Chuck Todd on Rittenhouse Acquittal: ‘We’re In No Man’s Land Here as a Society’

Shortly after news broke Friday afternoon of Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty on all criminal charges after killing two men in self-defense during a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, MSNBC host Chuck Todd wailed that the verdict left society in “no man’s land.” Left-wing legal analyst Joyce Vance chimed in to claim that the trial outcome endangered all Americans.

“Two people died, another one near almost died, and nobody’s paying any penalty,”Todd was bitter and declared it late at 1:00 p.m. ET hour. Vance, who previously likened Rittenhouse as a violent bank-robber, made a joke: “…the notion that Kyle Rittenhouse, who for instance when he was released pretrial, hung out with members of the Proud Boys and flashed white power signs, and now will not face any form of accountability for his acts, that’s extraordinarily difficult for family members.”

Turning to former prosecutor David Henderson, Todd complained: “…this should have been presented by the prosecution as a failure in public safety and should have been focused on public safety. The state failed.” He then direly concluded: “And now we’re in no man’s land here as a society, where nobody’s gonna pay a price for these two dead Americans.”

Henderson shared that sentiment. “We’re at a point where we are bursting at the seams…I’m afraid of where things may go….just the need to help restore our society to a point where people have hope for the future and being able to come together better as a country.”

Todd hoped so “the public safety umbrella might be the best way to change some of this conversation on the Second Amendment.”This is a way to undermine the Second Amendment.

Vance whined that the prosecution should have engaged in irresponsible fearmongering about Rittenhouse in order to sway the jury: “…this case should have always been about public safety and what the jury should have been considering from the opening statement….how they would have felt if they were in that crowd with Kyle Rittenhouse free to stalk through the crowd with his gun in hand and then claim self-defense for whatever he did.”

She declared then that everybody in the country is now more safe.   

You will see more Kyle Rittenhouses in this crowd.Now we have to answer the question: Is this verdict making us safer? Do we feel safer allowing someone like Kyle Rittenhouse to kill others and claim self-defense?Are we in need of better laws to protect ourselves? Today, the answer is yes.

Todd was eager to confirm the idea that gun-owners who are legally licensed will soon take to the streets in order to commit violence. “You know, it’s pretty obvious to me, more people, the next time there’s a protest of some sort, and it may get politicized, that gun owners with a certain ideology may feel incentivized now, may feel even emboldened. And that does seem to be an uncomfortable message that may be received by some.”

Henderson added: “I think that, yes, if you take your gun to a protest in the future or any heated situation, I think you’re inclined to feel like you’re within your rights to use it, and that’s very dangerous for all of us.”

According to MSNBC, a defendant receiving a fair trial and being acquitted for exercising his right to self-defense is equivalent to society descending into a “no man’s land” and “dangerous” for the country.

The breaking news coverage featured no commercials.

This is the complete transcript from November 19th’s discussion.

1.53 PM ET

CHUCK TODD: Two people died, another one near almost died, and nobody’s paying any penalty. Now, some could argue that the trial itself was a form of penalty for Mr. Rittenhouse and the near – what was facing him. How does the Huber family find closure? I don’t know if they ever will.

JOYCE VOANCE [PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA]: You know, it’s a really difficult issue. And I’ll speak to it personally because my father-in-law, who was a federal judge, was murdered because of his judicial service. He was ultimately convicted of the murderer in both federal and state courts. Families are able to feel a great deal of closure when their loved ones are convicted.

And something I’ve always been acutely aware of as a prosecutor is that there are a number of things that are important to victims. Among them are learning the truth, and having those responsible and held accountable. And so in this setting, where yes, to some extent the family does know the truth, and they’ve been able in some cases to see video, as grainy as it is, yet the notion that Kyle Rittenhouse, who for instance when he was released pretrial, hung out with members of the Proud Boys and flashed white power signs, and now will not face any form of accountability for his acts, that’s extraordinarily difficult for family members.

Restorative justice is one of the main goals of our system. It helps everyone in these cases, including perpetrators and defendants as well as their families, victims, and family members to find solutions. This trial in Kenosha has failed to do the same for both the victims’ and their families.

TODD: Yes, David Henderson. This should have been presented to the prosecution as failure in public security and attention should have been given to public safety. The state was a failure. It failed to provide a safe environment. The state did not prove that the period was unsafe. And now we’re in no man’s land here as a society, where nobody’s gonna pay a price for these two dead Americans.

DAVID HENDERSON [FMR. PROSECUTOR]: That’s right, Chuck. And if there’s responsibility that lawyers have here, and I know people would laugh at this because it seems like our profession is so far away from this at this point, but part of what we have a responsibility to do, and this is especially true when you’re a prosecutor, is help people heal.

So, building upon Joyce’s words, one thing I did while I was in special crime was to always tell people that I could not promise an outcome. Any lawyer who claims they can, is lying. But what I hope I can promise you is that when you look back, you won’t feel like you could have had a smarter lawyer who fought harder for you.

Just as we promise individuals to keep our word, so must we also promise the nation we represent. Let them know the arguments we present in court, and what they can do to help society. We’re at a point where we are bursting at the seams and if we don’t start doing more of that, I’m afraid of where things may go. And so the argument that I’m making with regard to public safety stems from that context, just the need to help restore our society to a point where people have hope for the future and being able to come together better as a country.

TODD: Yeah. Joyce, The public safety umbrella may be the most powerful way to shift some of the conversation about the Second Amendment.

VANCE. David points out that it should always have been about public safety. When the jurors were chosen, they should consider how Kyle Rittenhouse would feel if he was free to walk through that crowd carrying a gun and then claim that he was acting in self-defense. This is because the prosecution failed to provide a narrative. I believe that a lot of what we see today can be attributed to this failure.

This is a crucial conversation that we need to have in the United States. We should be thinking about how to not only heal communities but also make them more secure and ready for next incidents. These protestors will likely include more Kyle Rittenhouses. We now need to consider whether we feel safer following this verdict. Do we feel safe allowing someone like Kyle Rittenhouse to kill others and claim self-defense when we do? We need stronger laws to ensure our safety. Today, the answer is yes.

TODD: You have to know that Joyce, David just said it. Are we now safer? You know, it’s pretty obvious to me, more people, the next time there’s a protest of some sort, and it may get politicized, that gun owners with a certain ideology may feel incentivized now, may feel even emboldened. That is an unpleasant message, and it may be heard by some.

HENDERSON: I think that’s the obvious message that you take away from this, Chuck. When I have the chance, I try to find the silver lining. But here, let’s think about what happened. A kid had an AR-15 strapped to his body, and he argued that on the theory that I may face lethal force in the future because a person may – who never touched him – get his hands on my gun and wrestle it away and then once he’s wrestled away, turn and kill me, based on that theory of a potential fear in the future, the jury found that he was justified in shooting and killing someone in the present. And so I think that, yes, if you take your gun to a protest in the future or any heated situation, I think you’re inclined to feel like you’re within your rights to use it, and that’s very dangerous for all of us.

TODD