Rittenhouse Acquited

Updated: Jan 13

On August 25, 2020, amidst a BLM and Antifa riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a series of events led to a tragic shooting, resulting in the death of two protesters and injury of one other. For the next year, all we listened to in the news was the narrative of a deeply racist, white supremacist vigilante becoming an active shooter at a BLM riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

A lot of these claims could be easily debunked with two facts. First, each person involved was white (not the ideal victim for white supremacists), and as an active shooter, he would have had to be running around shooting random people in a spree. He shot three people who were all showing a threat to his life.

However, a year later, the truth slowly began to unfold, proving each of these claims wrong in court, where white supremacy or racism never even came up.

Kyle Rittenhouse was a patriotic citizen and member of a local fire department learning program. While he resided in Antioch, he worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha, where his friends and father lived. Seeing the extensive damage that rioters were doing to the city, he talked to various businesses and ended up joining a group of people who stood by the protests to protect local businesses from being burnt down.

It is the government’s job to protect the community, but the city had rejected assistance from outside government protection while the local police were not intervening and stopping such behavior. Rittenhouse chose not to sit by the sidelines and watch his city being destroyed.

Being knowledgeable of state law, he knew that as a 17-year-old, he was legally allowed to carry his weapon but not allowed to use it to protect property. The main purpose of his (and other peoples’) choice to carry was to be used as a deterrent for protesters, not to hurt others and burn down property (similar reason there are currently armed guards in front of businesses in San Francisco), and to protect their life in case the protesters turned violent. When someone is attacking someone who is carrying a lethal weapon, what can you assume of their intentions? Take it and play tag? I think not.

Rittenhouse also had additional desires to provide medical services for those who got injured during the rioting and brought his own medical bag. In a later interview, he claimed to support the BLM movement, just not the destructive and violent protest that riots would sometimes result in.

We all know what ended up happening that night, and it could not be a clearer case of self-defense. The witnesses defended Rittenhouse’s case even more than the prosecutors.

Rittenhouse was running away from the first attacker Joseph Rosenbaum and did not fire until Rosenbaum grabbed his rifle. And by the way, this is all proven on aerial footage. He then stood by Rosenbaum’s body while people came running towards him. But as more people came, he ran away to avoid any further attacks. While running, he tripped and fell. One person continued to jump after him and kick him in the head. Directly after that, Anthony Huber came over and started to repeatedly beat Rittenhouse’s head with a skateboard. To stop the threat, Rittenhouse fired a few shots. Not intending to kill, but to stop the threat from causing severe head trauma. After this, he was yet approached by another man, Gaige Grosskreutz, bearing a 40-caliber handgun. As Grosskreutz was not aiming the weapon at the 17-year-old yet, Rittenhouse held fire. While Grosskreutz continued to close in, Rittenhouse only discharged his weapon when Grosskreutz pointed his weapon directly at his head. This was rightfully the third time that Rittenhouse’s life was under imminent threat – another justified case of self-defense.

At absolutely no point was Rittenhouse an active shooter, white supremacist, racist, vigilante, or said Trump supporter as deemed by the media. He did not run around firing his weapon at everybody, but only when he was physically attacked after failing to evade, he did discharge his weapon.

The prosecutor attempted to go after him in several ways, but each one proved insufficient. He was legally allowed to be there, broke no firearm regulations, showed no sign of aggression or confrontation throughout the entire night, and showed no intention to use lethal force to protect property. His only two intentions for attendance was to provide medical aid and deter rioters from violence and destruction. He was within every right to be there. I’m not saying that I support every decision Rittenhouse made, but in terms of the trial, facts, and state legislation, he wasn't doing anything wrong.

The case will continue to withstand controversy, but I’m glad that even under pressure from the woke mob and social conviction from the media and Biden administration before fair trial, the court system proved honorable. Now I’m aware that some of you may have some contradicting points that I may not have covered. I would love to hear them out if you wish to share.