The Kyle Rittenhouse trial has given us an unusual opportunity to contrast incontestable facts as shown on many video recordings with an endlessly repeated media narrative that seems to exist in an alternate reality. To my amazement, even after two full weeks of livestreamed trial, most notably featuring videos taken on the night at issue and a witness testifying that he had pointed a gun in Rittenhouse’s face, many on the left cling to the prior narrative of the case as though it contains a greater truth about our justice system and racism in this country and therefore cannot be disputed by facts.
Could they just not have been paying attention? Or alternatively, do they have such a strong sense of emotional conviction that no amount of evidence, rationality, or logic can persuade them that Kyle Rittenhouse deserved the presumption of innocence and a fair trial?
I decided to test these hypotheses by engaging with a Progressive friend of mine when she posted an angry Instagram story in response to the Rittenhouse verdict. She was not the only one in my social media feed to do so, or even an outlier: Among the people most would consider my peers (in age, educational background, and location), the near unanimous opinion, even after the trial and jury verdict, is that Kyle Rittenhouse should spend his life in jail. But she and I have had productive conversations on other subjects in the past, so I thought she was a good target.
In her post about the verdict she wrote, “I don’t normally use my instagram for political commentary but this is a step too far” along with a series of angry emojis.
I responded with: “Did you follow the trial?” I wanted my opening comment to come across as innocuous. I was also genuinely curious to know if she had followed the facts of the case.
“No,” she replied quickly, “what did I miss? I heard he was a blubbering idiot.”
“A lot.” I responded. “I’ll send you an email that I think has an even-handed breakdown of the case.” I then forwarded her this article by Bari Weiss, which I sincerely think does an excellent job contrasting the media’s narrative about what happened with the facts. I also thought that if any journalist could get through to someone on the left, that person had to be Bari Weiss.
I was wrong. This morning I received this email from my friend in reply [unedited]:
“Bari Weiss is a racist is all I can garner from this ignorant article. Show me a world in which a black weaponless kid standing on that street corner doesn’t get shot or jail time. When the law only applies white people it’s not the law. F*ck this perspective.”
I was stunned. So I followed up: “Which part is the racist part???” Noting when I did so that the three men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse were all white.
To which she said [unedited]:
“To write an article that justifies the verdict based on the simple suggestion that the law will set you free when that simply does not apply to black Americans is disgusting to me. This was a highly racially charged news story and has been since it happened and if he was black with the same exact situation he would be in jail - and often it’s for a lot less. Until the system works for everybody - this kind of blanket unwillingness to acknowledge the imbalance in our country disgusts me. The article is racist because she wrote it, I’m not saying he [Rittenhouse] is racist - that isn’t the point.”
To avoid turning this into a literal “she said/she said,” I’ll summarize the rest of our multi-email conversation. In my summary below, I have made a concerted effort to represent her argument as fairly as I possibly can. I found our conversation eye-opening, and a useful insight into the prevailing Progressive view of the Rittenhouse case.
Her opinion:
The criminal justice system is fundamentally racist and treats black people unfairly. Therefore, in the racially charged context of the Rittenhouse case, it does not matter whether or not self-defense was justified. Rittenhouse should be thrown in jail because that’s what would have happened to a black man in his position. Jurors should make an example of Rittenhouse. White lawmakers will only be motivated to take action on criminal justice reform when they see that actions have consequences that can affect children who look like their own.
My opinion:
If we believe the justice system is unfair, it doesn’t become more fair by using this case to set a precedent that trial outcomes can be determined based on our desire for emotional satisfaction and revenge. The only way to create a “more equitable” system, is to agree on a set of principles (such as the right to self-defense) and then continually uphold those principles even when it’s politically inconvenient or unappealing to do so. I want to live in a world where, if Kyle Rittenhouse were black, he too would be acquitted because he acted in self-defense. We undermine that future possibility by undermining the very notion that acting in self-defense is a legitimate defense. We reduce the notion of justice to taking an eye for an eye.
Predictably, my friend and I ended our conversation exactly where we began. After 20 emails back and forth, I finally admitted “we’re not going to get any further on this.” No matter what I said, she could not get past the idea that the criminal justice system can only be made more fair by making an example of Kyle Rittenhouse, even if it would require making the justice system unfair to do so. Her view did not change when I pointed out ending the drug war would do far more to get black men out of prison, nor when I argued that black men would benefit by our upholding the right to self-defense (such as in the recent, barely reported case of Andrew Coffee), nor when I suggested that the unintended consequences of sentencing Rittenhouse could easily be used to justify sending even more black men to jail down the line.
I left the conversation more discouraged than ever. There seems to be no understanding or awareness among my peers that in pursuit of “equity,” Progressivism is pulling us further and further from something that resembles true equality — that is, a world where we can trust that the same rules will apply to all and people will be treated equally under the law.
Is there any point engaging with Progressives on these subjects, when no arguments -- even those grounded in protecting the groups they claim to care most about -- seem to move the needle? I’m tempted to throw up my hands and say no, but then I remember that our democracy gives them a voice in how justice is carried out in this country. These views are echoed by leftist politicians with the ability to write or enforce law. A few examples following the trial verdict:
Said Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers: “No verdict will be able to bring back the lives of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, or heal Gaige Grosskreutz’s injuries, just as no verdict can heal the wounds or trauma experienced by Jacob Blake and his family. No ruling today changes our reality in Wisconsin that we have work to do toward equity, accountability, and justice that communities across our state are demanding and deserve.”
Said Wisconsin Representative Gwen Moore, “A system that legitimizes vigilante murder is deeply broken.”
Said NY Mayor Bill DeBlasio: “Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today. The only reason they’re not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people. To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement.”
If these opinions didn’t have the potential to affect my life, I wouldn’t care so much, try so hard, or be so afraid.
By 
