Skip to content

“Chaos tourist” case goes to the jury

Kyle Rittenhouse – Caricature by DonkeyHotey via Flickr (CC BY 2.0).

There is no telling what the Kyle Rittenhouse jury will do when it begins deliberations later this morning in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It feels highly unlikely that the AR-15-toting, medic cosplayer who pleads self-defense will be convicted on all counts. The “reasonable doubt” standard for murder will make that a tough lift. Even with the two men he shot dead being unarmed.

Rittenhouse (17 year-old at the time) was a “chaos tourist,” the prosecution told jurors. He came to Kenosha from out of state, armed, for adventure because he knew the situation in the street protest-turned riot could be dangerous. I did not catch all of the trial. Did Rittenhouse-the-“medic” even treat anyone the night of the shootings or was he using his medical bag as cover for carrying a rifle to a riot?

For reasons as opaque as the statute he cited, Judge Bruce Schroeder threw out the misdemeanor weapons possession charge against Rittenhouse before closing arguments:

Legal experts had considered the misdemeanor gun charge — which carries up to nine months in jail — to be the easiest charge for the state to prove.

Ahead of Monday’s closing arguments, Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled Wisconsin’s open carry law is so confusingly written it can be interpreted to mean 17-year-olds can openly carry firearms as long as they’re not short-barrel rifles. He believed the jury could only convict if prosecutors proved the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle was less than 16 inches and has an overall length shorter than 26 inches.

The AR-15-style rifle Rittenhouse used to fatally shoot two men and injure a third is 35 inches long with a barrel length of 16 inches. Under defense questioning, a Kenosha police detective said he believed the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 was standard size.

It was the kind of technical hair-splitting that drives gun control advocates nuts.

Paige Williams sums up the challenge for The New Yorker in a piece written before Monday’s closing arguments and Schroeder’s instructions:

The Rittenhouse jury’s task has been described as complex: jurors must consider five felony counts and one misdemeanor, the unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon. The most serious of the charges is first-degree intentional homicide, for the death of Huber, who was shot in the heart. The charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Rittenhouse is also charged with first-degree reckless homicide, for killing Rosenbaum; attempted first-degree intentional homicide, for shooting Grosskreutz; and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, for jeopardizing the lives of Jump-Kick Man and Richie McGinniss, who, as the Daily Caller’s video chief, was filming the protests that night.

Grosskreutz, a paramedic from Milwaukee, testified for the prosecution. Rittenhouse’s supporters had rabidly anticipated this appearance, hoping that Grosskreutz would admit to having been armed and underscore the defense’s central argument—that Rittenhouse had to shoot because he was under threat. Watchers live-streamed themselves watching the live stream of the trial. One of Rittenhouse’s lawyers said to Grosskreutz, “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him” and “advanced on him” that Rittenhouse fired, “right?” Grosskreutz replied, “Correct.” The three hosts of one stream—which has been viewed more than three and a half million times—said, “Oh, shit!” and “Wowwww” and “That’s it!” Observing Rittenhouse’s response in the courtroom, one noted, “He just exhaled!” Another declared, “How do you not acquit after that?” The streamers then mocked the prosecutors, calling one of them a nasty name based on his appearance.

It did not help that Schroeder’s instructions to the jury about considering lesser charges were unintelligible, as was much of the judge’s behavior during the trial.

“I think the jury is sufficiently confused and that’s what gets scary when you’re a prosecutor,” trial lawyer Katie Phang told “The ReidOut” Monday night [timestamp 6:10]. Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler concurred, “I didn’t understand half of what the judge was saying.”

There are no winners in this case,” Rittenhouse defense attorney Mark Richards told the jury. In that, at least, we can agree.

There is no win here for public safety, as Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall observed:

Published inUncategorized