Among the many institutions now taking irrational and woke stands as opposed to principled ones, the American Civil Liberties Union stands out. Once my favorite civil-rights organization, known for enforcing the First Amendment, fighting for racial equality but also the speech rights of Nazis, the ACLU was designed to protect every American’s constitutional rights.
Now it’s become a progressive-Left Social Justice organization. I’ve written about this transformation many times; among its activities is calling for the censoring of Abigail Shrier’s book on poorly considered “affirmative therapy” for gender dysphoric kids, changing a Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote on abortion so that her references to “women” were changed to “persons,” favoring legislation that allows medically and psychologically untreated biological males who identify as women to compete in women’s sports, and opposing Betsy DeVos’s changes in Title IX guidelines for sexual harassment prosecution as “inappropriately favoring the accused.” (Those changes, by the way, were one of the rare instances of the Trump administration creating a change for the better, for they mandates fairer and more just procedures.)
Speaking of “inappropriately favoring the accused,” the ACLU, letting its Wisconsin branch speak for the organization as a whole, has just issued a statement that seems to say that the Rittenhouse verdict was wrong, also inappropriately favoring the accused:
Click on the screenshot to read:
Excerpts:
Shaadie Ali, interim executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, stated:
“Despite Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police, he was not held responsible for his actions, something that is not surprising. But Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t the only one responsible for the deaths that night. The events in Kenosha stem from the deep roots of white supremacy in our society’s institutions. They underscore that the police do not protect communities of color in the same way they do white people.
. . .“Rittenhouse’s trial highlights an urgent need for reform for both police and the criminal legal system. The system is broken, and it desperately needs to be fixed.”
Brandon Buskey, director of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, stated:
“Kyle Rittenhouse was a juvenile who traveled across state lines on a vigilante mission, was allowed by police to roam the streets of Kenosha with an assault rifle and ended up shooting three people and killing two. These are the simple, tragic facts. His acquittal comes after an ACLU investigation exposing how Kenosha law enforcement used violence against protesters and drove them toward white militia groups, in ways that escalated tensions and almost certainly led to these shootings.
“This complicity, along with the reason for the protests that Rittenhouse took it upon himself to confront — the police shooting of a Black man outside of a family function — highlights that the violence in Kenosha is not an anomaly, but rather endemic to a system built upon white supremacy.
Many of these statements are contestable, including the notion that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist who killed white demonstrators because they were supporting Black Lives Matter protests. In fact, one of the men he killed was apparently a racist, and he killed, as the jury determined, in self defense. Rittenhouse is certainly not a saint or someone I’d want to hang around with—why would someone go to a protest with a gun, even (as Rittenhouse maintained, to guard a car dealership?—that’s asking for trouble. He seems to be troubled and confused. But from the outset Rittenhouse had a credible claim of self-defense, and the videos bore that out.
As for his “white supremacy”, this is what the NY Post says (you can check other sources if you don’t like this one):
The FBI scoured Kyle’s phone and found nothing about white supremacy or militias, the court heard. All they saw were pro-police, “Blue Lives Matter” posts from a kid who had been a police and fire department cadet, wanted to be a police officer or paramedic and once sat near the front of a Trump rally. That was enough for the media to brand him a white supremacist.
The media had a narrative it bought into early, and refused to give it up in the face of the videos, the verdict, and the facts. The ACLU statement, from an organization designed to protect the civil rights of the accused from unjust state power, is now refusing to do that for Rittenhouse. The reason they are not defending Rittenhouse despite the verdict is simply because he was white and supposedly killed white men because they were supposedly supporting a Black Lives Matter protest. The jury said he killed because he had credible threats of being killed or harmed.
As Jesse Singal wrote on the preview of his pay-for-view Substack column:
If you know anything about the ACLU’s history or reasons for existing, these are very strange — disturbing, I’d argue — statements. The ACLU of Wisconsin seems to be saying Kyle Rittenhouse should have been convicted. What else could a statement noting that he “was not held responsible for his actions,” issued the day of his full acquittal, possibly mean? If you don’t think he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of, there’s nothing for him to have been “held responsible” for. The ACLU is supposed to stand on the side of vulnerable people facing a justice system that has a chronic tendency to overcharge and to withhold from suspects and defendants their full constitutional rights. Why is the ACLU of Wisconsin siding with that system — especially without any further explanation as to why this was an unjust ruling?
