Episode 161: Recent Court Case Ignites Gun Debate in the U.S.

Listen to this episode of "Coffee with Gringos" here or on iTunes, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Paige:  You are listening to “Coffee with Gringos”. I'm Paige Sutherland.

Ian:  And I'm Ian Kennedy.

Paige: And so today me and Ian thought it was necessary to talk about a pretty big case that just happened recently in the US and involved something that happened last year, but it's based on the trial that just finished up in November. It involves something really sad. It's another unfortunate issue about gun rights in the US that me and Ian know too well that comes up too often in our country. And so, we're going to talk about this really important case, what it means, and just some of the details for those who maybe internationally haven't quite heard about this case. So as always listeners, check out that audio guide and transcript online at www.dynamicenglish.cl. Okay, so just to start, I'm going to give a little background about this case, and then me and Ian can just chat about it. And so, it goes back to, as many of you know, we did an episode about Black Lives Matter and how all those protests just to get equal justice, equal rights, all those kinds of things really heated up in the summer of 2020. And a lot of it, obviously, came from police shootings and there was another police shooting at a black gentleman called Jacob Blake in Wisconsin, and this man was paralyzed by the police officer when he was shot and so, there was protest trying to get this officer to be charged with another shooting that many argued was not justified. And so, there were protests and there was this young man from Illinois who was seventeen—Kyle Rittenhouse—who decided to travel across state borders and borrowed his friend's gun and was going to protect local businesses because, in some of the protests, things were vandalized as they are in all kinds of protests by, who knows. And so, he was going to protect a car dealership. I think it was a car lot, and him and his friends were out and got into a confrontation with people that were there, and this seventeen-year-old, Kyle, ended up killing and shooting two men and injuring one. And so that was just a little background of what the trial was about and the verdict just came out very recently in the US that he was found not guilty of all charges. So, he killed two people, shot one, and was found not guilty. So, me and Ian are going to just talk about a little bit more of the details of the case and the implications of what this means. So, Ian—the verdict came out not guilty of any charges. Again, two people dead, one injured. What was your reaction to this?

Ian: Well, I think my reaction was that, to be honest, I wasn't surprised. I think we've seen a lot of these kinds of acquittals happen and even though this case has become such a flashpoint in the very polarized debate over gun rights in the US. We just see that once again; we see perhaps there are factors at play that allow him to be acquitted and it's also a very complicated issue. We’ve talked about in previous episodes about how the US gun rights work and it's a very complicated issue and we've seen that this has sort of been turned into another big debate over the idea of gun rights and gun laws. And so, right now, Rittenhouse, he's being championed sort of as a hero by the people on the right. They’re saying he was there to keep peace, even the defense and Kyle Rittenhouse himself said, he just wanted to help his community and he was just reacting to people attacking him. I will say that from the beginning, a lot of legal experts were saying that it didn't look very good for the prosecution, the way they were going about the trial. They didn't make a lot of great points. Well, they were trying to make as many great points as they could but they had some missteps. And again, Kyle Rittenhouse and his defense team, they were able to present a lot of evidence saying look, he was trying to help his community. He had a license to have a gun even though he was in the wrong state and nonetheless that he was just acting in self-defense. The story has it on their side at least that what happened was someone came to attack him out of the group, he reacted to this man trying to grab his gun so, he shot him four times and a mob of people, the protesters, they saw him and started chasing him as he ran towards the police. So as this happened, another guy was hitting him with a skateboard. He ended up shooting him straight in the heart, killing him immediately, and then the third victim he shot in the bicep in the arm before he was able to get away from this. And so, both sides made their cases in point, and in the end, we saw an acquittal made by a jury that was made up of twelve people—seven women five men—and they spent more than three days looking at these cases that involve five charges, including intentional homicide, which could have given him a life sentence in prison. So, I think that this was from the beginning a really messy and complicated case that a lot of people saw the writing on the walls and saw that he was going to get off scot-free.

