Rittenhouse acquittal won’t open door to shootings in California, legal experts say

Legal experts say it is unlikely that the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on homicide charges will encourage similar shootings at California protests.

Unlike Wisconsin, where Rittenhouse was prosecuted for killing two men and injuring a third, California has a ban on openly carrying firearms without a permit. Theoretically, civilians walking around a protest with a firearm would be stopped by police, experts say. Anyone brandishing an AR-type weapon also likely would be arrested, they said.

Additionally, there are potential civil consequences, such as lawsuits, for anyone carrying and shooting a firearm in public, experts said.

RELATED: Steve Kerr on Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: ‘This is America. We’re treading down a dangerous path.’

“Every bullet has a lawyer attached to it,” said Chuck Michel, a Long Beach attorney, author of the book “California Gun Laws” and president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, headquartered in Fullerton.

But should a shooting occur under similar circumstances in California, it is unlikely the perpetrator could be tried for anything more than possession because self-defense laws would apply here as well, experts said.

Michel and other legal professionals agreed with the jury’s decision that Rittenhouse was not criminally liable for the shootings because he feared for his life. They said the selfdefense argument is the same in California and most other states, allowing the use of deadly force to prevent great bodily harm.

“The Rittenhouse case should never have been filed. It was a political position from Day 1,” Michel said. “It was clearly selfdefense. The prosecution could not get any traction on its theories.”

Prosecutors argued Rittenhouse instigated the confrontations that led to the shootings with his recklessness. The jury didn’t buy it.

“The scary part is the politicalization of the law,” Michel said.

Lawrence Rosenthal, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Fowler School of Law at Chapman University, said he was surprised the jury took some 25 hours to deliberate.

“I thought he would be acquitted in two hours,” said Rosenthal, who recently wrote a brief in support of New York’s conceal carry law. But Rosenthal said the Rittenhouse case was obviously one of selfdefense.

“It was always a mystery why this case was brought, except the community howled for a prosecution,” Rosenthal said.

The main problem in those shootings was Wisconsin’s open carry laws, allowing adults — and juveniles in some cases involving rifles — to carry a firearm openly as long as they are not banned under any other laws, he said.

“Of course, the jury acquitted him, somebody grabbed for Rittenhouse’s gun,” Rosenthal said. “You put lots of guns into a public place … the risk escalates.”

Rosenthal added: “If you think your life is in danger, you can defend yourself. And when there are guns on the streetscape, people are much more likely to feel threatened.”

He said in such a situation, people who shoot will be shielded by the self-defense argument.