Civil rights

Civil rights lawyer says Kyle Rittenhouse trial “with a different jury, you would have a very different outcome”

  • Civil rights lawyer David Henderson said the Kyle Rittenhouse the trial could have had a “very different outcome” if it had had a “different jury”.
  • Henderson suggested that people generally lack a solid understanding of self-defense laws, especially when it comes to guns.

A civil rights attorney said Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial could have had a different outcome if it had been presented to a different jury.

Rittenhouse, 18, was acquitted of all five charges against him for shooting Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz. Rittenhouse said he acted in self-defense after the men attacked him.

“It was a winnable trial. With a different jury, you would have had a very different outcome,” lawyer David Henderson said on MSNBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “The law is not so much the problem as the system is the problem, and that is why we are talking about systemic injustice. The system is the problem with the way this matter was handled.”

Henderson said the future of the civil rights movement will continue to rest on activism and people taking to the streets to defend voting rights and police reform. Extremism experts have suggested that Rittenhouse’s acquittal could lead to more street violence and self-defense in future protests and protests, Insider’s Kieran Press-Reynolds reported.

“There is an inherent conflict when you have laws ‘on your own land’ in open transportation states where you have political divisions,” Henderson said. “And now you know that when you do activism you’re going to see people show up with guns in situations where they’re volatile enough that people start shooting.”

“Hold on” laws exist to some extent in 30 states, MSNBC‘s Chuck Todd said on the show. The laws justify the use of lethal force and do not force people to retreat if they fear they are in danger.

Henderson drew an analogy to Rittenhouse’s defense using fists instead of guns, saying if he was threatened by someone running towards him and responded by hitting him once and then beating him to death .

“What other choice did I have? ”Henderson asked, using the analogy. “That’s basically what Rittenhouse’s defense was. At the end of the day, you just have someone running you aggressively, 5’3”, never physically touching you, never physically touching your gun. ”

A witness at the trial said that Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the men who was shot and killed, pursued Rittenhouse and rushed to his gun. It was at this point that the witness said he saw Rittenhouse move the weapon out of Rosenbaum’s reach and fire, Insider’s Michelle Mark reported.

Henderson went on to suggest that Rittenhouse could have “backed down” in the face of the confrontation.

“The law of self-defense and the defense of your land in Wisconsin actually allows the jury to consider – when you assess whether what Rittenhouse did was reasonable – the law that was given to the jury allows you to determine whether or not what Rittenhouse did was reasonable. he should or should not have backed down. “said Henderson.