Rittenhouse Like the Plague

The most recent saved search on the Google page pulled up on our family’s desktop computer reads, “New York Giants at Philadelphia Eagles tickets,” or some variation thereof. It is the afternoon of my seventeenth birthday and I’ve just stumbled upon the gift that my family will “surprise” (I didn’t even bother faking it; I light-heartedly shared my earlier discovery with them — laughs all around and no hard feelings) me with a few short hours later. Botched delivery aside, this was a phenomenal gift: my first-ever NFL game, and my favorite team facing off against a division rival to boot.

As for memories of the game itself and the weekend trip my family took to Philly, these are few and far between. My dad and brother attended the game with me while my mom and sister went shopping (or did anything other than attend said game). I remember feeling so at home during the quick train ride to the Philadelphia Sports Complex; I had never been surrounded by so many Eagles fans (to describe them as passionate or presume they were, in general, inebriated is probably redundant). I remember Leonard Weaver exploding for an early 40+-yard touchdown run (I could be entirely fabricating this or attributing it to the wrong game but I’m pretty sure it happened and that it did so on this occasion). Most importantly and taking care of the primary order of business, I remember the Eagles decimating the hated Giants. About the non-football aspects of the trip, I remember almost nothing (while rereading I think I’ve now remembered that the Phillies were playing for the World Series title at the same general time as our trip). The one real exception being that we lodged at the Rittenhouse Hotel, and I really don’t remember much about the hotel either other than it was one of the nicest hotels I had ever stayed at up to that point and our room had a huge shower within. Thank you for suffering my reliving of my seventeenth birthday gift.

Some years later, I would discover a Philadelphia-based pop-punk band called The Wonder Years and immediately fall in love with their first two official full-length albums, The Upsides and Suburbia I’ve Given You All and Now I’m Nothing (I say “official” because the band doesn’t really recognize their true debut, Get Stoked on It!, and I don’t blame them but to totally dismiss that pot of easy-core gold is to deprive lots of potential fans of a bunch of really fun songs). In “Woke Up Older,” a certified banger off of Suburbia, lead singer Dan “Soupy” Campbell laments that he’s been “avoiding Rittenhouse like the plague” so as to avoid an ex-girlfriend that has, as my reading of the rest of the song’s lyrics suggests, recently up and left him. The Rittenhouse that Soupy has been side-stepping is presumably the same hotel where my family stayed for my birthday or, at the very least, the immediately-surrounding area which is known as Rittenhouse Square.

And there you have it. The full extent of my dealings and experiences with any and all things Rittenhouse, at least until the summer of 2020.

At this point, I will reenter the present day which is early December 2021. Very recently, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges brought against him (other than those previously dismissed by the judge), stemming from the chaos at the protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020. I could be off by a day or so with regard to the timing but I believe the Rittenhouse verdicts came on the day immediately following the day that Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt granted clemency to Julius Jones mere hours before he (i.e. Julius) was scheduled to be killed for a crime he maintains he did not commit.

[A quick aside about the Julius Jones matter: Let us ignore my personal beliefs about the death penalty and I’d ask that you temporarily disregard your own beliefs about the same. Governor Stitt eventually granted clemency and for that I am grateful. However, he removed the possibility of parole from Jones’s reduced life sentence. If Stitt perceived enough about the case to warrant his commutation of Jones’s death sentence, wouldn’t a review of the possibility of parole (let alone the entire presumption of his guilt) also follow? If the facts of the case presented Stitt with enough confusion/doubt that he was not able to arrive at a decision regarding Jones’s fate until just four hours before the scheduled execution, after Jones had been subject to so many excruciating moments of what he all-the-while believed to be his last day alive, shouldn’t that dilemma of Stitt’s be the very answer he was “praying” for? Either the same facts that led Stitt to grant clemency should necessarily lead to a full review of parole and guilt or, more horrifyingly (and more likely), facts played second fiddle to Stitt’s personal discretion when it came to the determination of Jones’s fate. My main gripe, aside from what appears to be a blatant disregard for the reasonable doubt that Jones’s legal team seems to have established in regard to his guilt (or even involvement) in this crime, being that the entire process presents one man with enough power to kill or not kill (while making a charade of this deliberation and a mockery for another man’s humanity) as solely he sees fit.]

As previously mentioned, I am grateful that Jones was granted clemency and I was truly relieved when I found out, despite the head-scratching (to me) decision to disallow parole; I had been nearing the point of physical illness as what I believed would be the final hours of Julius Jones’s life passed by. I don’t think I had fully emotionally recovered from the Jones commutation when the entirely-not-surprising Kyle Rittenhouse verdict was delivered. Poor me, right?

