Gavel

Columinst Haylee Fishburn argues that the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse was a mistake from the start and celebrate his acquittal by the jury. 

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old at the time of the BLM riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has been a central talking point long enough. Kyle was charged with seven counts, including intentional homicide in the first degree. Unfortunately, this case has been so politicized in America and filled with so many false narratives that no one can make up their mind about the innocence of Rittenhouse. 

The facts, logic and even proper courtroom ethics of the court seem to be ignored by the prosecution: current Assistant District Attorney of Kenosha County and lead prosecutor Thomas Binger. The prosecution not once but twice violated Rittenhouse's Miranda Rights, asking the defendant why he remained silent at his arrest, which is self-incrimination. Binger also brought forth irrelevant remarks to the jury. For example, these irrelevant remarks had to do with video games Rittenhouse had played with friends. Judge Bruce Schroeder described such remarks as, “Right on the borderline” and “a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence.” 

The only person who had done anything wrong was the prosecutor himself. Binger had made scam claims against Rittenhouse, one of the most controversial being when he said “You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun." In actuality, the Second Amendment is in place for this very reason. Rittenhouse had every legal right to not only possess the weapon but also use it to defend himself when he was attacked, as his life was threatened by multiple vicious rioters that night. 

As mentioned earlier, many “popular” news sites and other secondary sources have not accurately reported the facts or correct series of events that occurred that night in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In fact, there have also been many instances where Rittenhouse has been labeled a racist, white supremacist, domestic terrorist and many other slanderous names by CNN, MSNBC, ABC and even the Biden campaign and Joe Biden himself. However, if we look at the actual evidence or just put some minimal effort into researching this instead of slamming the race card on the table, all three of the people shot by Rittenhouse were white. 

The first shot fired by Rittenhouse was at Joseph Rosenbaum, who threatened Rittenhouse by saying that he was going to kill him and take his gun. Rosenbaum was en route to follow through with his threat, too. He knocked Rittenhouse down, intended to physically assault Rittenhouse by lethally kicking him in the head and attempted to take his gun. It was later found out that Rosenbaum had also been charged with 11 counts related to sexual child abuse and had a base criminal record. 

The second man shot was Anthony Huber, another convicted felon. Mr. Huber had been charged with a misdemeanor of domestic abuse and disorderly conduct for abuse as well forfeiture case for possessing drug paraphernalia. That night, Huber chased Mr. Rittenhouse and swung a skateboard at him twice. While the motives behind Huber are not known, Rittenhouse had every legal right to defend himself by shooting at the person attacking him. 

The third man shot was Gaige Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz had first approached Kyle, still on the ground from the attack from Huber, and Grosskreutz pulled out his pistol on Rittenhouse. It wasn’t until he pulled out his gun that Kyle shot Grosskreutz. This was even later confirmed by Grosskreutz on the stand under oath. Like the other two that preceded him Mr. Grosskreutz also had a criminal record including burglary and assault, which were dismissed. 

With evidence and facts like this it’s hard to make claims that this was due to “white supremacy.” No one involved in the shooting had been of color. All men who attacked Rittenhouse were white. All attackers were also criminals. Rittenhouse was rightfully and justly acquitted of all charges by a unanimous jury. Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Had he not, he would have died. To again correct false claims, Rittenhouse did not go to Kenosha intending to cause harm. To claim he did otherwise goes against the evidence brought forth at trial. Throughout the night Rittenhouse had been seen helping as an EMT, putting out fires and cleaning up graffiti. Rittenhouse had also stated in court that his intent of the day was to help those in need. 

Many people like to draw parallels and compare the Rittenhouse case to other cases, one of the most popular being that of Jacob Blake. The part most forgotten about regarding Blake’s case was that Blake had a warrant for his arrest due to sexual assault. He had resisted arrest and had a knife pulled, putting police in harm's way. 

Accusation after accusation made by the media that Rittenhouse was not acting out of self-defense or had no right to bring a gun was blatantly false. The legal age to carry a long-barreled gun in the state of Wisconsin is 16. Rittenhouse did not bring the gun over state lines. Rittenhouse had no intention to harm as he went into Kenosha that night. Many of his family and friends reside in Kenosha, including his father and grandmother, and he only sought to help and protect others. He prioritized others’ lives before his own. 

In the end, this trial should never have begun in the first place, nor been as heavily politicized as it was. The riots in Kenosha were exactly that: riots. They were not merely “peaceful” protests as the mainstream media would promulgate. There was nothing peaceful about the burning of a city. Rittenhouse had only ventured back to his home to try to bring peace among the chaos. Thankfully, the trial ended with him being rightfully acquitted of all charges.

