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 revenge tour has come off the rails.
Donald Trump had long promised retribution against his political enemies, but – to coin a phrase used around the White House – he’s f****ed around and found out that it doesn’t fly so easily through the courts.
His mistake was in choosing a pilot unable to fly the plane.
Lindsey Halligan is the lawyer who took the job of Trump-enforcer when others, better qualified, turned it down.
The prosecution of Trump’s adversaries would have been the job of Erik Siebert, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, but he gave it a body swerve.
He had declined to prosecute the case against Letitia James, the New York attorney-general who successfully prosecuted the Trump organisation for business fraud.
Siebert concluded there were not sufficient grounds to prosecute, which didn’t please the president, and Seibert quit before he was pushed.
A number of career prosecutors were similarly reluctant to take the case, leaving Trump checking availability.
That’s when he turned to Lindsey Halligan, an insurance lawyer by trade.
Her work experience didn’t necessarily suit the job brief – the prosecutor with the highest of profiles had no prosecutorial experience.
In pursuing the cases against Comey and James, she had to present evidence before a grand jury, something she hadn’t done before.
Letitia James and James Comey have had criminal charges against them dismissed. Pics: Reuters
If that wasn’t ideal, that wasn’t all.
Something else Halligan didn’t have was the legal ability to do the job. Her appointment violated laws limiting the ability of the justice department to install top prosecutors.
It was an elementary error that didn’t pass by Judge Cameron Currie, who called it a “defective appointment”.
In setting aside the indictments against Comey and James, she wrote: “I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms Halligan’s defective appointment… constitute unlawful exercises of executive power.”
The US Department of Justice can appeal the move, so Comey and James haven’t reached road’s end.
Read more from Sky News:
US hails ‘tremendous progress’ on Ukraine peace plan
Trump changes tack on Marjorie Taylor Greene
But it’s a significant boost for both, and a significant blow for Trump.
He is the president in pursuit of sworn enemies, which his critics characterise as a weaponisation of the justice system.
Those same critics will point to the haste and impropriety on display as evidence of it, and take heart from a system offering a robust resistance.
Donald Trump appears undeterred. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said: “The facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed, and this will not be the final word on this matter.”
Letitia James is charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. James Comey was charged with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation.
Trump fired Comey in 2017, while he was overseeing an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the Trump 2016 campaign.
The US secretary of state has hailed a “tremendous amount of progress” on peace talks after the US and Ukraine delegations met in Geneva – but said that negotiators would “need more time”.
Marco Rubio said the meetings in Switzerland on Sunday have been “the most productive and meaningful” of the peace process so far.
He said the US was making “some changes” to the peace plan, seemingly based on Ukrainian suggestions, “in the hopes of further narrowing the differences and getting closer to something that both Ukraine and obviously the United States are very comfortable with”.
Mr Rubio struck an optimistic tone talking to the media after discussions but was light on the details, saying there was still work to be done.
US secretary of state Marco Rubio in Geneva after peace talks with Ukraine. Pic: Reuters
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Analysis: Rubio strikes an optimistic tone – but is light on detail
“I don’t want to declare victory or finality here. There’s still some work to be done, but we are much further ahead today at this time than we were when we began this morning and where we were a week ago for certain,” Mr Rubio said.
He also stressed: “We just need more time than what we have today. I honestly believe we’ll get there.”
Sky News’ defence analyst Michael Clarke said on the initial US-Russian 28-point peace plan that it was Donald Trump against the world, with maybe only Moscow on his side.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Is Trump’s plan a ‘capitulation document’?
Mr Rubio praised the Ukrainian attitude towards the talks and said Mr Trump was “quite pleased” after he previously said in a social media post that Ukraine’s leaders had expressed “ZERO GRATITUDE” for US efforts.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly address on Sunday that there are signs that “President Trump’s team hears us”.
In a news release on Sunday evening, the White House said the day “marked a significant step forward”.
“Ukrainian representatives stated that, based on the revisions and clarifications presented today, they believe the current draft reflects their national interests and provides credible and enforceable mechanisms to safeguard Ukraine’s security in both the near and long term,” it claimed.
Despite diplomatic progress in Geneva the finish line remains a long way off
We’ve witnessed a day of determined and decidedly frantic diplomacy in this well-heeled city.
Camera crews were perched on street corners and long convoys of black vehicles swept down Geneva’s throughfares as the Ukrainians worked hard to keep the Americans on side.
