Jakob Milani
Sports Editor
[email protected]
On Nov. 17, 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five counts for the killing of two men and the injuring of another in August 2020.
Rittenhouse faced five different charges, including first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide and two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety.
The incident took place at a protest against police brutality that had turned violent in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse argued it was in self-defense. During the trial, video was released that showed one victim, Joseph Rosenbaum, chasing after Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse shot his gun. One reporter at the trial, Richie McGinnis, testified that Rosenbaum lunged for Rittenhouse’s AR-15, thinking he was an Active Shooter.
In all, Rittenhouse was facing up to 207 ½ years in prison if the jury found he was guilty on all charges and agreed that he was to serve the full punishment of each charge.
Instead, at the end of the two-week trial, the jury found Rittenhouse not guilty of all charges, agreeing with the self-defense claim.
At The News, we are split on our opinions on the overall trial. A lot happened in these two weeks that left us all with plenty of questions after the trial.
On one hand, some of us do not agree with the verdict of the trial. Some of us agreed that technically it was self-defense, but the situation Rittenhouse found himself in made it feel as though it was a stretch of a claim. Others don’t agree that it was self-defense and believe it was done with an intent to kill.
On the other hand, some believe the verdict was correct as it was self-defense. While we agree it is morally incorrect to kill a person, it can be argued that he had no intent to kill and was just defending himself. One also said that after seeing the facts and testimonies of the trial, there was really no way he could be found guilty. The jury agreed and found Rittenhouse not guilty of all charges.
While The News is split on the verdict of the trial, we agree that there are some holes in the judicial system. Parts of the trial seemed questionable at best, and many agree the judge mishandled the trial at points. Some also pointed out that the judge seemed partial towards Rittenhouse.
With those subjects covered, there was still more to be said about everything around the trial. One member of The News said that they felt this trial points how uninformed the public seems to be about these trials. They went on to say “People spend too much time looking at headlines and basing their opinions off of that.”
Another member said they were disappointed in the way the media reported on the trial. They pointed out how media outlets discussed Rittenhouse crying on the stand and they didn’t agree with what many had reported. They went on to say that the way the media covered the trial made it almost obvious Rittenhouse could be found not guilty and that they painted him as a good person instead of a killer.
Overall, the trial has proven the gap between justice and the legal system. Two people are dead and no one is being held accountable. We at The News believe this verdict is all too similar to the “not guilty” verdict in the Trayvon Martin killing back in 2012. These verdicts give the sense that people can force themselves into a dangerous situation with a firearm, kill someone, then claim self defense afterwards. At the very least, fine the person and take away their ability to own a firearm.
The flaws in our judicial system remain open to the public. We may never see a change in our lifetimes as some people believe the system still works. But as the world continues to change, it’s time for a change in our court systems.
