{"id":397346,"date":"2021-11-19T21:25:32","date_gmt":"2021-11-19T21:25:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/?p=377743"},"modified":"2021-11-19T21:25:32","modified_gmt":"2021-11-19T21:25:32","slug":"kyle-rittenhouses-acquittal-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-but-thats-not-what-was-on-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/11\/19\/kyle-rittenhouses-acquittal-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-but-thats-not-what-was-on-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"Kyle Rittenhouse’s Acquittal Sets a Dangerous Precedent. But That’s Not What Was on Trial."},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\"KENOSHA,\n

Judge Bruce Schroeder, right, listens as the verdicts are read by judicial assistant Tami Mielcarek in Kyle Rittenhouse\u2019s trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse on Nov. 19, 2021, in Kenosha, Wis.<\/p>\n

\nPhoto: Sean Krajacic\/Getty Images<\/p><\/div>
\nKyle Rittenhouse is<\/u> free, the beneficiary of a verdict that politically imprisons the rest of us.<\/p>\n

Jurors rejected the legal argument presented by prosecutors, returning a verdict of not guilty on all counts, including two counts of homicide, for\u00a0the August 2020 shootings\u00a0in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a Black Lives Matter protest. The prosecution\u00a0described Rittenhouse as remorseless and committed to acts of violence, and said that his armed presence was provocative and that he didn\u2019t exhaust all legal means to avoid killing someone.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\u201cRaise your hand if you agree life is more important than property,\u201d prosecutor Thomas Binger said to the jury in his closing arguments. \u201cThe only person who shot and killed anyone was the defendant. Yes, there was property damage. No one\u2019s here to defend that. No one\u2019s here to tell you it\u2019s\u00a0OK to commit arson or looting. No one\u2019s here to tell you it\u2019s okay to be rioters. … But what you don\u2019t get to do is kill someone on the street for committing arson.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet thanks to this jury verdict, more people will undoubtedly try to.<\/p>\n

<\/div><\/p>\n

We can\u2019t say we didn\u2019t see it coming. Judge Bruce Schroeder\u2019s decision to allow the men laying dead at Rittenhouse\u2019s feet to be called \u201clooters\u201d or \u201crioters\u201d but not \u201cvictims\u201d set a tone that continued, ruling after ruling. Yes: One of the people Rittenhouse shot \u2014 Gaige Grosskreutz \u2013 was armed. I find that insufficient justification for the death of two other men.<\/p>\n

No, the legal argument failed. And that was the only argument jurors were ever going to hear in court. But it\u2019s not the only question that you and I as American citizens have to wrestle with.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the argument that the jury couldn\u2019t hear: In exonerating Rittenhouse, the jury has given license to every violent extremist in America to arm themselves and look for trouble amid their political opponents, wherever they might be.<\/p>\n

In exonerating Rittenhouse, the jury has given license to every violent extremist in America to arm themselves and look for trouble.<\/blockquote><\/p>\n

Consider the next time people rally for, say, abortion rights. Or perhaps immigration controls. Or the next Stop the Steal rally. A free Kyle Rittenhouse means we will now be met with two camps of armed protesters, possibly from around the country, each squad waiting for an opponent to twitch suspiciously in a way that will allow excuses to fly along with the bullets.<\/p>\n

A body count begins today with this verdict. Every time a Proud Boy or a neo-Nazi opens fire at a Black Lives Matter rally or its equivalent in the future, they will have Rittenhouse\u2019s defense on their lips.<\/p>\n

The thing is, you can\u2019t convict a man for the things you fear others will do in his name. I know that. There is no way to argue that in court without creating a mistrial. It is not a legal argument; it is a political argument.<\/p>\n

Schroeder also barred prosecutors from linking Rittenhouse to the Proud Boys, though Rittenhouse had become friendly with the violent and bigoted group in the days following the street killings.\u00a0It was one of many pronouncements\u00a0meant to sever the legal question of Rittenhouse’s guilt from the political ramifications of an acquittal.<\/p>\n

But it is from conjecture like this that we make decisions about what our society and our laws should look like in the future. Court is meant to do something very specific: to ask 12 jurors to uphold the law as it stands. We don’t ask jurors to make the law. That’s on us. We have a responsibility to see what decisions are made and then to change the law to make sure\u00a0the decisions we hate are never made again.<\/p>\n

\n\"BRUNSWICK,\n

A young girl looks at a memorial for Ahmaud Arbery, near where he was shot and killed, on May 8, 2020, in Brunswick, Ga.<\/p>\n

\nPhoto: Sean Rayford\/Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n

Surprisingly, Georgia is<\/u> doing\u00a0the kind of legal rewriting that’s necessary.<\/p>\n

