THIS CASE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A PIG LAWYER-JUDGE GAMING THE LAWS FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL AGENDA!
Where the law was clearly against Rittenhouse, the judge simply moved the goal posts. While countless left-wing protesters were subjected to violent attacks and the threat of arrests by police for violating the curfew in Kenosha, the judge threw out the curfew charge against Rittenhouse on a flimsy evidentiary technicality. While Wisconsin law prohibits juveniles from carrying firearms, the judge threw out the underage firearms charge on the basis of laws that permit juveniles to go hunting.
The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse: A judicial travesty
On Friday, after four days of deliberations, a Kenosha jury returned a verdict of “not guilty on all counts” against Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse had been charged with wrongfully killing two people, wounding a third, and nearly striking a fourth with an AR-15 rifle during protests against police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25 last year.
Rittenhouse, 17 at the time of the shootings, had traveled to Kenosha from Illinois to join a far-right “patriot” vigilante militia calling itself the “Kenosha Guard,” which had been mobilized to “defend property” and assist the police with crushing the protests that had erupted two days earlier following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Blake was shot seven times in the back at point-blank range in front of his wife and children, leaving him paralyzed.
The Kenosha shootings occurred in the midst of the reverberations of the largest demonstrations in American history, during which an estimated 15 to 26 million people took to the streets following the murder of George Floyd to protest the epidemic of police killings and official cover-ups.
During these protests, armed far-right vigilante militias, which had been mobilized months earlier in opposition to measures to stop the spread of COVID-19, were brought forward to assist the police in the brutal nationwide crackdown orchestrated by the Trump administration. The Kenosha shootings, which occurred on the eve of the Republican National Convention, were embraced by Trump and the Republicans in the period leading up to the violent coup attempt on January 6, during which the Proud Boys and other paramilitary groups constituted the shock troops for the assault on the Capitol.
The Rittenhouse verdict will embolden these violent paramilitary forces that have been cultivated in the orbit of Trump and the Republican Party.
The acquittal of Rittenhouse follows a travesty of a trial in which a right-wing judge systematically undermined the prosecution by excluding all of the evidence that would have rebutted Rittenhouse’s claim that he was acting in “self-defense.”
Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder did not permit the jury to hear that after Rittenhouse posted bail, he celebrated the killings at a pub with top Proud Boys members, where he flashed “white power” signs, belted out the Proud Boys anthem and grinned for selfies with other Proud Boys members.
Nor did the judge permit the jury to hear that before the shooting, Rittenhouse was recorded saying that he wanted to shoot people he thought were shoplifting. “Bro, I wish I had my f—ing AR,” he said. “I’d start shooting rounds at them.”
The judge ordered that prosecutors would not be allowed to refer to the men shot by Rittenhouse as “victims” or even “alleged victims.” At the same time, Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys were given free rein to refer to the victims as “arsonists,” “looters” and “rioters.”
This double-standard was on full display during closing arguments earlier this week. While the prosecutors were admonished not to make the case “political,” Rittenhouse’s attorney was permitted to deliver a full-throated fascistic diatribe.
Midway through his closing arguments, Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards effectively dispensed with the fiction of “self-defense” and suggested that Rittenhouse’s victims had it coming because “they were rioters.”
While prosecutors could not mention that Rittenhouse was affiliated with the Proud Boys, Richards specifically emphasized that Gaige Grosskreutz, a volunteer medic Rittenhouse shot in the arm, was affiliated with “People’s Revolution.”
Richards made every effort to dehumanize the people whom Rittenhouse killed. “I’m glad he shot him,” Richards declared, referring to Joseph Rosenbaum, who was mentally ill, as “a crazy person.”
The trial was a right-wing spectacle from beginning to end. At one point the judge, wearing an American flag tie, led the jury in a round of applause for one of Rittenhouse’s experts on the grounds that he was a “veteran” who “served his country.” At another point the judge’s cellphone rang with a Trump rally ring tone. At the end of the trial, he let Rittenhouse pick the jurors’ names out of a tumbler like it was a circus raffle.
The argument that Rittenhouse was acting in “self-defense” turns reality upside-down. If anyone had a right to self-defense, it was the protesters who collectively confronted a right-wing vigilante who appeared at their protest pointing a loaded military-style rifle at them.
When Rittenhouse opened fire, Gaige Grosskreutz and other protesters believed that he was an “active shooter.” Like a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades, Anthony Huber pushed his girlfriend out of the way and charged Rittenhouse, armed only with a skateboard in an effort to protect the other protesters. Rittenhouse shot him dead.
