test came down
two duel tales, To prosecutors, Rittenhouse was a vigilante with an AR-15-style weapon who went looking for trouble. To the defense, Rittenhouse was the crying teen who testified that he found himself under attack and made a reasonable decision to defend himself in those lightning-fast moments.
The jury apparently believed the latter, which is no surprise given the facts, the law, and the other circumstances of the trial.
This case was always going to be an uphill battle for prosecutors. The main issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, meaning that when he pulled the trigger and shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gage Grosskretz that night, he appropriately feared for his life.
It was not an easy task for the jury to weigh Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim between the two dichotomous narratives. One could reasonably argue that Rittenhouse incited attacks on him by openly carrying his weapon in a threatening manner, and that he had the option of retreating or otherwise refraining from using lethal force, even if it was his own. Are you defending? If the jury had found any of these to be true, it would have defeated him.
self defense claim, But there was also evidence – including critical video of the events and testimony from Rittenhouse himself – that in the crucial moments just before pulling the trigger, Rittenhouse acted in response to imminent threats to his personal safety because
she believed she was in danger,
The laws and applicable legal standards also created a difficult road for prosecutors trying to achieve a conviction here. Our criminal justice system generally favors the defendant, as our core belief is that it is better to see a guilty person free than to convict an innocent person. Thus in criminal cases, prosecutors bear the highest burden of proof known to our legal system: evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Like many other states, Wisconsin law is sympathetic to murder defendants.
self defense claim, Once a defendant raises self-defense as an issue, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
In the end, Judge Bruce Schroeder, who presided over the case with a lenient demeanor and frequent tongue twisters, didn’t make things any easier for prosecutors. The judge’s behavior seemed to some to be a betrayal of pro-Rittenhouse bias – for example, when he
Governance that prosecutors would not be allowed to refer to Rittenhouse’s victims as “victims” and
encouraged There was applause for the defense witness on the stand because he was a veteran.
We don’t know exactly what the jury’s reasoning was in giving its verdict – jury deliberations take place in secret, so unless the jury chooses to discuss the experience later, we won’t see that. How did they make their decisions or what pieces of evidence were most compelling to them. But it appears that, with evidence supporting both statements, jurors concluded that the prosecution failed to meet its burden – and based on this record, it is impossible to find fault with him.
The issue—whether a defendant acted reasonably in a stressful moment—is a quintessential jury question. This is why we have a jury system where 12 members of the community come together to judge their fellow person. We, as a democracy, prefer the law to be administered by a group of
common man Those who rely on common sense and everyday experiences to arrive at a collective decision.
Without question, Rittenhouse didn’t have to be in Kenosha with his weapon tied to his body as he was apparently running down the streets in an unexpected and ultimately dangerous situation. Had he made a better decision and decided not to go that night, Rosenbaum and Huber would almost certainly be alive. But in Wisconsin, that initial decision, as poor judgment as it was, did not constitute a crime, and the jury found his subsequent actions justified.
Those of us who don’t want to worry about whether people like Kyle Rittenhouse will continue to wield guns at public gatherings, greatly increasing the risk of violence, should direct our energy toward turning it around.
Open Laws in Wisconsin,
Public sentiment after an episode that is seen as unfair—and there are many who are outraged that the self-defense claim freed Rittenhouse when he put himself in the position in the first place—seems to change. can spark. For example, in Georgia, after the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, the legislature repealed
civil arrest law that Arbery’s alleged killer and his co-defendants are relying on for their defense (though the defendants in the Arbery murder are still able to assert this).
If public concern about Rittenhouse’s conduct and its consequences leads to a re-examination of Wisconsin’s gun laws, that would be a positive thing to come out of this tragic episode.
,
