Liberal against conservative, American against American – the Rittenhouse trial is a troubling snapshot of a divided US
For the past two weeks the steps in front of the grand courthouse in the small Wisconsin city of Kenosha have been a focal point for supporters of Kyle Rittenhouse as well as supporters of the two men he killed and the third who he injured.
And as the verdicts came in there were cheers and jeers.
This trial wasn’t about what did or didn’t happen.
Mr Rittenhouse did kill 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum who was unarmed. He did kill Anthony Huber, 26, and armed with a skateboard. And he did wound Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, and armed with a pistol.
There wasn’t a debate about the central facts. No, this was about interpretations of right and wrong; it was about a central tenet of the US constitution – the second amendment: the right to keep and bear arms. And it was about the meaning of “self-defence”.
Rittenhouse listens as his attorneys speak to the judge during his trial
That night in August last year Kenosha was a city in flames.
The shooting by police of a black man called Jacob Blake had brought a summer of nationwide racial unrest to this usually quiet place on the shores of Lake Michigan.
Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t from the city. But he knew it well; his father and best friend lived in Kenosha and, he told the court over the two weeks of bitter legal argument, he went there to protect businesses and offer medical help.
Rittenhouse with attorney Mark Richards, as he takes the stand
Mr Rittenhouse, 17 at the time, was a volunteer lifeguard. He knew first aid. But he also knew how to handle a weapon; at least enough, in his eyes, to defend the city.
The images of him walking around the town just before midnight on a hot night last August were beamed around the world.
He was one of many armed civilians. Were they vigilantes; a militia force bent on racial confrontation? “Chaos tourists” as the prosecution said.
Or were they concerned citizens protecting a community from looters; armed for self-defence as is their right in Wisconsin under the US constitution?
Was Mr Rittenhouse’s argument of “self-defence” really valid? As the prosecution argued: “When the defendant provokes the incident he loses the right to self defence. You cannot claim self-defence to a danger you create.”
Did he provoke it? Did he create the danger?
“Yes” said the prosecution: he brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest. He was threatening others. Those he shot were, it was argued, trying to disarm an “active shooter”.
“No” said the defence: he was being chased and beaten when he opened fire.
Was Mr Rittenhouse’s response proportionate?
In the days after the shooting, as America simmered in racial unrest, he was described as a “domestic terrorist” by congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.
Joe Biden, not then elected president, had used an image of Mr Rittenhouse as part of a campaign video denouncing white supremacy.
But, then-president Donald Trump used the podium in the White House to support Mr Rittenhouse. He was only defending himself, Mr Trump had said.
Kyle Rittenhouse had quickly become a pin-up for the conservative right across America and a target for the left.
It has been a trial that’s touched on so many divisive issues: race, gun laws, disinformation, politics.
It has exposed such different judgements of right and wrong.
It is liberal against conservative and it is American against American. It is a troubling snapshot of these divided states.
Rittenhouse getting emotional during his testimony
President Biden said after the verdict that it “will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, (but) we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken”.
Juries are made up of ordinary people; in this case, seven women and five men. They were asked to judge, for a nation, when it’s reasonable and acceptable to kill someone.
They heard the prosecution’s argument that Mr Rittenhouse was the agitator; he was the threat; he was the danger.
Yet, they concluded that those assertions could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Their verdict will set legal precedents and it will embolden people who want to “open carry” and potentially use weapons in the 31 states where that is permitted.
The events of that night in August 2020 happened because of a culture America allows to exist. The nation has enabled a dangerous division.
The overnight events do not reflect well on President Biden.
He had signalled so emphatically just days ago for Israel not to retaliate.
“Take the win,” the American president told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the early hours of Sunday morning.
Middle East latest – follow live
Benjamin Netanyahu has ignored Biden’s pleas. Pic: Reuters
It was a message made public and combined with back-channel briefings we were getting from the White House and the State Department.
Washington’s message to the Israeli government was that the spectacular failure of the Iranian attack, combined with the diplomatic first of having the Jordanians and the Saudis defending Israel, was a victory.
“Take it, don’t retaliate,” was the message they hoped would land. Uncontrolled escalation is just too much of a risk.
But Israel has been ignoring America for a few months now. Biden has frequently found the limits of his influence over Gaza.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Blasts’ seen in sky above Iran – reports
As this week progressed, it became clear that on this issue too Netanyahu wasn’t going to be bent by Washington, London or anywhere else.
And there were plenty who questioned the wisdom of Biden’s diplomatic directive.
Israel had just faced the biggest aerial assault in its history by a nation committed to its destruction.
“Take the win”?! Really? To many, it sounded like an astonishing appeasement of Iran.
And so, as it dawned on diplomatic visitors to Israel this week that Netanyahu and his war cabinet were going to ignore Biden and hit back, the language began to shift.
“Don’t retaliate” became “minimise escalation”.
“We hope they do so in a way that does as little to escalate this as possible,” UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron said after meeting Netanyahu on Tuesday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Cameron: Israel’s response ‘should be smart’
My understanding is that Western diplomats were given a heads-up by Israel that it was hitting back overnight and with some detail on the type and location of the targets.
But this past week raises questions about the Biden administration’s influence and its strategy.
