Madness and Truth: A Review of the Rittenhouse Trial
In recent news, the Rittenhouse trial has been gaining nationwide attention. With such attention comes mixed results: Multiple protests for and against Rittenhouse, from the right and left respectively, and a divide between certain libertarians on the issue of Kyle Rittenhouse’s innocence or guilt. As well as that, in online spaces there is so much fighting and debate on the issue that it makes one’s head swirl.
Such situations call for a simple solution: a review of the facts of the matter. However, in such a solution there is still complexity, with the events themselves not only being muddled, but the context of such events, the character of all parties present, and so much more seem to make the soul giddy. Even though Rittenhouse has been acquitted of the charges, it is still worth it to examine the details of the matter.
It is my hope to lay out as objective and unbiased an analysis as possible. With that as well, a few words on Truth, the madness of opinion, and what we are missing when focusing so much on this topic.
The Facts of the Matter
On November 1, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse was put on trial for five charges: the homicides of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, the attempted homicide of Gaige Grosskreutz, and two counts of reckless endangerment. (A sixth charge was dropped by the residing judge before the prosecution or defense could make their closing statements.) According to Clare Hymes of CBS, the prosecution, headed by Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, “attempted to discredit the core of [Rittenhouse’s] defense,” arguing that Rittenhouse was “an armed threat, citing witness accounts who claimed the teen raised his gun in the direction of others throughout the night.” The defense, led by defense attorney Mark Richards, argued that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense, and that “Rittenhouse’s claims he felt threatened” were credible. Both parties called forth multiple witnesses to testify, with the prosecution also using video evidence in their arguments.
With that summary out of the way, we must look at the arguments that either gives credibility to or discredits the five charges Rittenhouse is facing. We’re not gonna be talking about how the defense “said the N-word” or anything trivial like that. Only the facts matter here.
We’ll look at the less severe charges first, starting with the two counts of reckless endangerment. According to Tom Richmond, from the Associated Press, the first charge of reckless endangerment involved the Daily Caller reporter Richard McGinnis, who had “told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum.” While this might imply that McGinnis was either next to or close to where Rosenbaum had been when Rittenhouse opened fire, in his testimony at trial, McGinnis said he was “about 15 feet” behind Rosenbaum. Infrared footage shown during his testimony also showed he was a few meters away when the shooting occurred.
Still, as McGinnis has testified that he tried to get out of harm’s way and, according to the prosecution, testified that he thought he thought he had been hit and was in danger. While there were only four shots made by Rittenhouse at Rosenbaum, with, according to Dr. Doug Kelly, all four entering Rosenbaum’s body at a close range, there was still the threat of harm to McGinnis at the moment of the shooting, and may fall under endangerment.
The second charge of endangerment, again according to Tom Richmond, involves “an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him…Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.” In their closing statement, the prosecution showed clear footage of how it happened. The image is more clear, showing the attempted kick as well as Rittenhouse opening fire afterwards. As the shots missed, the unknown individual was threatened as well as other people who were around the scene at that time. The identity of the unknown man is still, well, unknown (though Fox News claimed to have discovered it via inside sources).
The prosecution claim that these two events showed Rittenhouse, with no respect for human life, shooting and endangering civilians. However, one may ask if whether these actions were justified or excusable? The defense argues that Rittenhouse is shone to have opened fire after being attacked by this unknown man, making it seem that he is acting in self defense, and in regards to McGinnis, Rittenhouse may have been defending himself against Rosenbaum, so as to justify the force, as well as Rittenhouse not knowing that McGinnis was there.
But there are other factors, too: with the unknown man, he could’ve been trying to stop who he perceived as an active shooter, like the prosecution argues. In regards to the McGinnis case, that depends on the situation involving Rosenbaum, and whether Rittenhouse was acting in self defense or not.
Moving on, there is the charge of attempted homicide of Gaige Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz was a medic at the scene, armed with a pistol. After Anthony Huber is shot, he approached Rittenhouse, trying to disarm him, and is then shot. His right bicep is shredded, and he is later that night taken to get medical care.
Now there is more complication as well, because we have two different scenarios. During Kyle Rittenhouse’s testimony, he said that Grosskreutz lunge towards him with his pistol, and Rittenhouse, fearing for his life, shot in defense. During the defense’s questioning of Grosskreutz, he admits that he was only shot after he pointed his gun. However, there are two problems with that: firstly, Grosskreutz actually first claims that was not the case just before this moment. Secondly, the video footage analysis presented by the prosecution shows Grosskreutz aiming the gun at Rittenhouse after his right arm, which was holding the gun, had been shot. (Though it could be argued that it actually is pointing at him beforehand, looking at the footage. It is unclear due to the quality of video.)
