The verdict of the court case against Kyle Rittenhouse - Writing Wednesday
Hello everybody and welcome back to another blog post,
Recently, I've been seeing a lot of people talking about the verdict of the Kyle Rittenhouse case which was viewed as a rather contentious verdict by many people. If you are unaware of the Kyle Rittenhouse case, the now 18 year old Rittenhouse was charged with attempted murder last year after he shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, at a Black Lives Matter protest held in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse claimed he fired his gun out of self defence but the prosecutor, attorney Thomas Binger, attempted to make the case that Rittenhouse was being unnecessarily violent at the protest. After watching a few of the videos on the case concerning Kyle Rittenhouse, including the cross-examination of Kyle himself, I have collated the main facts that I think are important to share. Yes, Kyle arrived at the riot with an AR-15, which he quite clearly held beside him. However, Kyle arrived in Kenosha with the aim of helping people who were injured and he was also asked by some business owners if he could protect their property from the rioters, which is why he arrived at the scene with a gun. He did shoot three men but they were all white men, two of whom were convicted criminals who were chasing after Kyle. This means that it was quite clearly not the racially-motivated white on black crime that the media chose to portray the situation as. Furthermore, the fact that Kyle was chased by three men and only fired his gun when they made threats to kill him, quite clearly shows that he did use his gun out of self defence. Many believe that there was a white supremacist bias within the jury that favoured Rittenhouse but if the jury had made the decision not to acquit Kyle's charges, that to me would have represented more bias. Yes, there are plenty of cases where self defence is incredibly difficult to justify. But in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, there is no other stronger case than self defence. The jury in my opinion, made the correct verdict overall.
Now that you've heard the facts, let's talk about the meaning of the verdict. If anything, the reaction created by the verdict shows just how politically corrupt judicial systems are capable of becoming. Realistically in a court of law, you want to isolate yourself from outside opinion and focus on the evidence and how it is interpreted by the defence lawyers and the prosecutors. However, with Rittenhouse's story, we have seen that charges in a court of law can become politically motivated. The prosecutors who were attempting to develop a strong case against Rittenhouse failed to do so and in fact even aided the defendant's claims with some of their arguments. Some may argue that this was due to the complexity of the case and the lack of clear evidence. However, I would argue it was because there was no strong case against Rittenhouse in the first place and the prosecutors quite clearly had an agenda. Although I live in England and I'm not used to the whole culture that surrounds guns in America, I can't judge this situation from a British perspective as America has a different set of rules and based on those rules, Kyle did the right thing. He attempted to flee the situation, he was quite clearly attempting to help people not provoke them, and he fired when there was no other way of protecting himself. The prosecutors tried to paint a different story and that story was exacerbated by the media, who were quick to jump in on the case with their opinions and that is why so many people are still outraged. But it is important to remember that opinions do not constitute information, they are mere interpretations of hard facts. If you can see beyond the opinion and look at the physical evidence, as I've just outlined, you will get a far less jaded version of the true narrative.
There have been violent incidences towards people of colour, the Tamir Rice incident being one of them. Rice was shot dead at the scene by a police officer for holding a toy gun. But that case cannot be compared to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict because when observing the evidence for Rittenhouse, there was nothing judicially unjust about the final outcome. Many people have posted about this on Instagram, somehow making the claim that there is a causal relationship between the case of Kyle Rittenhouse and the case of Tamir Rice but there is no significant evidence to prove this. One bad situation cannot be caused because another situation happened. Things are usually more complex and multivaried than that. This is a classic example of how the media can make things worse. Using simple analogies to provide simple solutions to complex problems. Be careful of this, it misleads many people and does nothing good for society.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving your comments! I really enjoy reading your positive and constructive messages. They really make my day! 💜