Hero or vigilante? Rittenhouse verdict reignites polarized U.S. gun
debate
Send a link to a friend
[November 20, 2021]
By Joseph Ax
(Reuters) - Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal on
murder charges on Friday opened yet another front in America's
longstanding fight over gun rights: Is it acceptable for a teenager to
bring an assault-style rifle to a protest?
Conservatives hailed Rittenhouse as a hero for exercising his right to
self-defense when he fatally shot two demonstrators and wounded a third
who he said attacked him last year at a racial justice protest in
Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Gun control advocates warned the jury's verdict could inspire a new wave
of armed vigilantism, after Rittenhouse - armed with an AR-15-style
rifle - traveled in August 2020 from his Illinois home to Kenosha after
demonstrations erupted following the police shooting of a Black man,
Jacob Blake.
Guns have long been a potent political issue in the United States, where
permissive laws have led to the highest rate of civilian firearm
ownership in the world. Mass shootings, which are far more rare in other
wealthy nations, have plagued the country for decades.
Rittenhouse's decision, at age 17, to roam the streets of Kenosha toting
a weapon in the name of protecting private property from rioters struck
a particular nerve about just how far gun rights should extend.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2021/Nov/20/images/ads/current/castlemanor_sda_FINANCIAL_2017.png)
"As the tragic events on that night in August showed, a 17-year-old
arming himself with an AR-15 makes no one safer," top officials at
Giffords, the gun safety group, said in a statement. "Today's verdict
sends a troubling message that will encourage further vigilante violence
and murder."
Gun rights organizations and Rittenhouse supporters celebrated the
outcome as a major victory.
Within minutes of the verdict, the National Rifle Association posted on
Twitter the language of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment: "A
well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Brandon Lesco, who was standing outside the Kenosha courthouse holding a
"Free Kyle!" sign, said the verdict was just.
"Someone needs to be there to defend the American towns that people try
to burn. I respect that he was there, I respect he carried a weapon, he
used it properly, he used it legally. The jurors agree," said Lesco.
The trial judge earlier this week had dismissed a misdemeanor charge
against Rittenhouse for illegally possessing the rifle he used in the
shootings, citing vagueness in the law.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/112021pics/news_f43.jpg)
People await the verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, outside
the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, U.S., November
19, 2021. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
![](../images/ads/current/centraldirect_lda_SPONSOR_2021.png)
'UNACCEPTABLE MESSAGE'
Liberals denounced Rittenhouse's acquittal as further evidence of a
racially biased criminal justice system. Rittenhouse, like the men
he shot, is white.
"That a white male youth can travel across state lines, armed with
an assault rifle, and engage in armed confrontation resulting in
multiple deaths without facing criminal accountability, is the all
too familiar outcome in a country where systemic racism continues to
rot the system," Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the Southern
Poverty Law Center, said in a statement.
Some legal experts were careful to draw a distinction between the
specific facts of Rittenhouse's case and the broader message it
might send.
Prosecutors had a high bar to clear to convince jurors that
Rittenhouse did not reasonably fear for his life at the time he
fired, according to Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court
justice. Under state law, he was legally permitted to carry his
weapon openly.
But Geske said she worried the trial will teach the wrong lesson:
"When you're out protesting or counter-protesting, it is perfectly
fine to bring loaded weapons to 'protect yourself.' We're going to
have substantial issues of who's defending themselves, when you've
got two people with a gun?"
That sentiment was echoed by Karen Bloom and John Huber, the parents
of Anthony Huber, one of the men killed by Rittenhouse.
"It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up
in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have
created to justify shooting people in the street," they said in a
statement.
(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Additional reporting by Maria Caspani,
Nathan Layne, Mike Scarcella and Barbara Goldberg; Editing by
Colleen Jenkins and Daniel Wallis)
[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2021/Nov/20/images/ads/current/heartland_lda_NOV2021.png) |