This week, I'm joined by gun lawyer John Monroe to discuss Kyle Rittenhouse successfully claiming self-defense during his murder trial.
Monroe practices gun law in Wisconsin. He has argued similar cases in the past and is even appearing before the state's supreme court soon. His experience gives him specialized insight into the case against Rittenhouse and why the jury came down on his side.
We discuss the details of Wisconsin's self-defense laws. Monroe says the case hinged on reasonableness. Specifically, whether Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life and whether the force he used in response was reasonable.
Monroe gives an in-depth explanation for how the video evidence in the case helped Rittenhouse convince the jury his actions were reasonable in the moment. And he discusses some of the erroneous claims made by the prosecution. He details why Rittenhouse carrying a gun did not mean he forfeited his right to claim self-defense and why he wasn't required to use a lower level of force in the altercations.
We also talk about the parallels and key differences between the Rittenhouse case in Wisconsin and the Ahmaud Arbery case in Georgia where Monroe also practices. While both cases involved a struggle over a gun, Rittenhouse only shot after being pursued and attacked while Arbery was shot after he was pursued and attacked. Monroe said Travis McMichael, who shot Arbery, is less likely to be successful in his self-defense claim.