Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old Blue Lives Matter supporter who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time in Kenosha, Wisconson was arrested and charged with intentional homicide in a shootout that happened during a riot in the city on Monday night.
Much of the video evidence, however, is on the side of Rittenhouse and the evidence is beginning to mount that may exonerate him from any wrongdoing. Kyle, while underage and was illegally carrying a gun, cannot be convicted of murder if he was practicing self-defense.
The timeline can be summed up like this according to video evidence. Rittenhouse was in the parking lot of a used car dealership where an initial shootout happened. Initially, it appeared that Rittenhouse shot someone in the head for an unknown reason.
The video of the man who was shot, however, shows a head wound that is inconsistent with the type of wound that we know for sure this kid’s AR-15 could inflict. The video below shows the man who was shot with a small hole in his head, consistent with a small caliber handgun with “full metal jacket” type ammunition.
In contrast, the wound that was inflicted on the man shot in the street was massive — it blew out a huge chunk of his arm as seen in the image below.
Could it be that the guy shot in the parking lot was not shot by Rittenhouse, but by the other guy across the parking lot with the handgun? From the first video, we can see the muzzle fire and smoke from the guy across the parking lot shooting, and it appears that the guy who got shot in the head fell at that time. While not conclusive, it is evidence that should be considered.
But, for whatever reason, as Rittenhouse is attempting to flee from the scene of the first shooting in the parking lot, that’s when he is chased by the man in the image above — who is also carrying a handgun and attacking Rittenhouse — and Rittenhouse clearly acts out of self-defense and fires at the people attacking him.
While Rittenhouse may be guilty of illegally carrying a weapon, at this point, we have not seen any conclusive evidence to suggest that he has committed murder. Perhaps there is more evidence we have not seen. But to suggest that he is guilty based on this evidence alone is irresponsible at best.