by Zara Fearns
As I’m sure most of you know, yesterday, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges brought against him. The verdict has sent ripples throughout the nation and it sets a significant precedent moving forwards.
On August 3rd, 2020, a white police officer shot Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was left partially paralyzed. They were responding to a domestic complaint (Blake had a warrant issued on charges of third-degree sexual assault, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct). This event came shortly after several well-publicized instances of police brutality, such as with the case of George Floyd. It sparked BLM protests in Kenosha, setting the scene for the violence that was to occur. (Link to one Jacob Blake article, as I can’t include all the nuances in this blog post: https://www.nytimes.com/article/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha.html)
The demonstrations led to violence: police officers armed in riot gear fired rubber bullets and pepper balls at the crowd, a brick was thrown at a police officer, and fires were set. Local businesses faced looting and destruction. Though almost all BLM protests nationwide remained peaceful, this was one example of violence escalating, though blame for the escalation is difficult to assign. A curfew was assigned.
Videos of the violence spread on social media, and white men armed with assault rifles arrive to “protect local businesses.” Kyle, a 17 year old resident of Illinois who lived just across the state border, arrives as a part of these groups. He brings a military style semi automatic weapon with him. Protestors violating the curfew are pushed back by the police officers, but the white militia doesn’t receive the same treatment. In fact, they’re supported by a few officers, who praise them and give them water.
I’m not going to give a play-by-play account of the events as this post is already getting quite long, but I would recommend looking into the articles / videos linked as it is important to understand the context for the case. Long story short, Rittenhouse shoots and kills two men: Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber. He injures a third: Gaige Grosskretuz.
Though many were shocked by the not-guilty verdict, legal experts were less than surprised. As this New York Times article, “When it comes to self-defense, the prosecution has a heavier burden” points out: “Self-defense laws typically do not require someone to have good judgment and tend to consider only the moments leading up to the violence, not whether the person willingly entered a turbulent situation or contributed to the chaos” (Dewan, Smith). Regardless of my own feelings on the verdict, I think it is less important than the overall response to Rittenhouse’s case.
Many conservatives have rallied around Rittenhouse, hailing him as a vigilante hero-- and it’s no secret that in America, white vigilantes are seen and treated very differently than black civilians. The armed militia, violating the same curfew as the protestors, were openly supported by the police. However, when black people utilize their same rights to self defense and gun ownership, they are demonized by the media and terrorized by police officers. Take the Black Panther party, for example. As the same article continues to say: “The reasonable fear standard for self-defense has given rise to concerns that it is affected by the same racial bias that permeates the justice system. A mountain of social science research shows that Black people, men in particular, are more likely to be seen as threatening” (Dewan, Smith). For many, Rittenhouse is a reminder of the double standard that exists in our country. It’s concerning that the right to protest is damaged by the threat of violence at these protests, and those that are supposed to protect these rights (the police) are often not on the side of the protestors. Counter-protestors are often to blame for escalating these protests to violence, but the BLM movement is held responsible for their actions. Considering the scope of self-defense laws, and who the criminal justice system seems to protect more than others, it’s hard not to see Rittenhouse’s actions as a continuation of the systems of white supremacy that exist in America, especially when he is upheld by those groups as a hero. It’s scary to think what kinds of white vigilante justice that he may inspire, coupled with more permissive gun laws (some have pointed out the influence of the NRA in these laws, suggesting that powerful interest groups, like the NRA, may be playing a key role in the politics leading to these decisions, but can't get into that right now).
1) Does the verdict or the response to Rittenhouse concern you more?
2) Do you think the current self-defense laws should be changed?
3) Do you think Rittenhouse's actions, coupled with the not-guilty verdict, will inspire violence? Why or why not?
4) What are your thoughts on the actions of the police throughout the events in Kenosha, including their treatment of the groups Rittenhouse was with?
+ any other thoughts related to the case are welcome (sorry this post is so long, there was a lot to include!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpTW2AJE9MQ
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057288807/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges-verdict
https://www.nytimes.com/article/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha.html
https://www.balloon-juice.com/category/guns/ (it's the first one under this category)
11 comments:
After seeing the results of the trial, I was really angry and disappointed. It feels so wrong that someone can believe that they can use take matters into their own hands with vigilante justice. The trial became heavily politicized with the media having constant stories about the case. Most people including myself, were looking at the trial for answers to questions about whether Rittenhouse was a villain or a hero, the state of race relations in America, or even any kind of decision on gun violence. When looking at the case in a legal sense it can be better understood of how this ruling came with self defense being a relatively easy defense to win. One of the most frustrating aspects of this event is how differently Kyle Rittenhouse as white teenager is treated to black people with essentially the same situations. When dealing with black people the police are often more aggressive and even more likely to kill them. On the other hand, Rittenhouse was greeted by the police and even gave him water. Rittenhouse was not arrested until his mother persuaded to turn himself in. Even more so, when being questioned, the police stopped the interview because Rittenhouse did not understand his Miranda rights. If a black teenager when to protests with a rifle on his back he would be instantly questioned by police and certainly not allowed to leave or look out for the black teenager's rights. Another important aspect is that I think that everyone should agree that a 17 year old should not be armed with a rifle and appoint themselves to create order. In the future, this case will be looked back as only a legal solution but leaving out all the societal issues that this case was influenced by.
