Legal Experts Say Kyle Rittenhouse Has Strong Self-Defense Claim

Legal experts are saying Kyle Rittenhouse, who fatally shot two rioters last summer, has a strong case for arguing self-defense, based on the law of self-defense and precedent.

Last August, when Rittenhouse was 17 years old, he was arrested for fatally shooting two men and injuring a third during a protest-turned-riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was charged with two felony counts of homicide and one count of felony attempted homicide and is facing potential life in prison.

Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty in January.

Prominent Colorado attorney and author Andrew Branca believes Rittenhouse should be acquitted based on the facts of the case, though he noted that the high-profile case is not entirely predictable, adding, “innocent people get convicted all the time.”

The Associated Press reported Thursday, “Under self-defense law and precedent, Rittenhouse’s motives for being in Kenosha are irrelevant to whether he had a legal right to shoot when threatened, some legal experts say. What matters is what happened in the minutes surrounding the shooting, Branca said.”

The lawyer noted that whether Rittenhouse was legally carrying the gun or not “shouldn’t factor into his right to self-defense,” the report said.

“If I had a 17-year-old-son, I would not encourage him to engage in this kind of behavior. But poor judgment is not a crime,” Branca said of Rittenhouse’s decision to go to the rioting area to help business owners, noting that the defendant has a “strong case for self-defense,” according to the AP.

Paul Bucher, lawyer and former Waukesha County district attorney, agreed with Branca that Rittenhouse’s decision to go into the rioting area is not a crime, but said it will likely be a stumbling block with the jury.

“Everybody in that courtroom is going to be thinking he deserved what he got because he put himself in a hostile situation,” Bucher said, adding, “‘What are you doing down there with a gun?’”

Posted to Branca’s website, the lawyer said he believed the case should result in Rittenhouse’s acquittal:

[I]t has been my experience in these politically-energized use-of-force cases that begin with a quick, politically-clamored for arrest on charges as serious as murder, that as further evidence is developed it is invariably evidence consistent with innocence rather than consistent with guilt. This was true of the George Zimmerman case, the Eric Garner case, the Freddie Gray case, the Mike Brown case, the Tamir Rice case, now the Jacob Blake case, and I expect the same will prove true of this Kyle Rittenhouse