Kyle Rittenhouse Case Analysis | Self-Defense or Murder?
If you enjoyed this video, please like it subscribe to my channel and consider supporting me on patreon, i will put the link to patreon in the description for this video, so first ill. Look at the background this case, including the timeline of the alleged crimes and ill offer my analysis. On august 23, 2020, a black resident of kenosha wisconsin named jacob blake, was shot in the back four times by a police officer. The police had attempted to take him into custody because he had an outstanding warrant for several charges. Blake refused to drop a knife and tried to climb into a vehicle the shooting left him paralyzed from the waist down. Protests started occurring in kenosha as a result of the shooting. Many stores in kenosha were looted. Several buildings were burned down a 17 year old resident of antioch illinois named kyle rittenhouse took an interest in defending property from the protesters. He had been active in police, cadet programs and voice support for law enforcement. Antioch is about a mile away from the wisconsin border. Rittenhouse had connections to kenosha wisconsin. He had worked there as a lifeguard and his father lived there. Britton house heard about a local car dealership whose owner was concerned about the property being vandalized or destroyed rittenhouse and a friend traveled to the general area of sheridan road and 59th street in kenosha. On august 25, 2020, as protests were going on, ridden house was armed with what the police described as a smith wesson ar 15 style rifle chambered in 223.
He joined other armed people who said they were there to protect businesses. Rittenhouse also carried medical supplies. A curfew was put in place, but ridden house evidently did not seem concerned about that. He remained near sheridan road. At some point. During all the commotion, a 36 year old man named joseph rosenbaum became upset with rittenhouse. He threatened rittenhouse on two occasions and made threats to other people in the area. Ridden house made his way toward a car lot to put out a fire and rosenbaum started chasing him. They entered a used car lot at which time rittenhouse said he felt cornered. He turned to face rosenbaum who lunged toward him grabbing for the rifle rittenhouse shot rosenbaum four times, britton house stayed there with rosenbaum for a few moments. As someone else began, administering first aid rosenbaum would die from his injuries. Rittenhouse called a friend of his on the phone and said he just killed somebody after this incident. Several protesters started chasing rittenhouse. He started running away from them toward where the police were at one point, he was struck on the head moments later. He fell down. Several people were yelling orders like get him and beat him up. A 26 year old man named anthony huber, struck rittenhouse in the shoulder with a skateboard and tried to get his weapon. A single shot from rittenhouse struck huber and killed him. Another man named gage grosskroots, who was also 26 years old, claimed that he believed rittenhouse was an active shooter gross crews had a concealed, glock semi automatic pistol in his possession.
He had a concealed carry permit, but it had expired. He produced the weapon and was holding it in his hand. He approached written house but then held up his hands as if to surrender. Gross croots would later claim that rittenhouse manually operated the action of the rifle as if rittenhouse was trying to clear some type of malfunction, so he could shoot him ridden house denied operating the action at that time. Gross crews brought his hands down and pointed his pistol at rittenhouse. He claimed it was unintentional, so he was unintentionally pointing a gun. At another person, ridden house responded by shooting gross croots one time in the arm. Ridden house stood up and walked toward the police with his hands up in an apparent attempt to surrender the police drove right by him. They did not stop ridden house surrendered on august 26 in illinois. He was charged with one count of first degree, intentional homicide. One count of first degree reckless homicide, one count of attempted first degree, intentional homicide, two counts of first degree, reckless endangering safety and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.. His trial started on november 1, 2021 at the time making this video the trial is underway. It has not been going well for the prosecution, but who knows whats going to happen now. Moving to my analysis, the case of kyle rittenhouse has taken on political meaning outside of the reality of the shooting. Some on the left tend to see written house as a murderer.
Someone who victimized innocent protesters like he encouraged them to attack him, so he could use deadly force. Some on the right tend to see rittenhouse as someone who is simply exercising his right to defend himself against dangerous rioters when politics enter the room. Logic typically stands up and leaves they cant really exist in the same place. At the same time, this case has been no exception. Now, moving to the question was written house guilty im not going to focus on the misdemeanor charge of possessing a weapon by someone whos under 18 or the reckless endangerment charges rather on the two murder charges and the one attempted murder charge lets take a look at The evidence pointing both for and against the idea of guilt, not all the evidence i will be discussing – was admissible to trial, starting with the inculpatory evidence, ridden house armed himself with a rifle and entered an area that was populated with protesters looters and rioters. A curfew was in place and he was not supposed to be on the streets of kenosha. At one point, he falsely identified himself as an emergency medical technician. He pointed his weapon at the men during confrontations, which one could argue prompted those men to attack him. Ridden house may not have been invited to defend that car dealership. There is almost the sense that he was looking for trouble ridden house allegedly flashed white power symbols at a bar, a few months after the shooting and associated with known members of white supremacy groups.
Now, moving to the exculpatory evidence in all three instances where rittenhouse shot someone, it has been confirmed through video and eyewitness testimony that written house was being attacked, rosenbaums behavior that night was described as erratic and extremely aggressive. He had just been released from the hospital earlier that day after attempting to bring an end to his own life. Perhaps by confronting written house rosenbaum believed he could find a way to complete that task, like he had some type of death wish anthony huber attacked written house with a skateboard theres. No question about that attack as it was captured on video huber was guilty of attacking written house gross crews admitted on the stand that ridden house shot him only after he pointed a pistol at rittenhouse. Gross croots claimed that he had no intention of shooting written house with the pistol that he was holding in his hand. If he had no intention of shooting written house, why was he pointing the pistol at him? Was he going to ask written house how it worked like he was going to say? I know this is a weird time and all as were in the middle of a riot, but can you tell me what this thing does i found it concealed on my person? His story is impossible to believe next item. Rittenhouse had medical supplies on his person. He testified that he did render aid to a couple of people ridden house attempted to surrender after the shootings guilty.
