A 17-year-old Vigilante With A Gun, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

A 17-year-old Vigilante With A Gun, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

– By Ed Kociela –

Justice is, once again, on trial in America.

A bullet-headed judge has stacked the deck in favor of a young man whose fate is in the hands of a Kenosha, Wisconsin jury after killing two men when, as a 17-year-old, he picked up an AR-15 and went on vigilante patrol to protect a car dealership as protestors rallied in the wake of an incident where a local cop shot Jacob Blake, an African-American man, seven times in the back. Blake survived the attack but suffered serious injuries, including a gunshot wound to one arm and damage to his stomach, kidney, and liver. Doctors also had to remove most of his small intestines and colon. He remains paralyzed as a result of the shooting.

Blake’s shooting led to protests and violence, resulting in the deaths of two men and the wounding of a third, all shot by then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse who admitted to the shootings. Rittenhouse claimed self-defense during his two-week trial, which was conducted with bias by 75-year-old Judge Bruce E. Schroeder who viciously attacked the prosecutor on several occasions.

It was a brutal assault on justice that began when the cop pumped seven rounds into Blake yet was not charged. It continued when Rittenhouse dropped the hammer on three men. It has now escalated as Schroeder, sadly, tipped the scales of justice, so much so that the Wisconsin National Guard has been activated in anticipation of possible violence when the verdict is announced.

For his part, Rittenhouse played his part well, parroting his well-rehearsed lines, crying on cue, and looking all neat and pretty with his Kewpie Doll haircut and well-pressed suit.

Except, every now and then, the cameras focused on the hollow eyes of this young killer who had no business on the streets of Kenosha that night with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder, 30 rounds in the magazine, and an itchy trigger finger.

But, Rittenhouse found an ally in the form of Judge Bruce E. Schroeder, who seemingly holds a nasty grudge against prosecutor Thomas Binger, who he viciously attacked from the bench on several occasions during the trial.

We should have seen it coming as Schroeder laid his cards out on the table from the very beginning when he ruled that the prosecutor could not refer to the two men who were killed and the third man who was wounded as “victims,” but said it was fine for the defense to call them “looters,” “arsonists,” and “rioters.” Legal experts quickly pointed out how that could sway a panel of jurors, that it was prejudicial, that it would color the jury’s perception.

But, wait, there’s more.

Schroeder, several times, went headhunting on Binger, shredding him, mercifully, out of the sight of the jury, but handcuffing him in his efforts to bring Rittenhouse to justice. He lectured jurists and Binger as if they were first-year law students. He played to the cameras in the courtroom like a bad actor in a community theater production. He brought Roman law and biblical examples into the proceedings. Worst of all, he allowed his personal prejudices and ego to override the proceedings. A judge is supposed to bring fairness and calm to the courtroom, not antagonism.

Most people have no idea what takes place in a typical legal procedure and are disappointed when they learn there is more tedium and procedural ennui than flashy surprise witnesses and brilliant discourse. Your average courtroom would almost never have made its way into a “Perry Mason” or “L.A. Law” script. Now? It seems more and more judges and attorneys are intent on self-aggrandizing and sticking to the body politic.

Of course, this thing we call justice is slippery and can be very difficult to handle under the simplest and best of circumstances. Often, justice and morality can find themselves at odds. Just because something is legal does not make it right and just because something is illegal does not make it wrong. There are any number of social and cultural judgments to be made there, but I’ll let you do that bit of wrangling.

What Schroeder seemed to be doing in the Rittenhouse trial, however, was not an effort to do the right thing. His actions lead me to believe that he is more concerned with appearances and what they call street justice than incivility, human rights, and dignity. From what I saw of the trial, the judge was the one in need of censure and restraint, not the prosecutor or, for that matter, the defense.

The essence of the case boils down to the basics that Rittenhouse, at 17, was too young to roam the streets of Kenosha with a loaded weapon; that he voluntarily became part of the vigilante group through an organizing event that took place on Facebook as a call to vigilante-ism; that he had no authority or training to involve himself as an armed peacekeeper.

None of the casualties of that violent day were accidental or incidental.

He wasn’t coerced into action and had he stayed off the streets, would have never found himself, as he told the court, fearing for his life. Had he been a law-abiding citizen he would have stayed home, giving the cops one less person to deal with during the melee.

Instead, Rittenhouse took it upon himself to strap on a weapon and place himself in harm’s way.

He wasn’t protecting property, he was drawing a bead on the Black Lives Matter supporters in the crowd; he was defending the “blue line,” even though one of its members shot a man seven times in the back; he was earning his MAGA bones, even though he was too young to vote.

This isn’t some reenactment in the flesh of “Resident Evil,” “Sniper Elite,” “Bulletstorm,” or some other ultra-violent video game. Living, breathing, vital human beings were on the streets of Kenosha that day. All, I am sure, planned on going home to their families. Rittenhouse, even after telling authorities that he shot three men, was told by the cops to go home. His three victims did not. Two were taken to the morgue, the other to the hospital where, even though he was paralyzed and recovering from surgery, he was handcuffed to his bed.

The victims were condemned.

Rittenhouse, on the other hand, drew the sympathies of the then-sitting president and a legion of fellow psychopaths who raised $2 million to post his bail.

I hope cooler heads prevail when the verdict is read in Kenosha, I really do.

But, I can certainly understand the outrage if it turns out the way it seems to be going.

As far as Schroeder and Rittenhouse are concerned?

They will never scrub the stain from their blood-soaked hands.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor