I know there’s a lot of bitterness and disbelief concerning Kyle Rittenhouse being found innocent of all charges earlier today. I’m neutral on the matter, as not only did I not sit on the jury, I didn’t even follow the trial.
But I did read this CNN article in which they cite legal experts who were unsurprised by the verdict. That caught my attention, because I’m not an expert, and neither are most of the people – numbering in the millions, I’m sure – who are commenting on it. So what’s going on in the minds of the experts?
Wisconsin law allows the use of deadly force only if “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” And because Rittenhouse’s attorneys claimed self-defense, state law meant the burden fell on prosecutors to disprove Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it was an uphill battle to climb from the start, because of the facts in this case, experts said.
“(Prosecutors) weren’t able to show that his response to each of these men, to each of these sets of threats was unreasonable,” criminal defense attorney Sara Azari told CNN’s Pamela Brown.
“When the jury came back a couple days ago and watched the videos… frame by frame, they were looking to see whether Kyle did something to provoke the threat and whether his response to that threat was reasonable in terms of using deadly force and they agreed with the defense that it was,” Azari added.
Putting myself in the shoes of the jury, if what they saw was someone reacting in self-defense to an existential threat, then just maybe he was justified in the moment. I don’t think he should have been there, as I think he betrayed severe immaturity in interfering with local authorities who were dealing with the situation, but he was there.
There’s a larger point inherent in what I’ve written so far, and it’s this: perhaps the left should take a big step backward, make the very-hard-to-swallow assumption that the jury got it right – remember, legal experts were unsurprised by this verdict – and ask themselves: What is wrong with their information-gathering and / or information analysis strategies?
So far, all I’ve seen are bitter claims that this is all about white supremacy, that the judge was prejudiced, that our moral system is wrong. These are all intellectually lazy, unless they come with detailed and persuasive arguments that engage with this specific incident, because they disengage the authors from any personal responsibility for their disappointments. Yes, that’s right – lazy. They point, without supporting evidence, at some terrible power as being responsible for what they perceive to be an injustice, then they shrug their shoulders, incidentally disrespecting a jury that put in something near three weeks of examining evidence and making judgments, and proclaim the system broken.
And then go off and hate their fellow Americans some more.
They may be right, maybe this is a result of a system informed by white supremacy, but to my mind, the jury, unless later proven to be prejudiced, did its duty to its best and found Rittenhouse, within the framework of applicable law, not guilty. If you were surprised at this, or not surprised but certain that it was the wrong verdict, perhaps, if you’re intellectually honest, you should be asking if there’s something wrong in your information sources – I know I was mislead into thinking Rittenhouse shooting at random – or in your analysis.
And maybe society is broken. But, perhaps, not in the way the left would have us believe. Or the right. If we’re so willing to hate each other, maybe that’s the clue to the real source problem.
