The following is commentary from November 15, 2021 by Mitch Fryer of Armed Margins and represents the best things we’ve seen so far about the Rittenhouse trial. This trial is really a mess in terms of the complexity of Wisconsin law, the shenanigans of trial participants, and the events of the day in question, but Mitch has a solid understanding of the situation. If you look on the Armed Margins Patreon, you’ll find a lot of other worthwhile material.
Today we will hear the closing arguments in the Rittenhouse trial. I have some comments I want to share, some of which I’m sure will challenge some readers.
First some framing:
Defense is going to argue that Rittenhouse acted in pure self defense, painting the victims of the shootings as violent rioters who maliciously set upon Rittenhouse acting in a manner that threatened deadly consequences, or at least great bodily harm, therefore justifying Rittenhouse’s actions as legal self defense in each separate instance. They will paint Rittenhouse as a wide eyed kid who got in over his head in a nasty circumstance while trying to mitigate harm through helping others.
Prosecution is going to argue that Kyle provoked Rosenbaum into chasing him by pointing a gun at Gorowitz, prompting Rosenbaum to yell “Gun Gun Gun!” and pursue him across the lot until Kyle shoots. They will argue that Rittenhouse’s flight from the Rosenbaum after the simple provocation was not adequate to regaining his innocence and that he did not exhaust all safe avenues of escape before engaging in lethal force, thereby making his self defense imperfect. They will further argue that the subsequent shootings are part of one continuous event, which occurred as Rittenhouse fled the area of the first shooting and those shootings were provoked by his first criminal provocation and subsequent shooting of Rosenbaum, and is therefore not self defense either.
The prosecution has been an utter disaster, in terms of lawyering, almost from start to finish, save for the last day on winning several jury instruction battles and submitting new evidence (FBI drone footage) on the last day of the trial to *barely* rescue the already thin legal argumentation against a solid self defense claim. Defense has been very sharp and largely benefited from the prosecutions endemic “own goals” throughout the trial.
Personally, I imagine that Rittenhouse will be acquitted of all charges after a few days of jury deliberations. The most realistic best case scenario for the prosecution IMO is a mistrial due to hung jury on the homicide charge related to Rosenbaum, for which they can try again for a conviction at a later date. I’d be absolutely shocked if Rittenhouse was convicted on any count, but prosecution has at kept an avenue open, however “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high bar and it only takes one juror to be convinced the other way, which seems a certaintly at this point.
Outside of the court itself, media reporting has been truly abysmal, retreating into what I can only describe as an alternate universe, misrepresenting what self defense law is, making mountains out of barely mentionable occurrences (including routine evidentiary court rulings), and omitting significant material facts throughout the case unfolding. I’ve watch every minute of this trial live and reading articles online was like stepping into the “upside down.” Unhinged from reality. To say that the media has utterly failed to represent this occurrence to the public is a huge understatement.
Most egregious in my mind, is the lack of solid commentary from the anti-racists or antifascists, especially those of us who walk in the world of armed praxis. We’ve reduced our engagement to the playing field of US culture wars, internet narrative battles, and largely limiting our depth to “court judge racist” and “Rittenhouse white supremacist.” Fine enough points to make, but not where we want to end our analysis. What’s missing is a rooted understanding of what self defense law actually is and how self defense court cases actually proceeds. Furthermore, by way of hyper focusing on the court case itself and it’s various flashpoints, we’ve missed broader perspectives, like deeply analyzing how that militia unit came together, how it utilized Facebook to organize, the conspiracy theories it was based upon and reasearch on both their etimology and distirbution.
We’ve missed hammering on the actions that the militia took to thwart barricades, their statement, goals, and tactics, along with the many other militias on the ground that night. Along those same lines, little research has been done into what armed com def groups where doing that night in defense of the rebellion. We’ve further missed the opportunity to articulate how Rittenhouse’s actions tie into the **deep** history of whites and militia’s inserting themselves into rebellions, killing participants, and getting legal cover afterwards. We’ve also missed what rebelling communities have historically done to escape and evade militia’s, confront them, and mitigate their harm, or utilize the law to their advantage, albeit in a much different way.
I fear that through pithy twitter posts and simple narratives, folks interested in armed defense of self/community are being impressed with flatly incorrect information on the law of self defense, it’s principles, and how it should factor into your actions before, during, and after, dynamic defensive encounters. Seems to me that through an “anti-racist vs reactionary” “Kyle guilty vs not guilty” hyperfocus, that folks aren’t even thinking about how understanding the factors around this case can help us understand how we can modulate tactics and interventions in dealing with armed militias while also minimizing the risk of state retaliation and prosecution. I hope that after the verdict is announced that there is a pivot into a concerted effort by com def folks to deconstruct what happened both in court and on the ground that night, in a way that doesn’t simply feed into culture wars, so we can tease out the lessons that could be of unquestionable value. I know that I will be.
Last, regardless of the outcome in the Rittenhouse verdict, anyone fighting towards societal transformation and anti-authoritarianism will lose. If Kyle is acquitted it’s yet another encouragement to reactionaries to push their actions further and into bolder territories. If Kyle is acquitted, it will be recuperated into the faux persecution, victim narrative of reactionary America, and provoke reactionaries to push their actions further and into bolder territories. The only way through to something valuable out of this whole thing for us is to engage beyond two dimensional culture war’s, tease out the deeper lessons, and use them to our advantage in the next conflict that materializes.