© Reuters. On November 19, 2021, people await the Kyle Rittenhouse’s verdict outside the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Author: Joseph Aix
(Reuters)-Kyle Rittenhouse (Kyle Rittenhouse) was acquitted of murder on Friday, opening up another frontier for the United States’ long-standing fight over gun rights: Is it okay for teenagers to carry assault rifles in protests? accept?
Conservatives praised Rittenhouse as a hero because he shot and killed two demonstrators and wounded a third of them during a racial justice protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He said he was in a racial justice protest last year. Attacked him during the event.
Gun control advocates have warned that the jury’s verdict may spark a new wave of armed vigilance, after Rittenhouse carried an AR-15 rifle from his home in Illinois in August 2020. Head to Kenosha, after the police shot and killed a black man, which triggered a demonstration. , Jacob Black.
In the United States, guns have long been a powerful political issue. In the United States, lax laws have led to the highest civilian gun ownership rates in the world. Mass shootings are even rarer in other wealthy countries and have plagued this country for decades.
When Rittenhouse was 17 years old, he decided to walk the streets of Kenosha in the name of protecting private property from mobs. This made people particularly worried about how far gun rights should extend.
A senior official of the gun safety organization Giffords said in a statement: “As the tragic incident that occurred that August night demonstrated, a 17-year-old young man armed himself with AR-15, no one is safer.” “Today’s sentence sends a disturbing message that will encourage further lynching violence and murder.”
Supporters of gun rights organizations and Rittenhouse celebrated this result as a major victory.
Within a few minutes after the verdict, the National Rifle Association published the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on Twitter (NYSE:): “A well-regulated militia has the right to retain the security of a free country and the people. And carrying weapons must not be violated.”
Brandon Lesco, he stood outside the Kenosha court with a “Free Kyle!” signature in his hand, saying that the verdict was fair.
“Someone needs to be there to defend American towns that people are trying to burn. I respect him for being there, I respect him for carrying a weapon, he uses it correctly, and he uses it legally. The jurors agree,” Lesco said.
Earlier this week, the trial judge dismissed the misdemeanor charge that Rittenhouse illegally possessed the rifle he used in the shooting on the grounds that the law was ambiguous.
The Liberal Party’s condemnation of Rittenhouse’s acquittal further proves the existence of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse, like the man he shot, was white.
“A white male youth can cross state boundaries, hold an assault rifle, engage in armed confrontation, resulting in multiple deaths without having to bear criminal responsibility. This is a familiar result in a country where systemic racism continues to corrupt the system. Huang Mag, president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement.
Some legal experts are careful to distinguish the specific facts of the Rittenhouse case from the broader information they might send.
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge Janine Geske said that prosecutors must convince jurors that Rittenhouse did not reasonably worry about his safety when he was fired. This is a high threshold. According to state law, he was allowed to carry weapons in public.
But Geske said she was worried that the trial would teach the wrong lesson: “When you go out to protest or counter-protest, it’s okay to carry a loaded weapon to’protect yourself’. When you have two people holding guns, who will we face? Substantial issues to defend yourself?”
This sentiment was echoed by John Huber, the parent of Karen Bloom and Anthony Huber, who was killed by Rittenhouse One of the people.
They said in a statement: “It sends an unacceptable message that armed civilians can appear in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they create to justify shooting in the street.”