And here’s another one I found, but won’t quote or dissect, on the MSNBC website. Click to access:
Unfortunately much of the left (the illiberal left) really don’t care about the facts if the facts don’t support the narrative of pretty much everything being racist or evidence of a system of white supremacy. I don’t believe this strategy is going to be a winning one come 2022 or 2024, but it seems even if it doesn’t work many will just double down.
For the “wokesters” as well as the “wokerati”, the facts must never be allowed to distract from the goal of advancing an ideological, highly-racialized agenda. In Europe (as well as in Brazil) major news outlets reported as “fact” that the two deceased had been black, while, on MSNBC, Joy Reid, who specializes in the racializing of everything, stated that they had, in fact, been Jewish (based on what evidence, one might wonder). That Rosenbaum and Huber both had extensive criminal histories is of no relevance to the actual trial itself, but should give one pause over their elevation, by many, into “martyrs” and “secular saints.”
“…much of the left (the illiberal left) really don’t care about the facts if the facts don’t support the narrative of pretty much everything being racist…”
‘much of’ =90%? =60%?
‘pretty much everything’ =90%? =60%
I think non of the above, though quantification here is difficult.
Maybe your “much” is a mush, compared to the usual definition of the word. Is rephrasing called for?
Actually the parts of the left you apparently criticize, with really dumb language like “Defund the cops” is exactly the same, almost as though they have a political death wish to hand the racists a club to beat them with. Language choice is not a triviality to be tossed around over the fence to make one feel superior.
Peter, see the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of much below. I believe my use of the word is accurate based on the definitions of much given.
Definition of much (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: great in quantity, amount, extent, or degree
there is much truth in what you say
taken too much time
b: great in importance or significance
nothing much happened
2obsolete : many in number
3: more than is expected or acceptable : more than enough
the large pizza is a bit much for one person
too much
1: WONDERFUL, EXCITING
That rock concert was too much!
2: TERRIBLE, AWFUL
much adverb
more; most
Definition of much (Entry 2 of 3)
1a(1): to a great degree or extent : CONSIDERABLY
much happier
(2): VERY
much gratified
b(1): FREQUENTLY, OFTEN
(2): by or for a long time
didn’t get to work much before noon
c: by far
was much the brightest student
2: NEARLY, APPROXIMATELY
looks much the way his father did
as much
1: the same in quantity
not quite as much money
2: to the same degree
much noun
Definition of much (Entry 3 of 3)
1: a great quantity, amount, extent, or degree
She gave away much of what she owned
2: something considerable or impressive
was not much to look at
Fine, I take your point.
However, when applied to a discrete finite set of individual objects, say S, to say ‘Much of S has property P’ surely means at least more than half of it.
In any case, that’s my take, with my use of language a schmozzle of Canuck, Brit, where I lived for around 6 years in my 20s and married one, and USian, where I lived for months 3 times and anyway is inescapable in Canada!
E.g., much of the population of Quebec is Francophone, but not much of Ontario despite the number being well over half a million. I’m not sure about New Brunswick. Your writing further up is that kind of example: but, though the wonkywokes are very noisy, they are much fewer than many think. Very few US physical scientists are, but most are certainly ‘lefties’ the way USians use that term.
The problem is that the woke start believing their own propaganda. They invented the narrative that Rittenhouse was an armed white supremacist who traveled a distance to a city to which he had no connection with the intent of murdering BLM protestors, and took potshots at the crowd, and then, when caught, made a feeble excuse of “self defense”. And, believing that, they now claim that the verdict is an outrage that can only be explained as “white supremacy”, and a license for vigilante murder. Surely the ACLU must believe that narrative to have made those statements?
The truth, however, is that the verdict is only a license to shoot at people who, while you’re doing your best to run away, chase you, knock you to the ground, kick you in the head, and try to take your gun.
When you have a mob calling for a particular outcome in a trial with promises of violence if their demands aren’t met you are dealing with a lynch mob.
So now it seems that the ACLU supports lynching and by extension vigilantes provided the ideology is correct
“You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”
Yes, the judge instructed the jurors that before they deliberated. So did the prosecution. What’s your point?
You need to review the details of the case.
Wasn’t that a quote from Thomas Binger, the prosecuting attorney, during his closing arguments?
Could you imagine how the public would have reacted had Binger said the same thing about a woman who had been raped? “She created this danger by dressing provocatively.”
