Closing arguments have concluded in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. His fate will now be decided by a jury. If there is any justice, they will move quickly to acquit Mr. Rittenhouse. The prosecution utterly failed to produce any credible evidence that Rittenhouse was not acting in self defense at any time during the shootings in Kenosha last year. And that isn’t due to incompetence or a lack of evidence. There were multiple videos of the entire incident recorded from multiple angles. They couldn’t prove Rittenhouse was not acting in self defense because it simply isn’t true. In fact, if there were less evidence the prosecution would have been able to make a more compelling case. Based on the plethora of evidence that does exists, this case should have never even been brought to trial.
But it was brought to trial. The media and the left had a pre-written narrative that explained it all. Kyle was a white supremacist (zero evidence) who opposes racial justice (zero evidence) and was angry at the protesters (contradicted by evidence) and murdered some of them at random in cold blood (contradicted by the evidence.) To the media and the left, the case is that simple. The protesters/rioters were the good guys. Anyone who opposed their destruction and mayhem was bad. Their template is straight out of the Critical Race Theory playbook. It goes like this: The white “victims” shot by Kyle were protesting for Black Lives Matter. (Or so the narrative goes. The fact they were actually just criminals who enjoy burning shit up doesn’t really matter. In the narrative, they were virtuous white allies of the BLM movement.) Kyle was not out supporting Black Lives Matter. In fact, he was impeding the BLM protestors from expressing their righteous anger (via burning cars.) Kyle was not being “anti-racist.” Therefore, his actions were racist. And racists have no right to self defense. Anyone involved in what is essentially a hate crime (according to CRT) has already committed “violence” and can not possibly be justified in defending himself. Since he is already by definition the aggressor. So the left and the media (BIRM) already know Kyle is guilty because of what side he was on. The actual facts of the case don’t even matter. To the left, they are just a distraction from the bigger picture. The prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse is a purely political prosecution.
Unfortunately for the prosecution, there is clear video evidence that everyone Kyle Rittenhouse shot at that night was actively assaulting him. The defense has seemingly pinned their hopes on convincing the jury that Rittenhouse somehow provoked the attacks on him. There is a mountain of evidence that contradicts this fantasy. And the only evidence offered up in support was a blurry photo that was digitally “enhanced” (aka altered.) The defense also spent plenty of time impugning the character of Rittenhouse to the jury. The made him out to be a wanna-be hero. A cos-play crusader who exaggerated his own accomplishments and skills while inserting himself into a situation he wasn’t really equipped to handle. Which is completely true. But irrelevant. The fact that 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse was ill-advised to be in the middle of a riot in the first place in no way justified the rioters attacking him. Or stripped Rittenhouse of the right to defend himself when they did. But it does make Kyle seem less sympathetic. And to some jurors, that can make all the difference.
I reviewed some of the video evidence when it first came out last year. At the time, I thought Huber and Grosskreutz were clear cases of self defense. The only one that I thought might be iffy was the first incident because Rosenbaum wasn’t armed, we couldn’t see the actual shooting, and there was some missing context. Since then, it has come out that Rosenbaum was a convicted child rapist who spent a long time in prison. Which doesn’t mean you can shoot him, but it certainly speaks to his character and potential for violence. Rosenbaum was released from a mental institution earlier that very day. Rosenbaum is seen in multiple videos being belligerent and threatening the people protecting the car dealership. We know Rosenbaum specifically threatened to kill Kyle and his buddies, on at least two separate occasions that night, if he caught any of them alone. We know he stalked Rittenhouse and tried to ambush him when Kyle was isolated from his group. We know that Kyle tried to flee from Rosenbaum rather than confront him. We know that Rosenbaum chased Kyle down the street and across a parking lot. We know that Rosenbaum was able to run faster and catch up to Kyle. With new video angles that weren’t released until the trial, we can see that Kyle only turns to face Rosenbaum when he is only a couple of feet away. Kyle continues to back-peddle to get away from Rosenbaum as they pass between the cars. We know that another man was pursuing the pair and fired a shot into the air a couple of seconds before the fatal encounter. We know from the video and eyewitness testimony that after Kyle spun around Rosenbaum screamed “Fuck you!” and lunged forward to grab Kyle’s rifle. We know the first shot hit Rosenbaum’s hand at point blank range, consistent with him trying to grab the gun. And that Kyle fired 3 more times in rapid succession as Rosenbaum continued towards him. The first 3 shots hit Rosenbaum from the front, with one shattering his pelvis. The last shot hit Rosenbaum in the back from above as he was falling forward towards Kyle. The prosecution made a big deal about the final shot to the back. A shot to the back always looks bad when you are claiming self defense. However, given the video evidence, it is perfectly understandable. The whole incident happens incredibly fast. Watch the video at full speed and see for yourself. The second or third shot shattered Rosenbaum’s pelvis and would have definitely ended any threat he was to Kyle. However, in the dark and moving fast, Kyle would have no idea what kind of damage he had done to Rosenbaum. Even at that close distance, two of the first 3 shots did only superficial damage. It is ridiculous to think Rittenhouse could know Rosenbaum was disabled and going down instead of getting low to tackle him within a fraction of a second under those circumstances. In concealed carry classes, students are taught that they are justified to keep firing as long as the attacker is still an imminent threat to them. To me, that is unquestionably what Mr. Rittenhouse did in this instance.
