Saying “It’s The Law” Is Just Another Form of Denying Racism

The Rittenhouse verdict demonstrates the inherent racial bias in the American legal system

It’s been infuriating to witness the fallout from the Rittenhouse verdict. Everyone from Trump to Tucker Carlson seems to be using the decision to promote an ideology of violence and authoritarianism.

The most frustrating part is that even the part of the media that we’re conditioned to think of as “reasonable,” isn’t engaging the most important part of the case. The key element is the judge’s decision to throw out the gun charge. The fact is that legal statutes are always subject to interpretation. A judge has the authority to determine whether they should be thrown out or considered.

Most conservative pundits, as per usual, are steadfastly ignoring the essence of the Rittenhouse discussion. Chirping about how “he had a right to carry that weapon,” isn’t accurate. Everyone who mentions this case needs to emphasize that it was within the judge’s authority to insist the jury consider the gun charge.

From there, the media should pivot to the question of whether the judge would have dismissed the gun charge if the defendant were black. If you look at the US legal system, there are multiple examples of black people receiving excessive sentences for far less flagrant acts. It would be interesting to comb through all verdicts and see if a gun charge has ever been dismissed for a black defendant.

For months, conservatives have been in a tizzy about critical race theory. A component of critical race theory explores the fundamental inequality of the American legal system. The Rittenhouse case is yet another example that should receive strong consideration in the context of critical race theory. Conservative pundits who point to the acquittal and say, “that’s just the law” are again denying the fundamental racism inherent to our system of white justice.

The gun charge should have been a slam dunk

In some ways, the Rittenhouse case feels like a pushback against the Derek Chauvin decision. In fact, the only silver lining to the Rittenhouse case was that it probably made Chauvin furious that he wasn’t given equivalent treatment. Anything that makes Chauvin miserable is a positive in my opinion.

Going into the Rittenhouse case understanding the gun fanaticism of the US and the inherent racism of our legal system, a guilty verdict on the homicide charges seemed unlikely. We’ve seen this kind of thing play out too many times. Too often, the entitled white person walks away with no punishment at all. Rational people hoped for some kind of punishment simply to deter future vigilantes from bringing military grade weapons to the streets in our community.

The gun possession charge appeared to be a slam dunk. It would have ensured that Rittenhouse spent at least a few months in jail for taking human lives. It would have sent a message to deter right wing radicals from looking for an excuse to kill people.

But the judge threw it out. Contrary to what you have heard in the media, this isn’t an indication that carrying that weapon is “legal.” It just means the judge made a ruling that applies ONLY to this specific case, and decided, in his opinion, the gun charge wasn’t valid. Make no mistake, it WAS within his authority to let the gun charge stand.

Legal experts agreed the statute is poorly worded, but said the legislature’s intention was to give teenagers the legal right to hunt as long as they weren’t using short-barrel rifles or sawed-off shotguns. The judge could have recognized that fact and allowed the jury to consider the charge, said John Gross, director of the Public Defender Project at the University of Wisconsin Law School — Christy Gutowski and Stacy St. Clair

Some legal experts think that the judge made a mistake in dismissing the gun charge based on the obvious intent of the statute. That is a very important fact that everyone in our country needs to recognize.

The “dangerous weapon” statute in question

Most people are content to hear that the “statute is poorly written” and leave it at that. We’re conditioned not to go and read legal documents because they’re “too confusing.”

However, that’s just an example of yet more social pressure designed to control you. When you get into a case like this, you should take the time to look up the law. While it’s true that certain words have a specific meaning within a legal context, there is an element of common sense to the law. A rational person with a good grasp of the English language should feel empowered to read a legal statute and come to a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the law.

You’re not stupid. You’re allowed to read these things and determine what you think it says.

For the record, here is the statute in question.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon” means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c ), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c ) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183 — Wisconsin State Legislature

If you just read that part of the law, the decision seems to be open and shut. In fact, the jury could have decided that Rittenhouse is guilty of the Class A misdemeanor, and whoever gave him the gun should be guilty of a Class H felony. The statute specifically says “discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself, or another.”

Reading this, it appears the intention of the law is to stop people under the age of 18 from walking around communities killing people with rifles. It seems pretty clear.

The problem comes later.

(c ) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 — Wisconsin State Legislature

Section 941.28 is the part that gets into discussing barrel length.

The thing is, if barrel length is the determining factor, why isn’t it mentioned in the first sentence? The first sentence clearly says “any firearm, loaded or unloaded.” The word “any” is irrefutable. Why did the legislature use the word “any” when, according to the judge in the Rittenhouse case, they meant “short barrel”?

Arriving at this conclusion doesn’t make sense to me.

There should be no victory lap

The problem with this decision is now we have to sit here and endure article after article written by smug conservatives about how Rittenhouse was completely within his legal rights.

The Kyle Rittenhouse jury also followed the law, hard as that is to accept. Like DeValkenaere, he should never have been where he was when he fired in Kenosha, killing two people and wounding a third during protests over the shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, by a white officer. But unfortunately, because our gun laws make the Wild West look like Australia, it’s perfectly legal for a troubled 17-year-old to run around with an AR-style rifle looking for more trouble — Melinda Henneberger

Paragraphs like this are infuriating because it simply isn’t accurate. It’s not “perfectly legal for a troubled 17-year-old to run around with an AR-style rifle.” That’s not true. There are statutes that specifically call this behavior a Class A Misdemeanor.

This paragraph is missing a word and that word is “white.” The fact is that white people can feel confident if they ever stand before a judge that the judge will find a way to throw out any weapons charge they might face.

We can’t allow the media to use the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict as a justification of conservative philosophy. The only thing the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict proves is that everyone in the United States should be studying critical race theory.

The Rittenhouse verdict, and others like it, are why critical race theory exists.