There’s no doubt Rittenhouse naively put himself and others in danger that night. However, his use of deadly force was triggered by the actions of the first man he shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, who chased Rittenhouse and reached for his rifle.
I think the same thing happened here as happens with every event and discussion today. The extremist line up and start shooting. The ACLU is doing the same. I think the decision in this trial was wrong but I am not ready to make up crap on the guy that got off or to mind read stuff to have an opinion. Just leave out all the racial stuff and look at what happened. The guy was able to go from Illinois to Wisconsin and enter a demonstration/riot with an AR-15. I could care less about his motives or what the hell he thought he was doing. It was wrong and two people are dead. I also do not give two shits about how the court has screwed up the second amendment. This guy is guilty of manslaughter or worse and that is the end of the story. You feel threatened because you are walking down the street with an AR-15. I would hope so.
“I think the decision in this trial was wrong”
Why? More detail please. Was Kyle not in danger at the time he killed those men? Do you believe that his presence there negates his right to self defense? Do you think that he should at least have been convicted of reckless endangerment?
What exactly did the jury do wrong, in your opinion, and what would you have done differently?
Hey Joe, you need to get real. I can have an opinion on this case without going into the details or quoting state law for you. What state should I use? I am not a lawyer. I said everything i needed to say about this and I don’t care what the jury did wrong. How the hell would I know, I wasn’t in the jury.
“Hey Joe, you need to get real. I can have an opinion on this case without going into the details or quoting state law for you.”
Then what is your basis for your opinion? If you don’t know the facts of the case and don’t understand the law, then are you just going with a gut feeling or something??
After all, you are disagreeing not only with the entire jury, who had more access to the facts of the case than you, but many legal experts as well:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
So I didn’t ask you this question to call you out…I asked to see if you had an intelligent opinion that might cause me to change MY mind about the case.
Clearly, that was a waste of time.
To me, jury decisions are not wrong or right, but rather are the final say in the proceedings. Lots of folks think the decision was wrong, lots of folks think that it was right, but those are simply opinions.
I disagree…you’re making it seem like there are no objective laws or facts of the matter in legal cases. Juries and judges truly can screw up and convict people who are objectively innocent, and vice versa.
Had Derek Chauvin been acquitted in the George Floyd case, I doubt you’d be saying that it wasn’t a wrong decision.
That’s not exactly what I was saying. I, like most everyone, have an opinion about many jury decisions. But nobody’s opinion changes the decision. If a decision is indeed wrong, there are avenues to pursue to challenge a decision.
I am not overly concerned that the jury did anything wrong. What information they get and the directions they get from the court are different enough from my ‘bystander’s view’ that I’m unwilling to second-guess them in a case such as this one. But I am certainly concerned that other police responses, other prosecutions, other juries, facing a similar situation but where the defendant isn’t a young white guy, regularly reaching a different conclusion.
Heck the police responding to the ‘active shooter’ incident didn’t even consider him to be a suspect, despite him having an AR-15 strapped across his chest when he approach them. They told him to get out of the road. Now I ask you – if the police get an active shooter call, and then see a black guy with an AR-15 strapped to his chest come at them, do you think their response is going to be to tell him to go away so they can get on with their active shooter investigation?
I’m not sure I understand. People are mistreated by the justice system in situation A, therefore Kyle should have been mistreated as well?
This sounds like “whataboutism”.
And as long as we are playing that game, does it bother you that the entire reason for the protest in Kenosha was brought about by shooting of Jacob Blake that was portrayed as a racist murder by much of the media, but in fact was probably justified (he was wanted on a felony warrant, armed with a knife, and engaging in a struggle with police at the time he was shot)? So all of that protesting and mayhem was based on a falsehood, or at least a gross exaggeration, about the circumstances around Blake’s shooting.
No, not that at all. Pretty much the opposite – Rittenhouse was treated extremely well – almost ridiculously well – by the police. Rittenhouse was treated well by the justice system. Therefore we should expect the cops and the justice system to treat others equally well in other situations. Yes?
“Pretty much the opposite – Rittenhouse was treated extremely well – almost ridiculously well – by the police.”
The way that the police treated Kyle was not ideal, but erred on the side of “too lenient”. We can probably agree that they should have been less lenient, although not violent or abusive to him.
