I don’t think it was ‘vague’ Wisconsin law on self defense as much as it was an unscrupulous prosecutor with a political agenda.


Vague self-defense laws put people like Rittenhouse in lifelong debt

Last month, then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder charges in the deaths of two men and wounding of a third during last year’s riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The incident, and the subsequent trial, became the latest flashpoint in the cultural battle raging across the United States.

The incident exposed how painfully ambiguous many state’s self-defense laws are. Most states have laws allowing guns to be carried. Gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But the law places an unreasonable burden on individuals in regards to when self-defense is legally justified and when it is not.

I believe, and I think most people would agree, that the best response to a personal safety threat is to call law enforcement. But what happens when police are unavailable or cannot arrive in the urgent timeframe required and an individual’s life is at imminent risk?

In the Rittenhouse case, civil order had broken down in the streets of Kenosha. Law enforcement could not be reasonably depended on to respond to threats to physical safety. Whether Mr. Rittenhouse exercised poor judgment in going into this scenario is a fair question. What is factual is it was his community, and he chose to help protect a business and provide medical attention to those in need. It was also factually determined Mr. Rittenhouse was in legal possession of the long-barreled rifle.

Under these circumstances raises the question of was Mr. Rittenhouse legally justified to shoot Joseph Rosenbaum after he had threatened to kill him earlier, chased him across the parking lot and attempted to take his firearm? The prosecution said no but watching the multiple video recordings of the incident made it very clear Mr. Rittenhouse’s attempt to flee Mr. Rosenbaum had failed and he had very limited options at the moment of the shooting.

This begs the question, if a person is legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm for defense how can an individual know when using deadly force is justifiable in incidents which unfold in only moments? I want to believe a person should know the difference if they choose to carry. Mr. Rittenhouse unquestionably initially attempted to flee from Mr. Rosenbaum rather than use deadly force. Yet, he was still arrested and charged with murder. If that is not the line, exactly where is it?

Minnesota must learn from Wisconsin’s ambiguity and pass clearly defined self-defense laws such as Stand Your Ground that not only simplify the law but also respect the Second Amendment. The citizens of Minnesota deserve clearly defined parameters that do not require a law degree to understand. The law should be based on the common sense of what is considered a reasonable action by a normal person.

In Mr. Rittenhouse’s case, the fact he was charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide for shooting an individual who pointed a loaded handgun at his head from near point-blank range while he attempted to run toward police to surrender is not the common-sense application of the law. While the jury system ultimately worked, acquitting him, the incredible expense gained defending himself is a burden such an individual should not be obligated to accrue under these circumstances.

Most Americans who own and carry firearms are good people who have no desire or intent to use them to harm anyone. The current climate of demonizing law enforcement, in addition to the resulting staffing problems across police departments, is likely to lead more people to seek their legal license to carry from a perceived necessity to provide their own self-defense. Personally, I know many people I never envisioned owning guns who have obtained their legal right to carry out of concern of personal safety.

Some have attempted to make Kyle Rittenhouse a hero, he is not. He was a 17-year-old kid who needlessly put himself into a dangerous situation, be it with good intentions. But, his prosecution should inadvertently bring the ambiguity of self-defense laws into question. Split-second decisions deserve a clearly defined law to protect the gun owner. No one should amass a lifetime of debt in legal expenses because they exercised their Second Amendment right in defending themselves. It was never the intent of our nation’s founders.