While this may make it seem that Rittenhouse is then guilty, there is another problem: the defense argues that Rittenhouse was entitled to defend himself, and, as he had just been attacked a few moments earlier, it was logical for him to assume that Grosskreutz would do the same. With that in mind, it could be said then that Rittenhouse, under all the stress, may have been truly acting in self defense, but that Grosskreutz was also not pointing his gun at Rittenhouse or showing any intention to harm him. A case in which two things could be true at once.
Now we come to the main charges: the homicides of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber. With Anthony Huber, we could make the similar argument that Rittenhouse shot in self defense due to Huber attacking him with his skateboard and trying to disarm him, as is argued by the defense. However, we must also remember that, at that moment, Rittenhouse was seen, by the crowd, as an active shooter, as he had shot Rosenbaum earlier. And, the prosecution argues, Huber had done such actions in order to stop an active shooter. Again, as with Grosskreutz, two things may be true at the same time: Rittenhouse shot in self defense, Huber was trying to stop an active shooter.
This all, then, comes back to the main issue: the murder of Rosenbaum. Was Rittenhouse acting in self defense when he shot Rosenbaum?
Perhaps the best way to decide this is looking at the the video footage provided by the prosecution, both via FBI drone and the infrared. In the drone footage, we can see that Rosenbaum is chasing Rittenhouse through the parking lot. Rittenhouse runs into a corner of cars, and, with Rosenbaum closing in, turned around and fired four shots at him. Afterwards, Rittenhouse runs away, going through a space in between cars.
The prosecution argues that the results were caused by Rittenhouse, with him choosing to run towards the parked cars instead of open space adjacent to it, cornering himself with Rosenbaum chasing behind him. They also argue that the main reason for Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse is because Rittenhouse had pointed his rifle at certain individuals, the Ziminskis, who were near a car, and Rosenbaum responded to the threat Rittenhouse was posing.
The defense argues that Rittenhouse shot in defense, as Rosenbaum was a threat to his life and trying to disarm him. McGinnis had testified that Rosenbaum was running after Rittenhouse and lunged for his gun, trying to pull it away from him, and Rittenhouse feared that Rosenbaum was trying to attack him. It could also be noted that, before Rittenhouse fired at Rosenbaum, a shot was heard that might have prompted Rittenhouse to act in fight or flight mode, ending in the defensive shooting of Rosenbaum.
In all honesty, looking through it, there is the possibility of it being a series of unfortunate events, in which Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense while Rosenbaum, Huber, etc., were reacting towards the risk of a possible or active shooter. It is most likely why, then, that the jury, in their decision, have decided to acquit Rittenhouse of all charges: because of the mess that was Kenosha, guilt could not be fully proven without a reasonable doubt. Whatever the choice, justice has not been fully served; perhaps in this case we can only have some comfort that a young men was not sentenced to the hell that is prison for doing what might be just protecting himself.
Madness, and Hope
What can be learned from this madness? It is strange and despairing to see the chaos and gnashing of teeth that has been made during this whole predicament. What could have been a beautiful harmony between many different facets of the liberty movement, and even between those movements not part of the movement but fighting for liberation, has come crumbling down into more division.
With this trial, a lot of important facts have been brushed aside, ignored: why was the FBI using drones to watch the riots? Shouldn’t we be worried that we’re being watched by the government? What were the police doing in that time, why did it all go down into chaos?
And what about those other trials, those other wrongs and injustices, that have been, for the most part, ignored? What about Ghislaine Maxwell and her trial, or the anti-mandate protest that ended with police killing two people? What about Ahmaud Arbery, what about Julius Clemency, what about Johnny Hurley? Why the focus so much on only the Rittenhouse trial, when there is so much injustice also being committed?
Whatever the case, it seems to be another splintering, another blow at the movement. All going down shit’s creek, one could say.
Still, maybe there’s hope. Even with the chaos, even with all the confusion and fuckery, maybe, just maybe, there is still a chance, for everyone, to put their differences aside for one moment, and to truly fight for justice, to see each other as human beings. It may not be likely, but there’s always a chance.
Truth must be sought out above all else. One must wade through the madness of it all and figure out what is the truth of circumstances, as well as what is truly needed. The truth will set us all free.