But this is more than offset by how poorly Kyle was treated by the prosecution, and then there is the extraordinarily bad treatment by the media, who incorrectly branded him as a terrorist, a white supremacist, and laughed at his “crocodile tears”. He will likely face harassment for years because of this.
Would a black person in Kyle’s position have been slandered in such a way by the media? It’s seems the opposite now….they do everything they can to downplay or ignore any negative aspects of a person of color, or white person with the correct liberal politics, who are involved in violent encounters.
In what way was he treated more poorly than others by the prosecution?
And for a guy who opposes whataboutism, you sure do like to do it.
My opinion is that a black person in Kyle’s position would’ve been shot by Grosskreutz, then Grosskreutz found not guilty by self defense. Or failing that, a black person in Kyle’s position would’ve been shot by the police for coming at them with an AR-15 during an active shooter report. Or failing that, I think a black person in Kyle’s position would’ve been found guilty at trial. So whether the media loved them or not, their outcome would’ve been worse. That’s speculation of course, but if your argument is that Kyle would’ve been treated better by all the parties involved had he been a black man, well, I think that’s pretty crazy. Maybe the media treats him better once he’s dead, okay, I’ll give you that.
87 days in jail, then a $2m bond. That is pretty harsh.
The Kid who recently brought a gun to school and shot a teacher and a classmate got one night in jail, I think, then posted 75K bail.
The guy that just ran over the Christmas parade experienced laughingly soft treatment by the justice system, which is why he was able to kill all those people.
In the Rittenhouse case, most people who understand self defense law were surprised that he was even prosecuted.
2 million dollars? Was there suspicion that he might get into his Gulfstream jet and flee to a non-extradition country where he could live like a king on his Kenosha lifeguard money?
The Kenosha riots should have never happened, both because the story as reported was false, and because Blake should have been in the Big House, instead of being able to keep assaulting women.
>Rittenhouse was treated extremely well – almost ridiculously well – by the police.
And that’s the bigger problem. A nitwit 17 yo kid goes looking for *whatever*, and one policeman offers him water, and as he’s running away with his hands up, rifle clearly slung over his shoulder he is ignored by the advancing police. The was him as being on their side.
But he was clearly a white kid, not a black one, but police bias was not on trial. .
Look at all the high-profile shootings, starting just with Trevor Marin, of blacks being killed for very little reason at all, where shooters used the self-defense / imminent danger where the were acquitted.
When Rittenhouse ended up shooting, his life clearly was in danger, it was self-defense. Will it rip America even further apart on both sides, hell yes! Both sides want blood and headlines.
Rittenhouse was a stupid kid— but far worse are *grown adults* in positions of power or influence who want him to run for office, and other such ridiculousness.
As far as I’m aware, the police were not (at that point) responding to an “active shooter” call. Rittenhouse approached a line of police who were there monitoring the riot. The police who waved him away and told him to go home were likely not aware (at that point) that anyone had been shot. Being only moments after the shootings, this was too early for them to be responding to any call.
(Note also that a dozen other people were wandering around with AR-15-like guns and had been all evening, and that there were also a lot of gunshots that night, mostly from the protestors.)
A legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation (yes, I know, I know, but she posts lots of cat photos) addressed in a long twitter thread this issue of minorities claiming self-defense. Her targets were those less moderate than you who assert that “only” white people can avail themselves of such claims.
Short version: she posts about 50 cases of racial minorities claiming self-defense who were either exonerated by juries or never even charged, which is not to say that racial disparities do not exist in the system. The cases include black men who shot at cops and killed whites.
https://twitter.com/AmySwearer/status/1461801378137919489
I’m just a European who did not follow every detail closely. I could look up and verify however that Antioch, IL and Kenosha, WI are about half an hour apart. Rittenhouse is from the former, and the unfortunate events happened in the latter. The Wikipedia article on Antioch specifically mentions its bus and commute infrastructure to Kenosha. According to testimony, Rittenhouse also worked in Kenosha and has social ties there. It is apparently his usual turf.
If that is all correct, why is this “crossing state lines”, also prominently in the ACLU statement, even worth mentioning?
It appears strongly as tententious reporting, essentially lying, that wants to make it seem he travelled far away to join a fight and shoot someone. It seems almost vital to paint that picture for US media, because the more boring alternative cannot generate much clicks and outrage (and more clicks).
