I want to address one aspect of the Rittenhouse trial that I think has been lost in the mix. I think this is important because FAR too many people in this country are completely ignorant of the rules and realities of self defense.
(quick disclaimer... I am NOT a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice. Research it for yourself or contact a lawyer. I'm realating my understanding of law which is based upon my research and discussions with lawyers but this is your responsibility.)
Every state has slightly different laws with regard to "stand your ground" and a "duty to retreat" when it comes to defending your life. Some states codify these things into law while others rely on what is called "case law" which is essentially deference to natural law that has been ensconced into verdicts over decades or even centuries.
I'll use Virginia as an example because I'm more familiar with it but from my understanding, this is fairly similar in most places. In Virginia, we have two different types of situations where a person legally takes another life while defending oneself. Justifiable homicide means the person was an innocent person from start to finish and did nothing to provoke an attack. For instance, one is standing at an ATM machine and a person comes up and shows a weapon (any weapon that could kill and that includes a brick, tire iron, knife or gun). In that case, the victim can employ lethal force to stop the attack immediately. That is justified.
The other situation is called "excusable homicide" and that is a little different. If a person is involved in escalating a conflict that eventually turns deadly, they can still use deadly force in response but not until they attempt to retreat or break off the conflict. For instance, if a person is in a restaurant and gets into a shoving match with another person over how their girlfriend looks. The fight is mutual and both sides have provoked the other. One party then draws a knife. The other person has to attempt to disengage and retreat if possible. It is not until they have no escape that they are allowed to legally use deadly force to stop the opponent. Because both were involved in escalating the situation, there is a duty to retreat if they are going to have the mantle of innocence.
Some states have a duty to retreat regardless of the situation. Others allow one to stand one's ground regardless, but it is this duty to retreat that is important for this discussion.
Back to Kyle Rittenhouse. Did he have a duty to retreat? I actually don't know because I don't know Wisconsin law. I seem to recall somebody in court claiming he didn't have that duty but I could be wrong and it doesn't matter anyway. The question is, did he retreat? Did he fall back and attempt to get away from those he ended up shooting?
Now... you can argue about the wisdom of him being there and having a gun. You can argue that it shouldn't be legal for a 17 year old to guard property. You can argue a host of issues but what cannot be argued is that at the moment he pulled the trigger, he had nowhere to retreat and that if he didn't pull the trigger at that moment, he would likely be dead.
The whole concept of "duty to retreat" is a recognition that even if one was actively involved in a provocation, that doesn't mean they give up their life. The duty to retreat is to give a person the opportunity to end the provocation and get away. If one cannot get away but they have tried, they still are allowed to defend their life. They are not required to be the victim of homicide.
So go ahead and argue for social justice. Argue about unequal treatment. Argue about wisdom and good sense. But if you're going to argue about the law, understand what the law is. The law does not require one to allow themselves to be murdered. Even the most restrictive self-defense laws allow a person to use deadly force after going into full retreat until no further retreat is possible.
