The case of Kyle Rittenhouse has been badly politicized by both sides from the beginning. Some may not even remember what the trial is about, but it all flows from the Black Lives Matter riots last summer, specifically the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the police shooting of Jacob Blake. The incident now being litigated took place on Aug. 25, 2020, when Kyle Rittenhouse, 17 at the time, shot and killed two men and wounded another man in the arm while acting as a vigilante defending property and people during the violence and chaos as politicians and local law enforcement were helpless to restore order.
The trial is now heading to day 8 of testimony. You can watch the trial live stream right here starting at 10 am ET:
Rittenhouse is facing seven separate charges against him, six of which are very serious and would carry lengthy prison sentences:
- First-Degree Reckless Homicide, Use of a Dangerous Weapon
- First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use of a Dangerous Weapon
- First-Degree Intentional Homicide, Use of a Dangerous Weapon
- Attempted First-Degree Intentional Homicide, Use of a Dangerous Weapon
- First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use of a Dangerous Weapon (Charge 2)
- Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18
- Failure to Comply with an Emergency Order From State or Local Government
The trial itself really isn’t about whether Rittenhouse should’ve been there doing what he did, he clearly should not have been there. He was too young be possessing a rifle, did not own property in the state, and was disobeying direct orders to vacate the area and avoid causing more chaos. The first rule of basic safety is to avoid situations that put you in harm’s way. Rittenhouse violated that basic rule by leaving his house with a rifle and the intention to restore some kind of order as a concerned citizen.
The trial is about murder, and whether Rittenhouse, when confronted by opposing rioters, acted in a manner consistent with self-defense that resulted in two deaths. So far, the prosecution has been shaky, with several witnesses that seemed to bolster Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim.
On Wednesday, Rittenhouse took the stand in his own defense after waiving his right to self-incrimination. Here’s a sample of some of his testimony.
[Language and content warning]
Jeffrey Toobin, the disgraced legal analyst from left-wing CNN, raised eyebrows this week when he said despite Rittenhouse’s actions, which were those of an “idiot,” the legal system might save him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHk9J0uqADM
As Toobin says, Rittenhouse has a plausible case of self-defense, and the first few days of the trial seem to have exposed a weak prosecution playbook. Toobin isn’t the only legal analyst looking at this trial objectively without the crooked lens of politics that often distorts the law.
Writing at the New York Post, James Gagliano explains that while Rittenhouse’s actions that night were inexcusable, there is no reasonable standing for a homicide conviction and the prosecution should be embarrassed for overly politicizing the case:
When cowardly politicians create vacuous policies that lead to a security void, some citizens just might be inclined to step up and fill the void to protect people and property. Again, this doesn’t make Rittenhouse’s actions leading up to the shootings righteous. But it may help one to better understand the mood of a fed-up nation. Simply put — the toleration of lawlessness always encourages more lawlessness.
This prosecution is neither neutral nor dispassionate, reflecting only political expedience. These court proceedings also highlight an overplayed hand. Kyle Rittenhouse may indeed be guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, the misdemeanor. He was, after all, a minor at the time. But he clearly and unequivocally acted in self-defense. Anything other than an acquittal on the top charges would be a miscarriage of justice.
The case became politicized immediately, and the fact that Rittenhouse was charged by prosecutors within days of the event reveals that a formal and thorough investigation never took place before charges were filed. The end result is a trial marred by prosecutorial ineptitude and a defense that is making great strides at presenting an avenue for acquittal based on self-defense.
This does not mean Rittenhouse may not face conviction for other charges, such as possessing a weapon as a minor or some other kind of endangerment, those charges could still be on the table. However, the potential for a homicide conviction seems less and less likely as the trial rolls on.
Some analysts have feared what an acquittal may mean in terms of a public reaction. If Rittenhouse “gets off” on a self-defense argument, will the city of Kenosha burn once again and explode into riots? That seems unclear but a real danger when it comes to an overly politicized case where prosecutors are acting for political reasons to drive a social justice agenda and placate the angry mob on the street.
