Kyle Rittenhouse and Michael Reinoehl: Are They Equal?
Kyle Rittenhouse killed an antifa supporter in Kenosha. Michael Reinoehl killed a Trump supporter in Portland. People are inevitably comparing the two, but how accurate is it?
A cold, hard look at the facts indicates that the two men’s actions probably both included murder/intentional homicide with an unlawful firearm, though Rittenhouse killed more people. The biggest difference, however, is in the police’s treatment of the two men, illuminating the discrepancies alleged by those protesting police violence.
Below, the charges are laid out, a short background is provided, the videos and defenses are put side-by-side, and, finally, the police responses are discussed.
The Charges:
Michael Reinoehl:
- Murder in the second degree with a firearm
- Unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm
The charges can be found here.
Kyle Rittenhouse:
- First degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
- First degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
- First degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
- Attempt first degree homicide and use of a dangerous weapon
- First degree recklessly endangering safety
- Use of a dangerous weapon & possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
The charges can be found here.
It might be wisely asked, why Mr. Reinoehl is only being charged with murder in the second degree. The reason is that Oregon’s “murder in the first degree” statute requires one of a number of factors to elevate a homicide to murder including: the use of an explosive, the defendant being paid to kill, or more than one murder victim during the same occurrence (these are paraphrased). None of the accompanying factors elevate the charge to a first degree murder.
Here’s what the the intentional murder/homicide statutes say in each state. First degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin is defined as “caus[ing] the death of another human being with intent to kill that person.” In Oregon the statute for second degree murder provides that“criminal homicide constitutes murder in the second degree [w]hen it is committed intentionally.” Essentially, both men were charged with the same crime when charged with second degree murder and intentional homicide.
Background & Beliefs:
Kyle Rittenhouse: 17
Rittenhouse is from Antioch, Illinois. By now we’ve all seen the photos of Rittenhouse in a police-like uniform, presumably its his youth cadet uniform. Rittenhouse was also Trump supporter and attended a rally as recently as January 30. In his twitter bio he describes himself as:
Michael Reinoehl: 48
Reinoehl lived in Clackamas County, a relatively rural ‘suburb’ of Portland; however, he has ties to Portland and was a professional snowboarder who often skied on Mt. Hood, about an hour away from there. He also has a criminal record which, so far as we know, includes reckless driving and unlawful possession of a handgun found during the driving incident. He described himself on Instagram as:
Videos of the Shootings & Self Defense Claims:
The video of Kyle Rittenhouse clearly shows him being chased by the antifa crowd as well as falling and turning to fire. Warning, this is graphic:
On the other hand, the video of Michael Reinoehl does not show whether the victim brandished a weapon before Reinoehl fired. The original can be seen here (after the 18 minute mark) but here is a version posted to youtube:
Both claim self-defense. Rittenhouse claims self-defense due to the antifa protesters chasing him:
Mr. Reinoehl claims self-defense because a Trump supporter, the man he shot, pulled a knife:
For Mr. Rittenhouse, it is easier to see what happend. For Mr. Reinoehl, police interviews shed some more light on the circumstances. A witness indicated that the man Mr. Reinoehl shot pulled out pepper spray in the moments immediately preceding the shooting. There is no indication in the report that police discovered a knife though there is indication of a nightstick.
Ultimately, it will almost certainly come down to a jury to decide Mr. Rittenhouse’s fate. Whether his actions were self-defense can only be an opinion formed by the 12 people tasked with determining his guilt. However, the fact that Mr. Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two of them, seems to go beyond self-defense, especially since people can be seen running after the first shot. Reinoehl also fired two shots, though he won’t be on trial. Both men appeared, also, to be threatened by non-lethal weapons. It seems Mr. Reinoehl mistook something of his victim’s for a knife. But, in both circumstances, it would seem as though showing up to a protest armed with a gun negates the desire to act in self-defense, which could be achieved in a number of ways short of firing multiple shots into an assailant or a crowd (Mr. Reinoehl’s victim’s mace and Rittenhouse’s victim’s skateboard come to mind). Finally, nobody is mounting a serious effort to contest whether the men’s firearms were illegal.
Police Response:
The police response is where things start to really differ. As we can infer, Mr. Reinoehl was no friend of the police, and now lies dead, shot multiple times by U.S. Marshals. But Rittenhouse, before the shooting, armed with an AR-15, walked by a police ATV, police can be heard over the loudspeaker saying “we appreciate you guys we really do.” Police also gave Rittenhouse water. Subsequently, upon rewatching the video of the Rittenhouse shooting, Rittenhouse can be seen after shooting three people coming within a few feet of the police with a gun, with hands raised, and then running off-screen. He wasn’t even arrested in Wisconsin. Instead, he turned himself in in his hometown of Antioch, Illinois.
Not so for Mr. Reinoehl. Police were seemingly not on the scene in the video, neither before nor immediately after. Possibly, if consistent with recent tactics, police were not mediating the conflict in Portland stating that fighting was between “willing participants” according to a recent Portland Police Bureau statement. U.S. Marshals allege that when Mr. Reinoehl was shot, he was still armed and brandished the weapon.
Conclusion:
There is a gulf between the treatment of both killers. Rittenhouse was actively thanked by police officers, and received that bottled water prior to the shooting. Then, even though police were on the scene, seconds away, Rittenhouse was allowed to approach with a gun, then flee the scene. Portland police were absent at the killing in Portland and Mr. Reinoehl was killed by U.S. Marshals. While these two examples cannot fully encompass the complexity of the issues involved with our criminal justice system, they show, to be modest, at least some contrast in how police treatment differs based on the suspect.
