Brendan Pierson, Mike Scarcella

(Reuters) – The Wisconsin laws regarding self-defense presented a difficult legal problem for the prosecutors of the Kyle Rittenhouse murder case: proving a negative.

Rittenhouse’s claim that he used self defense to kill two men in Kenosha and wound another in a wild night of demonstrations last year forced the state, according to legal experts, into convincing a jury the 17-year-old had no reasonable belief that his life was at risk.

It is one thing to positively prove an element. Janine Geske (ex-Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice) said that it is one thing to affirmatively prove an element. However, it’s quite another to prove its nonexistence, as the prosecutors did.

Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all five charges. Rittenhouse also faced two counts for homicide. The case has rekindled the debate over firearms and legal self-defense in the United States.

Wisconsin is among at least 15 states that put a burden on prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. Wisconsin does not have a “stand your ground” law. A person can use deadly force to defend themselves, but not if they have exhausted all options.

Thomas Binger, Kenosha County Assistant District attorney, argued that Rittenhouse, an aggressor, was involved in the August 25, 2020 confrontation. He created an “active-shooter” situation that led to the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum (36), and Anthony Huber (26) and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz (28).

According to the defense, Rittenhouse had an AR-15 type rifle that he was legally carrying and was repeatedly threatened after he brought it into Kenosha to safeguard private property. Rittenhouse had then shot both men to end his life.

Daniel Adams, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney, closely watched the trial and called the verdict “very tragic but not completely surprising”.

Adams explained that Rittenhouse was in an antagonistic position at all three shootings. Adams said that these were more than people simply walking down the street. They were protesting, not just walking down the street. These people were engaged in an antagonistic way with Rittenhouse.”

Lawyers stated Rittenhouse’s reckless decision to testify in his own defense makes it more difficult for prosecutors and judges to reject his self defense claim.

During cross-examination Rittenhouse stated to the prosecution: “I did everything I could to stop the person attacking me.”

Legal observers claim that the prosecution is also hindered by its own errors.

Benjamin Van Severen, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney, said that prosecutors could have concentrated their questioning on witnesses, especially Grosskreutz to get more positive testimony. Grosskreutz claimed that Rittenhouse fired only after Grosskreutz was pointed at Rittenhouse’s gun.

Paul Applebaum is a Minnesota criminal defense attorney who said that the jury was also likely to be sympathetic towards self-defense arguments.

Applebaum claimed that the “climate in the country” is now more supportive of self-defense than 10 years ago. This was attributed to a growing public perception about crime and self disorder. People are more willing to claim that they live in constant fear and have used guns as a way of resolving the problem.

The Rittenhouse case was one of the most prominent U.S. civilian defense cases since George Zimmerman’s murder in Trayvon Martin’s shooting death, which occurred in Florida, Florida, 2013.

Geske, an ex-justice, was pleased with the jury’s long deliberations that lasted more than three consecutive days. However, she expressed concern about the message the verdict would send to the wider public: “When you’re out protesting and counter-protesting it’s fine to carry loaded weapons to ‘protect yourselves’.”