Opinion: The Rittenhouse Verdict: What are the Implications?
posted by Oliver D. Bentley | November 23, 2021 | In News, OpinionA verdict of not guilty on all charges has been reached in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisc., who was accused of killing two people and injuring one other at protests following the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake in August 2020.
This comes as a bit of a surprise for several reasons.
After all, video evidence shows that Rittenhouse was being chased, assaulted with a skateboard, and an individual drew a gun on him. Rittenhouse had a judge who seemed sympathetic to his situation. Judge Bruce Schroeder instructed the prosecution and defense not to refer to the victims of Rittenhouse’s actions as the victims. Instead, the judge determined that these victims could be called rioters, looters, or arsonists. Judge Schroeder defended this decision by saying that by referring to those shot by Rittenhouse as victims, we offer a preconception that a crime was committed.
I can understand this. However, do we not provide a negative preconception of these individuals by referring to them as rioters, looters, or arsonists?
Although unsurprised by the verdict, I did expect that there would be some agreement on a lesser charge, simply because Rittenhouse was an agitator in a situation he did not belong in, resulting in death and injury by his hand.
Both rioting or the supposed protection team of which Rittenhouse was a part should not have been on the street acting as they were. Peaceful protesting, petitioning our government officials, actively voting from the local level to the federal level, and getting involved with the community and law enforcement officials are all acceptable ways to create appropriate change.
Rioting, looting, and the like , simply aren’t. Simultaneously, unsanctioned armed civilians have no business whatsoever presenting themselves in a role that belongs to law enforcement alone. Their mere presence does nothing but agitate the situation, and their lack of training and knowledge of applicable laws makes them entirely unfit for performing the tasks they prescribe themselves.
So, what does this verdict ultimately convey to the public?
In my opinion, this verdict with no consideration of a lesser charge does nothing but empower those who would act as Rittenhouse did. The message is that it is okay to show up in opposition to another group armed and ready to end lives based on the limited knowledge of the law, its applications, and modes of enforcement that the ordinary individual has.
This is a dangerous proposition. What will follow?
This verdict could likely have the effect of encouraging those to choose an armed response to those with whom they disagree. It is possible that we could now see more instances of this type of harmful behavior.
Think of Charlottesville, Virginia, and the unite the right rally. Now, imagine that these people felt it was completely okay to be armed and end lives when a confrontation erupted. I would imagine that there would have been much more unnecessary death and injury had these individuals felt more comfortable being armed and using those arms when threatened.
Knowing how tumultuous our society is, we have to understand that social unrest is at a high level. Imagine the next Charlottesville, the next Kenosha, or the next January 6 riots with a much wider acceptance of open carry and use of deadly force.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.