Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted

Kyle Rittenhouse's trial was one of the "celebrity trials" which have been used as a special window into current events. I'm wary about such things though understand the value of having some example to provide a launching point to examine wider things. So, e.g., I have noted my support of using Supreme Court cases as windows to wider events.

But, we need a wider understanding to fully know what is happening. We will basically have to grant certain limits here.  People aren't going to "deep dive" everything.  This shows the importance of others doing it.  For instance, coverage can provide background and easily accessible links to key issues. For instance, one local paper has a FAQ page about commonly asked questions about its coverage. 

I have seen some limited positive developments here. A key controversy here, e.g., was when the judge would not let the prosecutors call the people he shot (and in two cases killed) "victims."   This op-ed shows the reactions of many -- that's outrageous!  But, as noted here, that is not a rare ruling. It presupposes guilt.  WE can call them "victims" as much as we (unlike the prosecutors during the trial) could call OJ a "murderer."  And, some on Twitter (to use that as a flawed judge of things)  seemed to understand the concept, at least eventually.

Meanwhile, the defense will be allowed to refer to the three people Rittenhouse shot as "arsonists," "looters" or "rioters" so long as they took part in those activities, Schroeder ruled — a decision prosecutor Thomas Binger called "a double standard."

How about this? Well, the "so long as" part is key here. The judge required the defense (who unlike the victims have constitutional due process rights) to provide a basis for this. And, as I understand it, the labels could only be used in their closing argument. I thought it probably reasonable for the prosecution to also be allowed in their closing argument, if a foundation is provided, to used "victims." But, that is a big step from thinking the judge was being horribly unjust for ruling as he did.

The judge -- who ran multiple times unopposed -- was criticized for various rulings he made.  At times, he did seem to do things problematic. How bad he was overall, especially as compared to other judges, is far from clear.  It is far from clear -- as some argued -- the judge basically clinched the deal.  Still, he didn't help matters.  But, it would be helpful to put even that in context.  Other trials very well has that concern.  

Okay. So, what is this trial about other than some white teenager whose picture makes him look like a bit of a ... well let's admit it, he looks like a bit of a chubby weenie.  These are his victims.  Yes, I can say that, not being a prosecutor making a case at trial.  Surprised they are all white?  I think you might not be alone.  I think some very well think at least one of these people (like one member of the jury) was a black guy. 

Jacob Blake -- now partially paralyzed after a police shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin -- is black.  This led to protests.  It came out during the trial (in a detail that would seem rather useful to be more prominent) that Michael Rittenhouse lives in Kenosha.  Rittenhouse is Kyle Rittenhouse's father. Kyle himself lives in Illinois, though near the state border.   

So, Kyle (left) and his sister once boyfriend (Dominick Black) decides to go to the area allegedly to help keep the peace.  It is unclear if a car dealer actually sought out armed guards (one of those important details that flesh out these stories)  but he wound up "protecting" it.

Being a minor, Rittenhouse had Black buy him the gun (AR-15).  Late in the trial, a gun charge was dropped by the judge, who decided the technicalities of Wisconsin law might allow him to have it.  This is another thing that outraged people, including the timing of the judge's actions.  I simply am not sure about the legal argument involved here.  

This is the basic travesty of the whole thing.  Someone his age should not have the ability to take assault weapons (or whatever you want to call that thing) into public places like that, especially not into that sort of situation. It is just asking for trouble.  See also here, regarding the collision of the First and Second Amendments.  

Some will, sometimes in patronizing/condescending tones, explain how Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict was reasonable or even clearly warranted.  Some will add that the prosecution screwed up to boot.  Maybe, it was.  Maybe, calling Rittenhouse a "murderer" with strong angry conviction is a bit too loose.  Though again, I bet some  thought at least one victim was black. Okay.  Early on, I did.  But, I doubt I was alone. 

This does not erase that problems with our self-defense and gun laws.  Two people were killed by some 17 year old inserting himself into a situation with a dangerous gun.  One had serious damage to his arm (the third person in that photo).  All three of them rightly saw Rittenhouse reasonably dangerous, especially after he let off multiple shots, and killed someone.  

A close examination of the events -- and I read summaries, including accessible in the links -- might get you a conviction on at least one count.  Maybe, not.  That isn't the core issue -- toss someone, especially some "kid" (Chris Hayes hoped the "kid" will make something of his life on Twitter after the verdict, which came on the fourth day), into that situation with a damn AR-15, where bystanders will see him as a threat, and something horrible happening is not shocking at all.  

And, of course, the usual suspects (Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested he would make a good congressional intern) see him as some sort of hero, especially if one has a racist mentality.  Killing white people is okay there, I guess, if they were protesting the shooting of a black person.   

Another thing flagged by responses was the racist double standard. If he was black, would police ignore him when he came up to them with a big gun on his chest, arms up?  He walked away, arrested later.  The police argued that in the moment they had some sort of tunnel vision, not realizing he was trying to surrender or something.  Sounds bad to me. 

Would black claims of self-defense be respected?  Stand your ground laws, e.g., are applied unevenly.  The fact every black suspect with a gun in such situations (black people have been arrested for shooting or even killing police officers, after all) wouldn't have been shot dead or found not guilty (which some people did argue) is not the only test here.  

The next step is possible civil suits.  But, what lessons can we learn here?  A few.  (1) A judge should carefully try to provide an appearance of not having bias and act carefully in such a public trial   OTOH, people should understand the nuances of rules during a trial, even if the rules seem unjust.  If a judge is seen as biased, they will be less able or willing to take the bitter with the sweet. 

(2)  Gun laws should be carefully written and enforced.  Relatedly, though they do not just apply to gun usage, self-defense rules, especially in public places, should be intelligently framed; gun usage especially should not be basically encouraged.  People should understand the dangerous results of our current rules. We need not just keep on granting them as unfortunate givens that cannot be changed. 

Yes, this could include a not guilty verdict here though this case very well might be a hard one if all the facts are considered.  (For instance, one comment he made that seemed to suggest the was looking for trouble was excluded, but I'm unsure how relevant it was as the criminal background of one or more of the victims was not.)  [Blanket note: this is not a complete account of the events on my part though more of a "deep dive" than many have done.]

(3) Rittenhouse's presence there was dangerous as well as immature and people should have flagged this, not made him a hero.  The protests were one of many responses to events that have potential for trouble.  We need to carefully deal with these things, the best we can.  Throwing a lit match into a puddle of gasoline is not a good idea.  Glorification of Rittenhouse will encourage this happening again.  

(4) And, there is overall lessons of racial justice and other issues such as use of police force.  The situation arose after a police shooting when dealing with a domestic matter cited in one account as related to a third degree sexual offense.  He is cited as having a knife.  Should be a way for police to deal with that instead of shooting and partial paralyzing a man. Maybe, the #AbolishPolice movement is not totally stupid, especially if it means a serious reduction of the use of police force.  

I don't know what the whole thing clearly means.  There are other uses of force.  Other trials.  It does provide us a chance to look at things.  What we saw was far from clear.  As Paul noted, we look through the glass darkly.  

ETA: After writing this, I saw this regarding how certain media accounts framed things.  That tends to be a useful thing to look at in these celebrity cases.