So, I guess I am putting this all down to try and make some sense of my thoughts about the Rittenhouse killings and why I, and maybe why other people, feel such a profound lack of justice despite the case going to, and getting a verdict at, trial. You (not that anyone has read this far, or at all) have my apologies in advance (not that anyone will read any further) for any lack of structure to these thoughts and/or any incoherency. My defense is that I can’t really describe coherently that which I can’t think through in a coherent manner. Read: I am not trying to convince you that I am “right” or persuade you to see things how I see them. I am writing to help myself process because I’ve felt a genuine need to do so and don’t really know how else I can put these thoughts down without getting in fights with internet strangers or worse, internet people I know in real life. Despite my aversion to cyber-debates on this topic, I am sharing this for whatever minimal benefit of people who are genuinely interested in considering another person’s position here (like I hope I am (self-righteous as this may sound, the key operative is “hope” because I’m really not sure if I want to know why people feel differently than I do when it comes to the Rittenhouse killings)), as well as a handful of different selfish reasons, I’m sure.

What is known? Protests broke out in Kenosha, Wisconsin following the police shooting of Black man Jacob Blake, the then-latest shooting during a particularly dangerous and deadly year (perhaps it wasn’t any more deadly than other years but the deaths did seem to get much more media coverage) for Black people at the hands of predominately white police officers and vigilantes. The protests in Kenosha varied in gravity. During the unrest, three people were shot (two fatally), all at the hands of Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager from Illinois (I actually think too much has been made of the “crossing state lines” angle; would Rittenhouse’s actions have been any less despicable had he committed them in his own neighborhood (a la George Zimmerman) in Illinois?). Rittenhouse was engaged in physical altercations with each of the three people he would eventually shoot, though only one of them (i.e. one of those shot) was likewise armed with a firearm. Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, and failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government. The latter two charges were dismissed and Rittenhouse was acquitted of each of the others on the basis of his self-defense claims.

Before going further, I suppose I should reiterate that my aim is very much not to put the Rittenhouse verdict on trial; let’s leave that to those with intimate knowledge of the relevant laws in Wisconsin and all of the goings-on from that night. (Besides, it feels like it would be foolish of me to expect an honest administration of justice from a system that has historically failed to execute justice in an equitable manner.)

[Another quick aside, this one about how little legitimacy a not-guilty verdict could theoretically hold: Try for a second to abandon all well-founded misgivings about the justice system that you may have. Pretend that a “jury of peers” means something objective and is employed uniformly and meaningfully all over the land. Deny any possibility that presiding justices or jurors may bring their own personal political, religious, rhetorical, prejudicial, etc. biases to the trial or, God forbid, allow those things to dictate their decisions and rulings. Alright, so we’ve removed matters of personal preference from the neutral participants in criminal proceedings in a mere matter of sentences. All that remains, generally, are two legal teams: one looking to establish some sufficient level of doubt as it pertains to the defendant’s guilt and the other looking to demonstrate that guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. If the defense can accomplish the former, in the jury’s opinion, then the defendant will generally be found not guilty but if the prosecution succeeds in the latter, you’re probably looking at a guilty conviction. All types of things, most of which I don’t understand well at all, are used to build each legal team’s case: physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, witness testimony, expert analysis, and so on. But that’s not all. It turns out that rhetoric, work ethic, and general aptitude as a trial attorney are also pretty important gadgets in the case-building toolbelt. In other words, the evidence and the truth of what actually happened in any given case only matter to a certain extent. Absent any administrative or clerical miscarriages by the prosecution, all a defense team needs to do is find a way to plant a grain of doubt and harvest it until it becomes reasonable enough for jurors; to get a not-guilty verdict in a case where the defendant actually did the thing he was accused of, his legal team need only do their job better than the prosecution, by whatever necessary degree. The fact that this can even theoretically happen gives me serious qualms with the court system but of course you are entitled to your own opinions. And of course, we didn’t even mention how wealth and power provide access to bigger and better legal teams and, following the logic laid out above, greater chances of courtroom victory.]

