Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse

cause célèbre

I suggest we change "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for right-wing organizations and media." to "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for organizations and media on both sides of the political spectrum". Seeing as the case became a politizised cause célèbre for both the left and right, it seems misleading to single out right organizations/media for this in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.250.130 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Subject’s book

Under the “Media projects” section, Rittenhouse’s 2023 book Acquitted should be mentioned, along with reviews and sales. It was written along with Mark Richards and Michael Quinn Sullivan and was released on Kindle on November 19, where it reached number 510 on the Kindle Nonfiction book rankings on December 2 (source here). By December 5, it had fallen to a ranking of 557 (source here). Autographed copies sell for $59.99 (source here). General sources covering the book are here, and here, among many others. —2601:8C0:380:35C0:F0A3:D34F:C26E:1CB3 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Update article to mention self-defense.

Hi,

This article needs to be updated noting that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense after being attacked by 3 men who chased him for 800 yards and tried to beat him with a skateboard and other objects, and had an illegal firearm pointed at him.

Update this article for accuracy immediately. 2600:6C5E:14F0:9BC0:B94C:B55A:286:EC7A (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

– Change busineses to businesses

The first sentence says: "In late August 2020, 17-year-old Rittenhouse traveled from Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin to help protect local busineses..."

– Adjust sentence for clarity

Currently reads: After a man chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, the youth fatally shot him. His name was Joseph Rosenbaum.

Suggestion: Shortly before midnight, a man named Joseph Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot. When Rosenbaum reached for his gun, Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Mayifixthatforyou (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Irltoad (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

The first paragraph intentionally obfuscates the fact that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. The only mention of self defense is within the final sentence: "He testified that he had acted in self-defense." This verbiage is uncommon and nonsensical outside of an article discussing an ongoing trial. The question of whether or not he acted in self defense has been settled in a court of law, where evidence beyond his own testimony was presented. As a result, I suggest the opening paragraph be changed to:

Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, in self defense during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. Rittenhouse was acquitted at his trial in November 2021. CodingApe (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Self-defense is already mentioned in the first paragraph. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My request was clearly to correct the context of which it is mentioned, as the paragraph is currently (and likely intentionally) misleading. How is this an appropriate response to the issues raised in my request? I do not understand how you could respond with this if you were not purposefully ignoring the crux of my argument.

The first paragraph clearly obfuscates the fact that, from a legal standpoint, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. How is his own testimony even relevant? CodingApe (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

By that reasoning the jury verdict in the Scopes trial forces Wikipedia to say evolution is false. -- M.boli (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is logically sound and comes off a bit as attacking a newbi. In this case the jury wasn't asked to rule on scientific fact. The view that Rittenhouse acted in self defense is very reasonable and we shouldn't treat the view that the lead underplays the self defense aspect as unreasonable. It certainly is reasonable to assume that the combination of a self defense claim and an acquittal = "acted in self defense". However, since many RSs reported in a way that doubted that claim it's best to stick to the facts we know to be true, as the current article does, that he testified that acted in self defense and that the jury, at minimum, had reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. Springee (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My bad! I was overly abrupt responding to a newbie.

It is frequently suggested to change this article as above: to say in wiki-voice that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The sourcing for this being acquittal at trial. Some who propose this change go into the rules of trials and presumptions of fact and who needed to prove what and etc.

But that's all within the game-world. Within the game world O.J. Simpson didn't kill anybody. In real-world many reliable sources tell us Simpson was charged with murder and acquitted. As with Rittenhouse.

Adding to the lede that Rittenhouse testified self-defense was the result of those discussions.

But still there are frequent requests as above, to use wiki-voice to state KR acted in self-defense. Some have been rather persistent, at least one turned out to be a major sock puppet of a banned account.

@CodingApe: I apologize, my response was needlessly sarcastic. I hope the explanation makes sense to you. The substance of the request has been considered in the past. The result comports with the facts and reliable sources, without ignoring that Rittenhouse claimed self-defense.

-- M.boli (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The focus of O.J. Simpson's trial was whether or not he was the perpetrator. Simpson's defense was not that he acted in self defense, which is extremely important. From a legal standpoint, it's ridiculous for that case to even be brought up as an analogy. Also, Simpson was found liable in civil court for the deaths of Simpson and Goldman, which adds even more nuance.

Whether or not Rittenhouse shot the 3 men was not a focus of his trial, it was not even a question. There is video evidence that he was the shooter, he admitted that he was the shooter, etc. It seems the article acknowledges this as well considering it clearly states that he shot 3 men.