People are typically not too interested in contact with law enforcement. His attorney said that he has never been part of a white supremacy group. Considering all the evidence do. I think that kyle rittenhouse was guilty. I do not think he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in each instance when he fired his weapon. He did so while being attacked or threatened by someone else. I can appreciate the prosecutions argument that rittenhouse pointed his weapon at the men which may have made them think that rittenhouse was going to shoot them, but those men chased rittenhouse prior to his pointing of the weapon. If rittenhouse had pointed his gun at random people and they responded with lethal force, that would be a completely different situation. So again i would say not guilty by the legal standard, but what about in reality? In my opinion, rittenhouse was looking for trouble. He took a weapon into a place that he wasnt lawfully allowed to be. He wasnt allowed to use the weapon to defend property, so that was never an option. If somebody wanted to burn down that car dealership, kyle rittenhouse would not be allowed to fire on that person, he should have simply avoided the entire situation. If self defense was his goal, not entering that area would have been the best way to achieve it, even still its hard to escape the fact that he was being attacked when he fired, so, i would say, not guilty in reality as well.
This case was about the immediate actions of written house. In that moment, did he feel threatened? It seems reasonable to believe that he did technically. Somebody is allowed to take a weapon into a volatile area and engage in lawful activities. Wisconsin is an open, carry state. Citizens are allowed to carry guns in plain view. I look at this case as involving a collection of young people with poor judgment coming together in a violent setting, the protests, demonstrations or riots depending on ones, point of view allowed everyone to feel a little bit safer. As far as getting away with bad behavior, it was a place for young people to cut loose break the law, set some things on fire and believe they would not experience the consequences for their behavior. It was a sensation. Seekers dream come true repeatedly. Throughout this whole case, we see people who were highly excitement seeking trying to satisfy that need by jumping into these demonstrations. They werent necessarily interested in politics. They wanted the exhilaration. In my opinion, everyone in the situation acted foolishly. When people attacked written house, they should have known that he would be willing to defend himself. They tried to beat up or otherwise harm a person carrying a rifle, and they lost the fact that one of the attackers used a skateboard to strike. Someone carrying a rifle gives us a good idea of the level of sophistication that we are dealing with. In this case, it seems, like everyone in this case believed that they were invincible.
Im not surprised. This case has become the focus of political debate, because, sadly, everything can be dragged into the arena of politics, but i dont think the people involved in this case are good representatives of their theoretical, corresponding political affiliations. None of them are heroes. Many, if not all, are perpetrators if rittenhouse is found not guilty, that doesnt mean he was right. It doesnt mean that he acted intelligently or responsibly. If hes found guilty that doesnt mean that people should be allowed to attack someone on the street just because that person is carrying a weapon at the heart of this case is how society has defined self defense. Can a person arm themselves go into a dangerous area? Then defend themselves if they are attacked thats. What this case comes down to did kyle rittenhouse provoke a situation, so he could use his weapon, therefore losing the right to defend himself. I dont think the written house made good decisions, but there really isnt much evidence that he provoked anybody outside of being armed, trying to put out a fire with a fire extinguisher and pointing the weapon when he was threatened. I think what happened here is that rosenbaum started this whole mess once rittenhouse shot him in self defense. It set off a chain of events which resulted in the other shootings now, because rittenhouse was charged with possessing that weapon illegally. This brings us to another question: if somebody is possessing a weapon illegally, are they allowed to use it in self defense so running under the assumption, the written house was not allowed to possess the rifle.
Could he still use it if he did use it? Is that murder, or would it be some other offense? These questions remind me of a famous case in new york city. In 1984, a man named bernie guests was illegally carrying a firearm when he was attacked by four assailants on a subway. He shot each one of them. He was charged with a number of offenses, including four counts of attempted murder. Ultimately, he was acquitted of the serious charges but was convicted for illegally carrying an unlicensed firearm. I think it makes sense that a person will use whatever means necessary to defend themselves rather than asking themselves in the moment when they are being attacked. Could i get in trouble for using this weapon theres an old saying that goes something like id rather be judged by 12 than carried by six moving to the next question? What about the judge ruling that the decedents could not be referred to as victims? A big deal has been made about this, like the judge was biased against the prosecution. The trial is all about determining if those killed were victims, allowing this term to be used would be like allowing the prosecution to refer to rittenhouse as the guilty party. This is what the trial was actually for, so i dont think the judge was really biased, one way, the other. As far as that particular ruling. Now, moving to the lessons learned, i have three here for this case number one its, not a good idea to attack someone who is armed as a matter of fact attacking anyone is usually a bad idea.
Number two. If someone is going to carry a gun into a riot or demonstration, they should know that using it will almost certainly result in criminal charges. Therefore, it doesnt make sense to travel to those areas in the first place. If written house had stayed at home, you would not have shot and killed anyone number three, its, not a good idea to use a volatile situation to try to satisfy excitement seeking needs. Trying to get excitement is fine as long as it doesnt involve hurting. Anyone else. Excitement seeking behavior, specifically tied to violence, often comes with a steep price tag. Those are my thoughts in the case of kyle rittenhouse. Please put any opinions and thoughts in the comments section. They always generate an interesting dialogue. As always. I hope you found my analysis of this topic to be informative.