Intense media coverage pushes a public already sharply divided by political differences to expect a social and political message from the jury’s verdict. But the law requires something entirely different: a strict analysis of the facts and law by 12 ordinary citizens insulated from outside pressure.
It’s one made all the more difficult by the burden of expectations. Intense media coverage pushes a public already sharply divided by political differences to expect a social and political message from the jury’s verdict. But the law requires something entirely different: a strict analysis of the facts and law by 12 ordinary citizens insulated from outside pressure. The evidence presented during the trial has put a full menu of political issues front and center, triggering a divisive national debate. Should Americans, including a then-17-year-old, be permitted to police the streets of a town in a neighboring state when law enforcement appears to some to be inadequate? Was Kyle Rittenhouse acting as a vigilante when he chose to arm himself and enter the fray of protestors and others, claiming his purpose was to protect property and provide first aid? Should this be legal if he was? Was Rittenhouse looking for trouble, and should this restrict his right to assert self-defense? Are we headed toward an America where openly armed political factions and protesters can roam the streets openly carrying AR-15s like militias in other lawless and war-torn countries? Yet the verdict sheet has no section devoted to social messaging. The jury’s only job is to render a unanimous verdict of « guilty » or « not guilty » on each of the five felony charges Rittenhouse faces, including first-degree intentional homicide. On August 25, 2020, Rittenhouse armed himself with an AR-15-style assault rifle and carried a medical kit as he went into downtown Kenosha, Wisconsin.