Paige: Yeah, and I think it's important to mention that this man was white, right? You have a young white guy who's on trial for shooting people, and he's found not guilty. We all know that if he was black, that would not have been the same verdict in the US. So, I think that is what a lot of the uproar has been, I guess. when the verdict came out that it just was very blatant to that there were many reports that the judge refused to call those who are shot “victims”. And so, the judge was very biased because again, this guy is a young, white male and so, you would get the opposite, generally, when you see any kind of court case if the defendant here was a black man. I bet you the judge would have definitely called these people who were killed victims and so, it was it was very biased from the beginning and I think that was what was disheartening and why the verdict was not too surprising.

Paige: Hey, Ian. Did you know besides the podcast, Dynamic English offers one-on-one classes with native teachers from all over the world?

Ian: Really? But isn't it just a bunch of grammar lessons?

Paige: Nope, it's completely discussion-based and focuses on topics the student is interested in.

Ian: That's amazing. But what if I'm not living in Chile?

Paige: No problem. Dynamic does online classes s you can be living anywhere.

Ian: Great, but I'm a little intimidated to take the class alone. Can I join with a friend?

Paige: Of course. Dynamic offers group classes of up to four. Plus, for the next month, Coffee with Gringos listeners get 10% off individual or group classes. So go online to www.dynamicenglish.cl and mention that you are a listener and get your discount.

Ian: Well, I'm sold. Sign me up.

Paige: But I think what is also an issue in the US and I think you see that a lot is that this man is seventeen years old at the time of this incident, which means, medically, he's a child. He does not have a developing brain and yet in our court system, too often, we charge people as adults. So, say he was found guilty, like you said, his whole life would be taken from him where he would be in jail where I think he should have been charged as a child because he made a childish decision. He took a deadly weapon to something that he knew was going to be dangerous and a lot of people and a lot of heightened situations. And what was he going to do with a gun to protect cars? He was going to shoot everyone that went by car. It just wasn't a well-thought-out plan which just shows that he was a child and didn't really think through the plan, in my opinion.

Ian: Yes, I mean, I think that's a really great point to bring up. It’s something where I think we have to see it as it is and we have to understand that this was a really stupid decision. You can say whatever you want, but he was clearly going there knowing that there could be some trouble. If you go anywhere with a semi-automatic rifle—

Paige: Lots of people…

Ian: Lots of people, that there is probably violence afoot. You're going there because you know there's violence going on and really, you're just putting yourself in that situation. So, I go back to one of my favorite quotes, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” And so, I don't know what he was expecting to happen going there and putting himself in that situation. It's just so complicated and it makes me nervous because this also now sets the precedent that anyone can seemingly go to, what's supposed to be, a peaceful protest with an automatic rifle, they can claim self-defense if they shoot someone and they'll be acquitted. I think that's extremely dangerous. I think this is causing, again, a narrative and a precedent saying people can point back and they could say, well, look at the Rittenhouse case. He got acquitted and think that they can do the same thing. I think it's already an issue of if you go to a protest, you might run into, civilian militia even because people just come with their own guns, their own weapons. It's a really dangerous situation in a nation where you can easily get weapons. So, I think it’s, obviously, already been a big problem for a long time and this doesn't help at all. This gives people more power to say “I can arm myself at a protest and I can get away with it if I have to kill someone.”

Paige: No, I couldn't agree more. I mean, I think this situation only had the result that it did, which is two men—thirty-six and twenty-six, dead way too young and a twenty-seven-year-old injured because there were guns involved. If there weren’t guns, they would have gotten probably a fistfight and everyone would have went home with some bruises but I would guess that no one would have died. It was the gun in the situation that made it so fatal and it's only because guns are so accessible in our country. And I agree, I think it's scary that this will set the bar that anyone can be a police officer now. We can go anywhere we want; defend anything we want and claim self-defense. And it's scary because there are guns everywhere and so you don't want that to be the precedent, especially when it comes to protests. These people are protesting injustice, we should all be able to feel like we can go to a protest and feel safe and not that there are these people now who are going to be pseudo-police officers with guns.