The prosecutor also made a big deal about the firearm Rittenhouse used being an AR-15. This was clearly an attempt to capitalize on the propaganda campaign the left has waged against the AR-15, labeling it a weapon of war. In fact, the ADA made the argument that just having the rifle on his person was a reckless and provocative act by Rittenhouse. He also made a lot of statements that were just firearms illiterate. He claimed that the AR-15 was a “large caliber rifle.” In fact the opposite is true. The .22 caliber bullet fired by the AR-15 is one of the smallest available. He bizarrely claimed that the Glock pistol Grosskreutz pointed at his head wasn’t a threat because Rittenhouse’s AR-15 was so much more powerful. This is stupid on so many levels. Actually, at smell-each-others-breath distances, the person with the Glock probably has a slight tactical advantage. The rate of fire for the Glock is the same as an AR-15 (i.e. as fast as you can pull the trigger.) Being smaller and lighter, the Glock is arguably easier to maneuver and quicker to get on target and fire at very close range. Sure, the rifle round has more energy and will tend to cause more damage all else being equal, but at that distance either bullet is going to cause massive injuries. Getting shot with either one will ruin your day. A 9mm pistol round to the melon would almost certainly be instantaneously incapacitating and most likely fatal. To say Grosskreutz wasn’t a threat is beyond asinine. Aiming and accuracy at long distances is where the AR-15 would dominate. If they were in a fire fight separated by 30 yards, then yes, huge tactical advantage to the black rifle. At hand-shaking distance, neither one is going to miss. It was all going to come down to who could fire first. In addition to the rifle, the prosecutor also demonized the ammunition used, repeatedly emphasizing it was “full metal jacket” and implying that makes it exotic and somehow extra dangerous. All it means is that the lead core of the bullet is fully encased in copper. The main benefit is that it greatly reduces the amount of toxic lead left behind in the gun’s barrel. There is nothing sinister about full metal jacketed bullets, whatsoever. Almost every single type of plinking and target round available is full metal jacket, whether it is for rifle or a handgun. About the only widely available cartridge that could not be described as “full metal jacket” would be a hollow/soft point round for self defense/hunting. (You can only imagine how over the top the demonization of that kind of ammo would have been.) But “full metal jacket” sounds scary and exotic to the uninformed. There is even an uber-violent war movie with the same title to add to the fear-mongering. It is hard to imagine a prosecutor could be so ignorant about guns. His demagoguing was almost certainly a cynical attempt to capitalize on any anti-gun sentiments the jurors might harbor.
Based on the evidence, Rittenhouse should go home a free man tomorrow. I think he probably will. But you never know what a jury is going to do (see the O.J. Simpson case for a particularly egregious example.) The Rittenhouse prosecutors obviously knew their case sucked. Instead of making a coherent argument for Rittenhouse’s guilt, they used an everything-but-the-kitchen sink approach. Throwing every random angle they could think of against the wall in the hope that something would stick. All they need is one of their diversions to resonate with one of the jurors, and they will at least win another shot to re-litigate their case. When the facts aren’t on your side, it’s not a bad approach. In fact, it’s exactly what O.J. Simpson’s defense team did. There was no way the Dream Team could possibly explain away all of the evidence against O.J. in a plausible and logically consistent manner. But Cochran & Co. could poke holes in each piece of evidence individually, as if it existed in a vacuum. It is also worth noting that the prosecutors in the Rittenhouse case weren’t above bending the rules, either. Winning trumps justice, especially when the spotlight is on, I guess.
Lastly, you can not dismiss the tremendous pressure the jury is under to reach the “correct” verdict. They have all certainly been exposed to at least some of the left’s heated rhetoric over the last year. Even the President of the United States has openly denounced Kyle as a white supremacist. Then there is the looming threat of violence. Both to their city and to themselves. The Judge even had to warn the jurors that someone was taking video of them on a break.
Based on the facts, this case should have been laughed out of court. Hopefully it will ultimately be decided on the facts, and not on prejudice, emotion, and politics. I have my doubts.
Update
As of noon Wednesday, still no verdict from the jury. They have been deliberating for quite some time now, which is not a good sign for the defense. The longer this goes on, the more likely the result will be either a hung jury or a guilty verdict on at least some of the charges. I keep thinking back to the O.J. Simpson trial. For sure, prosecutors Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden made some mistakes during the actual trial itself. But they really lost the case before the trial even began when they essentially allowed the defense to hand-pick the jury. Their naïve belief was that the evidence they would present would be so overwhelming, that any jury would vote to convict. They foolishly thought the OJ trial would serve as an example of how the police/prosecutors and citizens of L.A. could work together and re-establish the trust that had been shattered by the Rodney King incident.
Juries are supposed to rule based on facts, evidence, and the law. Not on emotion and personal bias. But juries are made up of human beings. And humans have an uncanny knack for rationalizing away facts to reach the conclusions they prefer. In all areas of life, not just the law. The National Guard being on the scene in anticipation of more rioting if the mob doesn’t like the verdict doesn’t lend to impartial thinking, either. We shall see how this turns out. Right now it doesn’t look to good for the cause of justice.
Update #2
The verdict is finally in: not guilty on all counts. This is a good day for the right to defend oneself and the rule of law in general. It will be interesting to see if we ever find out why the deliberation took so long. The leftist freak-outs occurring all over the media and internet are irrational, unhinged, and totally expected. Thank God the case was decided on facts, evidence, and the law. And not by feelings, tribalism, messages that need to be sent to the militant right, social justice, equity, white supremacy, or any of the other nonsense the mob thinks should trump the constitutional rights of a fellow citizen. Heck, even this Bernie Bro gets it. He might be my new favorite lefty.
Finally, the conduct of the DA’s office was nothing short of shameful. Kenosha voters would be wise to clean house next election cycle. A year ago, I identified the mayor and governor as the real villains in this story. The evidence that has surfaced since then has only confirmed that impression. Sympathetic politicians across the nation let the left wing mob burn and loot their cities, without regard for the danger and hardship suffered by their own citizens. If the politicians had simply let the police and the national guard do their job, none of this would have ever happened.