would be the guy holding the rifle. What we do know is that Kyle is not afraid to shoot someone if he feels it is justified. Knowing that to be the case, and that he was clearly outnumbered, it doesn't seem reasonable that he would set aside his rifle and initiate a hand to hand confrontation. We know that he showed enough trigger discipline to let the guy who knocked him over get within reach. At some point after that, the shooting started, and one of the people he shot was holding a pistol. If he didn't shoot first, I can't see how this wouldn't be a clear cut case of self defense. If someone is shooting at you, I can't imagine a case where it wouldn't be totally justified to shoot back. This was the premise of dueling back in the day, if I understand correctly.
If Kyle shot first, how do we determine if this was a case of legitimate self defense, or murder? I am sure that there are some established legal thresholds for this, that vary between states, and some of which are probably ridiculous, based on the 80 year old charged with killing a home invader who had already beat him and left him for dead. He was outnumbered by violent attackers, some of whom were armed with guns as well, and they were actively assaulting him. And on top of that, other people have been killed by rioters in other locations recently, further making that a realistic possibility. So it appears to me that his life was clearly in danger.
So unless there is some major revelation that changes the basic facts that have been shared with the public, I see no reason that this shouldn't be considered a case of self defense. He would have to have been there without permission, and been the aggressor, threatening those who were not threatening him, and have fired first, for it to be reasonable to charge him with murder. If any of those three things aren't true, I think he is justified in his actions, primarily because he was outnumbered and on the ground, regardless of the fact that his attackers were armed.
It takes true courage, or true stupidity, to attack someone who is holding an AR-15. So the person who was beating on him with a skateboard is either a hero for attempting to subdue a homicidal maniac with his bare hands, or deserving of death for beating on a kid who got the best of him. The DA clearly sees it as the former, but I don't think that is likely, unless a lot of new information comes out. Other people seem to agree with him in demonizing Kyle without that other information, so I doubt anything like that will be forthcoming. The reaction against him is all based on feelings, not on the actual events as they have been reported, similar to a number of other recent incidents that have set people off.
