“It’s OK to Bring Guns to Play Cops”-Van Jones, CNN.
The crucial question facing the jury in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse was whether he was practicing self-defense:
Every American has a fundamental right to self-defense. That right has been recognized in the law since ancient times.
Rittenhouse Jury Gets It Right
Critics of the jury’s decision, and those focused on the larger picture, consider whether showing up at a protest (or a riot, depending upon how you’re classifying the events in Kenosha) with a rifle in full view of everyone involved is an act of provocation.
The Atlantic’s David Graham recognizes this as the true point of contention, but as a political–not judicial–matter:
The larger and more socially important matter of whether 17-year-olds—or anyone else—should be acting as a vigilante defense force is not strictly a legal question, but a political one. No judge or jury can resolve that.
The desire for the justice system to sort out messy questions with what can seem like careful objectivity is understandable, especially when our (explicitly) political institutions are struggling so mightily. But no shortcuts are available here. Americans cannot rely on the justice system to do what the political system will not.
The Rittenhouse Trial Could Never Have Been What Americans Wanted
Which is kind of the problem:
Rittenhouse was an attractive example of vigilante justice for the right because the people he shot were white, and because one hit him with a skateboard, and because his actions could be laundered through a wider set of implicitly racialized culture-war staples like “rioters” and “the mob”; his supporters may take faith in the fact that many prosecutors and judges have deep biases not betrayed by the sounds their cell phones make. And while much of the country will be outraged by Rittenhouse’s acquittal should it come, there is a particular set of ahistorical assumptions also underlying the widespread horror at this teenage shooter. The concern is that it will set a precedent, that if Rittenhouse is allowed to get away with murder, he’ll send a message that white men can just grab a gun and shoot anyone they perceive as a threat.
Why Kyle Rittenhouse Is a Right-Wing Hero and Ahmaud Arbery’s Killers Are Not
Again, what is self-defense, and what defines an aggressor?
“If you display a firearm or you point it at another person, that’s a threatening act that ordinarily would give, I think, a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm,” [Cynthia Lee, a law professor at George Washington University] said.
Can Self-Defense Laws Stand Up to a Country Awash in Guns?
The Nation’s Elie Mystal sees this as a rigged legal system doing what it’s supposed to for the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world:
Rittenhouse’s freedom is not a “miscarriage” of justice—it is our white justice system working as intended. This system is designed to free people like Rittenhouse: white vigilantes who kill to maintain the best interests of whiteness.
Kyle Rittenhouse Has Gotten Away With Murder—as Predicted
It would be easier to make the argument that showing up with a gun is an act of provocation if, more sensibly, it were illegal to carry “a rifle” in plain sight:
The rifle possession was probably legal. Even if it wasn’t, it clearly was not provocative. The legality of open-carrying of a long gun is the rule, not the exception, in Wisconsin. Plenty of people were openly carrying weapons. This behavior, done by law-abiding people, has the effect of discouraging violent crime. It thus cannot be deemed provocative.
Rittenhouse Prosecutors Seek to Criminalize Constitutional Self-Defense
“Probably” legal? Again, this is a crucial point of disagreement between gun control advocates and NRA from-my-cold-dead-hands types. Why would it be OK for minors to openly carry guns?
Due to unclear legislative language, there is some ambiguity on this point. Although minors are prohibited from openly carrying weapons (including all handguns) in Wisconsin, state law does allow 16 and 17-year olds to carry long rifles. The apparent intention of this exemption was to allow minors to hunt. As the Wisconsin Legislative Council advised in a 2018 memo, except in cases of “hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm.” Nevertheless, at Rittenhouse’s trial, Judge Bruce Schroeder accepted the defense’s argument that Wisconsin law forbids 17-year-olds from carrying handguns — but allows them to openly carry semi-automatic rifles – and dismissed the charge of illegal firearm possession.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s Defense Was Strong It’s also a threat to the rule of law.
The AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle, and Mr Rittenhouse didn’t have one for that purpose.
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee attorney and a former Waukesha County prosecutor, speculated that the long-gun exception was drafted to ensure children could hunt and lawmakers didn’t envision it could be used to protect children who carry long guns at protests like the demonstrations in Kenosha.
“I think it was designed with an eye toward hunting and enabling law enforcement to add additional charges against minors hunting without a license,” he said. “Wisconsin is a hunting state. When people talk about long arms, they’re thinking in the hunting context.”
Explainer: Why did the judge drop Kyle Rittenhouse gun charge?
In any event, this interpretation prohibited the jury from imposing any sentence or finding of wrong-doing.
For those of us disinclined to wage vigilante justice and brandish weapons, the notion that Mr Rittenhouse shouldn’t have armed himself and rolled into Kenosha takes hold. Both sides agree, but The American Conservative’s Declan Leary thinks there’s nothing else a boy can do when the adults vacate their responsibility:
The standard line from sympathetic but critical liberals like Atlantic columnist David French is that he never should have been there. This is true, actually. Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been there, because other people should have. The city’s police force should have been capable of maintaining peace on the streets. If that failed, the elected governor should have sent in the National Guard. As the last resort, private citizens should be capable of stepping up. When the maintenance of order demands the use of force, public spaces should be protected by men with guns, who know how to use them and how not to.