There are currently two trials of particular interest in the U.S. which reflect notable elements of American society. One involves the killing by three white suspects of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man, in a South Georgia community in February 2020. The other involves the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, who is charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder in the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020. In both cases, the accused are arguing that the shootings were in ‘self-defence’. Both events were video recorded and covered by American media outlets, including several national television news networks. Both were tragic events and appeared to be partly racially motivated, at least according to the prosecution.
In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, you have a 17-year-old who travelled from his home in Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, in neighbouring Wisconsin. He then picked up an AR-style semiautomatic rifle illegally from a friend and set out to act in response to mass protests and street unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man. He is consequently charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder. All three victims were white. Mr. Rittenhouse’s defenders say he was exercising his right to bear arms, in defence of liberty, and have claimed self-defence against perceived threats by the three victims. However, there are a number of questions. Why did Mr. Rittenhouse believe that it was necessary to carry out what is described as a ‘vigilante action’, especially since he was not protecting his own property and was outdoors long after an 8pm curfew imposed by Kenosha officials? How will jurors decide whether or not the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances? The law generally does not recognise your right to use deadly force to defend property, only your person. Will the jurors condone such ‘vigilante’ action? Some people see him as a hero and not as a villain. As this highly politicised case unfolds, answering these questions will be a major challenge ahead for the jurors.
Then we have the case of three white men involved in the shooting of a black jogger, Ahmaud Arbery. One of the defendants actually video recorded the incident which then went viral. The two shooters claim to have shot the unarmed Mr. Arbery in self-defence. Apparently, they chased him down believing that the jogger resembled the suspect in a series of alleged break-ins. They have accused Mr Arbery of attacking them while they attempted to make a “citizen’s arrest”, resulting in his being shot and killed. What’s really interesting in this high profile trial is the fact that a nearly all-white jury, with just one black member, has been selected. The prosecution accused the defence of eliminating potential jurors based on race, noting that defence attorneys used 11 of their allotted 24 strikes to reject black jurors. This in a town which is majority African American and a county where more than a quarter of people are black. Kind of reminds one of a time when no black persons were allowed to serve on jury duty in Georgia, often related to the trials of white men involving the killing or injuring of black people. Interestingly, studies have pointed out that Americans from ethnic minorities tend to be under-represented on most juries. Should be also interesting to see the results of this highly politicised case!
With so many Americans armed today, these two incidents once again raise the ultimate question about whether one can legally act forcibly in ‘self-defence’ or pursue ‘vigilante’ actions with impunity? Where does one draw the line? Significant cases such as those described above may provide more answers or may result in even more questions being asked. These trials are being closely watched by people around the world, including here in Canada. Just as in the case of past police shootings, the performance of the American judicial system is also on trial.
FROLITICKS 
Leave a comment