This Moment in the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Stopped Me Cold

[mcar]

This Moment in the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Stopped Me Cold
Equating the actions of a police officer in any way with the actions of a 17-year-old civilian is an open invitation to vigilantism and citizen posses running wild in the streets.

By Charles P. Pierce
Nov 16, 2021

After I shut up the shebeen for the night on Monday, there came a single line in the closing argument for the defense in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial that stopped me cold in the midst of closing the shutters and turning off the vintage "Leinenkugel’s" neon signs on the wall. In support of the notion that Rittenhouse’s killings were "privileged" under Wisconsin law as self-defense, defense attorney Mark Richards made a point to the jury that seemed curious at the time and looks even worse upon reflection. Key to his presentation was that Rittenhouse only fired his AR-15 four times and, as a corollary, that Rittenhouse wasn’t an "active shooter" as the prosecutor claimed, because he only killed two people and he didn't simply open up on the crowds around him. Then, Richards went on:

"Ladies and gentlemen, other people in this community have shot somebody seven times — and it's been found to be OK. My client did it four times.”

This was a Holy God moment to end all Holy God moments. Clearly, Richards was referring to the shooting of Jacob Blake, who was shot seven times in the back by Kenosha police officer Rusten Sheskey. That was the incident that prompted the disturbances in that city into which Rittenhouse decided to inject himself last August. The same DA’s office that is trying to convict Rittenhouse decided not to prosecute Sheskey. The federal prosecutors took a pass as well. So, Richards seemed to be arguing, if Sheskey walked, his client should as well. After all, Rittenhouse only fired four times.

That is horrifying enough on its face. And even if you think the DA somehow deserves to have its decision on Sheskey thrown back at it, the idea that the actions of a police officer are equatable in any way with the actions of a 17-year-old civilian is an open invitation to vigilantism and citizen posses running wild in the streets. I have no brief for Sheskey; as the late Murray Kempton once wrote of a murder defendant, "She lost me after the third bullet." Sheskey lost me after the second shot. But he was a credentialed law-enforcement professional. Kyle Rittenhouse was a self-deputized gunman shopping for trouble. The difference is stark, and Richards massively overreached in drawing the parallel. I’m surprised his co-counsel didn’t leap up and tackle him.

I’m less sure than I was before Monday night that Rittenhouse will get off with merely his wrists being slapped. Richards’ closing was so utterly devoid of empathy for the slain and the wounded that jurors may have found it (and him) off-putting. Richards made a case for Rittenhouse’s complete innocence from the time he left his home in Illinois, picked up his weapon in Wisconsin, and took to the streets of Kenosha. Richards even said flatly that he was "glad" that Rittenhouse had shot one of his victims. And using Jacob Blake, who is presently paralyzed because a policeman shot him seven times, as a cudgel in Rittenhouse’s defense may revolt wavering jurors. There may still be room for humanity in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38265441/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-defense-attorney-jacob-blake/

[Joinfortmill]

1. My take, hung jury.

[MustLoveBeagles]

2. I think that's the best outcome

The prosecutor will get a do over with a different judge.

[Bev54]

10. Well second best outcome, the best would be guilty on all charges.

[mountain grammy]

21. Yes.

[Polybius]

33. All charges won't happen

The guy who he shot on the arm testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he pointed his pistol at him. He won't (and shouldn't) be charged with attempted murder/assault against him.

[maxsolomon]

40. "The guy" is named Gaige Grosskreutz.

If Rittenhouse is humanized, he should be too.

[Polybius]

43. Rittenhouse's name is all over media

Gaige Grosskreutz's name escaped me at the moment.

[MustLoveBeagles]

56. True

I have low expectations for a guilty verdict. I'd love to be prove wrong.

[localroger]

17. I find it hard to believe there won't be at least one juror

...who flatly declares they will hang the jury if Rittenhouse is going to walk out the front of the courtroom instead of doing at least some jail time. There will also probably be at least one juror so sympathetic to Rittenhouse or persuaded by the defense's legal arguments that they are reluctant to convict on anything. As a result I expect either a hung jury or a compromise of guilty on just one or two of the charges.

[kcr]

3. I know. It's shocking and revolting. But don't bet on it.

Just look at the level of defense even here at DU by the gun crowd. It's a cult.

[Skittles]

6. the Rittenhouse apologists make me sick

absolutely disgusting to see DUers defending a gun humping white supremacist double murderer

[Bettie]

11. They were here for Zimmerman too

they thought he didn't do anything wrong at all.

It was beyond frustrating.

[Jedi Guy]

25. There is a world of difference between saying "I don't think he broke the law"

and "I don't think he did anything wrong." I can't recall seeing anyone on DU say the latter, but under Wisconsin's self-defense statute, he may have a reasonable claim of self-defense. It's going to turn on whether or not the prosecution convinced the jury that he went there with the specific intent of shooting people. But I'm afraid I don't see how being objective about the facts makes anyone a "Rittenhouse apologist."

This case is a reminder that legal and moral are not always the same thing, and that it's entirely possible to do something immoral which is not illegal.

[Skittles]

26. he is a gun humping, racist piece of shit double murderer

his defense is a fucking joke, literally

Link to tweet

DONE HERE, just thinking about that sorry bastard make me sick

[Jedi Guy]

29. I suppose we'll see if the jury agrees with you.

I doubt very much that he'll be convicted on any of the first-degree charges, but the possibility for a conviction on a lesser charge is there, since the judge allowed the jury to consider them. We shall see.