Here is a really interesting article about this same point
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-verdict-not-guilty/620737/
While not surprised about the verdict on the trial, I have to agree with Liam that the results are very disappointing. I'm not all too familiar with our self-defense laws, but I feel like it's pretty easy to prove that someone was acting in self-defense purely on the basis that it's a pretty broad statement. It's also fairly subjective and I imagine it relatively easy to exaggerate the circumstances to make someone seem as though they were in more danger than they really were. I looked up some of the self-defense laws in America and it seems like WI has a "Duty to Retreat" law, which essentially means that people are expected to try and run away before acting in self-defense; watching the YouTube video, you could argue pretty easily that Rittenhouse was "running away" before he shot, so the law applies.
In terms of the reaction, I honestly think that it's really gross how people are calling Rittenhouse a hero for what he did. From what I've seen, a minor armed with a firearm (which, like Liam said, is a pretty big red flag in and of itself) shows up to a town that he doesn't live in to "defend" businesses from peaceful protesters and shoots three people (in self-defense) who were not armed well enough to (or had the intention to) kill him. Obviously, it's pretty hard to gauge someone's intentions as they're running at you and I can understand panicking on hearing a gunshot from somewhere else, but I feel like gunshots fired directly at others is not an appropriate reaction? But feel free to disagree.
Lastly, I think the non-guilty verdict on top of Rittenhouse's actions is only going to cause more violence than we've already seen. I looked it up and it seems like there has already been some (linked below). It's so frustrating how these people can show up to a place where people are protesting while completely armed can get praised by the police and face zero punishment, but if some non-white kid (or adult) showed up to do the exact same thing the police would instantly be onto them. I sincerely wish that wasn't the world we were living in-- or country, I guess-- but that's just what seems to be happening over and over again.
sources:
(self-defense laws) https://scharfflawfirm.com/self-defense-laws-u-s/
(violence) https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057643957/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-prompts-protests-in-several-cities
I would say that the results of the trial were not as surprising as the response. Praising him as a so-called 'hero' is blasphemy, especially when he had to kill 2 people in order to continue a protest that should have been stopped just as the other one had. I believe that the current self-defense laws are open to interpretation based on the case and the way that the attorney presents the information. I would say that self-defense laws are a little too broad, especially when you can kill people the way he did. I would say that the reaction that is talked Zara talks about was rather the opposite on sites such as Instagram, where I have personally seen people compare it to crimes that were committed by African-Americans, who have received a much greater punishment. It does not surprise me when I see that many Americans are starting to question the legitimacy of the judicial system and how corrupt it has looked recently. I believe that people will try to pull the 'self-defense' card more and hope to get away with it similar to Kyle Rittenhouse. Not only can I see it inspiring violence, but I also can see protests on the judicial system that could insight violence. I honestly thought this country would have ended all of the double standards and stereotypes by now but there just seems to be no end to them. It is so unfortunate that we have seen the BLM movements and 'Stop Asian Hate' movements and yet we still see the same problem over and over again. The group that Kyle Rittenhouse was a part of should have been stopped, plain and simple. This is not only a bad look on the judicial system, but also the police and the problems they have been seen in for many years now. There is no way that people can see Kyle Rittenhouse as a true hero if he never helped anyone or created inspiration and change. It is ironic that students take a history class, and yet this country can't seem to learn from its own history.
Should current self-defense laws be changed? Absolutely not. Nick and Colin think they are too broad, and I agree that they are broad, but in general that is a good thing. Keeping laws broad allows for more wiggle room when it comes to court cases. This allows attorneys the freedom to apply the same law differently to the nuances of a specific case. Perhaps in this specific case, people are disappointed because it favored the defendant, but it can also favor the prosecutor in some cases, so it isn't destined to favor any specific side. Moreover, self-defense laws basically articulate that if someone is about to kill you or harm you in a serious way, you have the right to kill them for your own safety. I don't think anyone would disagree with this principle. With regard to the Rittenhouse trial, this most clearly addresses the Grosskreutz verdict in which Grosskreutz had directly pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before he fired. Now, Nick, Colin, and Liam were all disappointed with the results of the trial. I am concerned about other aspects of the trial, but relieved that he was acquitted for the Grosskreutz verdict. Frankly, it makes sense that one has the right to defend themself (even by firing) if someone else is pointing their gun at them. With Huber and Rosenbaum, I am disappointed with the verdicts. Moreover, it angers me that people kept referencing Joseph Rosenbaum's recent hospital visit and the fact that he was mentally ill. It almost seems like people think his mental illness justifies Rittenhouse shooting him in any way... it doesn't. However, had he not been shot and killed, he should have been arrested for harassing protestors, Rittenhouse, and basically everyone he encountered that night.
With regard to the police praising the "Kenosha Guard" and giving them water, that is completely unacceptable behavior and anyone who participated should be suspended from their jobs. There is absolutely no reason why anyone in the "Kenosha Guard" should have been there, and it angers me that the police didn't recognize that the Kenosha Guard also broke the curfew. Ryan Balch, a military veteran and member of the Kenosha Guard, said that he went to Kenosha because "if law enforcement is not going to try to keep the peace, then somebody else needs to go out there and make sure that that happens." This mindset of the Kenosha Guard that the police weren't going to do their jobs is baffling. It is clearly just an excuse for them to get involved in a violent situation. Moreover, if the police didn't have the capacity to maintain peace, the solution isn't for a group of vigilantes to come in... the solution is to implement more policemen! The Kenosha Guard was an unnecessary distraction from the protests, and another obstacle for the police forces to maintain peace. Apparently, Balch was formally a supporter of the Boogaloo movement, which the New York Times calls "anti-police." That makes complete sense as he didn't trust the police to do their job correctly.
Ryan Balch also made the comment that if people were burning buildings down, lives were going to be lost no matter what. That is absolutely not true, as most business owners had boarded up their businesses and left at that point. By the end of the night, no protestors had died other than the two that Rittenhouse shot. When Balch is making blatant excuses for the Kenosha Guard's presence at the protests, that indicates that he knows they had ulterior motives.
In my opinion, Rittenhouse was just looking for trouble and didn't just go to "protect businesses." It is heartbreaking that Rosenbaum and Huber were shot and killed because in their minds they were trying to protect others from Rittenhouse.
The verdict to Rittenhouse's case does not surprise me, but personally just frustrates me even more. I believe that the current self-defense laws need to be more specific, rather than being broad and providing wiggle room in any court case. I go by the book when it comes to dealing with the law, so this is how I see it: You have to be 21 years old to have a carriers license in Wisconsin, and Rittenhouse, a 17 year old boy, was illegally carrying a fire arm and shot two people. Ultimately, I do believe this case will inspire more violence because to me getting away with murdering and illegally carrying a fire arm is extremely absurd.
The final verdict that was reached is disappointing but not surprising, having an interest in law and our current justice system he was more likely to get away with it even if he crosses state lines with a semi automatic and went to protect businesses, he put himself with protests armed with a large gun people were bound to be scared, also the prosecutor for this case was not that good from the clips and reporting from what i've seen he could've done a better job or a different prosecutor could have been chosen knowing this case was going to be watched across the world. The definition of self defense should be changed, even though Kyle put himself in this situation again like I said going cross state lines to a protest and acted like a vigilante and when people were scared and wanted him away he shot, if he stayed home and did not act like a vigilante for these businesses who should have insurance to cover if they are looted didn't need a kid with a semi automatic to protect them. People may protest this verdict but it wont do anything to change it, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and new charges can't be brought to him, this case was disappointing and proves that our justice system needs reform so cases like this won't happen again.
Responding to Nicky's comment, I would (softly) disagree about the self-defense laws needing to be changed. Though I agree that the principle of self-defense is a good thing, but I think the kind of self-defense laws we see in Wyoming (as well as other places) can create a shoot-or-be-shot kind of situation. As with the Grosskreutz verdict, he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse (seeing him as a threat), and if he had shot Rittenhouse, I wonder if this would have been protected under self-defense as well (I genuinely don't know). It's also hard to say whether the laws themselves are the problem, when very different verdicts and treatments are handed out based on race, as Colin and Liam pointed out.
I agree with many of the other comments that it is incredibly frustrating that the police treated the white vigilantes so differently, and (seemed) to be supporting them with water, as well as it being concerning that they pushed the protestors to where the vigilantes were. I find it hard to believe they didn't know what they were doing, or didn't recognize the impact of their actions.