Hate crime, white supremacy and domestic terrorism are all illegal. All are irrelevant in this case. Not a single one was even mentioned within the case itself. Much like how the Derek Chauvin case was made to be about race when the topic of race was never once brought up in court. There are other cases where self-defense had been claimed after a shooting where the shooter was of color, too. Andrew Coffee claimed self-defense when charged with the murder of his girlfriend and three attempts of murder. Race had absolutely nothing to do with either case and should never be taken into account during court cases when it is not an actual charge or when there is no evidence to support this claim. Hard evidence shows that Rittenhouse and Coffee acted out of self-defense. 

Trials like this are used by the media to push a hard left-wing agenda. Evidence and key points are left out of the reporting; false narratives are being promoted. Despite the jury coming to a decision and the case being closed, there are still hosts claiming that Rittenhouse is a racist. 

A sham and defamation of Kyle Rittenhouse are the best ways to describe this trial, and this case was, fortunately, a case in which justice prevailed.

Opinion Policies

Editorials are longer opinion pieces that are written by a group of community members recruited across campus who address relevant issues on a local, national and international level. Editorials are research-based. The purpose of the Editorial Board is to promote discussion concerning relevant issues in the community while advising on possible solutions. Topics are chosen via relevancy and interests of the members, which are then discussed by the Editorial Board in order to reach a general consensus concerning the topic or issue.

Feedback policy

If you have a grievance concerning the content or argument of the Editorial Board, please contact either Opinion Editor Peyton Hamel (peyton.hamel@iowastatedaily.com) or the Editorial Board as a whole (editorialboard@iowastatedaily.com). Those wanting to respond to editorials can also submit a letter to the editor through the Iowa State Daily website or by emailing the letter to Opinion Editor Peyton Hamel (peyton.hamel@iowastatedaily.com) or Editor-in-Chief Sage Smith (sage.smith@iowastatedaily.com).

Column Policy

Columns are hyper-specific to opinion and are written by only columnists employed by the Iowa State Daily. Columnists are unique because they have a specific writing day and only publish on those writing days. Each column undergoes a thorough editing process ensuring the integrity of the writer, and their claim is maintained while remaining research-based and respectful. Columns may be submitted from community members. These are labelled as “Guest Columns.” These contain similar research-based content and need to be at least 400 words in length. The following requirements should be met: first and last name, email and relation or position to Iowa State. Emails must be tied to the submitted guest column or it will not be accepted or published. Pseudonyms are prohibited and the writer will be banned from submissions.

Read our full Opinion Policies here. Updated on 10/7/2020

(4) comments

AJ Jaquis

1. Your prejudice is revealed in the first sentence of this piece: "BLM riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin." If you'd like me to expand on this, I will, happily.

2. The founding fathers absolutely did not write the 2nd amendment to be applied in situations such as the Rittenhouse case. Please read more from this Washington Post article written in 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/

3. In the fifth paragraph you state "He knocked Rittenhouse down, intended to physically assault Rittenhouse by lethally kicking him in the head." Your use of the word lethal here is inaccurate and dangerous. Lethal, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "of, relating to, or causing death." If Kyle was able to shoot his attacker after being kicked to the stomach, I find it hard to believe the attack was "lethal" as you claim. A more accurate word would be "harmfully." I am not defending Rosenbaum, rather pointing out your misleading choice of vocabulary.

4. Yes, domestic abuse is bad. However, drug paraphernalia? Oh no! Neither of these facts justify his being shot. Your continuous victim blaming does nothing to support your claim Kyle is innocent.

5. In the 8th paragraph, you make an unfounded claim Rittenhosue would have died had he not acted in self defence. This cannot be known.

6. Kyle was NOT a certified EMT. Yes, he was providing medical aid to protestors, but claiming he "had been seen helping as an EMT" is a blatant lie the defendant disproved on the stand himself. Feel free to read more about his testimony in this New York Post article: https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/five-takeaways-from-kyle-rittenhouses-testimony/

7. While Rittenhouse may have gone to the protests with no intentions of harming others, by the time he left that night, he had killed two and injured another. Intentions don't seem as important when this perspective is considered. His priority of others' lives doesn't show through in his violent and lethal actions.

Lesco Brandon

Still found not guilty, point invalid 🥱

AJ Jaquis

Lesco, I made no claims he was found innocent. I was simply stating all the points in the article that have been proven to be false and are therefore spreading misinformation. Whether or not I believe he should have been found guilty was not mentioned in my comment.

Lesco Brandon

seems like your point was that Kyle should've been found guilty, all ur points are not sound and all are correctly sourced, I know cause I checked, did u watch the trial? . Doesn't sound like it... cry more lib

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.