Front Burner - Violent vigilantism or self-defence? Kyle Rittenhouse on trial

Episode Date: November 4, 2021

At Kyle Rittenhouse’s homicide trial, which began this week, there are two very different versions on display of what happened in Kenosha, Wis., on the night of Aug. 25, 2020.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hello, I'm Angela Starrett in for Jamie Poisson. Oh. Ah, he just shot them! Hello, I'm Angela Starrett in for Jamie Poisson. It's August 25th, 2020.

Then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse is walking towards police vehicles. He has a semi-automatic rifle strapped to his chest. His arms are raised. He's just shot and killed two men and injured a third during a chaotic night of protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The police drive past him on their way to assist the wounded. Now, more than a year after that deadly night, Rittenhouse's homicide trial has begun. He's pleading not guilty to all charges, with his lawyers arguing he acted in self-defense.

Kim Bellware is covering the trial for The Washington Post. She joins me today to discuss what's going down inside the court and the impacts of this incredibly politicized case outside the court. Hi, Kim. Hi, nice to be with you. for joining us. And I wonder, before we get into this trial, if we could take a step back and talk a bit about what was going on in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on the night that these shootings took place. So there were protests that were going on the night of the shooting, that would be August 25th. And they were an extension of protests that had been happening for the past two days.

And these protests were sparked by the shooting of Jacob Blake, who was a black Kenosha resident who was shot by a white Kenosha police officer. Police were responding to a domestic dispute call from Blake's girlfriend. A domestic dispute call from Blake's girlfriend. Cell phone video shows 29-year-old Blake struggling with Officer Rustin Sheskey and another officer. Both deployed their tasers, but they were unsuccessful. As Blake appears to lean into the driver's side of the car, Sheskey opens fire. You know, some of the context about Kenosha is that most of its Black and Latino population lives in the city. Most of its whiter population lives in the surrounding suburbs of Kenosha County. And complaints and issues about police misconduct and marginalization and just,

you know, bad interactions between the Black community in particular and Kenosha law enforcement have been going on for a long time. So these were a backdrop to that shooting of Jacob Blake. You know, this shooting also happened several months after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. So this is just kind of an extension of a lot of tensions that had been building not only in Kenosha, but kind of around the country. been building, not only in Kenosha, but kind of around the country. And they really exploded, and they exploded in a way that escalated to, you know, in some parts, violence on August 24th and 25th, where we see cars that are set on fire, buildings that are set on fire. So there are peaceful protests, but there are also, you know, rioting that's happening at the time. But there are also, you know, rioting that's happening at the time.

And what was the then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse of Antioch, Illinois, doing in Kenosha during these protests? And why was he there with a gun? So Rittenhouse had appeared actually before we even knew who he was or that he was a significant figure in the events of that evening, he had popped up on different live streamers and different, you know, reporters broadcasts because he was armed. He, you know, seemed to be loosely affiliated with these roving groups of individuals who came armed with guns. And he told one person that, you know, it was his job, as he described it, it was his job to, you know, defend a particular business. Our job is to protect this business. And part of my job is also to help people.

If there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit. Now, we don't believe that he was actually hired by this business owner. hired by this business owner. But, you know, he had previously throughout the court hearing, there has been some discussions of, you know, people that he was sort of in a group with, had been in discussions with property owners. So the main reason that he gave is that he said he wanted to help. He saw all of the rioting and looting and just the unrest happening in Kenosha, and he wanted to go there and somehow help the situation. And I want to talk now about what happened.

So there's some agreed upon facts here. Kyle Rittenhouse did shoot three people that night, two of them fatally. And before we get into, I guess, the different versions of how and why that happened, at its most basic level, what do we know about what happened from videos of the incident and the like? We know that Rittenhouse was there, that he was armed, and that he used his weapon on several people. You know, the basic sequence of events are really the small moments around the actual shootings. We have a somewhat clear view of, especially the latter two. So we know that there was some interaction between Rittenhouse and Joseph Rosenbaum, who was the first person who was fatally shot.

And then we know that after that shooting drew attention and people tried to render aid, we know that Rittenhouse, who said he was there as an EMS, did not call 911. He did not render aid to Rosenbaum. And instead, he called a friend and said, I shot someone. You know, we knew that very early on that he essentially confessed to a friend, I killed a guy, I shot someone. And when a crowd identifies him as the shooter, you know, they give chase. And so we also see on video that he is running from this crowd. And then we see what happens next, where he falls. Then Anthony Huber uses his skateboard and tries to take Rittenhouse's gun.

Rittenhouse fired, killing 26-year-old Huber, who also lived in Kenosha. After Huber, Gage Grosskreutz of West Dallas, in the crowd as a medic, approaches Rittenhouse, who is still on the ground. Rittenhouse shoots him in the arm. He was the lone survivor. His lawyer, Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys are arguing that he was acting in self-defense. And what have we heard from them so far? How are they making this case? They're looking at the same, you know, the jury is seeing the same video that, you know, we've all seen. And the prosecution and the defense are, you know, in many cases using those

same those same videos and those same vantage points. But they're just arguing completely different turns of events. And the defense is saying, you know, he would have been gravely hurt or killed by this mob. He described the people that set upon Rittenhouse as animals in his opening statement. And he's saying that the people chasing him and the people who were engaging with him in that moment were posing such a grave threat that had he not fired his weapon on them, then he could have been seriously injured or killed by them. And I guess at one point in the defense's opening argument, they argued that Anthony Huber could have decapitated him with his skateboard.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would love to be able to hold up that skateboard in front of you as evidence today, because then you could see it. You could see the weight and the heft of what a skateboard is. And what that skateboard would do is somebody takes it in their hand and swings down on somebody's shoulder, head, and neck, trying to separate the head from the body. And the prosecution, on the other hand, is arguing that these were reckless and intentional homicides. And how are they going about trying to convince the jury of that? chaos of the situation. You know, neither side disputes that there were crimes that were happening. There's arson, there's looting happening. They don't dispute that it's chaotic. But the prosecutor is saying, despite all of this and despite other people having guns, just like Rittenhouse did, you know, they didn't take the same actions that he did and that,

you know, his actions set him apart from, you know, the reasonableness standard. They make him different from other people on the scene who, you know, were there in similar circumstances. Right. Like in in the courtroom on Tuesday, prosecutors made the point that even though hundreds of people were out on the streets of Kenosha that night, Rittenhouse was the only person who killed anyone. The evidence will show that hundreds of people were out on the street experiencing chaos and violence, and the only person who killed anyone was the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse. We will show you videos of some of the events that night, of police, tear gas, rubber bullets, and yet the only person who killed anyone was the defendant. Yeah. And he kind of made this point even sharper when he was questioning Dominic Black, who was Rittenhouse's friend. He was an older, a young man who was older than Rittenhouse, was dating Rittenhouse's sister. And he's the one who purchased the gun because Rittenhouse would

have been too young to have a gun like that. And they asked him, Mr. Black, you had a gun as well. You were at the scene as well. You know, you've said that you've purported to have the same reason for being there as Mr. Rittenhouse. Why didn't you shoot anybody? You know, did you think that the scene was so dangerous? And he's, you know, essentially said, you know, yeah, I was maybe scared sometimes, but I didn't think I was going to get killed. I didn't feel the need to shoot anybody. You had a gun, correct?

Yes. Did you think about using that to defend yourself? No. Why not? Because they were just rocks. I mean, they were throwing them from a distance, so I didn't really feel like I was in great bodily harm or being hurt. Do you remember if the defendant said or did anything in reaction to those folks? No.

I have nothing further. No, he didn't, or no, I don't remember? No, he didn't. I have nothing further. Thank you. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections.

Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and

podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cops. It must have been an interesting jury selection process considering, you know, the high profile and polarizing nature of this case. What can you tell us about what jury selection was like and what was the makeup or what is the makeup of the jury now? So we ended with 20 jurors out of a pool of about 150. And that means there are 12 who are seated and there are eight alternates. Among those, there are 11 women and nine men, and all but one of them appears to be white. And that's kind of what we can tell just by appearances. In hearing the jurors discuss the case, it was so fascinating because, you know, the jurors are a reflection of the, you know, they're a reflection, obviously, of the local Kenosha County community. But in a lot of ways, they are a reflection of the wider country,

because so many of them said, I already have my mind made up about this. There are very few people who, you know, thought they could be persuaded, which is why it took almost 11 hours to get to this jury. And in the jury selection, too, I think I would add this is the first time that I've really seen so strongly people come in saying my mind is made up and I can't be moved to disqualify themselves or seemingly want to be disqualified. Some, frankly, just leveling with the judge and saying, I want to serve. I just don't want to serve on this jury because I know what this case is and I know how polarizing it is. And I don't want, I don't want to deal with the blowback because no matter what happens, you know, half of the country is going to be upset about the verdict. And I also want to talk a bit about the judge in this case. His name is Bruce Schroeder, and he's already made at least one controversial call in this case. Can you tell

me about that? Yeah, so Judge Schroeder earlier on in a pretrial hearing ruled that the prosecutors cannot call the men who were shot and killed by Rittenhouse victims and that the defense could call those men arsonists or looters if that fact can be substantiated. If he can prove they were engaging in that activity, then the defense can call them that. Let the evidence show what the evidence shows. And if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaging in arson, rioting or looting, then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that. And that was, you know, a really controversial decision. It's a decision that I'm still writing about right now. And I talked to several experts in Wisconsin law, and they said it was an unusual ruling, but that it is not unheard of, especially in self-defense cases, and that it is part of the discretion that judges have. And the reason he kind of justified that decision is that

since self-defense is going to come up as the defense's key argument in this case, it's prejudicial to make that conclusion for the jury, because the jury, to an extent, is going to have to decide if these people were the victims or were the aggressors. And so by starting out calling them victims, it already makes a conclusion that the jury should be making independently. What's the reaction you've heard by people about that decision by the judge? spoken to, you know, in Kenosha have been pretty upset by that. Local residents, many of whom seem to have stories about this judge because they know the high profile cases he's overseeing or just because this was a widely reported bit of pretrial info, you know, pretrial decision. A lot of them thought that it just, you know, boded ill for a conviction of Rittenhouse and, you know, made them feel like

the judge was biased in favor of the defendant. So a lot of them were finding that ruling to be pretty problematic. And I imagine this decision could lead to some, you know, clumsiness or awkwardness in the courtroom. Like it must have been hard to not refer to the men who were killed or the survivor who was maimed as, you know, quote unquote victims. We already saw it happen in the opening arguments. We saw Mr. Richards, one of Rittenhouse's defense attorneys, refer to one of the men as a victim, and then he caught himself and corrected himself. This is Gage Groskwitz, the individual who is the victim, or excuse me, the complaining witness in count five.

I apologize. And in that... That was an early gaffe, and it'll be interesting to see if we see more of those as the trial goes on. And sort of thinking about the political impact of this, one observation that this judge made when speaking to the jury is that this case, you know, he said, this case has become very political.

Can you maybe expand a bit on what he's referring to there? Well, there's so much about this case that has in a lot of ways become kind of shorthand for polarizing political divisions in the United States. And people have kind of attached a lot of things that aren't actually going to be part of the case, but that they feel the case or the situation or the figures embody nonetheless. Vigilanteism, support of far-right ideology, gun rights, protester rights, the Black Lives Matter movement. So, you know, these are, I mean, some of the most polarizing forces in American politics today. And all of those seem to have converged in this particular case. And I guess on the American right, we've seen Rittenhouse,

he's been made into kind of a folk hero. He posted $2 million in bail, thanks to fundraising from the likes of the Trump supporting MyPillow CEO, Mike Lindell. Yeah, that very pricey bond was posted by people who have, you know, did a fundraiser for him. There's been merchandise, you know, with him kind of as something of a mascot. I think that'd be the best way to describe him. He's become something of a mascot. People who, on the far right, who, you know, disagree with the Black Lives Matter movements and its aims, who disagree with protest, who think that all protests and any violence or property damage that results from it is all the work of people on the left, of Antifa and of racial justice advocates.

Basically, their boogeymans were people that Rittenhouse was going out to defend life and property against. And, you know, they love him even more for the fact that, you know, he's using, you know, very popular weapon among pro-gun and, you know, kind of pro-militia types. And they see him, you know, as potentially being vindicated if he's acquitted of these charges. And on the other hand, there are those who look at this young white man who was able to roam the streets with a big gun. People might remember the video that circulated of police actually thanking Rittenhouse and the guys he was with for being out there, offering them water. Hey, thank you guys for being here. Do you need water?

Seriously, get to our right. Do you need water? We need water. We'll throw you one. Thank you. This was, of course, before the shooting. But later, you know, even after the shooting, he was able to walk right past police. It feels like the stakes are pretty high here.

Like there are a lot of big issues intertwined in this case that might not end up even really being addressed under this sort of narrow examination of whether or not his actions could be legally interpreted as self-defense. What are your thoughts on that? I mean, absolutely. I 100% agree with that kind of assessment of everything, because in some ways, Rittenhouse's situation is this mirror image of Jacob Blake's situation. Now, the factors were not exactly the same, but the higher level takeaway that a lot of people, particularly on the left, read into this is just the disparities in how black people versus white people are treated by law enforcement. You know, Jacob Blake, a man who was trying to be put under arrest, you know, was shot by a police officer and is now paralyzed from the waist down. Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people and shot a third. And, you know, police let

him, you know, let him walk. And they felt that he was, you know, police let him, you know, let him walk and they felt that he was, you know, treated much differently. People just made the point that had he been, you know, a black man and a crowd had been running after him saying he shot someone, you know, people feel that would have drawn a much different response from the law enforcement that was on the scene. And I know earlier this week, you spoke to some of those who gathered outside the courtroom, including Justin Blake, the uncle of Jacob Blake. What, if anything, are those you spoke to hoping will come of this trial? Well, those who are from Blake's camp, you know, generally speaking, they said they were out there. Justin Blake said he was out there to show solidarity

with the families of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber. Huber's family, who is the only one who was from Kenosha, of everybody involved, he was the only one that was from Kenosha. They haven't been showing up because they've been getting threats and they're just going to ultimately watch this remotely. But they want to show support for those families. They feel that a conviction of Rittenhouse is going to be some measure of justice for them. And so they're definitely hoping for that outcome. I think they also just want to see a check on this kind of behavior. You know, there is a really strong sense that, you know, this is vigilantism. You know, the criticisms of Rittenhouse on the left is, you know, why was he even here?

This wasn't his home. This wasn't his business. What business did he have? You know, he's an interloper and look what happened as a result of that. And so I think there are those who are hoping that a conviction will send a signal to others like him who think that it's their duty or their right or, you know, they're entitled somehow to, you know, take this action, even in communities that they don't call their own. Kim, thank you so much for taking us through this very troubling story. And thanks so much. I really appreciate all the journalism and the reporting you've done on this. Thank you so much for having me.

So before we go today, the Quebec government has backed down from its mandatory vaccination policy for all health care workers in the province. Instead, moving to a strategy of compulsory testing for the unvaccinated. The move comes just weeks after the province offered a one-month extension to the deadline to get the shot. And in Ontario, the government announced on Wednesday that it will not mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers. In a statement, Premier Doug Ford said that making vaccination mandatory could jeopardize patient care, as it could lead to the potential departure of tens of thousands of employees from the sector. That's it for today. I'm Angela Starrett. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner, and we'll talk to you tomorrow.