The Rittenhouse Trial: Examining Bias in the Legal System
Kyle Rittenhouse: the seventeen-year-old who went to a Black Lives Matter protest turned “riot”, shot three people and killed two. On August 25, 2020, Rittenhouse claimed to have gone to Kenosha, Wisconsin – a town he does not live in – “to protect a car dealership from being vandalized and to provide medical aid” while flaunting an AR-15. Rittenhouse was interviewed by live streamers and shouted “Does anyone need medical” while claiming that he was an EMT. Kyle Rittenhouse is not an EMT. Just before the gunshots started, Rittenhouse bragged that if there was any trouble, “he was running into harm’s way”.
A year after the protest occurred, Rittenhouse was put on trial starting on November 1st. After three days of jury deliberation on whether Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence or committing a felony, he was acquitted of all charges on the basis of self-defence. The defence painted him as an aspiring law enforcement officer and selfless teenager wanting to help those in need of medical aid. Rittenhouse received a two-million-dollar legal fund, which helped him walk away as a free man. He hired high-profile lawyers, ones of the same esteem as those who represented OJ Simpson. Many were shocked by his acquittal, including charges of the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. Although the dangerous weapon charges were not against Rittenhouse but the adult who provided him with the weapon, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed them. The media coverage of this trial was extensive, leading many to speak out on social media.
Throughout the trial, many showed their support for Rittenhouse. Far-right Republican Party chat groups, such as one on Telegram with 12,500 followers, were posting daily updates on what they called “the trial of Saint Kyle”. They supported Rittenhouse, fixating on the previous criminal offences of the men he killed. Participants of the chat group went as far as mocking the deaths of those killed and called to celebrate the acquittal with more violence. Majorie Taylor Greene, the U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 14th congressional district has even introduced a bill to reward the Congressional Gold Medal to Rittenhouse. She wants to award him this honour for “protecting the community of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a Black Lives Matter riot”. Rittenhouse now has a stellar career in front of him according to Rep. Paul Gosar and Rep. Matt Gatez. Gosar tweeted that he would have to “arm wrestle” Rep. Gatez to see who would get to offer Rittenhouse a Capitol Hill internship.
On the other hand, many have been outraged by his acquittal, with protests occurring on the street and social media. The verdict of the Rittenhouse case is being vigorously debated with claims that “you can’t start something and then claim self-defence”. Many are also stating that the verdict would have been different if Rittenhouse was not a privileged, white male.
In addition, the circumstances that surrounded the Rittenhouse case have been thoroughly analyzed. On platforms such as Instagram, people have been sharing their reactions and stories. Posts have been made comparing Rittenhouse’s case to a similar one in Kenosha; Chrystul Kizer, a 17-year-old girl, was charged with murdering the man who sex-trafficked her. The defence of Kizer was the same as Rittenhouse, they both claimed self-defence. Kizer went to jail for 2 years until June 2020, when she was finally released on bail. She is still awaiting trial. Many claim the main difference in the two cases is race, Kizer being a black woman.
The Rittenhouse trial has confirmed many beliefs about profound bias in the United States justice system. The acquittal of Rittenhouse has shown how the system favours white men. Rittenhouse killed 2 people who were unarmed, using a gun that he was too young to carry while claiming to provide medical aid to people who were injured. Too many instances of inexplicable, biased legal outcomes are why many have lost their faith in justice. The Rittenhouse acquittal brings up the question: Who is entitled to justice?