The fact of the matter is that Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges that were brought against him and fully prosecuted. Whether he was truly not guilty based on the combination of his actions at that protest and the letter of Wisconsin law or he was merely found not guilty based on some combination of his defense team’s prowess, prosecutorial shortcomings, and judicial bias is kind of a moot point. We are left with two people dead (and another shot non-fatally, collectively, “The Shot”) after the protest in Kenosha and no one to take accountability. Everyone at the protest (protestors, police forces, media) besides The Shot were able to navigate the entirety of that night and every interaction they had with other people without getting shot (fatally or otherwise). The Shot themselves were able to navigate the vast majority of that night and every interaction they had with everyone else besides Rittenhouse without getting shot (fatally or otherwise). And everyone at the protest besides Rittenhouse was able to get through the entire night without shooting or killing another human being. Despite Rittenhouse being at the center of all the firearm-inflicted assault and death that night, the jury’s not-guilty verdict shows us that in some cases, it is perfectly legal to bring a gun to a protest and shoot and kill multiple other human beings (we should probably take a closer look at our laws if this really can happen all withing the constraints of the law but I digress). However, the not-guilty label can’t take away from the fact that it was at his hand, and his hand alone, that these people were shot and killed. I can’t say this unequivocally but I will say it with the maximum amount of confidence while still maintaining equivocality: more people were shot and killed that night because of Rittenhouse’s presence than otherwise would have (I dare to suggest that sans Rittenhouse, no one gets shot or killed that night) and those people suffered their fates unnecessarily. Rittenhouse is able to come to a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in some self-appointed pseudo-militia capacity with firearm in tow, shoot and kill multiple people, and eventually be found not guilty on all criminal counts (but what’s so noble about abiding by the law in this case, anyway? Can’t tremendous wrongs and evils be committed within the constraints of written law? Doesn’t that happen every day? Won’t it always?). Whether or not there was any illegal activity on Rittenhouse’s part, there surely must have been some wrongdoing, right, as he was the only common thread between The Shot? Herein lies the miscarriage of justice, despite it not technically being a miscarriage of law.

I think there are some other factors that bear mentioning as well:

Very much not wanting to be a white voice trying to come across as an expert on the mistreatment of Black people and others of color over the course of American history, I will keep this brief. I think it is wrong to reduce this case to solely a matter of race but I also think it absolutely needs to be viewed through the lens of this nation’s racist existence and historical mistreatment of people of color, particularly within the courts and other arms of the justice system. This critical consideration is necessitated, in my opinion, by the cries of injustice which I believe stem from both legitimate distress stemming from the Rittenhouse verdict itself as well as the chapter it adds to this country’s racial injustice history book i.e. the two serve to inform each other. At the end of the day, a white person shot and killed multiple people (which in itself is an example of what white people can do without fear of being killed by police, let alone with vocalized support like Rittenhouse received that night) at a protest whose main purpose was to declare and reclaim the importance of Black lives. The racial context matters, perhaps not to you but I do believe it can (should?) reasonably matter to some. (The timing of the potential posting of this reflection — two days after the anniversary of the insurrection at the Capitol — makes it easy to juxtapose the way white violence is so often minimized with perpetrators rightfully given their day in court while Black violence is almost automatically hyperbolized and met with much greater, excessive force.)

I must admit that, on a selfish level, the precedent that Rittenhouse’s not guilty verdict sets is somewhat terrifying. I suppose it was always possible that while participating in peaceful protests I could be met with violent or lethal force by those in opposition to whatever I might be protesting. However, I must imagine, having such a memorable case on the books in which the killer was acquitted of all charges has to be a comforting thought for the next would-be militiaman, or at the very least such a case would not give these vigilantes anything about which to think twice. Which I guess means I feel this decision may ultimately serve to undermine the First Amendment. By name-dropping “the First Amendment” I don’t want that to sound “patriotic” whatsoever (I don’t equate inclusion within the Constitution with being moral, admirable, or right) but I do believe the right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate is vital to the possibility of hope of a nation and its people. At best, the Rittenhouse verdict does nothing to bolster this right and at worst, it acts as a direct threat. And if the favorable verdict weren’t encouraging/harmful enough, there’s the additional matter of the instant celebrity status that Rittenhouse has been given in Conservative circles and which has been flaunted since his being found not guilty.

This feels like enough for now. I’ve used plenty of excuses to put off this reflection which is why it’s been over a month between writing sessions. The one question that comes to mind which I will not address here (and will, honestly, probably ignore on my own time as well) is why this all bothers me. Is it because I’m empathetic to, and genuinely hurt by, the generational mistreatment of so many of my neighbors or does it infuriate me that I live in a country that falls so far short of the idealistic country I, for some reason, feel entitled to live in (which I fully realize does not exist anywhere on this planet)? Maybe it’s some combination of the two or for some other reasons entirely? As I said, I’m not pursuing that one here; I don’t suspect I’ll like the answer I come up with. For now, to the extent that I am able, I’ll be avoiding that question, and all other things Rittenhouse, like the plague.