[calimary]

57. Sure looks like it to me.

[Demsrule86]

30. He broke the law.

[Jedi Guy]

31. We shall see if the jury agrees with your assessment.

Based on the facts and evidence laid out in the trial, I'm not so sure he'll be found guilty, at least not on the first-degree charges. My prediction is either acquittal on all charges or a conviction on the two lesser charges.

Under WI law, the fact that he attempted to flee prior to both shootings gives him the right to self-defense unless the prosecution can prove he went there specifically to shoot people. And based on what I've seen/read of the trial, I simply don't think they cleared that hurdle.

[stopdiggin]

46. I've seen virtually NO instances of people 'defending"

or Rittenhouse 'apologists' on DU.

There are some that think we may not get the verdict that we would like to see (and seemingly with sound reason). Unfortunate that you cannot see the difference between those two things.

[Skittles]

47. they are buying his bullshit defense

END OF STORY

[stopdiggin]

48. not what I'm seeing

They are just pointing out that this may not be quite the slam dunk that many seemed to assume it would be. Nobody in this thread is in control of - or can change - what the statutes of the state of WI spell out. That's not 'buying' anything. It just is what it is. A Rittenhouse fan club? You're seeing a different board than this.

[Skittles]

49. I have seen it several times

over and out

[ShazzieB]

52. I'm not seeing it, either, stopdiggin.

Pointing out that Wisconsin law has loopholes than Rittenhouse may be able to walk through is NOT the same thing as being "on his side." Personally, I think Rittenhouse is a disgusting little gun humping white supremacist murdering brat, but I can also see those loopholes quite clearly.

If some of us think he may get off because of loopholes in the law, it isn't because we don't think he's guilty. It's because we think Wisconsin has some shitty laws.

[stopdiggin]

54. 'zactly.

The idea that any of us are on the 'side' of this little scum sucking turd - is really stretching the boundaries. We are, however, stuck with our current set of laws - and legal system. And a dose of realism does not mean that we have become 'apologists' - or succumbed to white nationalism.

[kcr]

51. Look up

It's right in this thread.

[stopdiggin]

53. only if you interpret people suggesting

an unpopular verdict/outcome here as being 'proponents' or 'apologists.' The fact that these two (very different) things seem to be indistinguishable for some .... I'll lay that at your feet.

[Skittles]

4. makes total sense to gun humpers

[xmas74]

35. They're all over DU

Defending him.

This place has changed so much over the nearly 2 decades I've been here.

[maxsolomon]

39. Naw, they've been here all along.

Quibbling, arguing minutiae after every rampage shooting or new law that encourages gun-toting.

This one is catnip for 2nd Amendment Absolutists.

[xmas74]

41. True

But they've been more vocal the past several years. Then again my old group is totally gone from here and I'm probably just noticing it more.

[MustLoveBeagles]

5. I found it off-putting too

[mcar]

12. I think my jaw actually hit the floor

when I heard it. Such casual disregard for human life.

[Heartstrings]

7. That was certainly a defining moment for me as well....

The defense attorneys statement he was glad Rittenhouse shot “crazy, off his meds” Joseph Rosenbaum was callous. Not one ounce of empathy. Rittenhouse was “taking out the trash” as I’ve seen stated too often.

No idea how this is going to play out but friends in K-town are preparing for the worst.

[jimfields33]

8. Why is this case even televised?

Heck we have murders daily in Florida and they never televise them. This has become so volatile for what? Absolutely no reason it should be on tv and dissected every moment.

[Torchlight]

15. It meets all aspects of a news-worthy story and speaks to a broader story.

News worthy has a specific meaning in the field of journalism. This trial meets each standard of that definition.

[USALiberal]

18. What is your worry about it? Do you want private criminal trials?

[jimfields33]

22. Consistency would be nice. Don't pick and chose

Show them all of none. That’s fair.

[Skittles]

27. LOL

riiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Torchlight]

28. Does that consistency apply to all news-stories?

For example, show every conflict on the planet or show none? Show every weather pattern on the planet or none?

[USALiberal]

34. So you want thousands of trials to be streamed every day???

[Chille]

9. I'm going with

Two acquittals and one charge of manslaughter

[Solly Mack]

13. K&R

[people]

14. Possible reason for that argument

I think Rittenhouse's attorney is worried about black jurors being hostile to Rittenhouse and he's trying to make a cynical appeal to them. The appeal goes like this: if the cops were not held accountable for shooting Clark seven times why should Rittenhouse be held accountable?

[Heartstrings]

32. Blake

His name is Jacob Blake…..

[people]

37. His name is

Thank you. Sorry, I should have double checked. Appreciate the correction.

[Heartstrings]

38. No worries....

[Wild blueberry]

16. Pierce is right

Whole piece worth reading.
Thank you.

[Orrex]

19. Sounds like Richards is saying he'd be okay with it if someone shot him three times.

[lame54]

20. Feel free to empty your 6-shooter

[Hekate]

23. Charles Pierce, as always

[dalton99a]

24. Kick

[left-of-center2012]

36. There are a lot of Rittenhouse defenders on DU

[Heartstrings]

44. Deplorable....imo. Nt

[MarkinSWFL]

50. "Indeed"

"Indeed" ...nt.

[stopdiggin]

45. "I'm surprised his co-counsel didn't leap up and tackle him."

Nice post. Great line. I now have this mental image to take with me ..

[chwaliszewski]

55. Wow. Just......wow.