Reflecting on the Rittenhouse trial and verdict

I observed today that people's reactions to the verdict in this case is very reminiscent, to me, of people's reactions to the results of the last couple of presidential elections in the US. Each side had a perception of the events as they transpired in the lead-up, which was heavily skewed by the media reporting within the ideological bubble in which they resided. Each side thought the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and anything other than their desired outcome would be a catastrophic failure of the system; they could not fathom any other outcome being even thinkable. And in the wake of the actual outcome, each side's media outlets are skewing the coverage to feed the narrative which appeals to their base: either applauding the outcome as necessary and just, or deriding it as a symptom of a systemically broken country which need radical change.

Neither of these narratives are either correct or productive, imho.

Kyle Rittenhouse went to an area where people were protesting, armed, and convinced that the protestors were violent and dangerous, no doubt based on the narratives he was exposed to. There, he found protestors who were in deed violent and dangerous, in contrast to the left-wing narratives, with people who attacked him and threatened to kill him. When attacked, he shot bad, claiming two lives. The jury found that he either acted in self-defense, or there was not enough evidence that he did not act in self-defense as to warrant a conviction (and probably the latter).

Let me suggest something else, though: Kyle Rittenhouse was motivated to be there because he believed, at least in part, that the violent protestors would not be held in check by the police, and that other people's lives and property would be at risk. This belief has a strong basis in historical fact: in almost every charged protest in recent history, there has been an element of violence, threat to life and property, and a abandonment of defense from law enforcement. The police prefer to retreat and gather in numbers before confronting people, even people clearly engaged in criminal behavior. Time and time again, the police have allowed protestors to "run wild", destroying businesses and property, and often threatening lives. It's not hard to see how someone could be motivated to use that as a justification for confronting protestors with deadly force; there are instances of this also in virtually every recent charged protest.

I suggest that this is a larger problem than it might initially appear, though. The perception that the police cannot defend the people is what drives people to acquire guns, for example. It's what really motivates the opponents of gun control measures. It's what, at least in part, puts guns in homes, and lays the groundwork for domestic firearms incidents, and school shootings. The images of the police attacking innocent people, or conversely retreating in the face of violent protestors, is what drives people to feel they must be responsible for their own physical security. It is also the proximate cause for what drove Kyle Rittenhouse to put himself in the situation which ultimately resulted in the loss of two lives.

The police have a difficult job, to be sure, and the very real human instinct to get away from immediate danger, regroup, and attack from a position of strength. We may never get to the point where people do not need some responsibility for their own physical safety and security. But one thing we can do better, which might have saved two lives here, is insist that the police forcefully counter violent protestors and keep communities safe. It needs to be clearly unnecessary and unacceptable for a private person to show up to a protest, armed, and claiming to be doing the protection duties which the police are unwilling and/or unable to perform. If we did that one thing better, it would at least be a small step in the right direction.