The entire point of Rittenhouse's trial was to determine whether or not he acted in self defense. 'Self defense' was his defense, which is very important. The jury's purpose was to determine if, under Wisconsin law, he used reasonable force to defend himself and subsequently could not be found guilty of the charges weighed against him. Even the article acknowledges this within the notes section:

"In Wisconsin, a defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of first-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that the defendant reasonably believed that the defendant was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with the defendant's person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"

When someone argues a claim of self-defense in court and is subsequently acquitted of charges, from a legal standpoint it is correct to state that they "acted in self defense". The acquittal indicates that the court found sufficient evidence to support their claim that they acted in self-defense, or at the very least found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not. CodingApe (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that, from a legal standpoint, it is correct to state that someone 'acted in self-defense' if they were acquitted of all charges in a trial where their defense was self-defense. This is objectively true from a legal standpoint, the jury specifically deliberated over whether or not Rittenhouse used justifiable force against a threat of great bodily harm or death (otherwise referred to as 'self-defense'), and they determined that he in-fact did, or, at the very least, that there was not enough evidence to claim that he did not.

The following questions are the basis of my argument:

1. Whether or not stating that he acted in self-defense is correct from a legal standpoint
2. Whether or not it is an important fact the public should be aware of when informed that he shot 3 men

The is first is objectively true, regardless of whether or not others 'doubt his claim'. The second is generally a matter of opinion; however, I genuinely believe that most people would agree that it is very important.

As a result of this, I cannot comprehend why it would be omitted from this article, unless the purpose is to intentionally obfuscate the facts of the event/trial and subsequently mislead and misinform the public. CodingApe (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose putting "in self defense" in Wikivoice. Acquittal at trial makes the subject's not guilty status a fact but not the affirmative details of their defense. VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is your own opinion... Once again, if the argued defense was self-defense, then it is factually correct to state that they acted in self-defense following acquittal. Do you believe that if there was a guilty verdict, it'd be appropriate to use terms like 'homicide', 'murdered', etc? That seems to be the standard set on this website given those terms are frequently used on articles for convicted persons. So it's only acceptable to describe events/people based on the outcome of a trial in certain situations, primarily when the defendant was convicted? This is a contradiction, it makes no sense, and it doesn't follow basic legal standards understood by most people.

You can make an argument regarding whether or not the outcome of a self-defense trial should be accepted and respected (as you just did). You could also make an argument debating what is/isn't self-defense; however, your own options have nothing to do with whether or not Rittenhouse was defending himself in Kenosha (he was, according to a jury of his peers). Neither of these opinions should have an effect on an objective article. CodingApe (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from. I would suggest looking through some of the talk page archives and see the previous discussions on this topic. I think there are two aspects of this discussion. The first is if we can say "Rittenhouse acted in self defense" in Wiki voice. The second is if we can make more prominent in the article opening that he used a self defense argument as is defense and that he was acquitted. The problem with the first is "claim of self defense" + "acquittal" doesn't legally mean "acted in self defense". Using a hypothetical, what if the prosecution was found to have grossly lied and fabricated evidence? What if the prosecution was grossly incompetent and presented a case that made no sense? Legally, and logically, the prosecution could have just done a bad job making the case and the jurors ended up feeling that Rittenhouse was guilty of something but not any of the actual charges brought against him. This isn't a parallel to the OJ case but many people feel that OJ walked not because he was innocent but because the prosecution screwed up. So for this reason it's Original Research on our part if we state that as a fact. Additionally, many people feel that it's hard to decide when it's self defense vs a provoked fight (thus not subject to a self defense claim).

The second issue is if we are burying the lead by talking about the shootings etc and only eventually mentioning the self defense and acquittal. That is a legitimate question and suggestions for reworking the sentences to make the self defense claim and acquittal more prominent should be considered and can't be dismissed as original research. Personally I think putting these facts in the second sentence is OK. However, as a proposal what about this: "Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who was acquitted of shooting three men, two fatally, during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. At his trial testified that he had acted in self-defense." That was the acquittal is right next to the shooting so anyone who reads just the first sentence can see this wasn't a typical murder case. Springee (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the second sentence is fine. I would oppose reframing it to start with the acquittal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to push for the change but I'm curious why you oppose putting the acquittal in the first sentence. I think I can see cases both for and against. Springee (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)