“We are heartbroken and angry,” Huber’s parents wrote in a statement after the verdict. “Today’s verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son. It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street.”
The “self-defense” framework within which Rittenhouse’s actions were presented was a mechanism for airbrushing all of the political content and context out of the picture. It was a way of dissolving all of the broader political and historical questions involved into the sole question of the propriety of Rittenhouse’s conduct as an individual in the split-second during which he allegedly decided to pull the trigger.
Even on its own terms, the “self-defense” argument was illegitimate, since it was Rittenhouse who recklessly provoked the confrontation by carrying his rifle into a hostile protest as a member of a far-right vigilante militia.
Where the law was clearly against Rittenhouse, the judge simply moved the goal posts. While countless left-wing protesters were subjected to violent attacks and the threat of arrests by police for violating the curfew in Kenosha, the judge threw out the curfew charge against Rittenhouse on a flimsy evidentiary technicality. While Wisconsin law prohibits juveniles from carrying firearms, the judge threw out the underage firearms charge on the basis of laws that permit juveniles to go hunting.
After the verdict was announced, Trump immediately issued a statement congratulating Rittenhouse. The violent and fascistic elements around him joined the chorus. “Today is a great day for the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense,” tweeted Republican representative and January 6 conspirator Lauren Boebert. “Glory to God!”
Biden, meanwhile, set the tone for the Democrats’ response by solemnly declaring that “the jury system works”—a remarkable statement given the legal travesty that had just unfolded in broad daylight on live television.
Joining the open fascists in their celebrations of the verdict are a collection of pseudo-left and libertarian figures like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore, who worked throughout the trial to present Rittenhouse as a sympathetic figure.
In contrast to those seeking to blind the population to the political issues involved, the World Socialist Web Site warned that the campaign around Rittenhouse is an effort to normalize and legitimize far-right vigilante terror.
The aim of this campaign is to create conditions where Proud Boys and other far-right vigilante groups can march into future left-wing demonstrations and brandish loaded guns. Unchecked and undeterred, they will come to strikes, to lectures at universities and to socialist political meetings. They will wave guns in the faces of journalists and school board officials. And if anyone tries to disarm or evict them, they will open fire and yell “self-defense,” knowing that there are cops and judges who will bend and twist the law to shield them.
The Proud Boys and other violent far-right militias are being brought forward not because American capitalism is in a position of strength but because it is in a position of weakness.
These forces are being elevated under specific conditions: In the midst of a pandemic in which millions of people have died as a result of policies that have prioritized profits over human life and amid a social, economic and political crisis to which capitalism has no solution except war and repression.
While the US political establishment is moving ever further to the right, embracing mass death in the COVID-19 pandemic and legitimizing fascist violence, the great mass of the population is moving to the left, amid a major upsurge of working-class struggle.
In that context, the acquittal of Rittenhouse will only serve to further discredit the whole American political system in the eyes of millions of people.
Dem Nadler Calls on DOJ to Review Rittenhouse Verdict
Judiciary chairman calls not guilty verdict a 'miscarriage of justice'
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called on the Justice Department to review the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."
Nadler pushed a debunked claim about Rittenhouse in his call for the federal review, saying that the teenager was "armed" when he crossed state lines to attend a protest in Kenosha, Wis., where he fatally shot two men and wounded another.
Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said he shot the men in self-defense after they attacked and threatened him at a protest over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse, an Illinois native, claimed he went to Kenosha to protect small businesses from riots that erupted following Blake's shooting.
A jury acquitted Rittenhouse of all charges Friday. Nadler called the verdict "heartbreaking" and said it set a "dangerous precedent" that warranted federal review. He asserted that Rittenhouse crossed state lines "looking for trouble." He also suggested that Rittenhouse targeted people engaged in "First Amendment-protected protest."
Rittenhouse's critics claimed in the lead up to the trial that he acted as a vigilante, in part by crossing from Illinois to Wisconsin with his gun in tow. But the claim was debunked at trial. Rittenhouse, who testified in his own defense, said he picked up his gun at a friend's house in Kenosha after driving there from Illinois. The friend, Dominick Black, corroborated Rittenhouse's statement in his testimony as a witness for the prosecution.
Nadler did not specify which division of the Justice Department he wants to investigate the Rittenhouse case. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The criminal division would likely oversee any investigation involving transportation of firearms, while the civil rights division would be in charge of any probe into First Amendment rights violations by Rittenhouse.
Kristen Clarke, the head of the civil rights division, referred to Rittenhouse as a "white armed extremist" in a social media post last year. She called Rittenhouse a murderer in another post.
