Opinion: A biased judge and racism determined the outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Liberal Opinion

Rashad Richey

National TV Political Analyst, Talk Radio Host, Univ. Prof.
Video Library |

Jurors made a serious mistake when they delivered a not guilty verdict on all charges against Kyle Rittenhouse. And Judge Schroeder paved the way for their decision when he agreed to drop a weapons charge. That charge, a misdemeanor, stated Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon when he shot and killed two men on the streets of Kenosha, WI in August 2020. Hours before closing arguments, defense attorneys pointed to an exception in the law that allows minors to carry shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled. Rittenhouse’s rifle barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law. Schroeder dismissed the charge… a critical move that helped determine the outcome of the trial. At the same time, we can’t ignore the role of race in this case. What would have happened if Rittenhouse were a Black teenager running through the streets with a rifle in the midst of a protest?

 

In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial justice was not served.  Kyle Rittenhouse, in my opinion, is a killer and should have been convicted of murder. 

This exoneration of Kyle Rittenhouse has totally transformed what we understand as self-defense in the United States of America. Allow me to explain. And regardless of the political affiliation you may have, I ask you to simply consider the facts.

Okay. There was no question that Kyle Rittenhouse was the aggressor. He was the provocateur. He is the guy who left his state, went to another state, obtained a weapon illegally. 

The individual that gave him the weapon has been charged with two felonies, but Kyle Rittenhouse received an advantage from the judge.

The judge dismissed the one charge that it was basically universally agreed to that, yes, he’s guilty of that if there’s ambiguity about anything else, but let’s be very clear about what happened.

Roughly two weeks before Kyle Rittenhouse killed two and tried to kill a third he said on recorded video that he wished he could take his assault rifle, his semi-automatic weapon and start shooting.

And he was referencing individuals leaving the store. That was not allowed for the jury, but it does go to state of mind. A coincidence that roughly two weeks after the statement, he does exactly what he says he wanted to do.

That’s number one, number two, in Wisconsin, it is not legal to utilize deadly force in the protection of property. Let me say that again. In Wisconsin, it is not legal to utilize deadly force in the protection of property.

I know Kyle Rittenhouse says he went there to protect property.

Nobody asked him to protect their property. Nobody’s summoned him.

Nobody said, here’s the authority I grant to you. He was not a security officer or nothing else.

He was an armed and dangerous individual. And based on Wisconsin statute, 17-year-olds do not carry that kind of weapon in the situation that he’s in. 

I know there’s some back and forth about the language of the statute, but the statute clearly was not written in a way to give special permission to a person like Kyle Rittehouse at the age of 17 to carry around a dangerous weapon.

The people that he killed, they were trying to disarm him.

So I want you to think about this for the future of this nation. You mean to tell me that you can grab a gun, you can have a gun unlawfully, you can go to another state.

You can kill individuals based on you inserting yourself, being the aggressor.

They attempting to disarm you because you are the aggressor with a gun in their community. You are there as the provocateur. You can now claim, ah, you know, self-defense. It doesn’t make sense.

And there’s a racial dynamic here. Do you really believe that if a young teenage black kid traveled to another state obtained a weapon in that state unlawfully and then decided to do security for people or buildings, he was not commissioned a hire to do security for.

And then he ends up being the aggressor saying two weeks before he does the killing that he wanted to actually kill protesters saying that on recording.  Do you think he gets the benefit of the doubt here? Do you think he goes home without any criminal penalty at all? Do you think that’s what happens?

Do you think he gets a judge like Judge Schroeder who sing songs in the courtroom to make him smile?

Do you think he gets a judge that’s so friendly that virtually every single decision within the judge’s discretion, it goes for the defense?

No, no. It would not have happened if this would have been a black male doing the exact same thing at a

Trump rally or protest.

Be very careful about cheering and calling these things victories when they really rip away at the very foundation of what we understand to be fair and decency in America. I hope you hear my heart on this one.

comment bubbles Tell us what you think!


All comments will be moderated for relevancy and civility.

Comments


Comments are still pending approval. Watch the video to add your own thoughts above.

Related Videos

Liberal Opinion What color is Santa Claus?

By