Vandebogert 1
Reese Vandebogert
Ms. Sean Shannon
English 1230-01
07/29/2022
Kyle Rittenhouse: Dangerous Vigilante or American Hero?
In May of 2020, Minneapolis police were called to investigate a case of suspected forgery
(use of counterfeit money) by a man named George Floyd. After the police arrived, the situation
escalated as the police used what has been described as excessive and unnecessary force in
Floyd’s arrest. One of the officers pinned Floyd to the ground by holding a knee on his neck for
more than nine minutes. Floyd, bleeding from his mouth and nose, cried for help exclaiming that
he could not breathe and would soon die, but the officers did not let up and Floyd lost his life.
The killing of George Floyd was only the most recent of many similar cases wherein police
unjustly kill an unarmed black man, but it was the most public on account of the plentiful video
footage, thus George Floyd became the face of a rising social movement aiming to spread
awareness and incite reform about the unequal treatment of black people in America. This social
movement was known as the “Black Lives Matter” or “BLM” movement.
Following the killing of George Floyd, riots ensued around the country, starting in
Minneapolis, where angry mobs swarmed the streets looting and burning down buildings. These
became known as the “George Floyd Riots” or the “BLM Riots”. During one such riot which
took place in Kenosha Wisconsin, a seventeen year old boy named Kyle Rittenhouse arrived at
the scene of the riot readily wielding arms with the alleged purpose of protecting local businesses
from being looted and burned down by rioters. While doing exactly that, Rittenhouse was
threatened and physically attacked by some of the rioters, two of whom he shot dead and a third
Vandebogert 2
he injured. He proceeded to immediately turn himself into the police following the incident.
Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges as his actions were deemed self-defense, but his case
has sparked much controversy and debate.
Many people around the country, especially the politically conservative, put Rittenhouse
on a pedestal, painting a picture of him as a hero and role model as well as a victim. Tucker
Carlson is a talk show host who has a reputation for being a voice for right-wing America and
who conducted an interview with Rittenhouse shortly after he was acquitted of all charges and
released from holding. Tucker Carlson precedes the interview by describing to the audience
Rittenhouse as a “bright, decent, sincere, dutiful, and hardworking” kid who’s only intention was
to “keep violent lunatics from setting fire to cars” (Tucker 2:00-2:19). Carlson makes specific
mention of Rittenhouse doing charity work, getting an education, helping his family, and other
such facts/events that support his presentation of Rittenhouse as an innocent and respectable kid.
He also invites the audience to pity Rittenhouse, describing him as being underprivileged relative
to our society (Tucker 1:35-2:00). Carlson suggests that Rittenhouse was justified in illegally
carrying a firearm through the streets of the city because there were others doing the same
(desperate times call for desperate measures) (Tucker 5:30). He also gives praise to Rittenhouse
for trying to help his community despite the potential danger to himself, making him out to be a
sort of public hero. A large portion of the interview is dedicated to discussing the imminent
danger which fell onto Rittenhouse in the moments leading up to the shootings, emphasizing that
the reason Rittenhouse shot three people was not to terrorize civilians, but to protect himself.
Carlson also notes that the victims of the shootings were “criminal” or even “deranged” (Tucker
6:42) in an effort to further validate the self-defense justification. Carlson is not the only one
praising Rittenhouse for his actions; supporters raised two million USD for his bail and, since his
Vandebogert 3
acquittal, have been showering him with gifts and job offers. Rittenhouse’s story has coaxed
people from across the nation, many of whom fall on the right side of the political spectrum, to
not only defend his innocence, but praise him for his heroism.
It is clear that Tucker Carlson and many others fully support Rittenhouse and his actions,
however it seems that Carlson is trying suspiciously hard to persuade others of this same opinion.
He meticulously selects which facts to include in his presentation and which ones to leave out in
order to provide the illusion of a more valid argument. Carlson neglected to make mention of
many pressing facts and allegations which conflict his own opinion, such as Rittenhouse’s
alleged ties to a violent political group and his history of intending violence. He also deliberately
uses only positive language when describing Rittenhouse and only negative language when
describing his victims. Carlson and many others are wrong to praise Rittenhouse for his actions.
This praise will serve to relieve Rittenhouse of any and all accountability for his actions as well
as encourage many others to similarly patrol the streets enforcing their own interpretation of the
law using deadly force, which would prove chaotic and dangerous. “The worst outcome here
would be for other hapless young men to think it is okay for them also to strap on weapons and
play vigilante. Mr. Rittenhouse is innocent in the eyes of the law, but the fact remains: Had he
not gone to Kenosha, the two people he killed would be alive today.” (Board). Carlson and other
supporters should not treat Rittenhouse as a hero for his actions, despite the legal status of the
issue, because that regard will inspire similar killings offering shelter to more tragedy.
