The Second Amendment – perhaps the most controversial topic in America – raises two conflicting arguments: that guns are necessary for self-defense and that they are the source of violence.
This topic of debate has only been amplified with the recent trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who, at age 17, traveled from his home in Illinois to a protest in Wisconsin where he shot three people, killing two, with his illegally-obtained military-style semi-automatic rifle.
Every part of Rittenhouse’s story – from the night of the shooting to his trial to his acquittal to the national response it garnered – is demonstrative of exactly what is wrong in the United States.
Rittenhouse’s lawyers argued that he acted in self defense on the night of Aug. 25, 2020. They argued that he feared being overtaken and having his gun used against him. Rittenhouse’s gun, the very same one he brought to defend businesses from the protesters, was the source of his fear. He was protecting people…from his own gun. The people he killed? They were unarmed.
This is the exact circular logic employed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun advocacy groups that just does not make sense. In theory, guns are great for protection, but what are they protecting us from? Other guns.
The offense itself took place on the heels of a racially-charged summer at a protest of the police shooting of yet another unarmed black man, Jacob Blake, who was left paralyzed.
Naturally, the trial of Rittenhouse had sharp racial undercurrents. The trial was presided over by 75-year-old Judge Bruce Schroeder, who proved himself to be just as controversial as the topic at hand. Judge Schroeder immediately barred prosecutor Thomas Binger from referring to the people that Rittenhouse shot as “victims,” as that would only be true if he were to be convicted. Despite this, Judge Schroeder allowed the defense attorneys to refer to the people Rittenhouse killed as “looters, rioters, and arsonists.”
However, these people were never convicted either, so in the eyes of the law, they are innocent. Instead, egregiously, Judge Schroeder allowed them to appear at fault for their own deaths. In addition, Judge Schroeder made several inappropriate comments (including one about Asian food). He often berated Binger, and he even went so far as to instruct the jury to clap for a defense witness who was a veteran on Veterans Day; occurrences such as these only further politicized and polarized the trial.
One of the charges Rittenhouse was facing, a misdemeanor gun possession charge, was successfully challenged by his lawyers. Their argument hinged on a loophole in Wisconsin law, and somehow, Rittenhouse traveling across state lines past curfew with a military style weapon was deemed legal.
On Nov. 19, after 19 hours of jury deliberation, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts. This verdict has not only opened the door for people to bring their guns to protests without fear of legal recourse, but it has also invited increased gun presence across the nation.
Since the trial, Rittenhouse has appeared on Fox News, along with receiving multiple offers for jobs in political offices. One offer comes from Matt Gaetz, a Floridian congressman who is currently under investigation for sex trafficking, as he continuously adds to his long list of despicable acts.
Unsurprisingly, other members of the Republican Party have similarly lauded Rittenhouse as a hero, highlighting another extremely worrisome repercussion of the entire trial.
In the eyes of Rittenhouse’s supporters, his gun was triumphant in its cause; after all it saved his life! However, despite the support of his innocence, his gun did not succeed. He did not protect anyone. He feared his own gun, the one strapped to his back. He walked into a situation, expecting and equipped for violence. He shot three people. He killed two. That is in no way heroic.
But in every way it is unsurprising that Rittenhouse was acquitted.
