Happy Daze: Reduce Stress Before Finals

Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent—at least, by the national standard for due process he is. President Biden recently declared on Nov. 19 that the jury decision left him feeling “angry and concerned,” yet encouraged a trust in our justice system.  

It is no question that the Rittenhouse trial, on both sides, was fraught with biases, misunderstandings, and efforts to subject folks to martyrdom that may not deserve it. In fact, even within the isolated incident wherein Rittenhouse shot three Americans, there was a certain irony that some parties even appeared to be ‘on the same side’—that is, in opposition to BLM protestors (as now deceased Joseph Rosenbaum is alleged to have flung racial slurs throughout the night).  

The trial was not cut-and-dry. In fact, the stabilizing factor in Rittenhouse’s innocence was not his supposed intentions to administer medical aid and protect businesses; it was the state’s open carry and stand-your-ground laws. The jury in Kenosha (a city split somewhat evenly on bipartisan issues) found Rittenhouse innocent not due to a trust in his intent and rather a reluctant admittance of his entitlement to the right of self-defense. That being said, the days following the trial would be overwhelmed by ludicrous misalliances of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ on all ends of the political spectrum.  

While members of the far left painted the deceased—some of whom were allegedly against the Black Lives Matter cause—as martyrs, members of the far right have plastered Rittenhouse on the forefront of their cause as a poster child for Second Amendment rights. Even more high-brow media outlets appeared to illustrate the issue as black and white; either Rittenhouse was a sniper picking off BLM protestors, or he was a small-town lifeguard caught in a corner by arsonists and looters.  

Here’s where the difference lies: the victims of Rittenhouse were not commemorated as the new faces of whatever leftist movement can be snugly fit to their profile. In a sane country, the most that could be said on the right-leaning side of the spectrum is that Rittenhouse was a minor who made a terrible string of decisions resulting in American deaths. However, multiple notable members of the GOP, right-wing media outlets, and organizations like the NRA have decided that Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero. Why, exactly? We don’t know. Innocence is not synonymous with heroism, and in circumstances where tragedy occurs, perhaps it is not the wisest choice to celebrate the offender.  

Selecting controversial figures as poster children for partisan bias is a dangerous game—one only exacerbated in moral ambiguity when death is on the line. By choosing Rittenhouse (who may be the worst possible option) as a figurehead for Second Amendment rights, the GOP and all of its supporters humiliate themselves in a gaudy show of hypocrisy. After all, the same folk seemed to think quite differently when Kenneth Walker, boyfriend of the now deceased Breonna Taylor, fired a single, non-fatal shot at police officers in his own home after believing an intruder had broken into his apartment in Kentucky (where, mind you, there are also stand-your-ground laws).  

What is it that makes Rittenhouse so appealing? Is it that, in the mind of many GOP members, a red-blooded American boy stood up to the crazy looters and arsonists while defending his country’s property? I don’t think so. I think that’s the narrative they feed their supporters so that they can feel a bit better about celebrating a triumph in court that likely wouldn’t, under the same circumstances, be afforded to a person of color. Members of the far right aren’t as simpleminded as the media often paints them; they know Rittenhouse went to Kenosha looking for trouble. That doesn’t matter to them. What matters is that the constituency often represented by the left hates him, and therefore, he’s an ally. An ally who, in this case, has a track record of winning.  

A word of caution then, not just to the GOP, but to those who choose to praise Rittenhouse, or claim that his trial was a paradigm of American justice: consider the hills you choose to die on. Where do they contradict each other? Had Rittenhouse’s assailants been off-duty police, would you feel the same? Had Rittenhouse and his victims been people of color, would he be used as a poster child or a footnote? A couple of questions to take into account the next time you repost a Turning Point USA-esq post memorializing his bravery.  

Remember this: if the justices you’re applauding aren’t consistently afforded to every American citizen, perhaps you’re clapping for the wrong people.