It was the last day before Thanksgiving break when the verdict was read inside of the Kenosha County Courthouse on Nov. 19. 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse who shot and killed two people and injured a third during a Black Lives Matter protest on Aug. 25, 2021 in Kenosha, Wis. was found not guilty on all five counts.
Source of charges: Associated Press
Rittenhouse testified that he fired in self-defense after the three men attacked him. Under Wisconsin law, “a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference.”
Tower sent-out an Instagram survey on Nov. 20 asking: “Which of the following best describes your feeling about the self-defense law and the verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse.” The results were as follows: a) bad law, correct verdict (7); b) good law, correct verdict (5); c) bad law, incorrect verdict (16); d) good law, incorrect verdict (6).
Caio Lanes ‘21 (responded A; bad law, correct verdict) said, “In order to be convicted, one would have to prove Kyle provoked the deceased to attack, and that was just not the case.” He continued, “[Joseph Rosenbaum] had reportedly been acting hostile the entire night and even threatened to kill Kyle. [Anthony Huber] hit Kyle from his back with a skateboard without provocation. And [Gage Grosskreutz] openly admitted that Kyle only shot him when they pointed their gun towards Kyle.”
Like Lanes, senior Ryan Israel (responded B; good law, correct verdict) said that Rittenhouse acted reasonably in self-defense.
Sophomore Keira Burgos (responded D; good law, incorrect verdict) disagrees. She said that the actions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were not enough to cause Rittenhouse to shoot in self-defense.
“I don’t think that they [Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz, unknown man] were directly attacking Kyle. They were not shooting and were trying to disarm him. I also don’t think that the [Huber’s] skateboard would have killed Kyle and there was no reason to shoot four times [at Rosenbaum],” she said.
Sophomore Amber Lincoln (responded C; bad law, incorrect verdict) said she thinks that the self-defense law is “not specific enough” and that “people will interpret it in different ways.” Lincoln also said that Rittenhouse should have known that bringing an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle to a protest would cause problems.
“Humans are programmed to respond in fight or flight. When Kyle brought a rifle, he was expecting to trigger a flight response. Instead, he triggered a fight response which is something he should have expected to happen,” she said.
Lanes said that he does not necessarily disagree with the self-defense law, but rather the legality of the open carry. Under Wisconsin law, “minors can carry guns with barrels longer than 16 inches.” He said that there should be conditions or limitations added to the open carry law, for example, “in places where tensions are inherently heightened, like protests.” While Lanes expressed his frustration with the current law, he believes that the verdict completely follows the law as it stands.
Burgos, who supports the self-defense law, said, “If you feel like you need to protect yourself, then I think that it should be your right to do so.”
CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig said that the verdict was not surprising, according to an article published by CNN shortly after the jury came to a decision.
"The law in Wisconsin is very favorable to a defendant claiming self-defense. The prosecution has to affirmatively disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury went back there and had some reasonable doubt, then they were to return a not guilty verdict, and that it appears is what they have done," he said.
Illustration by Sydney Starkey. All graphics designed by Hanna Schiciano.