Facts over feelings in Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: He was acting in self-defense.
When Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz, he was acting in self-defense. So says a jury from Kenosha, Wis., and their verdict is correct because that’s what the facts showed. But facts don’t always line up with feelings.
The trial started out on a sour note when Judge Bruce Schroeder blocked prosecutors from referring to the victims as “victims” — but allowed the defense to call them “rioters,” “looters,” and “arsonists.” Some said this was the judge being biased, but judges routinely impose restrictions on prosecutors that aren’t imposed on defense attorneys. And judges regularly ban the word “victim” in many jurisdictions, including in Massachusetts, disproportionately so in rape cases.
Banning words is silly, and sometimes unconstitutional, but judges have been doing it a lot since the idiot judge in the Kobe Bryant case notoriously ordered everyone in the case not to use the word “victim” when talking about the woman Bryant attacked. (Where was the outrage for that victim?)
Defense attorneys say the word “victim” is unfair because it presumes guilt. But if that were true, the word “witness” would be banned, too, because it presumes that a person actually saw what they say they saw. It’s all nonsense. If there is a legitimate concern about a word, the judge can instruct the jury not to use it unfairly.
The same people who complained about the word “victim” being banned in Rittenhouse’s case didn’t care about the five child “victims” Rosenbaum was convicted of raping. This evidence would have been admissible against Rosenbaum under Massachusetts law, even though it’s not relevant, but those who supported the prosecution said it was unfair even for the media to mention it. They should remember this the next time a defense attorney tries to use a rape victim’s past against her.
While the defense demonized Rittenhouse’s victims, the prosecution did the same to Rittenhouse by suggesting that he went to Kenosha with an assault weapon because he was planning to kill people. Rittenhouse said he wanted to help protect the public after riots broke out when police shot a black man named Jacob Blake seven times — hitting him in the back four times. Cops were cleared of wrongdoing, but people were upset because Blake was shot only a few months after George Floyd was killed.
Prosecutors said Rittenhouse was guilty of murder because he was the aggressor, but video evidence showed that Rittenhouse was leaving the area before he shot any bullets, and that he only started shooting when Rosenbaum and others started chasing him. Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse and grabbed his gun. Rittenhouse said he shot Rosenbaum to stop him.
Video evidence also showed that Rittenhouse shot Huber only after Huber started hitting him in the head — and tried to take his gun.
Grosskreutz, who was armed, also put his hand on Rittenhouse’s gun before he was shot.
The prosecution claimed Rittenhouse provoked his victims by openly carrying a large weapon, and that this nullified any self-defense claim, but video evidence showed the victims were also provoking Rittenhouse. Provocation does not justify murder, but it does bolster Rittenhouse’s claim that he was acting in self-defense.
To assert a valid self-defense claim in a murder case, evidence must show that the defendant “exhausted all reasonable means to avoid killing someone.” Once that evidence is presented, however weak it is, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The prosecution had no hope of meeting that burden in this case. It’s not that the victims deserved to be shot, it’s that the law permits jurors to find defendants not guilty if they kill in response to a threat of death or serious bodily harm.
It was a highly emotional case, with strong feelings on both sides. The defense says it was a big political farce, and that Rittenhouse never should have been charged. The prosecution says Rittenhouse had no business bringing a rifle to a riot, and that he is responsible for the violence that followed.
Both sides are a little bit right.
[No they aren’t, but I think this is just the author trying to salve his butthurt at having to acknowledge fact over his feelings]