Secretary of state Marco Rubio did not want to go into details at a press “gaggle” held at the US Mission this evening, but he seemed to think they had made more progress in the last 96 hours than the previous 10 months combined.
The Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy also seemed satisfied enough, posting on Telegram that there were “signals President Trump’s team is hearing us” after a day of “numerous meetings and negotiations”.
That said, we are a long way from the finish line here – something Rubio acknowledged when he said that any proposal agreed here would have to be handed over to the Russians.
At that point, negotiations to stop the war would surely get tougher.
President Putin has shown little or no inclination to stop the conflict thus far.
This, then, is the most important reason the Ukrainians seem determined to keep the Americans on side.
European leaders have presented a counter proposal to the widely criticised US-Russian peace plan, with suggestions including a cap on Ukraine’s peacetime army and readmitting Moscow into the G8.
This will only take place if the plan is agreed to by the US, Russia and Ukraine, and the G7 signs off on the move. Russia was expelled after annexing Crimea in 2014.
The counter proposal also includes US guarantees to Ukraine that mirror NATO’s Article 5 – the idea that “an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against them all”.
Read more:
Who actually wrote US-Russian peace plan for Ukraine?
In full: Europe’s 28-point counter proposal to US-Russia plan
The initial peace plan was worked up by the White House and Kremlin without Ukraine’s involvement, and it acquiesces to many of Russia’s previous demands.
It covers a range of issues – from territorial concessions to reconstruction programmes, the future Ukrainian relationship with NATO and the EU, and educational reforms in both Ukraine and Russia.
US and Ukrainian officials are set to meet again today to continue work on the proposal.
It has also been reported that President Zelenskyy could travel to the US as early as this week to discuss the most sensitive aspects of the plan with President Trump.
The White House says there are still a “couple of points of disagreement” over the Ukraine peace plan.
The US and Ukraine said in a joint statement they had drafted a “refined peace framework” after discussions in Geneva on Sunday.
Europe tabled a counter-proposal to a US-Russia draft peace plan for Ukraine, both of which compromised of 28 points.
But speaking on Monday night, the Ukrainian president said: “As of now, after Geneva, there are fewer points – no longer 28 – and many of the right elements have been taken into account in this framework.
“There is still work for all of us to do together to finalise the document, and we must do everything with dignity.”
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said there were “just a couple of points of disagreement” and the revised plan would need to be put to the Russians.
“There is a sense of urgency,” she added. “The president wants to see this deal come together, and to see this war end.”
Karoline Leavitt speaks with reporters at the White House. Pic: AP
Read more:
Fierce battle for key Ukrainian towns
In full: Europe’s 28-point counter proposal
Trump’s 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full
Following a US-backed 28-point plan, Ukraine’s European allies drew up a counter-proposal.
The counter-proposal would halt fighting at present front lines, leaving discussions of territory for later, and include a NATO-style US security guarantee for Ukraine.
Moscow, which described the initial reported US plan as a potential basis for an agreement, rejected the European version.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Russian drones devastate Kharkiv
Mr Trump, who had accused Ukraine of not being grateful enough for US military support while the talks were under way, on Monday suggested the process could be moving in the right direction.
He had earlier given Ukraine until Thursday to agree to the plan, but US secretary of state Marco Rubio downplayed the deadline, saying officials could keep negotiating.
Ukrainian troops fire near the frontline town of Pokrovsk. Pic: Reuters
In a message on his Truth Social platform, the US president said: “Is it really possible that big progress is being made in Peace Talks between Russia and Ukraine???
“Don’t believe it until you see it, but something good just may be happening.”
His latest comments come after he said Ukraine leadership had expressed “ZERO GRATITUDE” for US efforts in a longer post on Sunday.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Ukraine’s allies in the “coalition of the willing” – a broad term for about 30 countries supporting Kyiv – will hold discussions about the negotiations on Tuesday by video.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The fight for key Ukrainian towns
Mr Trump on Monday held a phone call with China’s President Xi Jinping, where they discussed bringing the Ukraine war to an end, the White House said.
Mr Xi urged “all parties” in the conflict to “reduce differences”, according to Chinese state news agency Xinhua.
He reiterated that China supported all efforts conducive to peace.
China has remained a consistent ally of Russia throughout its invasion of Ukraine, and is the top buyer of Russian oil, along with India.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024