A better way to handle cases like the Rittenhouse shooting

Too often as a country, we travel along destructive and divisive loops of our own design, even as an offramp to a more constructive and just society is there for the taking. Five lessons from the Kyle Rittenhouse case illustrate the point.

The first lesson was that some of our most renowned media sources will rush to judgment when a story can serve to indict supporters of former president Donald Trump. No surprise there.

On Aug. 25, 2020, Rittenhouse, 17 at the time, shot and killed two people and wounded a third in the midst of rioting in Kenosha, Wis., that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man. The next day, the New York Times helped set the tone by reporting that Rittenhouse's “social media accounts appeared to show an intense affinity for guns, law enforcement and President Donald Trump,” a description that puts millions of Americans, by association, under a pall of suspicion. The narrative of “a possible vigilante attack carried out by a young white man,” as the Associated Press chimed in, took root — and the facts never caught up.

The second lesson is that everyone involved is a victim. Rittenhouse, who unquestionably acted foolishly by showing up at a riot with a gun, is a victim of the avalanche of armchair verdicts handed down before the jury weighed in. Rittenhouse and those who died — both White — are victims of last year's trend of local leaders confusing patience and empathy for protesters and rioters with a dangerous form of appeasement. It is not surprising when a law-enforcement void left by dithering authorities is filled by citizens taking to the streets to protect private businesses and public property. The worst outcome of angry rioters combined with armed citizens played out in Kenosha.

The third lesson is that the legitimate grievances of Black Americans about disparities in policing must be addressed.

On the PBS “NewsHour” Friday night, The Post's Jonathan Capehart and I discussed the Rittenhouse trial with host Judy Woodruff. Capehart poignantly recounted the case of John Crawford III, a Black man who in August 2014 innocently picked up an air rifle that was for sale at an Ohio Walmart and carried it as he shopped. Someone called police, and Crawford, 22, was shot and killed by an officer, who, after an investigation, faced no charges. Rittenhouse, by contrast, openly carried a loaded semiautomatic rifle, killed two people and is going home.

“There's pain in the Black community because we are seeing how justice is meted out depending on who you are,” said Capehart.

Indeed, African Americans often face unfair — and deadlier — outcomes in our justice system compared with White people. Simmering resentment over the slow pace of criminal justice reforms is understandable. But parity should be achieved through greater justice for Black people, not by increasing unfair results for Whites. That seemed lost on Vice President Kamala Harris, who said she was “disappointed” in the Rittenhouse verdict, and added, “We still have a lot of work to do.” Only a guilty verdict was acceptable?

The fourth lesson is that a predictable focus on guns is fruitless. Some observers insisted the Rittenhouse case should lead to reexamining gun rights and self-defense laws. But such challenges are often met by expanding such rights. “Stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws have replaced the necessity to retreat. In Ohio, the Republican-controlled statehouse is joining other states in advancing legislation that would no longer mandate a license to carry a concealed weapon. The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment remains a cherished freedom in America, and any efforts to curtail it will face stiff resistance.

The fifth lesson is that we seldom change our approaches despite repeated failures. Attention is quickly turning now to a pending verdict in the case of Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan, charged in the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed Black man, near Brunswick, Ga. The evidence for conviction seems strong, especially after cellphone video emerged casting doubt on initial self-defense claims. The case went to the jury this week.

Legal professionals often remind us that justice is a process, not a desired result in a given case. But such idealized sentiments seldom hold sway. In reality, results trigger reactions. Juries are unpredictable, and the “wrong” verdict in the Arbery trial or some future case involving racial issues will merely restart the cycle of reaction, unrest and counterreaction.

Failure being the persistent result, a new path seems logical. It would include a media devoted to patiently gathering facts and restricting heated rhetoric and alarmism; an aggrieved community strictly adhering to peaceful protest, despite its justified anger; leaders responding to unrest, when necessary, with a response from trained police sufficient to protect life and property; and real social justice reforms that the left proposes and the right must embrace.

Clinging to our familiar rituals merely sustains the sad and endless loop. It's time for change, all the way around.