The alternative, according to testimony, is that of a teenager who volunteered for all sorts of similar roles, lifeguard, deputy, firefighter and who volunteered to cleaned up graffiti before. He may also be a typical American gun nut, but none of this screams “Proud Boys” riot tourist, more like proud boy scout.
I’m genuinely interested in why it matters that he is from 30 minutes away (I know that gun laws and such change, but that’s not why this point is shelled out everywhere).
To be frank, this talking point doubles as seeing those who make it as anti-democratic. In a functioning democracy, we want people to engage in democratic processes including protests and counterprotests, broadly and generally. If something goes wrong, and a lot did here, the right to attent a protest or counterprotest is the last thing to critisise. Before even coming near it, I would question the 2nd Amendment, or how come none of the adults saw a problem with a teenager carrying an assault rifle around.
Would you be so kind and explain why his travel distance matters?
Some crimes, like trafficking minors for sex, have increased penalties when the offense strays across state lines. Sometimes it makes the crime a federal offense, although there are people here who can explain this in better detail than I.
I think most of those using it about this case were using the phrase to make it seem vaguely more serious, and likely to make themselves seem more informed.
I’ve now read several articles claiming that the Rittenhouse verdict was “wrong”, but none one of them goes into any detail as to why the law was not properly applied. I would expect at least some explanation of the law in question, and how the jury misapplied the facts of the case.
It’s almost as if they just want you to read and believe the negative headline, and ignore the article!
It’s also a missed opportunity. A more intelligent, nuanced critic could agree that the jury did it’s job well, but that the self-defense law should be changed. That is an argument I have seen in some places, and I could entertain that. No need to make up lies about white supremacy.
But that more cogent argument seems to be drowned out by the mush-brained narrative of racism.
Agreed…well said. One Joe agreeing with another…
I think that those who are saying the verdict was wrong mean that it was wrong according to how they would like the law to be.
But if so their target should be the law (and on that they have a very strong case), not the verdict.
I would be interested in hearing specific ways that self defense law needs to be changed, as applied to this case.
In some places, when a person is under serious threat, they need to show that they at least tried to flee the situation before responding with deadly force. Beyond that, there are very few circumstances where someone is expected to allow another person to beat them to death or shoot them.
Some places have laws against being armed while participating in a demonstration. I guess we could argue that perhaps anyone guarding people or businesses during a riot might be making their own political statement, but that is harder to establish.
The issue of whether guarding property during civil unrest should be legal is different from whether people have the right to defend themselves once attacked.
As someone pointed out, Rittenhouse was held responsible for his actions. He was tried. What they mean is, he wasn’t found guilty.
Like knee-jerks accusations of racism, white supremacy as an explanation is only weakened when you try and shoe-horn in cases like this one. Next time people say “white supremacy” more people will wonder if that’s true.
“He crossed state lines” is a legal activity, and is not evidence of any intent beyond his intent to enter Wisconsin.
“He roamed around with a rifle” is a legal activity, and is not evidence of any intent except his intent to carry a rifle.
“He killed two people and wounded a third” who attacked him and, apparently, only after he ran away from them. One of them chased him down the street and hit him over the head with a skateboard, and the another, by their own admission, pointed a loaded pistol at the kid, fer chrissakes.
Even if we grant all the speculation about his intent that night, he could not have planned to be chased through the streets and assaulted by random ex-cons. Was it some kind of fantasy wish-fulfillment that he got to exercise his right to self-defense by use of a gun? Maybe, probably even. I’ll further speculate that the experience didn’t feel as he thought it would. Taking a life in that manner never does.
Rittenhouse did plenty of things wrong that night, but it seems he didn’t do anything illegal. Those who don’t like the outcome of his trial should attempt to change the law instead of using the tragedy to advance a specious race narrative for political gain.
Well said.
Agreed.
I followed the trial on CNN, and they were mostly fair in their coverage. They used legal experts to provide most commentary, which made all the difference. They did try to vilify Rittenhouse, but all the legal experts kept checking that. Rittenhouse was a scared 17-year-old boy in way over his head. His testimony showed that. He thought he was going to be a big hero, and the reality was quite different. The jury, according to the law, were supposed to consider how Rittenhouse would have felt, not how they would have felt. It was clear Rittenhouse felt his life was in danger.
The problem is the law and society, not the verdict in this case. For example, while US law allows a child to carry an AR-15 around, this sort of thing is going to happen.
