By : Beatrice La Fauci Belponer

Yesterday Kyle Rittenhouse, 18 year old  
from Illinois charged with the murder of 3  
men during a Black  
Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin  
in August 2020, appeared on Fox News after  
being acquitted of all charges. During the  
interview he stated that he “had to do it”.  
Rittenhouse faced five felony counts after he  
shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and  
Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige  
Grosskreutz, then 26. The most serious  
charge, first-degree intentional homicide,  
carried a mandatory sentence of life in  
prison. 
During the trial, the defence had a "very  
disciplined message" throughout the trial,  
said Steven Wright, a law professor at the  
University of Wisconsin. They consistently  
emphasised Rittenhouse's stated intentions that night — acting as a medic and protecting private  property — and the threats to his safety.  
Let’s hypothesise that Kyle Rittenhouse was a member of law enforcement, meaning that he had  gone through specific training and acquired a license for keep public order. Would the  circumstances of that night have allowed him to use deadly force? Did he really "have to do it”?  
Professor Harmon UVA law professor revealed that “deadly force is allowed when person is using  serious force against the officer”. However, during the trial, a video of that night showed one of the  victims putting his hands up as if to surrender but Mr Rittenhouse shot him regardless. At the same  
time, the victims all had “weapons” that were not nearly as threatening as Kyle Rittenhouses’  AR-15 style rifle.  
Another chilling detail from the case is Mr Gaige Grosskreutz’s testimony (only surviving victim  from the shooting that night). He revealed that Kyle Rittenhouse and other civilians who had been  at the scene as “protectors of private property” had “an understanding of some sort with the police”. 
The police was going to lead the protesters south, and then the armed “protectors of private  property” could have “done what they wanted” with the protestors.  
Regardless the presence of very valid points for the prosecution, the law might be on Rittenhouse’s  favour. The law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably  believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. "And if so, he's allowed to use  essentially as much force as he thinks is reasonably necessary to stop the threat". Rosenbaum, the  first person Rittenhouse shot, had acted belligerently throughout the night, according to video  evidence and witness testimony. Later, he chased Rittenhouse through a used-car lot. Rittenhouse  and another witness both testified that Rosenbaum had reached for Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse  shot four times within a second, killing him. There still isn’t a law that would protect Rittenhouse  for shooting Grosskreutz: unharmed and with his hands up.  
All in all it is safe to infer to that there are bigger forces acting in favour of Rittenhouse, and while  it is the easy route to blame him for his acquittal it is important to recognise that the law allowed for  him to be acquitted. In order to change lives it is the system that needs to be changed. The state is  culpable just as much as Rittenhouse. So, while he certainly didn’t HAVE to do it, the law allowed  him to do so.  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/local/child-sex-trafficking-murder/ 
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/watch-full-testimony-rittenhouse-shooting-survivor-gaige grosskreutz-says-he-thought-he-was-going-to-die/2677403/ 
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit?t=1637874684131 
https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/when-can-police-use-deadly-force