Last week I got into an argument with a friend about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Even though my friend self-identifies as liberal, he's quite a bit further to the right than I am, We don't see eye to eye on many issues, the Rittenhouse trial included.
Rittenhouse, of course, was the 18-year-old who stood trial for killing two men and wounding another at a Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 20th, 2020. The trial ended last Friday with Rittenhouse found innocent of all charges leveled against him.
My friend had agreed with me that as a 17-year-old, Rittenhouse had no business inserting himself into the chaotic protests that turned into riots that night in Kenosha. We also agreed that despite its being legal, carrying an AR-15 into such a volatile situation should not be permitted to anyone - especially to a callow teenager. In my friend's eyes, Rittenhouse certainly was no hero.
Yet, the trial verdict, he maintained, was correct. He said according to Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse's life had been credibly threatened by the ones he shot. Besides, his attackers were related to Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) -- Marxist groups that routinely engage in riots, while condoning arson, vandalism, and other forms of property destruction.
In an act of political cowardice, local leaders, my friend insisted, had ordered the police to stand down as what CNN shamelessly called the "mostly peaceful protests" turned violent. That's why business owners welcomed the aid of civilians like Rittenhouse to defend their threatened shops and stores.
Finally, according to my friend, the Rittenhouse trial had been falsely racialized by a coordinated mainstream media (MSM) effort. The whole incident, he said, had nothing to do with allegations of racism, especially since all four of the victims (Rittenhouse included) were white
I disagreed with many of the positions just reviewed - especially with the justification of the jury's final verdict. After all, influenced by the prevailing MSM narrative, I was under the impression that Rittenhouse had gratuitously traveled all the way from Illinois with his assault weapon. I thought he had not only purchased his gun illegally but had broken the law by crossing state lines with it. I also thought Rittenhouse had chased down his victims and that after shooting them, he was simply allowed to go free by smiling police officers in riot gear.
My initial bone of contention with the jury's verdict also involved the behavior of the presiding judge, Bruce Schroeder, At every turn he gave strong evidence of favoring Rittenhouse. For instance, the judge forbade prosecutors from referring to the ones Rittenhouse had killed as "victims." However, they could be identified, he said, as "looters," "rioters," and "arsonists." Dismayingly, Schroeder had also disallowed charges that the teenager's possession of an assault rifle was illegal.
My argument with my friend caused me to do further research. To my surprise, I discovered he was right in much of what he said, and that under Wisconsin law Rittenhouse was indeed within his legal rights to shoot his victims in self-defense.
Still, however, I found myself disturbed by the entire affair and what it reveals about the law, the right to bear arms, and especially about the prejudices of the mainstream media.
Let me try to explain by first setting the general context of the Rittenhouse trial along with a brief review of the laws especially relevant to the case. I'll then recount the sequence of events on the night of August 20th, 2020, as supported by video evidence. Finally, I'll draw those conclusions I promised concerning what I think the Rittenhouse trial tells us about the current state of our country's culture -- and about me.
Context and Law
In order to understand the Rittenhouse trial, it helps, I think, to review its highly charged racial context as well as the legal elements that often went largely unreported in the MSM. The important factors include the following:
- A long history of police violence directed specifically against black communities across the country.
- The longstanding conviction within those communities (and outside them) that the resulting police shootings, arrests, convictions, and imprisonments are far out-of-proportion to the size of black populations in the United States
- The August 23rd paralyzation of African American Jacob Blake by a white Kenosha police officer who shot Blake seven times in the back in the proximate presence of Blake's three small children
- The subsequent demonstrations in Kenosha and across the country
- The participation of the Black Lives Matter organization in those demonstrations. (BLM is a broad-based movement encompassing many different philosophies and strategies all intent on responding defensively to police violence.)
- The fact that many BLM members and sympathizers are white and that historically the law has treated such people in the same way it treats black people. (This suggests that the white skin color of Rittenhouse's victims by no means removes racism from the story's equation.)
- Wisconsin gun law that allows underaged children to legally carry long barreled rifles
- Wisconsin self-defense law that presumes innocence on the part of those claiming its protection, while placing a high-bar burden of proof on those contradicting self-defense claims.
- The widely shared impression of prejudice given by the judge presiding over the Rittenhouse trial
The Sequence of Events
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