Ian: It's almost it's like a border vigilante status that I think is just too dangerous to flirt with for society's safety. So yeah, again, I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's interesting to see the reactions that have been coming from people following this acquittal, this non-guilty verdict, from the families of the victims. Obviously, they are disappointed, they've expressed this. They feel like there's been an injustice done and that their children have gone in vain, their loved ones have died in vain. And we also obviously see on the political side, a lot of different comments as well. So, a lot of politicians on the left, they have been—on the liberal side— they've been really denouncing this verdict saying it's an injustice, it's not right, and that there needs to be increased gun controls. And then you have the opposite on the right side. They've sort of made him their darling poster child of gun rights and self-defense and the Second Amendment and really are praising him for what he did. And I think what we're going to be seeing in the upcoming weeks and months is a lot of media swirling around with interviews with Kyle Rittenhouse, especially on the right-side media, conservative media again, putting him up in this ivory tower, boosting them up on a pedestal and saying, look, here's a case of gun rights and why we need to keep them. I don't know, it's going to be a whirlwind. I'm sure you've already seen a few comments and seen some things that the news outlets have already been putting out there.

Paige: Sadly, like you said, I think most people in my circles weren't surprised because we're just such a gun-heavy country, and the defendant was white and so, the writing was on the wall, as we say in English. Yeah, I really do hope that this doesn't create the situation where everyone goes around carrying guns and claiming self-defense, but we will see.

Ian: We will see.

Paige: Yeah, so we just thought it was, me and Ian, thought it was important to talk about this issue because, in the US, it's definitely something that everyone's talking about because these gun issues are just ingrained in the US and this was a really big case that, like me and Ian talked about, will, sadly, probably have an impact. And so as always check out that guide and transcript if you get lost at www.dynamicenglish.cl. Thanks for listening.

Ian: We'll see you next time.

Paige: Coffee with Gringos was brought to you by Dynamic English, where you can learn English simply by using it. If you're interested in taking classes or just want to learn more, go to our website at dynamicenglish.cl. Thanks for listening.

Key Vocabulary, Phrases & Slang:

 1.     to vandalize (verb): deliberately destroy or damage something.

a.     The rioters vandalized several local stores.

2.     confrontation (noun): an argumentative or hostile meeting or situation between two parties of people.

a.     The confrontation continued on the street.

3.     verdict (noun): the final decision made regarding the outcome of a court case.

a.     The young man received a non-guilty verdict from the jury.

4.     implication (noun): a conclusion that can be drawn from something although not explicitly stated.

a.     The implication is that the young man isn’t held responsible for his actions.

5.     flashpoint (noun): a place, event or time with increased violence and anger.

a.     The case has become a flashpoint in the gun-law debate.

6.     misstep (noun): mistake.

a.     The prosecution has a number of missteps during the trial.

7.     writing on the walls (idiom): used to say that it is clear that something bad will probably happen soon. 

a.     They could see the writing on the walls as the violence began to grow outside.

8.     scot-free (adjective): without any punishment or injury.

a.     People are in disbelief that he got off scot-free.

9.     blatant (adjective): clear and obvious.

a.     The judge was very blatant in his attitude and actions during the trial.

10.  biased (adjective): unfairly prejudiced for or against something or someone.

a.     We will not tolerate this biased media coverage.

11.  disheartening (adjective): sad, discouraging, disappointing.

a.     The news of the verdict was disheartening for the victims’ families.

12.  precedent (noun): an earlier event or action that is used as an example or guide to consider for similar future situations.

a.     This sets a very dangerous precedent for anyone who brings a gun to protests.

13.  vigilante (noun): a self-appointed citizen who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority.

a.      Kyle Rittenhouse is almost like a vigilante in this case.

14.  in vain (adjective): without success or a result.

a.     These protesters died in vain.

15.  poster child (noun): a person who represents a specified quality or cause.

a.     The shooter has become the poster child of the pro-gun rights movement.

16.  Second Amendment (noun): the amendment of the United States which gives citizens the right to own guns.  

a.     The Second Amendment is a very polarized point of view in the country.

17.  ivory tower (noun): a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts of reality.

a.     They are up in their ivory tower of safety and health and judging down on the others.

18.  ingrained (adjective): deeply embedded and difficult to remove or change.

a.     The idea of gun rights is deeply ingrained in the minds of the citizens.