 This is Sandy Baird, and this is commentary. In November of 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of the murder and homicide, the charges against him by a jury of his peers in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse, a young white man living 20 miles away in Illinois, had gone to Waukesha, Wisconsin where his father lived because of demonstrations involving protesters against police brutality. That summer was the summer of the murder of George Floyd in the summer then of 2020. George Floyd was a black man who was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis. In that case, a jury found the police officer guilty of murder. In that verdict, however, many American cities had been torn apart by protests, thinking that Waukesha would face demonstrations in which property might be burned and vandalized, and numbers of people hurt or maybe killed. The young Rittenhouse went to Waukesha as he testified, quote, to protect the property and lives, unquote, of his city. In demonstrations which promised to be tumultuous nights of protest. He also stated that he believed that the police would stand down and not protect Waukesha or its people. That was his testimony. Rittenhouse, when he went to Waukesha, acquired a gun, did not purchase it, but he had a gun and that was a rifle. A supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, as guaranteeing the right to bear arms. Rittenhouse stated that Americans have the right to have rifles in order to protect themselves and their society. He believed that we all have the rights, black and white, to defend ourselves and that the defense of the people around him, them are important. That night in Waukesha, Rittenhouse from the top of a building saw violence around him, buildings were burned, other people had guns. At some point he was chased by other white protesters, at least one of them with a gun, Rittenhouse fell. And as he testified in his trial, he was confronted by at least three of the protesters, one of them threatened Rittenhouse with death, and another who pointed a gun at him. In his trial, Rittenhouse testified that as he felt death was certain, he fired his gun in self defense. Unfortunately, those shots left to white people and men dead. That is his side of the story. Subsequent to those shootings, Rittenhouse was accused of murder and other charges, and he was brought to trial in Waukesha. In the immediate wake of the shootings, however, the media and many key political leaders spoke out. And without a complete accounting of the facts or the evidence in the case, these big media and big politicians spewed forth their opinions of the case. These commentators, including the President of the United States, Joe Biden, and many others, said that the case showed that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, and that he had murdered these protesters because of his own hateful racism. The dead were white themselves. Nevertheless, many Americans were left with the impression that the young men had killed these young men in a defense of white supremacy. The case went before a jury in November 2021 in a blitz of highly charged and partisan coverage, which always should be limited before all the facts and the evidence are in, especially in a criminal case involving serious accusations. To the shock of many, many Rittenhouse in the trial took the stand, a rare occurrence for a criminal defendant who always has the right to remain silent until he is convicted. To understand in sworn testimony, Rittenhouse claimed that the deaths occurred because he acted in self defense, and that as a reasonable person he was convinced by the behavior of those who chased and threaten him that he faced impending bodily injury or death. If he did not use his gun to save his life. And that was his side of the story. The defense of self defense Rittenhouse then shifted the burden of proof to the state, which had to prove then beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had not acted in self defense. A hard task when the jury of 12 mostly white people went to the jury room to consider all of the facts of the case. And they had heard him testify on his own behalf. In the facts of the case after the jury considered and saw all the evidence and decided the arguments. They decided that defendant was not guilty, and that he had acted reasonably to defend his own life, and his bodily integrity. Many Americans saw this verdict as reasonable and fair and a verdict for self defense and the jury system, while many others were deeply colored by the pre trial hype and during the trial hype, and the charges of racism. They went into an angry denunciation of the verdict and the jurors accusing both of being the result of white people favoring another white man who had murdered and gotten away with it, while a black man in similar circumstances would most likely have been convicted. The verdict instantly became partisan as well with many Republicans arguing that the verdict was right, and the Democrats arguing that the verdict was racist, regardless of the heat stirred by this at times hateful discussion please remember fellow Americans and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees to all of us the right to a jury trial, rather than experts or lone judges or tribunals or executioners judging us. The found is put in place the guarantee that when any of us face the serious accusations of the police and the state, which could result in the loss of our liberties incarceration, and perhaps the death penalty. The ordinary people were put in place who could hopefully honor their duty to consider only the facts and evidence of the accusations, and will only then render a measured and fair judgment of our behavior in the face of the media and partisan frenzy around the House verdict. Would any American or citizen want those decisions made in any other process than in a jury trial. All of us are guaranteed the equal protection of the law in the United States Constitution under the 14th Amendment also and written house, a white man had those rights as well as all people of any color, gender, sex or class. Many of us know the history of juries in this country in the past, and even in the present that black people who claimed these rights of self defense would most likely not have been acquitted as the defendant and white man was in this instant case. I just remember that that is not a reason to convert written house. In fact, just as demands that all people, people facing serious charges, white, black, male, female, all classes of people be treated equally before the law. And then the written house verdict can be seen really as a victory for all of us. If any of us took the time to see the trial to listen to the facts to the evidence and to hear the arguments. We would see that the individual circumstances, the proofs, the evidence, and these arguments with all of the partisan rhetoric, hopefully put aside. We would see or hope that the jury of 12 reasonable people that the verdict they reach in this decision, after careful consideration of the facts that they honored as best they could their pledges to reach their decision, free of bias and prejudice. Again, the verdict of not guilty and then must be respected then by all of us as juries are still the best hope that reasonable people, even in the most troubled times are still the best judges of our behavior. And this is Andy Baird. And this is commentary.