As a matter of law, Rittenhouse’s acquittal was necessary. I do not see, legally, anything that would prevent a successful claim of self-defense. Ignoring the circumstances and the choice of firearm, and looking at the exact events themselves, I think Kyle’s belief in imminent death or grievous harm was rational.

Being a dumbass open-carrying an impractical rifle is very legal in Wisconsin. There are a bunch of state laws explicitly banning municipalities from infringing on the right to be a dumbass carrying around a rifle. In the context of a state that clearly believes, as a matter of law, that toting around a large rifle is appropriate conduct, in which legislatures passing these laws explicitly refer to the purported deterrent effect of open carry against violent crime, being a dumbass teen open-carrying an impractical rifle that is arguably not illegal to own (badly-drafted laws *must* be interpreted in favor of the defendant) in the middle of genuine civil unrest characterized by violent crimes of lethal force (arson is lethal force - that’s not only law, I actually agree with that one) can only be characterized as encouraged by public policy.

I think Rittenhouse wanted to march around Kenosha feeling powerful and heroic, get some photos, and brag about it to his mouthbreathing friends for years thereafter. I think his stupid fantasies of vigilanteism were a 17-year-old acting like a dick rather than actual intent of any form. I think he is a stupid kid who got in very far over his head.

Being a stupid teenager trying to look tough in the middle of an actual crisis is legal. In Wisconsin, owning a long-barreled rifle at the age of 17 and carting it around in public is legal. Disagreeing with a protest is legal, regardless of how thoroughly justified the protest movement is.

I absolutely refuse to accept any theory of “provocation” that includes standing around looking like you have an unpopular opinion. I have not abrogated my rights to self-defense by being visibly queer in a conservative area of the country where I could reasonably expect violence. I have not abrogated my rights to self-defense by standing near a rowdy, drunken “Re-Elect Bush” march in 2004 with a “4 FEWER YEARS” sign. I do not recognize any meaningful difference between these scenarios and Kyle Rittenhouse standing around as part of a right-wing militia, in a state that goes out of its way to recognize such behavior as lawful and encouraged.

To be perfectly clear, I am not stating that being a white supremacist is morally equivalent to being LGBTQ+. I am, however, stating that our legal system recognizes no distinction between unpopular causes. I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t want it to do so, because Wisconsin law is already pretty clear about which it would favor were it to distinguish between White Men With Beer N’ Guns and Queer People. I support laws defending people I personally despise because we need to live in a society where awful people have rights, since the people who have legal power to decide who should or shouldn’t have rights are usually awful people, and the best reasonable people can hope for is to hide under the penumbra of laws intended to protect awful people.

I believe Rittenhouse would have been convicted, or at least the jury would have hung, if he was Black, of visibly Arabic descent, or more obviously Latino. But he passes for white, so he is capable of securing an acquittal on self-defense grounds. I would hope that anyone his size or smaller, regardless of race, would be able to in his circumstances, but I’m not optimistic.

So, that’s where I end up on it. I can’t find any law argued in the case that would reasonably justify a conviction on the facts presented to the jury. Kyle Rittenhouse is a dumbass, not a hero, but he is - by deep red state culture standards - a run-of-the-mill teenage dumbass who got in over his head, not a murderer, and I don’t think he presents immediate violent danger to anyone who isn’t actively threatening or attempting to kill him.

I’m posting this because of various takes I’ve seen claiming that no reasonable person could possibly support Rittenhouse’s acquittal. I figured posting my own rant was more appropriate than getting into a pointless fight in someone else’s mentions. I’d like to think I’m a reasonable person of adequate moral character, but I accept that I am in a uniquely poor spot to evaluate that.

@kistaro WI law removes self defense as an option after unlawful conduct that a reasonable person would attack you over.

Say, pointing a rifle at them or another. Or ordering them out of a car with his hands on his gun. Which he did. Then he ran. But..

Before the shots were fired he turned and raised the rifle, which a reasonable person could conclude meant he wasn't retreating, just backing off for a better shot.

@Doephin This is an interpretation of the drone footage? I’ve watched it, and it doesn’t look to me like this description matches the events. I don’t see Rittenhouse pointing the rifle; I do see him grab it when it’s flopping around when he’s starting to run, and he points it downwards and sideways, away from people.

Rittenhouse turned when a gun was fired behind him. When he saw it was only the man he believed to be unarmed chasing him, he turned away and continued to run until he had no escape route. I don’t think turning away can be interpreted as “trying to get a better shot”.

I don’t think the drone video is evidence of provocation, and I think arguments that Rittenhouse turning around and raising his weapon was provocation are bizarre, since the attack giving rise to the self-defense claim had already started at that point. No part of that video looks like Rittenhouse is trying to get someone to give him a reason to shoot.