Opinion: Rittenhouse verdict sets new legal precedent on White Privilege
OPINION: The Rittenhouse Privilege has set a precedent that permits individuals to claim self-defense in the most outrageous of cases.
Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty on all counts after more than 24 hours of deliberations can be summed up with one simple phrase: White privilege. It’s an all too familiar theme we witness when White defendants are on trial for killing us.
The privilege that Rittenhouse displayed and benefited from, however, was clearly on another level. When privilege is raised in the legal arena, it is referring to communications between certain individuals that are protected – communication between husband and wife, doctor and patient, attorney and client.
I dare say Kyle Rittenhouse was cloaked with a privilege you cannot find in any legal precedent – The Rittenhouse Privilege. Throughout the trial there were instances in which it was quite apparent that the scales of justice tipped in favor of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Let’s start with the jury makeup. After the jury process, 18 individuals were selected to listen to the trial. Of these 18 individuals, 12 were selected at random by the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse, to deliberate. These individuals consisted of seven women and five men – only one was a person of color.
The next thing to consider is the venue. The case was tried in Kenosha, which according to Census data is over 75% White. In the past, Kenosha country voted Democratic but went for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. It is also particularly important to consider the fact that Wisconsin is a gun friendly state. But we must also ask ourselves Gun Friendly toward whom?
We saw how law enforcement drove past Rittenhouse, a then 17-year-old not adhering to the curfew, who had just shot and killed Anthony Huber (26) and Joseph Rosenbaum (36) and injured Gaige Grosskreutz (36). They drove past him but didn’t think twice about firing their artillery at Jacob Blake.
One would have thought because the victims in this case were White, this case would be open and shut. But the victims who were in Kenosha to protest the shooting of Jacob Blake were villainized and treated in an all too familiar manner – but in this case the victims were not Black. By order of Judge Bruce Schroder, the victims in this case would not be referred to as victims by the prosecution throughout the trial.
According to reports, this is a long-standing rule Judge Schroeder has maintained in his court. But when Judge Schroeder’s ringtone is “God Bless the USA” — Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaign song — you just can’t help but wince a little.
Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with seven counts. The State of Wisconsin had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed the seven counts, which included first degree intentional homicide with a dangerous weapon. However, before the jury even began deliberating, two of the seven counts (possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under eighteen and failure to comply with emergency order) were dismissed by the judge.
Trials can be a rollercoaster ride; one minute you’re up and then the next minute you’re fighting to keep it all together. Attorneys expect there to be setbacks because the courtroom is volatile. However, there were critical mistakes committed by the prosecution. You can’t pick your witnesses but there’s an unofficial rule when conducting your examination, direct or cross — don’t ask a question that you do not know the answer to.
During direct examination, Ryan Balch — who walked around with Rittenhouse patrolling the streets in Wisconsin — testified that Rosenbaum acted in a “hyperaggressive” manner; Richard McGinnis testified that Jason Rosenbaum went after Rittenhouse and attempted to reach for the gun when Rittenhouse shot him. Later during cross examination, Grosskreutz testified he thought Anthony Huber attempted to harm Rittenhouse. These statements alone were key in the claim of self-defense.
When claiming self-defense, the defendant cannot be the aggressor. It was necessary for the jury to find Rittenhouse believed there was an unlawful threat to him and that the amount of force he used was reasonable and necessary. This is why Rittenhouse testified incessantly that he used force necessary to remove the treat to him. But none of the victims who were killed were armed – Rittenhouse brought a gun to a fist fight. Rittenhouse cried his crocodile tears, used his privilege, and convinced the jury that he was walking around in Kenosha past curfew with an AR-15 because he was trying to deliver medical aid.
The Rittenhouse Privilege weaved its way into the cracks of the courtroom in Kenosha. We knew the tactics that would be played, he’s White, he’s male and, to use the words of Judge Schroeder Rittenhouse, he is brazen. He walked his way into the courtroom. Just as he audaciously walked past the brigade of police vehicles while carrying an AR-15 across his body, crossed state lines and went home while Rosenbaum and Huber lay dead on the streets of Kenosha.
The Rittenhouse Privilege has set a precedent. There is now legal precedent which permits individuals to claim self-defense in the most outrageous of cases. Be forewarned – this precedent will only extend to individuals who can claim the Rittenhouse privilege.
Stephanie is an Attorney and Policy Strategist focusing on reforming the Criminal Legal System. Stephanie was an anchor on the Law and Crime Network and has provided legal analysis for Fox News.
Have you subscribed to the Grio podcasts, ‘Dear Culture’ or Acting Up? Download our newest episodes now!
No comments:
Post a Comment