The headline alongside Saturday’s front-page New York Times “news analysis,” “How the Acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse Shows the Burden for the Prosecution in Self-Defense Cases,” demonstrated the TimesJoin the rest of us in lamenting Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal on homicide charges in anti-police Riots in Kenosha (Wisconsin) in August 2020.
While the paper’s news account of the acquittal was fairly straightforward, the analysis by Shaila Dewan and Mitch Smith betrayed bias and a worrying shakiness over the very concept of self-defense, at least when it involves anti-left movers like Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun. The paper’s chosen sources showed bias against guns, Rittenhouse, and the very concept of self-defense, a regret apparently shared by Dewan and Smith.
The Friday acquittal by Kyle Rittenhouse from all charges was seen as an affirmation of innocence, even if it wasn’t heroic, of a teenager with noble intentions. Others found it a crushing disappointment and further proof that white men are given a pass by the courts for their crimes.
It was not surprising to legal experts. After Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he was acting in self-defense after he killed two men and wounded three others in unrest following the shooting by Kenosha police officers of a Black male in Kenosha. The prosecution had to prove the contrary.
In one unfortunate legal morass, the basic right to self-defense was made into a criminal offense:
The verdict demonstrates the wide-ranging protection the legal system affords defendants who state they fear for their safety, even if other people around them may be afraid.
The reporters made it clear that Rittenhouse had been attacked by the rioters who killed him in self defense (each one of them having a criminal record, and each was carrying handguns).
Most self-defense laws don’t require people to exercise good judgement. They tend to focus on the moment leading up to the violence. It doesn’t matter if the individual entered into a chaotic situation willingly or whether they contributed to it.
….
The reasonable fear standard for self-defense has given rise to concerns that it is affected by the same racial bias that permeates the justice system. Research from a variety of social sciences shows that Black men, in particular, are more likely than white people to be viewed as dangerous.
It TimesKami Chavis, a professor of criminal justice, was able to present racially charged hypotheticals and not be criticized. “If we change the race, the age, the victims, if we change some of these dynamics we very well could have had a different result,” he said.
They used incorrect gun terminology in order to alarm liberal readers. However, they neutrally stated that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
With a rifle of military design, Mr. Rittenhouse was able to go to Kenosha, with his assault rifle strapped to his chest. He stated that he wanted property to be protected and to volunteer to work as a doctor, even though he was just 17 and wasn’t certified E.M.T.
Joseph Rosenbaum pursued him during the disturbance. Mr. Rittenhouse claimed that he feared that Rosenbaum would take control of Rittenhouse’s gun. He was shot and killed by Mr. Rittenhouse. According to the evidence at trial, this made it clear that Mr. Rittenhouse was a dangerous aggressor.
Anthony Huber was the one who used a skateboard against him. After shooting Mr. Rittenhouse, he killed him and then confronted Gaige Grosskreutz with a handgun. He was shot in the arm by Mr. Rittenhouse.
They also quoted Nick Suplina, senior vice president for Law & Policy at Everytown for Gun Safety. The theoretically pro-acquittal voice were hesitant to admit Rittenhouse was right.
Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who now teaches at Marquette University Law School, said the trial was an instance in which many people’s opinions about what was morally acceptable clashed with the jury’s interpretation of what the law allowed.
About Post Author
