Civil rights attorney says Kyle Rittenhouse trial 'with a different jury, you would have a very different outcome'

• Civil rights attorney David Henderson said the Kyle Rittenhouse trial may have had a "very different outcome" if it had a "different jury."
• Henderson suggested people generally lack a solid understanding of self-defense laws, especially when it comes to guns.

A civil rights attorney said the Kyle Rittenhouse trial may have had a different outcome were it presented to a different jury.

Rittenhouse, 18, was acquitted of the five charges against him stemming from when he fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz. Rittenhouse said he acted in self-defense after the men attacked him.

"This was a winnable trial. With a different jury, you would have had a very different outcome," attorney David Henderson said Sunday on MSNBC's Meet the Press. "The law is not the problem so much as the system is the problem, and that's why we talk about systemic injustice. The system is the problem with the way this case was handled."

Henderson said that the future of the civil rights movement will continue to rest on activism and people taking to the streets to advocate for voting rights and police reform. Extremism experts have suggested that the Rittenhouse acquittal could lead to more street violence and vigilantism at future protests and demonstrations, Insider's Kieran Press-Reynolds reported.

"There's an inherent conflict when you have 'stand your ground' laws in open carry states where you've got political division," Henderson said. "And now you know that when you have activism, you're going to have people showing up with guns under situations where they're volatile enough for people to begin firing."

"Stand your ground" laws exist to some extent in 30 states, MSNBC's Chuck Todd said on the show. The laws justify using deadly force and do not require people to retreat if they fear they are in danger.

Henderson made an analogy to Rittenhouse's defense using fists instead of guns, saying if he was threatened by someone running towards him and responded by punching him once and then beating him to death.

"'What other choice did I have?'" Henderson asked while making the analogy. "That's basically what the Rittenhouse defense was. At the end of the day, you just have someone who was running at you aggressively, 5'3", never physically touches you, never physically touches your gun."

A witness in the trial testified that Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the men who was fatally shot, chased after Rittenhouse and lunged for his gun. It was at that point that the witness said he saw Rittenhouse shift the weapon out of Rosenbaum's reach and fire, Insider's Michelle Mark reported.

Henderson went on to suggest that Rittenhouse could have "backed down" from the confrontation.

"The law of self-defense and stand your ground in Wisconsin actually allows the jury to consider – when you're assessing whether what Rittenhouse did was reasonable – the law the jury was given allows you to consider whether or not he should have backed down," Henderson said.