Good Morning,
Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict
The not guilty verdicts of 18 yr old Kyle Rittenhouse, who had pleaded self-defence over the fatal shootings of two protesters in the city of Kenosha in August 2020, and the attempted murder of a third will confuse many people, and be used by different groups as an absolute, which it’s not.
The pro-gun lobby will champion the verdicts, as a right to self defense and Rittenhouse is their poster boy bolstering their vigilante platforms.
The shootings by Rittenhouse came during BLM protests over police abuse, which at times turned violent that summer. This demonstration was only 3 months after the murder of George Floyd, and it was sparked by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man shot in back by police, who said Blake had a knife and they shot in self defense.
Rittenhouse who was just 17 that night, said he wanted to go to the protests to defend property from looting and damage, and to support law enforcement. In the end he was swept up in a violent protest, and no doubt scared for his life, fired an all too readily available assault rifle taking the lives of the men, who has chased him seeing him as a dangerous vigilante.
Rittenhouse was a kid, a teenager whose parents should never have allowed him out of the house to do something as ridiculous as attending a potentially violent demonstration while toting a rifle designed to kill many people.
In any other society, carrying a rifle to a protest would be unlawful, and police would have stopped him the moment they saw him. Not in America.
Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, said in a statement that “extreme gun culture has rotted out our collective soul,” adding, “Only in America can a 17-year-old grab an assault weapon, travel across state lines, provoke a fight, kill two people and injure another and pay no consequences.”
The verdict came in a carefully considered jury trial. Jurors weren’t charged with considering if Rittenhouse should have come to the protest, or if open carry of rifles is a good thing, nor were they to consider what the message to society their verdicts would send. That’s for others now.
The not guilty verdict was solely based on whether Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life? And under the law could he defend himself? It was a narrow legal road to walk, and on that basis they almost had no choice but to acquit.
The broader debate should focus on what intent does someone have when they load and carry a weapon into a dangerous situation?
For instance, in the case of an armed robber, if he loads the gun and uses it in the commission of a robbery, that should be enough to convict him of a premeditated murder, even is the shop keeper engages him/her in a struggle and the robber later claims he was defending himself. (By the way that happens and is used as a defense in first degree murder cases).
People who load weapons and take them to the scene of potential conflict can surely be judged to have planned to use them, such as those who go into public buildings, like the Capitol.
The point is, the intention of weapon violence is formed long before the act of pulling the trigger is seems to me. The final act of pointing and firing, becomes relevant in judging the severity of the crime, such as manslaughter vs murder. But should the shooter get a free pass if they felt threatened in the final moment of when they level the gun and shoot? In America the law of self defense says yes they do.
Any sensible society would say less guns on the street, the less chance for violence. Let the professionals, the police make trained decisions on weapon use, and they will also have to defend the ultimate decision on their use.
In fact police are trained if they draw a weapon, they have formed intent to use it, and that use has to be proportionate to the violence they are facing.
Having open carry gun laws, including assault rifles at public gatherings, including Government buildings or public protests is just a recipe for mayhem. And the Rittenhouse verdict should deliver that sober sensible lesson.
Unfortunately here, it didn’t, and it won’t, and the message is twisted by those promoting guns and open carry laws in a society besieged by gun violence.