Another issue is that it was white supremacists, including the Proud Boys, who funded Rittenhouses’s defence. A media team from Tucker Carlson’s show was embedded with the defence throughout. The defence didn’t like it, but it was a condition of the funding. That is a big reason Rittenhouse has received such bad media coverage from the left: they knew this was happening. You can expect a one-hour documentary on Fox shortly. From the point of view of Rittenhouse, he just needed someone to pay his bills, and they were offering.
It’s a problem that the right is holding him up as a folk hero, but again, that’s a problem with society, not Rittenhouse himself.
Best comment I’ve seen so far on this. My view of Rittenhouse and this incident seems pretty close to yours. He seems like a very naïve kid, desperate for attention, who got in way over his head, and the adults around him failed him nearly every step of the way.
And then when he is in the worst situation he can imagine the people that hold out a hand to him are the Proud Boys and Tucker Carlson. Probably not with his best interests in mind either, to say the least.
Rittenhouse was an idiot, but per our laws the verdict was correct. Our laws and how they are enforced are the real problem with this incident. As little as I think of Rittenhouse using him as a scapegoat for all the things the left or the right might think is wrong with our ‘system’ is wrong.
+1
“Another issue is that it was white supremacists, including the Proud Boys, who funded Rittenhouses’s defense.”
What white supremacists funded Rittenhouses defense? When I do a search trying to find out it just turns out to be news organizations trying to smear Rittenhouse as a white supremacist, but not actually naming any donors as such.
And if you think the Proud Boys are a white supremacist organization, keep in mind that their chairman was a black Cuban and they have explicit tenets against racism.
For more:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/15/no-the-proud-boys-are-not-white-supremacists/
Also, why would the ideology of his defense supporters matter? As rationalists, shouldn’t we be concerned only with the facts of the case?
+1
The issue the ACLU sees may not be the details of the Rittenhouse case. Instead it may be the law that easily allows a scenario where two people can both bring weapons to a location where weapons escalate the danger, engage each other, both fear for their lives, and the first one who pulls a trigger is free to go. So long as the other is dead and cannot explain their side of the story.
Historically, in these situations if the trigger man was black, he generally will not be believed by the jury. If he was white, he will be. While the law is not written that ‘black and white’, it definitely seems to fall that way in reality.
Then they should lobby for that. According to the law as it stands, Rittenhouse was found not guilty. If they want to say that there’s historical inequity in how the races were true, which is indeed the case, you don’t rectify that by criticizing the system when it finds white people “not guilty.” You fix the system by defending black people in the same situation. If the issue that occupies them is the one you note, why didn’t they just say that than implying that Rittenhouse should have been found guilty?
Agreed. But not everyone communicates well. Even those whose job involves communication.
Whether I liked it personally or not, I appreciated the ACLU’s principled support of the First Amendment with respect to the Nazis. The actions of the ACLU over the last year have changed my view of that organization to the point where I no longer donate or contribute to them in any way. Maybe if they regain their former stature I might reconsider.
My sentiments also
Clicking on the MSNBC link produced ‘404 Page not found’.
“why would someone go to a protest with a gun, even (as Rittenhouse maintained, to guard a car dealership?—that’s asking for trouble. He seems to be troubled and confused. But from the outset Rittenhouse had a credible claim of self-defense, and the videos bore that out.”
The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act in self defense. The fact that Rittenhouse was found not guilty does not make him innocent. I feel much the same — he went looking for a fight and got one. Now two people are dead by his action. I can accept the verdict but still feel there is something wrong about all of this ( I agree the emphasis should be addressing our laws).
I suspect many people felt the same sense of wrongness when the ACLU defended the Nazis right to hold a march in Skokie, IL.
I have a feeling Rittenhouse is going to have a turbulent life after this. People’s minds are already made up and it seems that the right lauds him and the left despises him. Now it’s a cultural issue and just another incident in a long line of incidents that split this country down party lines- and the rift continues to expand. The big winner in all this? The NRA and gun manufacturers. This case boils down to: to live free in America, you need a gun. And soon SCOTUS will more than likely reinforce that notion.
Peoples’…argh!
