A Kenosha jury let a killer off the hook.
The facts of the case are fraught, and Wisconsin law favors self-defense. But stripped to basics, the jury let an immature teenager come to their community from out-of-state, shoot at four people no one else considered a threat, and kill two and wound one with no criminal consequences.
Every prosecution stands or falls on its own merits. But this verdict will energize militias, put more vigilantes on our streets, and encourage violence. From that standpoint, it’s not a good result. Taking law enforcement out of the hands of trained police, and entrusting it to kids armed with deadly weapons, is an awful idea. An eccentric judge, an inept prosecutor, and a sharp defense attorney brought it about.
On the witness stand, the defendant asserted he did nothing wrong, but now says he wishes it had never happened. It wouldn’t have, if he’d stayed home and let the police and National Guard deal with the situation. He may be “not guilty,” but at the very least he exercised terrible judgment.
If he’s federally prosecuted for civil rights violations, he won’t have the shield of Wisconsin’s quirky self-defense laws. Federal charges are unlikely, but he’ll be sued. And notoriety will follow him all his days. He’ll be a hero to some, but millions of Americans are repulsed by what he did.
As the case moves into the court of public opinion, the verdict is reopening old debates about the fairness of our legal system. Would he have been acquitted if he were black? In Kenosha, and across America, black people say there’s a double standard. (See story here.) These issues aren’t new. America’s history is strewn with questionable verdicts.
One thing should be obvious to thinking people, though: We don’t want vigilantes, especially frightened trigger-happy children, policing our streets. That’s a bad deal all around.
The rule of law is paramount. The jury determined the accused was not guilty. This has been a political case even before the Biden campaign used Rittenhouse in campaign ads. Yes there are very likely to be many law suits that now come out of this case. Though at the moment those wishing to sue Rittenhouse may have a problem in finding an attorney as there is no money to go after unless he files a number of suits and is successful. The fact the jury found him innocent also takes the wind out of the sails, but self defense does mean he has admitted t0 killing two people nd injuring a third.
The real facts of the case make it extremely unlikely the Federal government can mount any kind of civil case against Rittenhouse though I am sure there have been communications between Biden and Garland.
Self defense is part of English common law that predates the widespread possession of firearms and of the European slave trade. It exists here in Washington state, and every other state, and exists at the Federal level though the Department of Justice normally defers to state and territorial law on charges of murder.
This is not a questionable verdict. The prosecutor should not have charged the id or should have had sense to keep it in the juvenile court. There is much deserved egg on the prosecutors face, and the Prosecutor is fortunate the judges rebukes in the court did not become more, though they may form the basis of Rittenhouse’s civil rights claims against the county of Kenosha.
Preserving rule of law should be a high priority (which, among other things, requires the GOP to disavow Trump and stop their violent messaging). The jury has spoken on the criminal charges, and violent protest (as in Portland last night) is not an appropriate response to the verdict. But people can debate whether it was the right verdict as a matter of free speech and legitimate public discourse about issues like concerning guns, vigilantism, etc.
You may “be sure” there have “been communications between Biden and Garland” (about what?), but any communication between the president and attorney general concerning a prosecuting an individual would be improper, and very unlikely to be something either this president or this attorney general would do.
A right of self-defense is universal in human societies. When you’re the instigator, it’s no longer self-defense. There are strict limits on when you can use deadly force. Rittenhouse killed two unarmed people, which on its face makes his actions questionable.
I don’t see what the basis of “Rittenhouse’s civil rights claims against the county of Kenosha” would be. This wasn’t a malicious prosecution by any stretch of imagination. The fact he was acquitted doesn’t mean prosecuting him violated his civil rights.
The Biden campaign used Rittenhouse’s image (but not his name) in one campaign ad as part of a video montage of white supremacists (see it here). In January 2021, NBC News reported (here) that prosecutors were “seeking to modify the bond agreement of Kyle Rittenhouse … after they said he flashed white power signs and was ‘loudly serenaded’ the Proud Boys’ anthem at a bar.” The New York Post reported (here) the court ordered him “to stay away from white supremacists.” Given those facts, the Biden ad may have accurately portrayed him, and the burden is on him to disprove he’s a white supremacist.