A Brief Analysis of the Kenosha Shooting Trial Outcome
The Kenosha Shooting Trial shined a bright light on the question of how complex the issue of self defense can be. During the trial, we learned that a few aspects of media coverage were incorrect, specifically with regards to how the weapon that was used to kill 2 people and injure 1 other made it across state lines into the protests at Kenosha, Wisconson. The truth as we’ve learned is that the weapon was kept in the state by a relative, even though it belonged to the defendant. We also learned that it’s legal in Wisconson for a 17 year old to carry an AR-15. Therefore, the only decisions the jury can make by the time of the trial’s conclusion are about whether the shootings qualify as manslaughter, reckless endangerment, or the like.
To determine whether this was the case, the question had to be answered of whether or not the shooter acted responsibly in the handling of the firearm. As the defense framed it, if the shooter acted in self-defense, then the outstanding charges couldn’t be applied. Self-defense was determined to be the case by the jury, who acquitted the defendant of all charges.
Supporting Perspective
In multiple views of the drone footage from the evening, the defendant was shown running away from one of the people he shot. In fact, the sole survivor of the three people who were shot admitted to pursuing the defendant through the streets with intent to harm. The drone footage corroborates the story, showing the defendant run, then turn back to fire, then run some more. The defendant, according to this narrative, was a boy who attempted to do the responsible thing and defend someone’s personal property, as he was asked. Further, the fact that he crossed state lines to attend was inconsequential because Kenosha is only about 20 miles inside of the Wisconsin border. What this looks like from the supporting perspective is a young man who was trying to do the right thing and help his neighbors, only to find himself in the midst of chaos and subsequently attacked.
Contrary Perspective
We should be mindful of what sparked the protests similar to Kenosha in the first place. Police officers in the line of duty often only have to demonstrate that they feared for their personal safety when police shootings occur in order to be acquitted. There’s a long history of this and it’s known, so we’re not going to try to prove that here. This made police untouchable by the law. Since people of color are disproportionately injured or killed in police shootings, then people of color have been very often denied justice (justice being retribution for the murder of a loved one) in exactly the same way as it is believed that the defendant, in this case, was acquitted. Therefore, the verdict is a slap in the face to a significant portion of our population, however much it may adhere to the law.
Further, with regards to self-defense, whose to say that the individuals who were shot did not also fear for their lives? If said parties also feared for their lives, then their initial aggressions would be considered self-defense as well. Whose self-defense claim holds more water: the defendant who is still alive or the dead citizens on behalf of whom nobody can speak?
Other Considerations
Another reason that many are upset about the verdict is because of the implications. Staff at Right and Freedom are predominantly former Marines, and we almost universally feel that taking a weapon to a protest is a bad idea. We believe in basic rifle training: if you have a weapon in your possession, that implies an intent to use said weapon. When putting oneself into a protest, where the people protesting are our fellow Americans, then the only intended targets must be other Americans.
It’s also telling that there was no other murder in the entire Kenosha protest. This implies that there was more to the situation than the defendant simply having a weapon at the protest. He may have flagged someone (in fact, did in the drone video as there were several other protestors in the line of fire than just the defendant).
Finally,
Right and Freedom Perspective
So what is the right and what is the freedom in this scenario? The implications of a full acquittal are staggering. Bringing a weapon shows questionable judgment, but definitely is not against the law in Wisconson. This is one of those cases in which we as a society would do well to remember that right and the law are two different things. Without a penalty for the defendant, the judge and jury effectively green-light bringing weapons to protests — weapons which can only be used against our fellow citizens. We’ve also seen, objectively, a history of one subgroup instigating and creating violence in protest situations. In fact, one subgroup is far more likely to bring weapons and hence increase the tension in protests from the offset. Given the rise in both political violence and individuals bringing weapons to protests, this outcome is irresponsible at best and considers none of the social context.
When considering the social context, right and freedom must be tempered to limit the further degradation of our social fabric. We should work to bring down tension at our protests instead of increasing it. This verdict can only do the opposite, as it protects people who use violence at protests in Wisconson, thus encouraging more of the same.
Freedom to carry weapons is not absolute. This isn’t new. In the Marine Corps, we had to be issued weapons when it was time to carry and then return them when done. It wasn’t a free-for-all carry weapons everywhere. In fact, a Marine could get into serious trouble for carrying a weapon without authorization, even shot or killed.
This is the discipline we should expect from each other. Leave the weapons at home and learn to use words instead of violence to de-escalate contentious situations. Better still there should be introduced legislation that prevents individuals from bringing weapons to protests. Period. Just as municipalities can control the time and location of protests in the interest of public safety, the presence of weapons is another public safety concern.
Notes
This summary and analysis intentionally leave out the following concerns as they aren’t deemed particularly relevant:
Backgrounds of the Injured or Dead - There are those who malign these individuals for prior convictions or prior bad behavior. Such details are irrelevant to the case.
“What-if Scenarios” - Some argue that if the defendant were a person of color, the outcome of the trial would be different. Perhaps. But that isn’t something we consider here.
Labels of the Different Sides - We deliberately avoid applying labels to social groups. This sparks emotional response and is a mechanism some use for raising interest but is not particularly relevant in this situation.
Speculation or Slipper-Slope Arguments - We find these to be generally disingenuous, given the level of effort that it takes to create a law.
