Could Kyle Rittenhouse's Prosecution Have Done a Better Job and Won Against Self-Defense?

When considering the prosecution's approach to Kyle Rittenhouse's case, it appears that they missed several key opportunities to achieve a more favorable outcome. The prosecution's initial charges were misguided and ultimately did not stand a chance in establishing a case against Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense. In retrospect, a more strategic approach might have led to a different result, potentially even winning a conviction without relying on the self-defense charge.

The Limitations of the Prosecution's Case

Given the circumstances of Rittenhouse's trial and the nature of the evidence, the prosecution was faced with a daunting task. Their best course of action would have been to withdraw all charges and accept self-defense or to pursue a more limited, specific charge that did not directly implicate Rittenhouse in the shooting. Instead, they chose to charge him with multiple counts of first-degree intentional homicide and reckless discharge of a firearm, which were completely untenable under the self-defense claim.

Accepting self-defense early on would have saved time, resources, and legal expenses for both the prosecution and defense. It is clear that even the halfway honest jury could not ignore the blatant circumstances of self-defense, with two of the attackers attacking with weapons and Rittenhouse only taking defensive action while retreating.

Focusing on the Criminal Charges Against Grosskreutz

Another effective strategy that the prosecution could have employed would have been to focus on prosecuting Kevin Grosskreutz for his personal violations of gun control laws. Grosskreutz was not only involved in the attack on Rittenhouse but also had a felony record that could have been used to build a strong case. Specifically, Grosskreutz had an expired concealed carry permit for a handgun and was carrying a Glock pistol when he approached Rittenhouse.

According to the case details, Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse who was on the ground, stopping after Huber was shot and putting up his hands. However, Grosskreutz then pointed his handgun and advanced on Rittenhouse, leading to the shooting. The evidence supported multiple violations of both state and federal gun control laws, making a conviction in a gun control court case highly likely.

A successful prosecution of Grosskreutz for these charges could have diverted public attention away from Rittenhouse and set a clear example for others regarding gun regulations. This would have been a more influential and impactful outcome than pursuing charges against Rittenhouse that were based on his self-defense claims.

Conclusion and Implications

In conclusion, the prosecution's initial approach to Rittenhouse's case was flawed from the start. By focusing on a more narrow, specific charge against Grosskreutz or accepting the defense of self-defense, they could have achieved a much more significant outcome than the current result. It is highly doubtful that they could have won on any other charges against Rittenhouse, given the clear evidence of self-defense.

From a public and legal perspective, a focused prosecution of Grosskreutz for gun control violations would have been a more effective strategy. This would not only address the issue at hand but also serve as a strong message enforcing gun laws and regulations, potentially deterring future incidents of illegal gun possession and use.