Rittenhouse: Before it's over, one verdict is clear

Opinion: Gun owners need to stand up for responsibility, training, and ethics over stupidity

Photo illustration (KJBOutdoors)

An earlier version of this column has been corrected to accurately the defendant’s status on bail and emphasize this is an opinion piece.

---

Even before it’s over, gun owners nationwide should loudly slam a verdict of “stupidity” upon the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and incidents on that August 2020 night in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

The entire episode marks a tragic waste. Two innocent lives were needlessly lost and a teenager is on trial to determine his future.

The entire episode should be an embarrassment for responsible gun owners everywhere and of every stripe. We deserve to be red-faced. A majority of us pushed for the laws that let this happen.

By no means should Rittenhouse continue to be celebrated as some kind of hero, nor should he be played as a racially charged political football.

Blame the Black Lives Matter protestors for allowing things to get out of hand and lax local law enforcement for not stepping up enough during protests if you want, but I think that’s a cop-out. Let them worry about their own influences.

The bottom line for gun owners is that Rittenhouse was being a stupid kid—deadly stupid.

It’s fine that conservative gun-rights groups want to support the young man in his legal challenges, but at the same time, a serious hammer has to fall on several points. Gun owners need to lead the charge on this or consign themselves to letting gun control groups like Mom’s Demand Action become a broad public face speaking up for “common-sense gun safety,” a mantel that the majority of gun owners have largely chosen to drop while catering to our own limited silo.

• We need to recognize that public carry allowed without any training at all represents a public safety hazard

• We need to pour more money and effort into non-profit/private partnerships with outreach to fund free firearms safety awareness and training programs for parents, children, and lower-income families be they gun-owners or not

• We need to not just encourage but insist on peer pressure of the harshest sort leveled against people who enjoy freedoms without recognition of their public responsibilities. We have hunter codes of ethics, shooting range and coaching and competition shooting codes of ethics, but I’ve never found such a list governing concealed or open carry of firearms in public.

The National Rifle Association members I grew up with came down pretty heavily onto people who ignored safe practices or who caused a negative public view of shooting sports. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has equally passionate professionals in its ranks when it comes to training and public education.

They have been too quiet on Rittenhouse.

Some folks got a little upset with National Public Radio this week for airing contents of old recordings of National Rifle Association leadership referring to some constituents as wackos, crazies, and idiots.

They aren’t the first gun owners to use those words about other gun owners. I’ve heard it plenty, often preceded by an expletive and followed by some additional verbal ass-kicking, possibly followed by some no-nonsense firearms training supervision, or more likely expulsion from a recreational group, competition, or a gun range.

Every group has its wingnuts.

Twitter screengrab, January 2021.

(Expletive) You

A half-hour after Kyle Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty to homicide charges and got out on a $2 million bond provided by gun-rights advocates in January, he was happily hanging out in a bar wearing a “Free as (expletive)” t-shirt.

Social media hounds shared the photos of the outing happily and virally.

This outing of an underage kid out on bond at a place where alcohol is served did not violate bail conditions because, according to local newspaper reports, he was with a parent.

That’s worth repeating.

Because he was with a parent.

I guess maybe they felt obligated to say thanks for the $2 Mil to some folks gathered at the bar? That’s just a wild guess.

Either way, it was not a move that showed respect for the law or lives lost, whether they felt the killings were righteous or not.

I mean, (expletive), is this what we consider respectful or ethical?

Rights Without Reason

Rittenhouse had no business getting into that deadly position in Kenosha, but he apparently felt the law had no bearing on his perceived Second Amendment freedoms.

He told the court he drove from his home in Antioch, Ill. to a friend’s house even though he didn’t have a driver’s license. He said he didn't have a license but typically he “only drove to and from work.”

He apparently had a job as a lifeguard at a Kenosha swimming pool for about a week prior to the riots and made the half-hour commute each way from his home, according to his testimony.

No driver’s license. That likely means he was an uninsured motorist.

I’m trying hard not to judge, but he said he spent his $1,200 Covid stimulus check on his AR, so, that erases any monetary hardship I can imagine for driving without a license.

He open-carried that AR-15 through the streets even though Wisconsin law requires a person to be 18 to open-carry. No one asked his age, but his 20-year-old friend, Dominick Black, knew and still let the kid wander off on his own.

Rittenhouse also felt free to present himself to injured people as an emergency medical technician. His EMT training consisted of a few classes as part of his membership in local police and fire department cadets’ programs for school-age kids, according to his testimony. He also had enough CPR training to get him that lifeguard job.

He is not an EMT, and some unsuspecting person with serious injuries might have trusted him for emergency care that night.

He is a fraud who puts his desires and perceived rights above the safety of others. Stupid kid.

