“Accordingly the sin of sedition is first and chiefly in its authors, who sin most grievously; and secondly it is in those who are led by them to disturb the common good. Those, however, who defend the common good, and withstand the seditious party, are not themselves seditious.”

Defense against sedition is lawful. (See last tweet.) Killing in defense of self or property is lawful—provided no more than proportionate force was used.

Intent to kill is unlawful unless acting with public authority (eg, soldiers, cops). States with a castle doctrine (eg, Wisconsin) delegate public authority to kill in self-defense. Being thanked by cops for protecting property during a riot is also perhaps a kind of deputization

Rittenhouse was carrying a rifle covered by hunting-related Wisconsin laws allowing open carry of long guns by minors. Although Illinois does not permit minors to own guns, R. was loaned the gun by a Wisconsin resident: he hadn’t brought it from Illinois. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

Had Rittenhouse violated Wisconsin gun laws, it might be a defeater for the delegations of public authority to kill in self-defense represented by the castle doctrine and the cops thanking him. But he does not appear to have broken those laws. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

Moreover, even if we decline to call the riots seditious, self-defense against strife is also just. https://twitter.com/catholicfitz/status/1299441753645342720

Rittenhouse is disanalogous to Lamech: Rittenhouse was engaged in a lawful occupation (deputized defense against sedition) and appears to have taken due care, both having tried to flee before shooting, and shooting to wound in at least one instance.

Of course, we may disagree as to whether due care was taken during the shootings—but that is a standard self-defense inquiry, distinct from the question of whether Rittenhouse was a vigilante (arguably not, as discussed above).

But the arguments against Rittenhouse being a vigilante and for him being deputized are not slam dunks—he was not an agent of the State fighting a just war declared by proper authority, nor was he acting in an official policing capacity.

Moreover, by taking it upon himself to assist the police employed by the public authority, Rittenhouse was arguably not acting in keeping with his rank and position as an out-of-state resident minor civilian.

Also, while Rittenhouse’s desire to defend the common good is laudable, his choice to go to Kenosha was at least imprudent, if not reckless.

So was Rittenhouse a vigilante? Did he act in self-defense while fighting sedition, or recklessly place himself in harm’s way? There are good faith arguments on both sides—and it belongs to our rank and position to leave this determination to the jury.

Police brutality is a kind of tyranny. But riots against it are an inordinate disturbance, and should cease. And even if arguably not vigilantes, counter-rioters like Rittenhouse seem at least rash.

BLM can protest against police brutality non-violently and still galvanize reform. If the state refuses to protect one’s own person or property from rioters (as in many cities now), proportionate self-defense is moral—but those whose cities aren’t rioting should stay out of it.