A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.
The two-week, much-anticipated trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is mercifully over. It should never have begun because the prosecution clearly did not have sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rittenhouse did not act in self defense when he shot and killed two attackers and wounded another who, by the attacker’s own admission, had pointed a pistol at his face. He was chased until he fell to the ground and then beaten and the struck in the head with a skateboard. One of the attackers, according to Rittenhouse and corroborated by another witness, had previously threatened to kill the defendant if he caught him alone. Anyone with an open mind, not already determined to find Rittenhouse guilty, who watched the video of the pursuit, could see that the 17-year-old youth had reason to fear for his life and only then fired his weapon.
Mr. Rittenhouse broke no laws. It was legal for him to carry that weapon which also was legal in Wisconsin. He did not transport it over state lines as originally charged until the judge, belatedly, had it dropped. He was not acting as a vigilante, but rather was helping to stand guard over a friend’s business, at the friend’s request, because it was in danger of being destroyed by rioters. He also intended to provide first aid to victims of the rioting. It may have been a mistake in judgement for a 17-year-old-youth to travel to Kenosha to attend a riot but he broke no law in doing so and whatever his motivations were, they had nothing to do with whether or not he subsequently acted in self-defense. Moreover, he had worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha and his father lived there. He had expressed concern about what was happening to what he regarded as his community.
I’m not a lawyer, but I can read the law objectively as opposed, say, to a number of progressive district attorneys, mostly in Democrat-governed municipalities who try to interpret the law pursuant to their political agendas. Their sworn duty is to seek equal justice under the law and determine whether or not the facts of the case support the charges. If they do, their duty then is to prosecute based on the evidence, not conjecture or public opinion, or political bias. And they must defend with equal vigor the rights and privileges of the accused. That standard was not, in my opinion, evident in this case.
The trial, moreover, was conducted while noisy demonstrations took place outside the courthouse which were, reportedly, audible to the jurors. There were threats made public that all hell would break loose in Kenosha and elsewhere if the “wrong” verdict was returned. The jurors should be commended for bravely performing their duty but one wonders why it even took them more than a day to find the defendant innocent of charges that should never have been brought.
President Joe Biden, in responding to the verdict, said that we must “acknowledge that the jury has spoken”. That’s not good enough. Rather, we should accept what the jury has found, namely, that the defendant was found innocent of the charges because that’s what the verdict means. Mr. Biden added that he was angered and disappointed by the verdict. He had previously described Rittenhouse, without evidence, as a white supremacist. But how could he know that? Vice-president Kamala Harris chimed in by saying that the verdict showed that there is still more work to be done. What sort of work would that be—substituting mob rule or public opinion for the law? Perhaps arranging for noisier demonstrations to intimidate jurors in the name of free speech?
And how did this trial become a racial issue and a matter of concern to the BLM movement? The BLM demonstrations which led to rioting, assaults, looting and arson in the summer of 2020 that destroyed part of Kenosha was where Mr. Rittenhouse was attacked but the defendant and his attackers were all white (although one of those white attackers reportedly was noted for frequently using a racial slur). Of course, the president’s previous characterization of Rittenhouse as a white supremacist may have given clueless members of the public the false impression that the assailants he shot were black or perhaps just the fact that the president said he was a white supremacist meant that it must be true.
Meanwhile, the recent carnage in nearby Waukesha, Wisconsin where a man with a lengthy arrest record and history of violence, who was free on a measly $1,000 bail, drove his speeding SUV into a Thanksgiving parade, killing six and injuring scores of others, demonstrated the risks of low-bail or no-bail catch and release policies favored by many progressive district attorneys. Crusading DAs and attorneys general, sometimes look for attention and publicity pursuant to their quest for higher office. In Democrat-controlled municipalities, that may mean pursuing the woke agenda. Their excuse seems to be that racial justice cannot be delivered by a justice system that is the product of systemic racism.
These things are happening at least in part because liberal pols are pandering to activist agitators and mobs of demonstrators. San Francisco, for example, home to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has become a cesspool of homeless druggies and gangs of thugs who loot stores with impunity. It used to be a great city, but what a sewer it has become. Who would want to live there except for those who have no choice or who live in gated, walled and guarded estates? What surprises me most is why real estate prices are still so high there.
December 5, 2021
Commentaries by J. F. Kelly, Jr. 