Shooter in Kenosha gathers defense team after being charged with two counts of 1st degree homicide.

A screencap from one of the videos showing that someone else was shooting before Rittenhouse opened fire. New York Times/Drew Hernandez. 

Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17 year old that shot and killed two people during the Kenosha riots, has been charged with multiple crimes and is assembling a defense team. Reuters. The lawfirm Pierce Bainbridge has agreed to represent Rittenhouse. Pierce Bainbridge had represented notable clients including Rudy Giuliani and Tusli Gabbard. The firm is working with lawyer L. Lin Wood, who is notable for winning defamation lawsuits against CNN and The Washington Post, forcing them to settle for his client Nick Sandmann, who was harassed at the Washington DC March for Life. Rittenhouse was charged with one count of 1st degree homicide, one count of 1st degree reckless homicide, one count of attempted homicide and two counts of reckless endangerment, along with a misdemeanor charge for carrying a weapon under the age of 18. 

The New York Times has a good round up of the Kenosha shooting, along with most of the video collected on the scene. 

EDIT: I have been able to locate the criminal filing for the arrest of Kyle Rittenhouse. I find it very strange that the 1st degree homicide charge was for Anthony Huber, the guy that hit him with the skateboard and the 1st degree reckless homicide charge was for Joseph Rosenbaum. You would think the charges would be the other way?

My Comment:

It is a good thing that Rittenhouse is getting help. Unlike other high profile cases of this nature it looks like the conservative base is willing to fight for this young man. It's already quite clear that the media narrative has very little to do with what actually happened. 

Given the round up by the New York Times (which actually shocked me with how unbiased it appeared to be) I don't think there is a real chance of him being convicted on most of the charges. I do have to say that he has zero defense for the misdemeanor charge of carrying a weapon under the age of 18. It's very clear he broke that law and I don't see how he gets out of it. 

But the rest of it? There is pretty much no way that the 1st degree murder charge sticks. At the very worst, he might be convicted of 2nd degree homicide. In Wisconsin 2nd degree homicide is a homicide that has one of four mitigating factors that reduces the charges. Two of those appear to be relevant here. 

The first is 940.01 (2) (C) which is prevention of a felony. It was clear that the men shot were committing felonies. They were destroying a car lot and generally being terrible people. Though lethal force isn't allowed in Wisconsin for preventing a felony it is considered a mitigating factor 

The second is 940.01 (2)(B) which is imperfect self defense. In that case the shooter believes that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm and the jury finds that belief unreasonable. I don't think there is any argument at all that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense but a jury will have to decide the reasonability of that argument.  

But I think that the jury will find this to be self defense. The accounts that I have seen, both on video and in print, builds a strong case for self defense for all of the charges except the misdemeanor charge. As the New York Times article shows there was someone else shooting during that event and that alone probably makes it justified to shoot and kill an unarmed attacker. 

Wisconsin doesn't have a stand your ground law but it's pretty clear that Rittenhouse did do his duty to retreat. He was running from the first attacker and didn't shoot him until there wasn't anywhere to run. He turned when he heard the shots, fired a warning shot (or negligently discharged) and then killed the 1st man after he tried to disarm him. After that he fled again, trying to reach the safety of police lines. He was attacked, fell down and then could not retreat anymore. 

I don't think it matters that the first attacker was unarmed. It sounds as though he was trying to steal Rittenhouse's firearm and as far as I am concerned that justifies shooting him, even ignoring the fact that he was charging Rittenhouse, had thrown something at him and someone else was shooting in the area. Trying to steal someone's weapon is always a threat of death or great bodily harm as far as I am concerned. 

In the 2nd encounter Anthony Huber, who was shot and killed by Rittenhouse, is seen hitting him with a skateboard and then trying to take the rifle. Again, stealing the weapon seems like a threat of death or great bodily harm to me. Hitting with just a skateboard might not justify a shooting, but again, he tried to steal his gun.

Finally, the shooting of Gaige Grosskreutz was the most justified of all. Grosskreutz was filmed backing off and raising his hands in surrender. And then when Rittenhouse was distracted he pulled his gun and likely would have shot and possibly killed Rittenhouse if he hadn't shot him first. Indeed, I wonder if Grosskerutz wasn't the one shooting in the original situation, though there is no proof of that either way at this point. 

The reckless endangerment charges are a bit more tricky. It appears that Rittenhouse shot at someone who had kicked him. That alone probably wouldn't justify shooting, but in context with the situation I think it does. He was being attacked by multiple parties and had been knocked down. My guess is that he understood that the mob would tear him apart if he didn't defend himself. That being said, I think the case here is probably strongest and if Rittenhouse gets convicted of anything other then the misdemeanor charge it will be this. 

And I do have to point out that none of the people killed or wounded in this incident were good people. All of them had criminal records and all of them were participating in an illegal riot. And the first man shot Joseph Rosenbaum, was harassing people and dropping the n-word like it wasn't a big deal. 

Now that it is confirmed Joseph Rosenbaum was one of the people shot and killed by alleged gunman Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, I filmed him earlier in the night taunting the armed civilians, saying, "Shoot me, n***a." pic.twitter.com/Nn2encm78Y

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) August 27, 2020

 I do think that we have reached a turning point in this country. The attacks against Rittenhouse are fairly baffling to those of us that still believe in law and order. That doesn't mean that he did everything right, as far as I am concerned he never should have been there. But I do think that this is a pretty obvious case of self defense unless there is some unknown evidence out there that changes the context of this case.