Basic Firearms Knowledge

Assuming he has been honest on the stand, and he was under oath so we should, Rittenhouse had extremely limited experience with the AR that Dominick Black purchased for him.

He said he picked it out “because it looked cool” and because he was too young to legally carry a pistol. He was pressed by prosecutors for more reasons, but that was all he could come up with.

He told the court he had experience shooting targets at his buddy’s gravel pit. Then he indicated by pointing to the stenographer’s station in the courtroom that all of his targets were shot at a distance of about 10 feet, maybe 15 at the farthest.

That’s with a .223 caliber AR-15 rifle, with full-metal-jacket bullets. Talk about a waste of lead.

He told the prosecution he had no idea how far out a .223 could shoot accurately.

Holy crap. Depends on the round, the barrel, and the firearm, but that .223 can kill out to 500 or 600 yards.

According to his testimony, he also left the house not knowing if a round was in the chamber.

He was asked if he had racked a round into the chamber before he shot Joseph Rosenbaum. He said he wasn’t sure but didn’t think so.

So, apparently, there was a round in the chamber with 29 or 30 more in the magazine from the time he left his buddy’s house.

Again. Holy crap.

He bought a single-point-attachment rifle sling for open-carry hours before he walked around in a potentially violent crowd with his long gun hanging across his torso. A sling that allows a weapon to freely swing is the wrong choice for someone intending to do double-duty as a medic.

He admitted to no prep, no practice, and no knowledge of proper carry or defensive techniques. Watch the videos. It’s a wonder he didn’t shoot himself or someone else in the foot while running around with that firearm.

He said he never wanted to kill anyone, yet the only item in his possession for self-defense was a lethal weapon. Apparently, he didn’t quite think that one through.

And, according to his testimony, he still really doesn’t know much about ammunition. He couldn’t articulate the difference between bullets fired from rifles or from pistols of various calibers or styles and what they might do to an intended target or any subject beyond that target.

I’m skipping the dumb part where I assume, the prosecutor misspoke and said hollow-point bullets “explode” when he meant “expand,” but Rittenhouse’s statement that “a bullet is a bullet,” trumps that gaffe.

Holy crap.

The Zero Training Factor

For the want of a few months until he turned 18 (and a valid driver’s license), this kid could have legally driven to Kenosha and walked into that crowd, alone, with the same lack of experience, same lack of maturity, and no training.

Age doesn’t matter as much as training, but the laws in most open-carry states don’t address training.

Being 26 at the time didn’t help Gaige Grosskreutz, who stupidly ran at Rittenhouse with a pistol in his hand and damn near got his arm blown off in the process.

Maybe some professional training in how to apprehend an armed suspect might have helped Grosskreutz, but it’s a stretch to assume a civilian is prepared to apprehend a suspected shooter amid a public protest without causing greater issues.

Basic concealed carry firearms training would have at least told him he shouldn’t pull his sidearm unless or until he had no choice but to fire. Training would tell him he first should avoid confrontation if possible, stand back, observe, and call 9-1-1. He could have easily done that instead.

Joseph Rosenbaum was 36 years old but testimony from his girlfriend showed his age made no difference in his reported struggles with bipolar disorder, substance abuse, and anger issues that may have contributed to his untimely end.

Anthony Huber was 26 and apparently tried to use a skateboard to stop a guy with an AR-15. It was a deadly error.

So here it was, a worst-case scenario (hopefully we don’t see worse) of a person with absolutely zero training openly carrying a firearm into a situation they were not prepared to handle in any way other than to use lethal force against people who were equally unprepared and emotional too boot. What a disaster.

Time to speak up

Rittenhouse walked into a passel of protestors, but the truth is that anyone carrying openly in public at any time can run into someone struggling with substance abuse, mental illness, or who is angry or triggered by the sight of an AR-15 for any unknown reason.

The person might do something stupid but should they suffer death for the lack of training behind the person who was responsible for introducing that firearm into the situation?

Rittenhouse did carry his weapon within close range of one highly trained individual after the shootings. That person reacted by recognizing him as a potential threat and telling him to back off immediately or be pepper-sprayed.

That person was a police officer who was trained, well-armed, and had a backup in the form of a partner driving the patrol car in which he was riding. The way he reacted to and managed Rittenhouse should be instructive.

The kid had no business being out there in the first place, but he apparently was sure his Second Amendment rights endowed him with all the freedom, abilities, and authority he required.

It was stupid, and he was surrounded by adults who let it happen and laws too lax to prevent it. As a result, two people died and a kid’s future rests upon the scales of Lady Justice.

It’s time the adults in the room stood up, loudly, to cut through the politics and emphasize the basic responsibilities that come with exercising our freedoms while on our public streets. Ethics of firearms ownership needs to regain priority status.