Lydia Glenn

Innovations Editor

lmg5921@psu.edu

Kyle Rittenhouse, an 18 year old boy who was arrested on homicide charges was acquitted on November 19. 

The acquittal came as a shock to many who had been following the case, including myself. Rittenhouse attended a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 25 2020.  He stated that he went to protect property that was near the site of the protest. 

Interestingly, he felt that in order to protect the property that was most likely insured, he took his AR style semi-automatic weapon with him. 

At the time this all took place, Rittenhouse was actually only 17. This means the AR rifle that he had could not have been legally purchased by him because he was underage. 

Rittenhouse, with his illegally purchased AR rifle, then took to the streets to “defend” property and shot and killed two people and wounded one. 

Many claim that Rittenhouse in fact had no intentions of protecting property because they saw him join a crowd of people who were calling themselves “vigilantes.” These “vigilantes” showed up to the protest after businesses were ransacked and burned carrying weapons, hoping to enforce their idea of “justice.” 

Rittenhouse’s lawyers say that he was not a part of the group of armed civilians and that he was solely there to protect his property, whatever that may have been. Witnesses say otherwise, and drone footage also points to the fact that he wanted to play the hero. 

I myself watched the drone footage that was made available to the public, and it is horrible to watch. At a moment, I thought I was watching a horror movie, but then had to remind myself that this event actually happened. The footage shows Rittenhouse killing Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26. 

Rittenhouse then wounded another protestor, Gaige Grosskreutz, 28. The part of the footage where Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz seem to be facing off is where the defense seemed to base most of their argument. At the point when Rittenhouse shot and wounded Grosskreutz, Rittenhouse had fallen and was on the ground. It was then when Grosskreutz was coming at Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn that Rittenhouse shot him.

The defense claimed that Rittenhouse had no other choice but to shoot Grosskreutz, claiming their infamous self-defense argument. 

Since Grosskreutz survived, his testimony was key in trial, but unfortunately, prosecution failed to use it to their advantage. His testimony let the courtroom know that he had no intention to shoot Rittenhouse, only to protect himself. He even stated to the jury that he had his hands raised as he was approaching Rittenhouse, who was laying on the ground. 

The defense again argued that it was all self-defense because Rittenhouse was scared. But Grosskreutz also claimed that he was scared for his life. So, who do we believe? 

When questioned, Grosskreutz said that he would never shoot anyone because, “that’s not the kind of person I am. That’s not why I was there.” 

While Grosskreutz was able to defend himself, the other two men who Rittenhouse shot and killed could not speak as to the events of that evening. 

According to Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum chased him down which then made Rittenhouse reach for his gun. Rosenbaum was not armed, only “chasing” after young Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse then broke down into tears and told the jury he opened fire because he was being chased and he was scared. 

In a case of self-defense, open firing on Rosenbaum carries no weight. Rosenbaum was unarmed which comes across as non-threatening. I understand that someone chasing after you is scary, but in a situation like this, where the one who is armed is running, it makes no sense. If Rosenbaum was indeed chasing after Rittenhouse, what was he going to do without a weapon? What did Rittenhouse do to involve himself in a situation where he was being chased? We will never truly know if there was malice behind why Rosenbaum was allegedly chasing Rittenhouse, but it’s important to remember that he was unarmed and there were no witnesses who spoke up to say that Rosenbaum had intentions of severely injuring or killing Rittenhouse. 

In the case of Huber, Rittenhouse shot him after he was hit in the neck/head with Huber’s skateboard. Again, the public has no knowledge of why Huber hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard or what his intention was, but was it really okay for Rittenhouse to take the kill shot on Huber? In my opinion, no. I again understand that in a situation like this where someone has just hit you with a skateboard, some amount of defense to protect yourself may be needed. In this case, I wonder why Rittenhouse decided to draw his gun after getting hit with a skateboard, why not throw a punch or possibly use the butt of the weapon to stop the person? 

Shooting someone to death who just hit you in the head with their skateboard seems a bit unnecessary. It makes no sense to me why Rittenhouse would automatically pull out his AR in this situation.

I again am left with the question of why were they approaching him in the first place? Most people are not irrational, so to me I feel like there had to be a reason people were trying to approach and stop Rittenhouse. Possibly because he had an AR and was openly firing at people. 

The acquittal of Rittenhouse brings up even more questions about the legal system and the way it works.

For me, I thought, if Rittenhouse claimed self-defense because he was being attacked, then any woman who is in prison for killing their partner because their own life was in danger should be released. 

Rittenhouse’s acquittal sends a message to the public that the legal system is not fair. Why is it different when a 17 year old boy shoots and kills two people? Why do women who are in domestic violence situations receive different outcomes when they use the same defense in court, that their actions were in self-defense? 

The unfairness of the legal system was showcased in this acquittal. 

In the defense of Rittenhouse, I asked around what people thought, and I found myself listening to the same answer. Many people defended the deaths of these two men by saying that they were “scumbags anyway.” 

I shivered at this response. Just because someone is a “scumbag” does not mean that they deserve for their life to be taken away. And if they were such a scumbag, wouldn’t the legal system that apparently does such a great job have them in jail for their misdoings? 

I find it terrifying that people wrote off the deaths of these two innocent men just because they were not perfect members of society.

Rittenhouse’s acquittal also sent a message to the public that it is OK to blast down human rights protestors and demonstrators. Rev. Jesse Jackson, who is a longtime civil rights leader, said that the verdict throws into doubt the safety of people who protest in support of Black Americans. 

The acquittal understandably made people fear for their safety. How is anyone supposed to practice their first amendment rights of protesting when all of their other rights are being taken away, like the right to life?

It is a scary world when vigilante justice is approved of in a court of law. 

As for Rittenhouse himself, he is allegedly going to try and go back to his life and live a normal one. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Once you pull the trigger on your AR rifle and open fire on innocent people and kill them, nothing in your life will ever be the same again, even if you are okay with the choice you’ve made. 

Let us not forget either the reason behind the protest Rittenhouse shot-up. The name we should all know, rather than Rittenhouse, is Jacob Blake. He was a young black man who was shot by a white Kenosha police officer. It was this injustice against Blake that the demonstrators were protesting. They were trying to bring attention to his name and to the racial injustices black people still face in this country today. 

We cannot forget that there is an inordinate amount of injustice against black people and other minorities, and that change needs to happen.