Many skeptics, of whom the majority are politically liberal, hold a different viewpoint of
the situation. Many of these opposers have propositioned for the idea that Rittenhouse is
something of a vigilante or even terrorist. Some have pointed to the conclusion that Rittenhouse
is prone to weapons and violence. A demonstration of his longing to impose gun violence
Vandebogert 4
specifically onto civilians was captured on video approximately two weeks before the incident;
the video shows Rittenhouse observing what he presumed as shoplifters and exclaiming that he
wished he had his gun so he could “start shooting rounds at them” (Hohmann). The gun he refers
to is one that did not come into his possession through the proper channels, being that he was not
of legal age to purchase a firearm. The contents of this video accompanied by the facts about the
events of the riot might suggest that Rittenhouse has an alarming obsession with violent
vigilantism so much so that he was willing to go out of his way to seek out a situation where he
could justify it enough to get away with it. In other words, the true reason that Rittenhouse went
to the riot was to find a justification or permissible excuse to use his weapon on another human.
Rittenhouse has also been observed associating with members of a far right political activist
group that has been known to promote political violence, further reinforcing the notion that
Rittenhouse had ulterior motives for his actions (Shepherd). Many speculators who subscribe to
this viewpoint of the incident argue that if Rittenhouse had not put himself in that position in the
first place, the situation would never have escalated to such a magnitude. “Prosecutor Thomas
Binger said in his closing argument at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial: ‘You can’t claim selfdefense for a danger that you create’” (Hohmann). Many people throughout America,
particularly those who reside on the left side of the political spectrum, tend to consider
Rittenhouse as a violent radical vigilante who has found a loophole in the judicial system which
allows him to get away with homicide.
Advocates of this viewpoint are wrong to label Rittenhouse as a murderer or terrorist
because the evidence clearly reveals that the shootings were indeed self-defense as opposed to a
premeditated attack on innocents; if he had never gotten attacked it is likely he would have never
shot his gun. This points to the conclusion that his intentions were in fact of a good nature,
Vandebogert 5
therefore he does not deserve the amount of defamation as he is getting. The argument that
Rittenhouse is a violent political extremist or dangerous vigilante is mainly based on “evidence”,
such as the video involving the shoplifters prior to the incident and the allegations of his ties to a
violent political group, which were found to be irrelevant and ineffective at making a case during
the trial. Although Rittenhouse made a series of well-intended but resultingly unfortunate
choices which landed him in a complicated and controversial position, it would be unfair to
classify him as a murderer or terrorist on account of such honest mistakes.
Kyle Rittenhouse has found himself in a difficult position. He has found himself caught
in the middle of a dispute between opposing political ideologies with both sides attempting to
twist and leverage his story to work in their advantage. To analyze the situation through the lens
of either would be to analyze false or incomplete information, resulting in a partisan conclusion.
Rittenhouse does not wish to take either side of this debate. In fact, Rittenhouse recognizes and
admits the fault that brought him to the scene in the first place, acknowledging that going there
was “not the best idea” (Wade). Rittenhouse is also on the record as saying that “the shootings
[are] ‘nothing to be congratulated about’ and that he wishes he ‘would never have had to take
somebody’s life’” (Wade). Rittenhouse reportedly also “wanted to destroy the rifle and throw the
rest of the items away so nothing can be used as a political symbol or trophy celebrating the
shootings” (Judge). It is clear from this that Rittenhouse understands and assumes accountability
for his mistake and has no interest in encouraging copycats. Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two
people and injured another, is not, as many extreme conservatives might suggest, a hero, nor is
he, as many extreme liberals might suggest, a murderer or terrorist. Rittenhouse is simply a
young boy with a fascination for law enforcement who made a well-intended decision to serve
his community which landed him in a world of complication and controversy.
Vandebogert 6
Works Cited
Board, Editorial. “Kyle Rittenhouse Is Acquitted, but His Actions Should Not Be Excused or
Celebrated.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Nov. 2021,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdicteditorial/.
Hohmann, James. “Kyle Rittenhouse Was Found Not Guilty. That Doesn't Mean He's Morally
Innocent.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Nov. 2021,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-opinionnot-innocent-shootings/.
“Judge Approves Agreement to Destroy Gun Kyle Rittenhouse Used to Shoot 3 People during
Kenosha Protest.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 29 Jan. 2022,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-destroy-plan-judge/.
Shepherd, Katie. “Kyle Rittenhouse Flashed Hate Symbols, Posed with Proud Boys in a
Wisconsin Bar, Prosecutors Say.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 19 Nov. 2021,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/14/kyle-rittenhouse-proud-boys-bar/.
“Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Performance by Tucker Carlson, YouTube, YouTube, 22 Nov. 2021,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7sbWaZstQ. Accessed 26 July 2022.
Wade, Peter. “'Not the Best Idea': Kyle Rittenhouse Says He Regrets That He Went to Kenosha.
the Right Doesn't.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 7 Dec. 2021,
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/kyle-rittenhouse-regrets-going-tokenosha-1267942/.