Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial for killing two men and wounding a third with a gun he was too young to possess at an anti-racism protest he crossed state lines in order to mix it up with protesters.
On the witness stand, testifying in hopes of bolstering his self-defense claim, he let loose with what one lawyer-observer (i.e., not involved in the case) called “the waterfall” or, as a Vox writer refers to it, “what folks like to call an ‘ugly cry.'” (See story here.)
It went like this:
“Rittenhouse’s eyes shut almost completely, save for an occasional glance to his left in the direction of the jury. Then came the sobbing, which kept the rest of his response to his attorney’s questioning about that evening from escaping his quivering lips.”
The judge ordered a break.
Was this a bit of rehearsed courtroom theater? Plenty of people, not just me, are wondering:
“The debate this week has centered on whether the defendant’s spectacle was authentic. Whether or not the crying was real, it was a performance, and it had an audience. Like many white men accused of violent crimes and misconduct before him, Rittenhouse appealed with his tears not merely to the 12 fellow citizens who will decide his fate, but also to certain white members of the American public who too often see emotion like that and imagine only the faces of their sons ….”
Plenty of people also view this as a political trial, one way or another, so it’s inevitable that people would also consider “his sobbing within the context of the toxic and limited view of manhood that remains so popular … among the modern political right.”
Crying, of course, makes Rittenhouse look like a boy, vulnerable, not someone you want to throw into the lion’s den of an adult prison for violent felons. To which the writer responds, “It is a particular privilege to be considered a ‘boy’ after you’ve become an adult — and when you’ve made decisions like Rittenhouse’s.”
Touché.
This isn’t the first time Rittenhouse has bawled as a result of his actions that night. He cried his eyes out in the police station, too:
“Kyle Rittenhouse cycled through a range of emotions, crying and vomiting several times, as he described to police what happened late on August 25 after he traveled to Kenosha ….”
Not because two people are dead at his hands, but because …
“He started to cry after learning from family members about negative social media comments over the shootings, the police records say.”
(See story here.)
One thing we know for sure is that Kyle Rittenhouse is a prolific liar. He told the police “he was hit in the head and neck with a baseball bat,” which wasn’t true. He also told the police “he had been hired as security for a Kenosha business,” but that wasn’t true, either. “The owner of the business, Car Source, has told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he did not hire any security.” (Second link above.) He’s told various people he was at the protest as an EMT, but he’s not an EMT.
So, giving his track record of lying and faking, why should we believe his witness-stand tears are real? Color me highly skeptical. But if he’s convicted of manslaughter, which he ought to be, the tears he’ll then shed no doubt will be genuine.
Related story: A journalist for the Guardian thinks Rittenhouse was crying for himself. Read her commentary here.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in this case. The most likely truth is the Prosecutor should not have brought the case. The defense probably did not have to put the defendant on the stand. It is possible the defense could have been ballsy and after asking for the judge to toss it as the Prosecution did not make a case just not presented a defense. Just a closing argument but they sort of promise to the jury you will get to hear from the defendant. Perry Nason would be proud. We will early next week how proud.
In any case it went well.
The weapons charge is the only thing the prosecutor may get a break on, but all things considered why bring charge that shows the defendant was a minor when you are trying him as an adult. Yes they could have handled this in juvi and the Prosecutor would not have egg all over his face.
I would acquit him of murder. There’s simply no evidence that he went to the protest intending to kill someone (first degree murder), or that he killed out of malice or passion (second degree murder); convicting him of voluntary manslaughter fits better with the facts of the case. He’s not innocent, and society can’t tolerate armed vigilantes, so an acquittal would be a disaster for law and order. While the law limits the firearms charge to a misdemeanor, it ought to be a felony in his case. There are degrees of crime (e.g., misdemeanor and felony assault), and illegally possessing a gun in a riot isn’t the same thing as possessing it in a backyard or a gravel pit, because the danger to society isn’t the same. Regardless of what the jury decides, Rittenhouse is marked for life, and will never have a normal life. He chose for himself a destiny of infamy, and will always be remembered as a boy who cried for himself after killing two human beings and severely wounding a third. If he’s convicted on any of the felony charges, that will keep him from ever joining the military or being a police officer, and will bar him from a lot of other good employment opportunities. He made a big mistake by taking a gun to a protest, all the more so because he’s an impetuous kid lacking in self-control.