What Conservative Media is Missing in its Defenses of Kyle Rittenhouse

Sean Krajacic-Pool, Getty

Like almost every subject these days, the story of Kyle Rittenhouse has cut along partisan lines. Conservative media has come to his defense, some have almost deified him, while he has been vilified by left-wing legacy media with coverage that has been beyond disingenuous.

That being said, right-wing media has omitted key details in its coverage of Rittenhouse, who is on trial for shooting three people, killing two of them, during riots last summer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

While right-wing media has rightfully focused on Rittenhouse appearing to have fired shots in self-defense – as the videos show him doing so against agitators including one who tried coming for his gun – other facts also show Rittenhouse was not an absolute innocent in his actions on that fateful August night.

Although Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of the homicide-related charges, he should have never been in Kenosha in the first place. So much for conservatives preaching the principle of individual responsibility.

For one, Rittenhouse was 17 years old and carried a firearm – a violation of Wisconsin law, which prohibits minors from having a firearm except for hunting purposes. One of six charges Rittenhouse faces is possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. Those found guilty of the misdemeanor charge face up to nine months behind bars.

Second, although the seventh and final charge – refusing to follow the 8 p.m. curfew implemented by Kenosha County in response to the protests and riots following Blake’s shooting – was thrown out by the judge in the case, Rittenhouse violated the curfew even if not in the legal sense. The videos obviously show he was out on the streets in violation of the curfew.

Third, while Rittenhouse could be acquitted of the charges of killing those two people due to him doing so in self-defense, he could still be convicted of first-degree reckless endangerment with the use of a dangerous weapon. Daily Caller video journalist Richard McGinnis testified that he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot the first victim, Joseph Rosenbaum.

Even if Rittenhouse is acquitted on the homicide-related charges, it would not necessarily mean he will be acquitted of the first-degree reckless endangerment charge, which carries a maximum sentence of 17.5 years in prison.

“It’s a complicated question,” Wisconsin-based criminal law attorney Anthony Jurek told Mediaite.

“Self-defense, as it’s written, is an affirmative defense to any crime,” he said. “And so, hypothetically, it could be used, but additionally, as it’s written, I think that what the [Wisconsin] legislature had anticipated was that it could be applied in a circumstance such as when someone is attacking you.”

In other words, said Jurek, “it’s an open question that the parties are arguing in the Rittenhouse case” and therefore, he added, “I don’t think we can safely assume” that if Rittenhouse is acquitted of first-degree reckless endangerment.

Jurek noted that, following arguments, the jury will be given instructions, which the prosecution and defense will argue whether to have self-defense be a factor in the deliberation of the first-degree reckless endangerment charge.

However, Milwaukee-based criminal defense attorney Matthew Meyer told Mediaite that using the excuse of self-defense cannot be used against the charge of first-degree (or second-degree) reckless endangerment. He said that self-defense “requires kind of a direct action” of intentionally targeting someone whereas “recklessly endangering safety … is focused on reckless conduct.”

“It’s more of a negligent-type offense where I’m doing something that’s not directed at another but it subjects someone else to a danger,” he said.

Wisconsin-based criminal defense lawyer Sarah Schmeiser told Mediaite, “Because Kyle Rittenhouse is charged with two counts of first degree recklessly endangering safety as well as various degrees of homicide, yes, he can be convicted of first degree recklessly endangering safety on those counts and acquitted of the separate homicide counts.”

The Right, including its media ecosystem, likes to preach the need to protect law-abiding citizens and go after those who break the law. Sticking to ideological and journalistic principles should be blind no matter the subject matter – like the administration of justice. The Rittenhouse case is no exception in either regard.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.