Biden’s call for no retaliation was very public and echoed by allies. It was driven by the real fear of uncontrolled escalation.
But was it diplomatically smart to make the call so public? Some are asking if that didn’t just undermine Israel’s ability to reestablish deterrence.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Privately call for restraint, maybe. But why publicly?
But more than that, did the public “don’t do it” messaging just expose President Biden to failure and weakness when his directive was simply ignored by Israel?
Read more:
Israel appears to have carefully chosen response
How Biden watched Iranian attack – and what he told Netanyahu
Brace now for the next move.
Perhaps a steady de-escalation through a series of strikes on targets each less significant than the one before it – both sides saving face, both claiming deterrence.
Such is the madness of conflict.
Donald Trump described the hush money case against him as a “mess” after the jury who will decide his fate has been selected.
Leaving the court in New York after proceedings were adjourned for the day, Trump addressed reporters, saying he was supposed to be in states like Georgia, New Hampshire and North Carolina as part of his campaign for the 2024 presidential election.
“[But instead] I’ve been here all day,” he said, labelling the trial as “unfair”.
Trump trial as it happened: Former president looks ‘bored’ in court
Trump held up a stack of news stories and editorials that he said were critical of the case while he continued railing against the trial.
“The whole thing is a mess,” he said.
It comes as all 12 jurors have been seated in the first criminal case against a former US president.
Pic: AP
Members of the jury include a sales professional, a software engineer, an English teacher and multiple lawyers.
Sky News’ US partner network, NBC News reported there are seven men and five women on the jury.
It comes after lawyers grilled hundreds of potential jurors asking questions on everything from their hobbies and social media posts to their opinion of the former president.
More than half of a second group of prospective jurors were dismissed by Judge Juan Merchan on Thursday after most said they doubted their ability to be fair and impartial.
One juror was also dismissed after she said she “slept on it overnight” and woke up with concerns about her ability to be fair and impartial in the case.
The challenge now is to select six alternate jury members before the trial can move to opening statements, with Mr Merchan hopeful this will be completed on Friday.
Read more:
Judge warns Donald Trump over ‘intimidating’ potential jurors
Trump calls hush money case an ‘assault on America’
Donald Trump orders ’30 milkshakes at chicken restaurant
Trump is accused of criminally altering business records to cover up a $130,000 (£104,200) payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, during his 2016 election campaign.
Ms Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who was paid $150,000 (£120,000), both claim to have had affairs with Trump.
Stormy Daniels. Pic: AP
His lawyers say the payment was meant to spare himself and his family embarrassment, not to help him win the election.
Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He could get up to four years in prison if convicted.
The former president faces two other criminal trials accusing him of trying to subvert his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, and another that accuses him of mishandling classified information after he left the White House in 2021.
He has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him.
The world’s first known combat between a human pilot and a fighter jet controlled by AI has been carried out in California, the US military has said.
In a drill over Edwards Air Force Base, the pair of F-16 fighter jets flew at speeds of up to 1,200mph and got as close as 600 metres during aerial combat, also known as dogfighting.
One was manned, while the other jet was a modified version of the F-16, called the X-62A, or VISTA (variable in-flight simulator test aircraft).
The AI-run plane in action. Pic: Kyle Brasier/USAF
While in flight, the AI algorithm relies on analysing historical data to make decisions for present and future situations, according to the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which carried out the test.
This process is called “machine learning”, and has for years been tested in simulators on the ground, said DARPA, a research and development agency of the US Department of Defense.
In 2020, so-called “AI agents” defeated human pilots in simulations in all five of their match-ups – but the technology needed to be run for real in the air.
Pilots were on board the X-62A in case of emergency, but they didn’t need to revert controls at any point during the test dogfight, which took place in September last year and was announced this week.
The result represents a “transformational moment in aerospace history”, DARPA said in a statement.
It did not reveal which aircraft won the dogfight.
The two planes near each other during the drill. Pic: DARPA/YouTube
“The potential for autonomous air-to-air combat has been imaginable for decades, but the reality has remained a distant dream up until now, said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall.
“In 2023, the X-62A broke one of the most significant barriers in combat aviation. This is a transformational moment, all made possible by breakthrough accomplishments of the X-62A ACE team.”
Read more:
Are we heading for World War Three?
The new tech bringing loved ones back to life through AI
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Colonel James Valpiani, a commandant at the US Air Force test pilot school. said: “Dogfighting is a perfect case for the application – machine learning.
“Dogfighting is extremely dangerous. So, if machine learning can operate effectively in an environment as dangerous as air-to-air combat, it has great potential to earn the trust of humans as we look to applications that are less dangerous but equally complex.”
He added: “The X-62A is an incredible platform, not just for research and advancing the state of tests, but also for preparing the next generation of test leaders.
“When ensuring the capability in front of them is safe, efficient, effective and responsible, industry can look to the results of what the X-62A ACE team has done as a paradigm shift.
“We’ve fundamentally changed the conversation by showing this can be executed safely and responsibly.”
-
Sports1 year ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Environment11 months agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports6 months agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Technology3 years ago
Game consoles were once banned in China. Now Chinese developers want a slice of the $49 billion pie
-
Politics2 years ago
Have the last few wobbly weeks seen a turning point for Johnson as PM?