Rittenhouse not guilty verdict was justified

Last week, an American jury found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty of murder as he was acting in self-defence. Rittenhouse shot three people during the 2020 race riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, killing two of them. While this outcome was unsurprising to legal experts, it has been condemned by many, including prominent Democrats and, in Canada, Jagmeet Singh, who see it as another example of racism embedded in American society.

However, this outrage has largely been manufactured by media commentators and politicians who have consistently misrepresented the facts of the case, which never fit the scandalous narrative that many tried to impose on it.

This fresh wave of condemnation suggests that for the progressive left when it comes to racial politics, facts don't matter when they are inconvenient. Unfortunately, this will make it more difficult to seriously criticize future, legitimate cases of racism.

During the 2020 Kenosha riots, Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time, was staying overnight in the city for work. During his trial, he testified that much of his family lived in Kenosha, and, when he became aware of the riots, he took to the streets with a legally-owned rifle, intending to act as a vigilante peacekeeper. The trial also showed that, for most of the day, he peacefully engaged with protesters and asked them if they needed medical assistance. He also scrubbed graffiti off a school and tried to put out fires.

But things turned violent as night fell.

Joseph Rosenbaum was a mentally-disturbed convicted child molester who was keen on instigating violence. In a video clip that was posted to YouTube, he was recorded provoking other rioters, repeatedly telling them to “shoot me, n***a.” A trial witness also testified that he saw Rosenbaum acting violently and attempting to light dumpsters on fire and that, when Rittenhouse spotted this, Rosenbaum responded with a death threat, saying, “If I catch you guys alone tonight, I'm gonna f***ing kill you.”

When Rosenbaum, who was white, once again came across Rittenhouse at night, he lunged at the teenager, who was trapped against a parked car. Rittenhouse testified that he feared for his safety and therefore fired at Rosenbaum, killing him.

Rittenhouse was then chased by a mob as he fled to police lines. He fell down and three people attempted to assault him, all of who were also white — one man tried kicking him in the face. Another, Anthony Huber, attacked him with a skateboard and a third, Gaige Grosskreutz, raised a pistol at him.

Rittenhouse shot at them, ultimately killing Huber and injuring Grosskreutz.

Rittenhouse was immediately smeared as a murderous white supremacist — nevermind the fact that the people he shot were white. Media outlets misreported Rittenhouse's story, incorrectly stating that he had driven across state lines with an illegally-acquired firearm to a town with which he had no connection.

Many believed that he was a “chaos tourist” who had intentionally provoked violence. In truth, he was an idiotic kid who wanted to be a hero but could not grasp how grossly irresponsible his behaviour was. The true chaos tourist in this story was Rosenbaum, who was parched for violence and found himself quenched.

Throughout Rittenhouse's trial, it became clear that the public narrative about him was false. Worse yet, the prosecution repeatedly disregarded legal norms and even withheld evidence from the defence, leading to speculation that there would be a mistrial. The case against Rittenhouse seemed to fall apart when, during cross-examination, Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse only raised his gun after Grosskreutz had raised his pistol.

Rittenhouse's critics, rather than accept that they had been wrong, began to attack the legitimacy of the legal proceedings. Many argued that the judge was biased. Once the verdict came out, critics insinuated that the jury was secretly full of racists. Notably, these critics have had a tendency to avoid addressing the facts of the case, making bold accusations that are unanchored to specific evidence.

When Rittenhouse's story first hit the news, some facts were murky and that was understandable. It was also understandable that racial justice advocates would be sensitive about the shooting. Yet as the facts have become clearer, political outrage over Rittenhouse has stayed steady and, in some cases, intensified. This kind of self-delusion is disturbing — because it is always disturbing when politicians and media distort the truth, especially if that applies pressure on America's legal system to follow the dictates of a mob justice that is impervious to facts.

Some have said that if Rittenhouse was black, he would have been convicted. Perhaps that's true — the American legal system is often unfair and cruel to Black people. But if white Americans get fair trials while black Americans don't, it's hard to see how unfairly prosecuting a white kid will fix anything.

Justice is not a race to the bottom. Unfairly convicting Rittenhouse would have done nothing to protect black Americans who face a legal system that is stacked against them. If anything, it would have encouraged a tit-for-tat approach to racial conflict, and, by undermining rule of law, would have made it harder to build up stronger legal rights for all marginalized Americans, black or otherwise.

Rather than continue to use Rittenhouse as a political punching bag, it would be better if politicians, activists and those in the media who misrepresented the case, simply accepted that they were wrong, that Rittenhouse was innocent and that there is important work to be done elsewhere which can meaningfully contribute to a more equitable justice system.