The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: America’s “Justice” System

August 15, 2020. After the shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, a 17-year-old boy showed up to a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Armed with an AR-15 rifle, aiming to protect businesses, and with a history of supporting Blue Lives Matter, Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and wounded another. He was held in a juvenile facility and released on November 20, 2020, after posting $20 million bail.

November 19, 2021. Rittenhouse showed up to the Kenosha County Courthouse to face two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, two counts of reckless endangerment, one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, and one count of curfew violation. You’d think he’d be found guilty, right? Wrong.

The case was a whirlwind of tears, biases, prosecution errors, and, overall, frustration. Rittenhouse argued that his murders were in self-defense, despite seemingly not feeling threatened when in possession of a rifle. He broke down crying in recounting the events, saying that the man who was attempting to take his rifle (whom Rittenhouse then killed) had threatened to kill him. The judge dismissed charges of curfew violation (for a lack of evidence) and of unlawful possession of a firearm (because the law could be interpreted as restricting minors from carrying short-barreled rifles; Rittenhouse’s was 16 inches). The judge also showed some bias toward Rittenhouse, ruling that prosecutors “would not be allowed to refer to Rittenhouse's victims as ‘victims’” and encouraging a “round of applause for a defense witness on the stand because he was a veteran.” Jury deliberations happen in secret, so it’s impossible to say how they came to their decisions, but the jury unanimously found Rittenhouse not guilty of all counts.

The verdict, which acquitted Rittenhouse of all charges, was met with both cries of outrage and triumphant cheers. Many Democrats feared this case sets a dangerous precedent for armed vigilantes. On the other side, many Republicans viewed Rittenhouse’s acquittal as a victory for citizens’ right to self-defense.

Anthony Huber’s family was heartbroken by the news; it let the man who killed their son walk away with zero accountability for his actions. A statement by the family expressed worry that the case “sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street.”

Justin Hansford, a professor at Howard University School of Law, shares a similar view, saying, “Now we’re talking about the space for vigilantes to be doing what we were so upset the police were doing, being discriminatory and using violence against people. If they get off or get light sentences ... we’re very much worried [that will] make people feel like they will become heroes themselves or will be protected themselves if they go out and become vigilantes in the future.”

Hansford’s points are shared by many. After all, was that not what Rittenhouse was -- a vigilante at a protest looking to protect private property? In the end, does it really matter if Rittenhouse’s intention was to kill people or to help protect property? Regardless of his intentions, Rittenhouse still killed two people and injured another using a weapon. Many believe that by clearing his name, the jury implies that it is okay to bring a lethal weapon -- illegally at that -- to a public space, use it for violence, and then claim self-defense when lives are lost and people are injured. As prosecutor Binger said, “You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you created.”

Even the American Civil Liberties Union was against Rittenhouse’s acquittal, calling the verdict “an outrageous failure to protect protesters by the Kenosha Police Department and Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office.”

Still, many Republicans applaud the jury and maintain that the justice system did its job in the Rittenhouse trial: it protected the right to defend oneself against physical danger. Tucker Carlson, an outspoken Fox News personality, condemned the media’s negative response to the acquittal, saying that “In the face of all of that propaganda, a group of jurors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, were brave enough to reach the right and obvious conclusion anyway. Amen.” Even Biden said, “I stand by what the jury has concluded,” and although he admits frustration, adds that “the jury system works and we have to abide by it.”

Matthew Gaetz, a Florida congressman (who, by the way, is being investigated for violating a federal child sex trafficking law), seemed to think Rittenhouse was not only right to defend himself, but also was doing a service to the country by being armed and at the Kenosha rally. Gaetz even mentioned giving Rittenhouse a job, telling Newsmax that “Kyle Rittenhouse would probably make a good congressional intern. We may reach out to him and see if he’d be interested in helping the country in additional ways.” Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene went one step further and introduced a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal -- the legislative branch’s highest honor -- to Rittenhouse for “protect[ing] the community of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a Black Lives Matter riot.” This glorification of Rittenhouse’s actions, and ignorance of their effects, is seen throughout other right wing media outlets.