When the video surfaced of Travis McMichael, his father Greg McMichael, and their neighbor William \u201cRoddie\u201d Bryan shooting Ahmaud Arbery dead while jogging in Brunswick, Georgia, last year, public outrage was immediate and condemnation widespread. And while, in the Rittenhouse case,\u00a0powerful forces\u00a0acted to defend Rittenhouse against consequences, it was clear even to \u2014 especially to \u2014 Georgia Republicans that the legal defense of self-defense for the McMichaels and Bryan in the wake of a citizen\u2019s arrest could not be given the breath of legitimacy.\u00a0Georgia is a purple state with a very different set of racial politics than Wisconsin.<\/p>\n\n

Once public opinion became clear,\u00a0the state moved\u00a0to contain the political damage that the killing created\u00a0and diminish the chance that Arbery\u2019s killers would be acquitted.\u00a0Amid the presidential race in Georgia, which had become the mother of all political contests, Georgia\u2019s Republican-controlled legislature still managed to pass hate crimes legislation after decades of obstruction, so great was the revulsion and the fear that Arbery\u2019s bloody shirt would be the veil through which the world would see the state. In Georgia\u2019s next legislative session, the state repealed statutes allowing for citizen\u2019s arrest.<\/p>\n

The Glynn County court had to sift through 1,000 potential jurors to find 12 who might be considered fair, because hostility to the defendants had become that widespread.<\/p>\n

Defense attorneys working for Arbery\u2019s killers\u00a0were left to grandstand and shock in ways they apparently hoped could draw a mistrial. Kevin Gough, the defense attorney for Bryan in the case, argued last week in court to bar \u201cany more Black pastors\u201d from attending the trial after seeing Al Sharpton in the gallery with Arbery\u2019s mother, suggesting that high-profile Black clergy could influence the jury. Gough later apologized for his comment but still reiterated this argument in a motion Tuesday. The judge rejected it.<\/p>\n

A conclave of Black pastors answered Gough\u2019s challenge Thursday, flooding the courthouse grounds in a sea of well-tailored three-piece suits. Pastor Jamal Bryant of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta stood on the courthouse steps and called Brunswick as \u201cour generation\u2019s Selma\u201d and a place of renewal for the fight for civil rights.<\/p>\n

Clergy carefully crafted their message Thursday around diminishing the risk of giving Gough what he wanted: a mistrial. \u201cWe as pastors \u2014 Black, white and any other faiths as well \u2014 wanted to come together in unison to pray,\u201d said Pastor Lee May, leader of Transforming Faith Church in Decatur, Ga. \u201cThis is a prayer vigil by the pastors. We\u2019re not here to protest. We\u2019re not here for any civil disobedience. We believe that prayer will make a difference.\u201d<\/p>\n

May warned everyone he had spoken with to be on their best behavior. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to cause any kind of trouble to change the trajectory of this trial.\u201d<\/p>\n

Travis McMichael testified Wednesday, describing his actions leading up to Arbery\u2019s death for the jury. Doing so opened him up to withering cross examination from prosecutors, who highlighted how Arbery had been unarmed and running away from him and from the other defendants before they killed him. Closing arguments will begin Monday.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think with the evidence that I believe is so strongly against their clients as it relates to the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, they\u2019re doing everything they can to try to get a mistrial,\u201d said Mawuli Davis, a prominent civil rights attorney and activist in Georgia closely following the case. \u201cIt\u2019s a strategy that defense attorneys employ. You push as hard as you can and hope for an error.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a Hail Mary play from the defense. \u201cEverything that happens out here is a matter of our\u00a0First Amendment right to protest and to be heard,” Davis continued. “I think when you blur those lines and you try to prevent people from being able to voice their displeasure with the way the system has treated this case thus far, then you\u2019re in a real problematic space. You can\u2019t prevent people from speaking out, even though people have a right to a fair trial.”<\/p>\n

I now have to wonder if that\u2019s still true. Kyle Rittenhouse\u2019s gun can veto the bullhorn. We have to act: It should be clearly illegal under federal law to menace protestors while armed. The right to keep and bear arms must\u00a0not obliterate the\u00a0right to peaceably assemble. We have to consider this an act of political intimidation on its face moving forward, if the ballot is meant to prevail over the bullet.<\/p>\n

The post Kyle Rittenhouse’s Acquittal Sets a Dangerous Precedent. But That’s Not What Was on Trial.<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

This post was originally published on The Intercept<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jurors are asked to uphold the law as it stands. We don’t ask jurors to make the law. That’s on us.<\/p>\n

The post Kyle Rittenhouse\u2019s Acquittal Sets a Dangerous Precedent. But That\u2019s Not What Was on Trial.<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[118,14,29],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397346"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=397346"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397346\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":400479,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397346\/revisions\/400479"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=397346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=397346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=397346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}