The Rittenhouse Dilemma: What the Rittenhouse trial means for the US

Back on Aug. 25, 2020, then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shot three Black Lives Matter protesters. He left his home in Illinois to go to Kenosha, Wis., trying to aid in the protection of property during the protest following the shooting of Jacob Blake. He was allowed to go back to his home and wasn’t arrested until the next day. The worst part is that I can’t say I’m surprised — it’s clear that our country perpetuates systems of prejudice.

As the jury for Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial read off their verdicts on Friday, Nov. 19, I couldn’t help but think, “How did we get here?” From the original protest scene where Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were shot and killed and Gaige Grosskreutz injured, to the handling of the trial, there are so many things that I consider gross misconduct — especially considering how high-profile the case is.

My biggest problem with the general situation of Rittenhouse’s ordeal is how he ended up with a semi-automatic rifle with no police officers batting an eye — just ones offering him water and praise for helping their ’cause.’ Gun laws in Wisconsin state minors aren’t allowed to carry dangerous weapons, including firearms. Because of strange and vague wording when it comes to the law itself, presiding judge Bruce Schroeder was able to dismiss the illegal gun charges on Rittenhouse.

This was the first and major loss for the prosecution, because Rittenhouse’s carrying of a semi-automatic rifle was now seen as legal in the walls of the courtroom. 

Guns and gun laws are clearly the basis on which Rittenhouse violently murdered, because if America wasn’t swimming in guns and worshipping unrestricted accessibility, two people wouldn’t have ended up dead at the hands of a minor.

Because Rittenhouse is a public Blue Lives Matter supporter and clearly a far right-wing follower, it’s no surprise that he got caught up in the alt-right vigilante militia cause. These groups have been making the media and news since the election of Donald Trump back in 2016, a president who essentially created a new generation of dangerous politics. 

Self-appointed “law enforcers” such as Rittenhouse are eating away at the stability of natural law in courtrooms and the ability to conduct the country’s functions and judicial standings in a way that doesn’t create bias and potential for the creation of further political riff. As alt-right politics become more and more prevalent, danger arises in the judicial review of the spearheads of the “movement.”

Not only were Rittenhouse’s actions a major distressor, but the actual trial was a mess. The jurors were selected from a pool of only 150 people, majority white, and were all chosen in only one day. The swiftness of the jury selection was extremely out of the ordinary, considering the jury selection for the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery was from a pool of 1000 and took two weeks. 

Also, things like not letting the victims of Rittenhouse be called victims until “proven otherwise” even though they were shot dead is disgusting to me. The word “victims” doesn’t mean “innocent,” and that’s something I think Schroeder needs to get into his thick skull.

Because the prosecution had to convince this jury that Rittenhosue was “beyond a reasonable doubt” acting not in self defense but in blatant violence and recklessness, they were screwed from the beginning. The self defense laws in not just Wisconsin, but the whole country, can create loopholes for people like Rittenhouse’s defense to jump through.

When you pair the treacherous task of convicting a right-wing militia initiate with the absurd actions of the people handling the case, you get public scrutiny.