Can we make ‘Sense’ of the Kyle Rittenhouse Acquittal?
It is no surprise that many feel dismay over the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse and see the verdict as resulting from the American tolerance of gun culture; a nearly all-white jury favoring a white defendant; a baby-faced [in the jurors’ eyes] teen who did not match a stereotype of a ‘gun-toting’ marauder; and a reaction against the purported violence of racial justice protests. But those views impose social concerns on what is ultimately a trial, a process where a jury must confront two competing narratives. Sorting out the possible social and cognitive contributing factors cannot be done with precision and in fact such an exercise may be fruitless. But self-defense law Wisconsin style and the conduct of Rittenhouse’s trial offer easy explanations of how a ‘not guilty’ verdict was reached either because jurors simply followed the law or made the defense story fit with their implicit (or express) biases. What were the stories? The prosecution’s was simple, laid out in the opening statement: [T]he defendant Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17-years-old at the time, had armed …
