Kyle Rittenhouse, self-defense, and the violence of politics
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse and resulting verdict of not guilty on all counts as a matter of law was straightforward: a motion here, a witness there, with no disagreement as to who shot whom, the argument being over whether the act was justified or not. The prosecutor had a weak case, made weaker several alleged acts of misconduct, and the judge extended the defense team and Rittenhouse perhaps more courtesies than most defendants could expect in similar cases—more on that later. But the outcome was predictable.
As has been the political reaction from both the right and the left. To the former, Rittenhouse is a hero, with Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz suggesting that the young adult would make a good congressional intern. In the past, political commentator Ann Coulter said that she would like to have him as her president, indicating a reservoir of approval from the right wing. Among Democrats in the center-right and from the left has come the declarations that yet again, a white man is getting away with murder and that this is the inevitable consequence of allowing ordinary Americans to go about with AR-15s. As I have suggested elsewhere, what we are seeing here is a case of politics being treated as team sports, with one’s opinion about the case determined all too often not by the facts, but by the political party one is affiliated with. I will suggest here that it is possible to read this case politically without having to assert things that do not conform with reality.
First, the facts of the case are that Rittenhouse received the semiautomatic rifle—not a machine gun, assault rifle, or other fully automatic weapon—from a friend in Wisconsin who was holding it for him until he turned eighteen. Rittenhouse did not bring it from his home in Illinois. He had family connections and a job in Wisconsin and was engaged in the removal of graffiti on the day of the shootings. He engaged himself as a protector of a local car dealership in response to unrest over the police shooting of Jacob Blake two days before and was attacked several times by protesters, including being struck by a skateboard belonging to Anthony Huber, one of the persons whom Rittenhouse fatally shot. When this sequence of incidents occurred, Rittenhouse was a minor, though his possession of the rifle was legal under Wisconsin law. Whether the owner or employees of the Car Source dealership asked for armed protection of their business or specifically asked Rittenhouse to provide this service was a subject of dispute during the trial, with Anmol “Sal” Khindri, one of the owner’s sons giving unclear testimony. The three persons shot by Rittenhouse were white, despite reports to the contrary having appeared in news articles and on social media.
Is Rittenhouse a white supremacist? He has associated with some dodgy people and flashed a hand sign that has been used by some groups as a “white power” symbol, though one of his attorneys pointed out that the prosecution searched through his social media usage and found nothing that would indicate a support for that ideology. He is a teenager, and perhaps anyone wishing to throw stones should peruse their own pasts prior to the fling.
But then, his age is exactly on point. He is a teenager. He may have had all the noble motives a person could possess, and still he should never have been out unsupervised with a rifle. Saying this does not negate his claim of self-defense. Given what happened, I am comfortable in agreeing with the jury that he used justified force in the face of a potentially lethal attack. At the same time—and this is a lesson to all of us who carry firearms for our own protection—he inserted himself into a place where trouble was all but inevitable, into a situation in which even those best trained in security have made errors. Gun rights are individual rights, but he was acting the part of a militia member, the entity to which “well regulated” applies in the Second Amendment.
It might be said here that whenever any of us go outside our homes, we are potentially victims of violent crime, and while that is true, it is also the case that a wise person will avoid unnecessary trouble and will bring along the aid and counsel of other wise persons if conflict is expected and if attendance is required. This applies all the more for someone with only such judgment and experience as is available to an adolescent.
The bigger question around, within, and behind this case, however, is the reality that in contemporary America, blocs along the political spectrum are willing to use violence for political ends. Rittenhouse told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson that he supports the Black Lives Matter movement, and if so, good for him. Sadly, his fans on social media often do not share this stance. And his critics from the left have been saying since the verdict that a black young man in the same circumstances would not have fared so well at trial, had he managed to survive the arrest on the scene.
I do not see this as having to imply that Rittenhouse should have been found guilty as a kind of balancing act. Instead, it is a recognition that we do have a criminal justice system in which one’s race—and indeed, economic status—predict any case’s conclusion.
Need an example? Take that of Chrystul Kizer, a young woman who was about the same age as Rittenhouse when, according to court records, she killed a man in Wisconsin who using her in sex trafficking. She was denied the opportunity to claim self-defense at her original trial, and it has taken the appellate court to order the lower court to permit her that assertion in a new trial.
Now place yourself in the skin of the many minority Americans who have been treated in a similar way by this country’s cops and courts. Kyle Rittenhouse received the benefits that our laws and the Constitution preserve for defendants, and that is as things should be. But all defendants deserve the same protections. If we are to maintain the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, we must apply it in all cases. This is sound reasoning. To violate this rule is the fallacy of begging the question, the act of using a desired conclusion as evidence in its own support. The defendant is not guilty because we strongly feel said person’s guilt. The evidence of the case must push us toward a conclusion of guilty or not guilty.
What, then, about self-defense? Could the driver of an SUV in Waukesha who ran through a holiday parade claim to have been acting thusly, as was suggested on Twitter?
This is a dangerous assertion made frequently by opponents of gun rights, one that could lead to some ill-informed person committing actual murder out of confusion. The laws vary by state, but the principle at the heart of all of them is that we each have the right to use sufficient force to stop an attack that could result in death or serious injury. We do not have to allow ourselves to be raped, kidnapped, or killed without any reply. We also do not have to stay at home out of fear that someone may attack at some unknown point out in public. If you have a right to be in a given location, you are not required to accept an assault that could be fatal. Some states will insist that you try to escape, and in most situations, that is a good idea, but if the choice is between who will receive enough force to stop further progress—you or your attacker—you are allowed to defend yourself. That does not mean that you get to start an attack or to engage in a George W. Bushian preemptive strike. But we on the left need to understand that there are times when force is the only answer and quit making its use a token in political games.
If we are to save the exercise of the rights of self-defense and gun ownership, the clearest path forward is to correct the inequities built upon race and class that are the drivers of so much violence in this country. When cops shoot a person who belongs to one of our minority groups, the reaction is protest and, alas, at times rioting because law enforcement cannot be trusted. When judges or juries reach a decision, many will interpret it in political, rather than factual or legal terms and others will question the validity of the law because of how the law has been structured against anyone who is not white and wealthy.
The outcome in the Rittenhouse case was predictable, and on the facts presented at trial, it was just. The system that has created so much outrage is not. None of us are safe in that reality.