Breaking Down the Case of Kyle Rittenhouse with Attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andy Marcantel
March 28, 2024
Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew C. Marcantel revisit the highly publicized case, State of Wisconsin v. Kyle Rittenhouse. They analyze the case and examine the themes of self-defense under criminal law.
“We do gun crime cases all the time. We do self-defense cases. We take cases to trial regularly… gun crimes are very much our bread and butter.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Background
On August 25, 2020, amid civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and injured a third. The unrest was triggered by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, an African-American man, which led to protests and riots.
Mr. Rittenhouse, who lived in Illinois, traveled to Kenosha, claiming he intended to protect property and provide medical aid. Armed with an AR-15-style rifle, he got into several confrontations throughout the night.
He shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz. Mr. Rittenhouse claimed self-defense, stating he was attacked and feared for his life.
He was arrested and charged with multiple felonies, including Intentional Homicide. The highly publicized trial started in November 2021 and lasted two weeks. On November 19, 2021, the jury found Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.
The Core Legal Issue: Self-Defense
The attorneys note that the key question in the Rittenhouse trial was not about political ideologies or character judgments. It was whether Mr. Rittenhouse reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from imminent death or serious bodily injury when he pulled the trigger.
Self-defense law in Wisconsin mirrors the legal standards across most U.S. jurisdictions. In their discussion, the attorneys outline the three fundamental legal requirements for the justified use of deadly force:
Imminency
The threat must be immediate and pressing.
Proportionality
The force used must match the level of threat.
Reasonableness
A reasonable person in the same situation would have believed that force was necessary.
“Even if [Rittenhouse] was mistaken about all these things, if a reasonable person in his shoes would have believed it, at the moment that he pulled the trigger, then it’s going to be justified under self-defense.”
– Attorney Marcantel
One of the key legal principles in this case was the burden of proof. Once self-defense is raised as a justification, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
“This isn’t a question of do you believe that Kyle Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense by like 60% or 51% or 70%… the state must have proved to those jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Defensive Display
During the chase, Mr. Rittenhouse briefly turned and pointed his firearm at Mr. Rosenbaum. While some speculate that this action could be considered Aggravated Assault, the attorneys clarify that Wisconsin law includes a provision known as the Defensive Display of a Firearm. This law allows a person to display a weapon without firing it to deter a threat. It is intended to serve as a less severe form of force before deadly force becomes necessary.
“If he had discharged his firearm right there, this case may go in a different direction, but he didn’t, he used a far lower level of threat of force.”
– Attorney Victor
Duty to Retreat
Although Wisconsin law does not mandate a duty to retreat, Mr. Rittenhouse running away from Mr. Rosenbaum strengthens his legal defense. Fleeing indicates an attempt to disengage, which is relevant when assessing whether the use of deadly force was justified. The attorneys highlight that in jurisdictions without a duty to retreat, trying to escape can help a jury see that lethal force was a last resort.
“Running is the type of thing that you could do to have to put on that scale in the reasonableness analysis when it comes to imminency.”
– Attorney Marcantel
This also relates to the legal concept of provocation. If someone initiates a conflict, they generally lose the right to self-defense. However, if they withdraw, they can regain that right. Although Mr. Rittenhouse initially provoked the encounter, his retreat and verbal disengagement restored his right to defend himself when Mr. Rosenbaum resumed the chase and became the aggressor.
What Doesn’t Matter in a Court of Law
The attorneys emphasize that much of what dominated public debate about the trial had no significance in the courtroom. Crossing state lines, for example, became a media hot topic but was legally irrelevant in this case. It would only matter in a federal case, which this was not. Similarly, Mr. Rittenhouse’s decision to be in Kenosha may show poor judgment, but they do not affect whether self-defense was lawful. Political ties, group memberships, or wider public reactions were also irrelevant. The law does not change based on who supports or opposes a defendant. One of the most misunderstood issues was Mr. Rosenbaum’s criminal record. While his past involved prison time, it was irrelevant unless Mr. Rittenhouse knew about it when he shot.
“If he was the shadiest person with the longest criminal rap sheet or a Nobel prize-winning laureate, irrelevant.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Relevant Facts From the Case
Several facts presented at trial support Mr. Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim. First, Mr. Rittenhouse had been threatened earlier in the evening by Mr. Rosenbaum, who told him, “If I catch you alone tonight, I will [expletive] kill you.” Second, Mr. Rosenbaum’s behavior was widely described as erratic and aggressive – setting fires, swinging chains, yelling profanities, and acting provocatively toward armed individuals.
During the chase, drone footage and eyewitnesses showed Mr. Rosenbaum closed the gap and lunged at Mr. Rittenhouse just before being shot. Forensic evidence confirmed that Mr. Rosenbaum’s hand was touching the barrel of the rifle when the shots were fired. The attorneys emphasize that these facts form the basis of the legal argument that Mr. Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life.
Conclusion
The attorneys conclude that, despite being imperfect and politically charged, the trial was conducted with proper legal safeguards in place. The self-defense verdict was supported by both the law and the facts presented. They urge the public to respect due process and protect individual rights.
At The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm, we don’t just talk about defending freedom; we do it in the courtroom every day. If you’re a responsible gun owner or someone who values freedom, we encourage you to explore our Attorneys On Retainer Program (AOR). If you would like to learn more about our law firm and how our AOR Program can assist you, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