If Rittenhouse had been a police and fire department cadet, maybe he is best described as a blue supremacist. The recent anti-police memes that claim to be “anti-racist” overlook the substantial minority representation in police forces. According to Reuters: “Whites accounted for 71.5% of the 701,000 sworn local police officers in the United States in 2016, Bureau of Justice Statistics data show, compared to an estimated 60% of the population. African Americans account for 11.4% of local police forces, compared to around 13% of the population.” [There is considerable variation from place to place, of course, and African-Americans are under-represented at supervisory levels, although this has been gradually changing.] It would not be surprising if African-Americans comprised a larger fraction
of police officers than of officers of the ACLU. I don’t know the latter statistics, but if my surmise is correct, perhaps the ACLU board of directors needs to undergo trainings by a Diversity Consultant.
The Left decry the verdict as supporting white supremacy.
Within days, white people, including 3 year old children, are mown down by a SUV in Wisconsin.
The Left has blood on their hands. They are preaching hate.
Steady. He seems to have been fleeing a domestic assault (in which he was the perp) and happened to find a parade across his escape route. An “Oh shit!” moment. Guy is clearly a low-life with a taste for violence but let’s not read too much into it just yet.
Darrell Brooks belongs to Black Supremacist sect of Islam called ‘The Five Percent Nation’.
So obviously it was just a pure accident that a parade blocked his ‘escape route’
Well, I did not know (only harboured uncharitable suspicion) until you mentioned it just now that he is Black…..and a Black Supremacist to boot. That changes the water on the beans. It is no longer “obviously an accident” that a parade blocked his escape route. But still possible. And he did (apparently) deliberately run into the parade, planned ahead of time or not.
It turns out that the “he was fleeing” was just more media lies. It also turns out that the murderer is a career criminal who was recently released on $1000 bail by the leftist DA even though he committed numerous violent felonies. It’s going to be interesting watching the left and the media twist themselves into knots to make excuses and obfuscate the reality of the incident in the coming days.
I think a great deal about this new case will be revealed to us in the near future, but only if we are somewhat diligent in seeking out the truth.
Until everything is out, we have to go with the latest best information. To add to that-
He may have been fleeing, but he was not being chased, according to the police.
He drove through a marching band, and through at least two dance troupes. He did not briefly stray onto the parade route, He kept running through it at high speed for about a mile.
This was not his first time to run someone down with a car.
I don’t know if Rittenhouse is a white supremacist or not. I think most people got the impression he was from that photo of him in a Wisconsin bar, posing with reported Proud Boys and flashing the “OK” sign. The OK sign, of course, has been linked to the white power movement through a notorious 4Chan prank. But the number of people espousing hate while using the gesture has grown so widespread that it can no longer be considered just a prank.
So is he or isn’t he just giving an OK sign here? That plausible deniability is the very basis of menacing humor utilized by the Proud Boys. It is part of their style guide. It allows people to disclaim a real commitment to certain ideas while still espousing them.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/neo-nazis-are-no-joke-they-just-want-you-to-think-they-are/
The prank is intended to show that many on the left are so incredibly delusional that they can be convinced that something as innocuous as the Ok sign or the phrase “It’s ok to be white” is a sign of white supremacy. It worked. It’s just that many targets of the prank haven’t figured out that the joke is on them.
Dear All,
I would like to add that Rittenhouse is likely to face further trials at the civil and/or federal courts. In any case, the bar of proving a defendant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is very high in the criminal court, as opposed to that in the civil court. Furthermore, once the defence team was successful in limiting or focussing the case to one of self-defence, it was destined to be very difficult for the prosecution team, who could no longer bring many other matters into consideration. In addition, Caucasians have a much better advantage and are much more likely to receive positive outcomes whereas non-Caucasians or people of colour have been statistically far more likely to be convicted and also sentenced far more heavily.
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
True to some extent, just as O. J. 🙂
But where is the massive criticism of and jail sentences for BLM “protesters” doing things like vandalizing stores owned by innocent people (some of them Black)? (Even if they weren’t innocent, vigilante justice is not the answer.)
OJ was already a celebrity well before his alleged crime(s). Statistically, the rich, famous and/or powerful also have a much better advantage and are much more likely to receive positive outcomes in court cases.
“In addition, Caucasians have a much better advantage and are much more likely to receive positive outcomes whereas non-Caucasians or people of colour have been statistically far more likely to be convicted and also sentenced far more heavily.”
Do you know of any data to support the idea that non-whites are more likely to be convicted? From everything I’ve seen, arrest and conviction rates tend to be pretty close to actual crime rates and crime victim observations which would mean the people committing the crimes are the ones arrested and convicted regardless of race.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/high-incarceration-rate-blacks-function-crime-not-racism-1479.html
From the article:
“But in fact, cops don’t over-arrest blacks and ignore white criminals. The race of criminals reported by crime victims matches arrest data. No one has ever come up with a plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports.
