As I was working on this massive project of moving terabytes of files via cloud and organizing my laptops, and prepping for a new machine. I had the Rittenhouse trial live feed turned on in the background. I was immediately fascinated by the judge in the case. If you’ve read my writings, you know I love a good debate, and I encourage it in a work environment. It’s where you get to great decisions. This trial did not disappoint and it was riveting.

I didn’t know much about the Rittenhouse matter as I was not following what was happening in Kenosha other than another city burned down because of a passive police and government structure, but that was all I knew. I wanted to watch the trial because I wanted to learn more about the trial debate process and how the judge managed both sides. I’m always thinking about how this applies to management. It was great to have running in the background because I could just listen as I worked on mindless tasks.

The more I watched, the more I became impressed by the judge and his thoughtfulness about both sides and their opinions on all matters. He was a fantastic debate moderator and I became a fan. As the trial unfolded, it was difficult to see how the prosecutors had a case as each witness seemed to support the defense rather than the prosecution. I found that puzzling.

At times, it looked and sounded like the prosecution were not convinced they had a case, like they were over-reaching for motives. It was also a lack of energy and at times what looked like long faces, as if they didn’t want to be there. The more I watched, the more I respected the defense, and the less I respected the prosecution, and I became a real fan of the judge. What was absolutely clear was that no matter what, the judge wanted to get it right. He would at times pause, just to have a moment to think about the considerations. There is an art to thinking through a decision and I was watching it live on TV.

You can find the entire trial on YouTube from beginning to end and I’d encourage you to watch it for yourself and see each point unfold. The prosecution did a good job on the closing arguments, but they were not compelling at that point. The defense did a much better job of hitting all key points while taking apart the prosecutions case. By the time the prosecution had their final rebuttal in closing arguments, it was a complete rambling mess.

By the end, before it went to the jury, I was wondering how the case every got to trial. I took a gun safety course and carefully studied the book, “In the Gravest Extreme” by Massad Ayoob about the use of deadly force. This looked like a book example to me, based on how a King County deputy trained me how and when to shoot when I worked as a trustee.

It was the Okanogan County Sheriff who strongly encouraged me to be armed at all times when working in Okanogan County in the 90s. They recommended the book and used it in their training and quizzed me on the details in the book. The upshot, excuse the pun, was that if someone pointed a gun at you with intent to shoot, and you didn’t have the means to retreat, you shoot. You don’t wait until they shoot first.

Same with self defense when someone attacks you and they don’t have a gun. You don’t wait until you’re seriously harmed, then shoot. There are other matters outlined in the book, such as closing distance, if they retreat, and so on. But after watching the trial, placing myself in the defendants shoes, I’m not sure I’d have acted any differently. That’s where I was stuck. I couldn’t see a path to a better outcome if I was in the same situation. I kept asking myself, what would I do?

When the case went to the jury, I had an uneasy feeling that if I were the defendant, I’d be facing the same jury as I’d probably have done all the same things. That’s where I was hung up. What would have been a better choice in that same situation?

When the jury came back with not guilty on all counts, I felt relief because it reinforced my own collusion, that there was no choice but to fight back. You don’t wait until you’re dead.

However, all that said, if you only listened to how the trial was reported in the media, or how the defendant was characterized, you’d be surprised by the verdict. In other words, you were mislead by the press. This was clear self defense.

I’d encourage anyone who disagrees with the jury to watch the whole trial, end to end. If you go through the evidence as they did, it would be impossible to conclude that the jury got it wrong. I came away with a deep respect for the judge, jury, and defense. Less so for the prosecution who seemed to be continually projecting motive that didn’t hold up with the evidence presented. It made me realize how political the prosecution was in this matter.

Rather than argue about it, watch the whole trial, it’s a great debate, and the judge is extremely good at drawing out arguments on both sides. Even if you disagree with the outcome, there is a lot to learn from the judge. I went away thinking that’s a guy I’d love to know. What a remarkable judge. I’d love to see him work again.