Kyle Rittenhouse Is Acquitted: Once Again America Misses The Point

To get the right answer you need to ask the right questions

I can feel it becoming a question in a history paper about the second American civil war. ‘Compare and contrast the how the cases of Derek Chauvin and Kyle Rittenhouse contributed to the second shot heard around the world.’ — both cases received global coverage and both cases feel like they could be contributing to a fundamental shift in the psyche of a complicated and divided country.

So let’s get the race question of the way first. I think if Rittenhouse had been black he would likely have been shot by law enforcement. That’s what racism and privilege look like.

I also think if either of the men who had been shot by Rittenhouse had been black, the US would be arming itself against nationwide insurrection. That’s what anti-racism narrative looks like.

Everyone involved was white… I don’t know what that does to the state of the conversation around race in the current climate, other than adding further complexity to an already overwrought situation.

White on white shootings don’t carry the same political weighting at this particular juncture of US history.

Should Rittenhouse have been acquitted?

Yes.

Now before the comments section turns into a bloodbath, I only have to consider two things: What was the accused charged with, and is he guilty of it beyond all reasonable doubt? There were seven charges against him, four relating to the shootings and two relating to his conduct.

The defence argued that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence in each of the shootings. The other two charges (having a gun and being out during a curfew) were dismissed on technicalities by the judge.

Could it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was guilty of intentional homicide? No. He was attacked and acted in self-defence. It’s enough of a mitigating circumstance to build a defence case around and that’s what his lawyers did.

That, combined with some fairly poor work and lack of due diligence by the prosecution team ensured his defence held.

Do I agree with the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse? Wrong question, I have no choice. I believe in the rule of law and trial by jury. He was accused of something, evidence was heard and deliberated upon and he was found to be innocent using the judicial system.

Do I think they’ve made the wrong decision? That doesn’t matter. I’m not on the jury. My private disagreement with what transpired doesn’t matter one iota and I refuse to call into question the system simply because it didn’t deliver the result I might’ve wanted.

“Some might have had concerns about the decisions that brought Mr. Rittenhouse to Kenosha that evening and how he reacted. However, unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn’t reasonable and that he didn’t believe that he needed to use deadly force to defend himself, then the only proper verdict is acquittal,” — Chris Zachar, a defence attorney based in Wisconsin (one not connected to the trial)

Two people died by gunshot and Kyle Rittenhouse walked out of the courtroom a free man. The public are outraged but their outrage is entirely misplaced. Why?

America is a sucker for getting the wrong end of a problem.

The Rittenhouse problem

The question the jury needed to answer is ‘was Rittenhouse using reasonable force to protect himself’. Their answer was yes.

The wider question that needs to be asked of all Americans is… ‘do you think it’s appropriate for armed children to police the streets?’ as this is the question that really cuts to the heart of the matter.

Rittenhouse was, at the time, a minor. He no longer is, now he’s the young adult darling of the political right. He did his patriotic duty and he defended the streets from the crushing rabble of anarchists.

He emerged from the chaos triumphant and unscathed, bloodied but unbowed. I mean… he’s likely going to have a fair amount of PTSD to deal with — but that’s the likely outcome of thinking you can play Call of Duty in the real world as well as you can in your parent’s basement.

And two people are unnecessarily dead because America has the sort of laws that question how a gun is used and not whether the situation for which it was used should have transpired.

Let’s presume for a second Rittenhouse was nine. Now what do you think?

Do you think it’s appropriate to arm a nine-year-old child and send them out into the street to act as backup for the police force? If not, why not? If so, then where do you draw the line? What about twelve? Fourteen?

Rittenhouse had a gun and a self-imposed mission, he had no real military training, none of the skillset required to undertake civic enforcement and his teenage brain makes long term strategic thinking difficult. Teenagers are bad at assessing and understanding risk and moderating their behaviour accordingly — that’s why so many of them die in traffic accidents.

It’s an overactive limbic system, lots of testosterone (in young men) and an under-active cortex.

Male teens are not good people to have with you in any form of unpredictable crisis. They lack capacity, maturity and good judgment. All of which played a part in ensuring that Kyle Rittenhouse was very quickly and very fatally out of his depth the second he arrived at Kenosha.

He legally acted in self-defence but that’s not really the right place to push a legal argument here.

So what next?

America needs to come to terms with the fact it has just legitimised arming its children in the role of policing the nation. Not adults, children. Conservatives especially need to be aware of the implications of what this means for the immediate future.

It means your child has now just been empowered to take the same steps as Rittenhouse. Your teenager, who lacks the ability to do a risk assessment has just been given a clear signal. As long as they can make a ‘self-defence’ case, they are free to attend any event and begin their own Medal of Honour campaign.

It’s exciting.They’ve all been training for it for years on their X-boxes and they are ripe for radicalisation by both the right and the left. Getting shot at and having a cause you believe in is great for combatting ennui. Teenagers are the easiest people on the planet to radicalise — Ed Sheeran’s entire career depends on it.

Teenagers are easily co-opted into face-palming instances of moronic stupidity. Rittenhouse got lucky. Twice.

First of all, he survived the night, which wasn’t a certainty though heavily skewed in his favour by carrying military-grade weaponry. Then he survived the resulting trial, partly because the prosecution were useless and partly because his defence was just good enough to offset reasonable doubt.

When the second American civil war starts I suspect someone might bump him off — and I suspect someone will do the same with Chauvin. They’re both darlings of the right and target trophies for the left.

This can only really go one way. It’s an escalation. So what can be done?

I would create a civil case now and prosecuting everyone in a wrongful death suit. I would attempt to prosecute everyone involved in what has turned into a legalistic clusterfuck of the highest order.

You knowingly gave a gun to a child? You’re in. You drove a bus containing a child to a riot? You’re in. You let your child go to a riot? You’re in (and we should look more carefully at child protection legislation). You stood for a selfie with him because you thought his gun was awesome? You’re in. You gave a tacit endorsement of vigilantism online without encouraging children to stay at home — Trump, you’re in.

A message has to be sent that putting children on the frontline of any civil unrest or military conflict hasn’t been the done thing since John Clem

If you were in any way responsible for letting a child police a riot, you’re culpable. Throw every single cent you have at making sure that this turns into the sort of thing that nobody ever wants to happen again. If people argue, then you can say ‘but what if the next kid at the riot is twelve and what if he gets beaten to death by an anarchist’ — and if they say... ‘don’t be silly, that won’t happen’, you can remind them that nobody in their right mind considered this could ever happen.

Liberals and sensible conservatives need to work together to get the laws tightened. I’m a libertarian but even I can see that letting teenagers run their own militia is inherently flawed.

Rittenhouse wasn’t convicted for what he did in Kenosha because the laws weren’t in place to prosecute him. That means either the verdict was wrong or you’ve got the wrong laws and an inability to create reasonable checks and balances. Next time, the shooter could be twelve and it seems you’ve got zero laws to deal with that merry-go-round of despair.

Rittenhouse’s case is over, that doesn’t mean America still doesn’t have a case to answer for.

Want to read the Penguin position on Chauvin’s conviction from all the way back in April 2021? Sure you do! It’s below.

Want to read what life is like on the front line of a riot? Dave Murray, one of my regular readers has been there and done that. Here’s his story.

As always, you can sign up for Medium by clicking the happy little Penguin below.