Kyle Rittenhouse’s Minneapolis trial judge 75-year-old Bruce Schroeder caused quite a stir banning MSNBC from the courtroom after a so-called “feelancer” followed the jury bus, most likely to get photos. But just as jurors sweat it out trying to determine whether to send the 18-year-old to prison for the rest of his life for intentional homicide, Schroeder admonished the media for trying-and-convicting Rittenhouse. As so common today, Democrats conclude that Rittenhouse is guilty as charged while Republicans back his self-defense strategy, saying he was threatened and opened fire Aug. 26, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, killing two people he claimed was assaulting him. “I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn’t fire,” Rittenhouse told the jury about the unknown-until-now “jump kick man” identified today as Maurice Feeland, a convicted felon.
Prosecutors chose not to call Freeland to trial because of his criminal history, thinking Rittenhouse’s defense team would have had a field day proving their self-defense case. Once Freeland approached Rittenhouse, he opened fire but missed the overlooked witness, lucky to escape with his life. Rittenhouse faces one count of first-degree reckless endangering safety with a dangerous weapon for firing the shots at Freeland. That crime alone carries a 12-and-half-year prison sentence. Jurors are deliberating over first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and another count of first-degree reckless endangering safety, all carrying life sentences. Rittenhouse’s defense team put up a case of self-defense which might mitigate some of the charges for the 18-teen-year-old hero in some conservative circles.
Drone video footage presented to the jury showed 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse before the teenager opened fire, killing him. Drone video footage shows Rittenhouse chased down a dark street where Freeman appeared to kick the 19-year-old in the head, when suddenly 28-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz hit Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard, then pointed a gun at his head, before Rittenhouse shot and killed Grosskreutz. Jurors must decide whether the provocations admitted into evidence by Kenosha County prosecutors helped make Rittenhouse’s self-defense case. Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued to the jury that their client acted in self-defense, provoked by an angry mob. Prosecutors made a strong case that he traveled across state lines from Illinois with his AR 15 semiautomatic assault rifle as a vigilante to help restore order in Kenosha.
Before jurors get completely duped by Rittenhouse’s defense, they need to consider the “reasonable standard,” asking a basic question of whether or not Rittenhouse went to Kenosha, the site of ongoing rioting in the wake of George Floyd’s May 25, 2020 murder by former Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin. Jurors must answer whether it’s reasonable for Rittenhouse to go to a riot scene armed with an assault rife with the intent of restoring order? Prosecutors wanted jurors to see that Rittenhouse was playing vigilante when he entered the riot zone, opening fire on innocent bystanders. If jurors think Rittenhouse acted in self-defense for the provocations from Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz and Freeland, they’ll have to acquit him on the more serious charges of intentional homicide. Jurors could still convict Rittenhouse on the lesser charge of reckless endangering safety, carrying only 12-and-a-half years in prison. Jurors have their work cut out for them.
Unlike other states where murder charges are usually First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, Minnesota’s charges are more confusing. But if jurors think Rittenhouse’s defense team proved their case of self-defense, it’s still possible to return a verdict of first degree reckless endangering, the equivalent of voluntary manslaughter. Judge Schroeder thought the media prejudiced the case because of non-stop coverage, with Democrats seeking to throw the book at Rittenhouse, while Republicans looked inclined toward acquittal. When 38-year-old neighborhood watch commander George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin Feb 26, 2012, the nation cried out for justice. Zimmerman’s jury acquitted him July 13, 2013 under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground law,” essentially saying the Zimmerman killed Martin out of self-defense.
Jurors have a tall order to fill deciphering Minnesota’s arcane designations for negligent or reckless homicide in the state. Jurors are forced to wade through the envied to decide whether or not Rittenhouse operated in self-defense. When it comes to evidence presented at trial, there’s no question the teenage feared for his life when he opened fire. But jurors must use some common sense to ask the appropriateness of a teenager traveling across state lines to a riot scene with the intent with his AR-15 of vigilante justice. If jurors determine that Rittenhouse had no business in Kenosha, let along at a riot scene, they can convict him of reckless endangering safety, something that doesn’t require intent, only that he should not have been carrying an AE-15 into a riot scene. Whatever the jury rules, it’s clear that Rittenhouse has become another lightening rod between Democrats and Republicans.
