Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Closing Arguments: Two Sides of the Same Coin

A deeper look at the closing arguments made in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Nov. 15, which later resulted in a not-guilty verdict.

At a protest against police brutality on Aug. 25, 2020, Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and injured a third person. 

Rittenhouse was arrested and charged with seven counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide, possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor, failure to comply with an emergency order, and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment.

The prosecution and defense offered a distinct narrative of what occurred that night. While the defense alleged that Rittenhouse’s actions were protected by the right to self-defense. The prosecution argued that his self-defense claim was invalid because he was pointing his gun at people, essentially threatening them.  

The defense’s strategy consisted of attacking the character of the three people shot by Rittenhouse. The defense also portrayed Rittenhouse as a medic that came to Wisconsin because he wanted to help people and protect local businesses.

Whereas, the prosecution attempted to show Rittenhouse’s lack of personal ties to the businesses by showing how the victims had no connection to the business he alleged was protecting. The prosecution also questioned Rittenhouse’s reasoning for going to the protest that night by arguing that he went because he expected and anticipated violence, and not to provide help or protection. 

Prosecution Closing Arguments

At the beginning of the closing arguments, the prosecution took this chance to remind the jury of hard facts about the case. He said that Rittenhouse claimed to be protecting a business that he did not know about, and the people that he killed had no connection to the business that he was there to “protect.”

He questions this by saying if it was a situation where Rittenhouse truly cared for the business he was protecting (Car Source) where he had never heard of it, never bought anything and never worked there. 

“Was he genuinely interested in helping people?” said Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger. “He’s not there for the same purpose as the protesters, so why was he there?”

The prosecutor then takes the jury back to Aug. 25, 2020. The defendant came from outside Kenosha, Wisconsin, more specifically from Antioch, Illinois, carrying an AR-15.

“He expected and anticipated violence that night,” said Binger.

He then draws a connection to individuals who at the night of the protest, protected their homes and businesses and many possessed guns, but the only person who shot and killed someone was Rittenhouse.

The prosecution shows the court a video of the night of the crime where Rittenhouse dropped a fire extinguisher that was in his hand, raised his gun and pointed it towards Joseph Rosenbaum, victim killed by Rittenhouse. 

The prosecutor, while in court, grabbed an AR-15, held it in his arms and pointed it towards individuals in the court, portraying how Rittenhouse held his AR-15.

If an individual is threatening others, they lose the right to claim self-defense, and according to the prosecution, Rittenhouse provoked the tragic incident and lost this right.

“You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create,” said Binger.

The defendant later showed a drone video where you can see the defendant kill Rosenbaum from three different angles. 

Rittenhouse shot four times in .76 seconds. The prosecutor said that he controls how quickly he pulls the trigger and it showed that he did not care about the consequences. 

The prosecutor said that is why the defense is convincing the jury that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse and that he reached for the defendant’s gun because if not, the self-defense claim is not valid.

“If he’s not reaching for that gun and he’s not going to use it to kill the defendant, it is not justified,” said Binger.

Defense Closing Arguments

The defense took this chance to discuss how Rosenbaum was not a great citizen, but rather a rioter that was causing trouble, and Rittenhouse had to deal with him that night alone. 

“This case is not a game, it is my client’s life,” said Mark Richards, Rittenhouse lawyer. “There was nothing reckless about my client’s conduct that day.”

The defense said that Rosenbaum charged towards Rittenhouse and caused Rittenhouse to run away from him. Richards also said something was thrown at his client, which caused him to turn around and point the gun.

The defense said that at Car Source, cars were getting destroyed by mobs of people, but according to the prosecution, Rittenhouse should not be allowed to protect the business even though he was asked by an individual to help protect it.

“He has as much right to go there as anybody else in the city of Kenosha,” said Richards. 

The defense later said that it is being accused by the prosecution of blaming the victims. 

“As a defense lawyer I might get accused of that more than some other people,” said Richards.

The defense said Rosenbaum was shot because he was chasing Rittenhouse. The defense also said that Rosenbaum was not acting like a good and aware citizen because he was not on his medications, and he was not “acting normal.” 

“When my client shot Joseph Rosenbaum he feared for his life,” said Richards. “He feared because of the prior threats and the violent acts that had been witnessed by my client.”

Going to Anthony Huber, the defense said that Huber was a rioter who was also acting unruly by pushing a dumpster lit on fire and pointing his middle finger to the police.

The defense said that Rittenhouse was hit twice with a skateboard and individuals attempted to disarm him, but Rittenhouse ran away from them.

The defense said that the definition of an active shooter is someone with a plan to endanger others out of anger towards a group of people, but what caused Rittenhouse to shoot someone was Rosenbaum.

“The state wants to call my client an active shooter and the reason they want to do that is because of the loaded connotations of that,” said Richards.

“Kyle was a 17-year-old kid out there trying to help this community,” said Richards. “He was asked to provide help in protecting property and he was asking if anybody needed aid.”

“Kyle was not an active shooter,” said Richards.

The defense said that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum to stop a threat to himself, and he did not shoot at anyone until he was chased and cornered.

“I’m glad he shot him because if Joseph Rosenbaum had gotten that gun, I don’t for a minute believe he wouldn’t have used it against somebody else,” said Richards. “He was irrational and crazy.”

The defense said that Rittenhouse was not the person that brought terror to Kenosha, but the rioters did.