A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution after a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. “
Dear Thomas,
You may look for those data and findings yourself. That you cited an article (or any article for that matter) from Manhattan Institute is very revealing and highly problematic. There is no getting around the many pitfalls, oversights, cognitive biases, misinformation and a plethora of other consequential issues and problems unless sufficient due diligence has been applied. There are two very detailed Checklists to help you to authenticate materials that you wish to reference or rely upon in any of your comments or blog posts. One is in the section called “Authentication : Quotation and Information Checklist” in my extensive and analytical book-length post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠. The other Checklist is in the section called “Quotation Checklist 📝” in my expansive, technically written book-length post entitled “The Quotation Fallacy”.
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
“Dear Thomas,
You may look for those data and findings yourself. ”
I have looked myself. Which is why I originally said:
From everything I’ve seen, arrest and conviction rates tend to be pretty close to actual crime rates and crime victim observations which would mean the people committing the crimes are the ones arrested and convicted regardless of race.
Since you seem reluctant to give me data, what is it that convinced you that “Caucasians have a much better advantage and are much more likely to receive positive outcomes whereas non-Caucasians or people of colour have been statistically far more likely to be convicted and also sentenced far more heavily.”
And also if you could explain why the article I provided is “highly problematic” I would appreciate it.
Dear Thomas,
Your citing an article (or any article for that matter) from Manhattan Institute, as well as what and how you have commented here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, are evidence to the contrary. As mentioned, there is no getting around the many pitfalls, oversights, cognitive biases, misinformation and a plethora of other consequential issues and problems unless sufficient due diligence has been applied. There are two very detailed Checklists to help you to authenticate materials that you wish to reference or rely upon in any of your comments or blog posts. One is in the section called “Authentication : Quotation and Information Checklist” in my extensive and analytical book-length post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠. The other Checklist is in the section called “Quotation Checklist 📝” in my expansive, technically written book-length post entitled “The Quotation Fallacy”.
I am unlikely to engage you any further.
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
So in other words, you don’t have any data to support your stance, do you?
Dear Joe,
Please be informed that your response here is ostensibly indicative of your lack of knowledge and interest in the highly consequential matters raised by me in my comments.
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
Dear All,
This is an official chart from US Census 2010 Summary File showing US incarceration rates by race and ethnicity:
https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/raceinc.webp
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
You have to point the finger at the white supremacist President in 2010, who presided over this systematic racism.
This pattern has already existed and persisted many decades before.
I will have a closer look at this long-established pattern showing which races and ethnicities commit most crimes.
Thanks for the link.
Dear Steven,
Speaking of “white supremacist” that you mentioned before, here is an article that could be of some interest to you:
https://marthaborst.wordpress.com/2021/11/24/wow-chew-on-this-at-thanksgiving/
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
Now compare that to the rate that the races commit crimes and you might just be on to something.
The webpage is available at
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html
Being rich and influential is a hell of a lot more useful than being white in court. Now what you can say is that the Sorting Hat or whatever of skin color is more likely to put you in the rich/influential category if you happen to be white, but in Rittenhouse’s case his biggest asset was being made a RWNJ celebrity and thus was able to fundraise like hell. Otherwise the dumb kid was underprivileged as all get out (poor, uneducated, separated parents, etc)
Dear Blood Knight in Sour Armor,
I concur with you and had already mentioned in one of my earlier comments (which you probably have not read) that “[s]tatistically, the rich, famous and/or powerful also have a much better advantage and are much more likely to receive positive outcomes in court cases.”
In any case, the two most recent court cases with very contrasting verdicts have got my creative juice flowing to such an extent that I have revamped and expanded on the final section of my extensive and analytical post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠“. The said final section is named “Denouement: Democracy, Education, Legislation & Sustainability“, which also discusses some pressing issues and looming existential crises confronting humanity.
Thank you for your reply. Happy Thanksgiving!
https://soundeagle.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/soundeagle-in-birch-forest-landscape-with-mushrooms.jpg
Swirls of Gypsy Delight
Usurp my Gothic Knight
Reign not SoundEagle🦅’s Flight
For I seek thy Crested Might
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle