I am writing this on the morning of Wednesday, November 10. The defense phase of the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has just begun. So far, the prosecution’s performance has been an embarrassment to prosecutors everywhere. It turns out that the State is alleging that the first man to be shot was too far away from Rittenhouse to have been a danger to him when the boy opened fire, yet they never ordered a gunshot residue test to determine distance.
They are hanging a lot of their case on the assumption that the kid being there at all shreds the mantle of innocence necessary to a successful self-defense claim. Indeed, on the gun-related internet, I’m seeing a lot of people who should know better claiming that they’re unsympathetic to Rittenhouse because he “went there looking for trouble.”
I respectfully submit that this attitude just ain’t right.
Look, I strongly advise people to stay the hell away from protests and demonstrations such as these, let along the full-blown riot that Kenosha had become by the time Kyle Rittenhouse arrived there. My long form explanation can be found here, courtesy of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.
If you don’t have time for that, the short version can be found here, courtesy of Wilson Combat.
That said, implying that the kid is guilty simply because he went there seems over the top. People got sick and died from the toxicity they encountered when they went to help look for survivors in New York City after 9/11. Should we withhold sympathy and say “They asked for it?” I know people who came down sick after going to New Orleans to assist survivors after Hurricane Katrina. Should we sneer at them and say “They went looking for trouble?” Kyle Rittenhouse was photographed there cleaning up graffiti and offering medical assistance. I think we should take those motives into consideration.
And I certainly hope the jury does, very soon.