Beyond the issues with the self-defense laws, I think America's gun culture is also something really strange and troubling, as Andres also pointed out. Seeing Kyle, a seventeen year old, walk around with an assault rifle, and having this be completely dismissed from the case due to the length of the gun (something that allows minors to hunt, even though an assault rifle is definitely not something you'd use for hunting), is unsettling, to say the least. In addition, the extent to which the violence is being condoned by news outlets as large as Fox news is pretty telling of the divide in our country. It also makes it hard for people to feel safe exercising their first amendment right to protest when things like this occur.
Even if the verdict was guilty, it would do little to solve many of the other political issues that Kyle's case seems to be representative of.
I agree that the verdict was expected, however, the response and support that Rittenhouse garnered was concerning, as they all focused on his supposed acts of heroism in protecting “private property”, but disregarded that he was responsible for ending two people’s lives and injuring another person. I agree that while the current self-defense laws are fairly reasonable(when trouble is not deliberately created), the circumstances that Kyle Rittenhouse faced were different as he armed himself with the intent of using force against protesters(unarmed). I also do believe that Rittenhouse’s actions and the not-guilty verdict will incite violence, as other groups will see this as an affirmation of his efforts and believe that they will be able to get away with similar acts of violence by using similar logic to explain their actions. According to the articles, especially NPR, the defense’s main argument was self-defense and how Rittenhouse acted in response to the actions of the victims. In this case self-defense should not have been the only factor considered, as Rittenhouse killed 2 men and wounded another: the latter believing that Rittenhouse was a dangerous “active shooter” and trying to stop him from harming others. I believe that this case is a glaring example of how some laws perpetuate the use of deadly force in public. According to the Giffords Law Center, research has shown that Stand Your Ground laws, also known as “Shoot First” policies, have led to an increase in gun homicides and injuries, even in cases where there was no need for such a heightened escalation of violence. In fact, self-defense laws are enacted for the purpose of not ending human life yet make it easy for people to use excessive force as a first resort.
I think Liam brings up really strong points concerning race in this situation. The verdict for many has been expected but thinking about this case in a different view really sheds light on the racism that our country seems to not be able to get out of. If this was a young black man, we could only imagine the headlines. I don’t think current-self defense laws have to be changed because quite frankly, like Nicky said, the laws should stay broad so that individuals can be “equally” protected by the law. I also think that has to do more with gun laws. I don’t see why an individual outside of law enforcement needs a gun. I think there needs to be stricter laws and harder ways to get a gun. What shocks me is the fact that he, and every other teenager who had access to their parents firearms, had that access to begin with. Concerning Rittenhouse’s actions, I don't think that they will necessarily inspire people to commit acts of violence. I think most people can realize that what happened was extremely wrong, and I may be wrong but I think a good percent of the public can’t just murder somone and live with that on their conscience. What I’m trying to get at is that there will of course be people that believe they will be able to get away with such a crime but I don’t necessarily think Rittenhouse’s case is what made them come to that realization, it was just a reinforcement. I also want to believe that the courts and future juries learn from this case and try to prevent verdicts like this.
I don't find the verdict of the case surprising, however it certainly frustrates me and leaves me with questions. I wonder what the outcome would have been if a person of color committed the same act that Kyle Rittenhouse did. I believe that the self defense laws must be reviewed and specified. I think the current self defense laws make it hard for it to be determined what is considered an act of self defense. It's hard to imagine how a 17 year old acquired a firearm in the state of Wisconsin. You must be 18 years of age or older to posses a firearm, and for Rittenhouse to be proved not guilty after shooting and killing 2 people without legally being allowed to have a gun.
The outcome of the trial was more than disappointing. A civilian taking such drastic measures to carry out a twisted form of "justified' violence. I feel that I was looking at the trial to see the motives and how he was portrayed as both a hero and villain from different perspectives. In the end gun violence seemed to take up a major part of the trial which makes sense as facts do not care about our feelings and the trial was called to discuss this "vigilante's" attempt at solving a problem. Statistically, it seems that the police are more forceful and unforgiving when dealing with people of color and this goes for trials as well. If Rittenhouse was a black teenager partaking in an armed protest, I foresee a much different news story revolving around police brutality. As far as gun laws are considered in no word should a 17-year-old be armed with a rifle. I see that laws should be reformed to make acquiring firearms much more difficult. While other crimes would perhaps rise, we should take note from countries such as Japan with much tighter gun laws which yield far fewer gun crimes. The problem with this would be that there is an amendment that gives people the right to bear arms. While amending the constitution might not be the answer, I see that reform must be made regardless to take such powerful instruments of destruction out of the hands of those who are unable to act maturely with them.
Post a Comment