Courts

Rittenhouse Verdict Shows It's All Trial By Combat At This Point

Lurching toward barbarism.

By  
on

(Photo by Sean Krajacic – Pool/Getty Images)

Years ago, in a blog that doesn’t even exist anymore, I wrote an article about the then relatively new phenomenon of “stand your ground” laws. The crux was that these new statutes ultimately push the legal system toward a perverted form of trial by combat, introducing a new means of summarily dispensing with lethal gun violence if the perpetrator can cobble together some semblance of a self-defense claim. Before even getting to the strictures of a trial, the “winner” of a deadly altercation can just say they felt threatened and the victim is no longer there to suggest otherwise.

The years since have only strengthened this argument. Assuming the shooter wasn’t Black.

The Rittenhouse verdict moves this theory into the realm of proper self-defense claims. The hipster lawyer trend is to dismiss the judge’s role in shaping the trial and blame everything on an inept prosecution. That too clever by half stance is a byproduct of a take economy that wildly veers into contrarianism as soon as something becomes too obvious. The prosecution made errors, but prosecutors can mostly spit up on their suits in a criminal trial and still win in this country. It takes a judge to craft jury instructions and when they tell the jury that the law allows crossing state lines with an assault rifle and gunning down people in the streets, it’s not easy to win a conviction.

Because even if you think Rittenhouse genuinely deserved to be acquitted on other grounds, the shape of the trial as it played out foregrounded the narrative that Rittenhouse was locked in a one-on-one battle that he had to win. Deceased victims were cast in absentia as violent actors. The victim who did live got roasted for his gun unintentionally pointing in the shooter’s direction. But Rittenhouse shot and that guy didn’t. To the victor went the acquittal.

And the success of this defense narrative, justified or not, pushes the country further toward a trial by combat — or “contest of arms,” as Southpaw excellently put it — model. Highlight whatever nuances you want, this is the message getting hyped. Proto-Rittenhouses out there know that if they insert themselves into a contentious situation prepared for violence, there’s a high likelihood that they’ll face no consequences if they come out alive.

When this happens again — and it will — remember that all these cases are just links in a long chain.

Sponsored

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,