Regardless of any outrage against the verdict, the case’s outcome is not all that surprising given the history of America’s justice system. Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers is disappointed by the jury’s decision but is not necessarily surprised, “given the facts, the law, and other circumstances of the trial.” Rodgers explains that America’s criminal justice system tends to favor the defendant because of “our core belief that it is better to see a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent one.”

Indeed, the justice system does leave the burden of proof to the prosecution, and especially in cases involving alleged self-defense, it is not uncommon for the defendant to walk away without any conviction. Yet, the idea that the justice system favors the defendant is not always true, especially when it comes to people of color; there are growing instances of innocent Black men on death row, or instances where capital punishment does not fit the crime.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s case, therefore, gained national attention, not simply because he got away with killing two men with a weapon he should not have had, but also because it showcases the inequities of how white and Black men are treated within the justice system.

Georgetown University Law Center professor Tiffany Jeffers argues that “If Kyle Rittenhouse had been Black or brown ... then I think the outcome would have been different. That's an unfortunate situation where justice depends on the color of your skin.” Jeffers, like many, is not necessarily angry with the jurors; the prosecution made numerous errors and the defense created a strong self-defense case. Rather, her problem is with the justice system as a whole. She believes that

“We should absolutely be entitled to our Constitutional protections regardless of race, class, gender, religion, anything. But we don't see that playing out in the court system equally and equitably.”

There are countless examples of Black men being brutally targeted by police and receiving harsh prison sentences while white men are given the benefit of the doubt and receive much better treatment.

For example, Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy, was killed by an Ohio police officer Timothy Loehmann, while playing with a toy gun. Loehmann immediately shot Tamir upon arriving at the scene, despite the fact that the 911 caller told the dispatcher that the gun could be fake and the suspect could be a minor. Still, Loehmann later said that the 12-year-old posed a “real and active” threat.” In the case of Rittenhouse, the police ignored him, a young adult with a rifle, as he approached them with his hands up after gunfire. Here, a Black 12-year-old child with a harmless toy gun is murdered by police, while 17-year-old white boy Kyle Rittenhouse gets away with two murders (with an actual dangerous weapon).

Insha Rahman, a former public defender and now the Vice President of Advocacy and Partnerships at the Vera Institute of Justice, a non-profit advocacy organization that focuses on criminal justice reform, weighed in on the inequities between the Rittenhouse trial and the many people of color accused of such crimes. She notes that Rittenhouse was able to pay bail, whereas many people of color are unable to do so, and that the majority of Americans who cannot afford their bail are Black and Brown. Moreover, she explains how Rittenhouse was able to go to trial and argue his case (successfully), whereas many cases end in a plea bargain. The majority of people (56%) currently incarcerated are African Americans and Hispanics despite the fact that those groups only account for 32% of the US population. This can partially be attributed to the fact that they often are unable to access a trial to potentially clear their names due to the expense.

On a more positive note, all three men from the Ahmaud Arbery killing -- who were also white men claiming self-defense -- were convicted of murder. Though, it is worth mentioning: this outcome is not something to rejoice over. This is the justice system doing the bare minimum. As President Biden said, “While the guilty verdicts reflect our justice system doing its job, that alone is not enough. Instead, we must recommit ourselves to building a future of unity and shared strength, where no one fears violence because of the color of their skin.”

From the contrasting treatments of white men like Kyle Rittenhouse and Black men like Tamir Rice––and beyond these specific, well-known cases––we know the American justice system needs to do better, both in holding people appropriately accountable for their actions and ensuring that all people are treated equally. This cycle of inequity and death, protests and advocacy is exhausting and frustrating and dehumanizing. How many more Rittenhouses do we need? How many more police murders of Black men do we need? When can we move to seeing issues like these beyond party lines, moving past partisanship to equity, justice, and change in our justice system?