We have had some animated discussion on this blog about whether the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse was “fair,” since he walks away a free man despite murdering two men and maiming a third.
Paul Butler, a law professor at Georgetown University and a contributing columnist to the Washington Post, wrote on this subject today:
Kyle Rittenhouse beat his case because he put on the best defense money can buy.
Don’t believe the hype that Rittenhouse, who was prosecuted for homicide after shooting three people at a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020 was acquitted because self-defense cases are tough for prosecutors to win. More than 90 percent of people who are prosecuted for any crime, including homicide, plead guilty. The few who dare to go to trial usually lose — including in murder cases.
Rittenhouse’s $2 million legal defense funds enabled his lawyers, before his trial, to stage separate “practice” jury trials — one in which 18-year-old Rittenhouse took the stand and one in which he did not. The more favorable reaction from the pretend jurors when Rittenhouse testified informed the decision to let the teenager tell his story to the real jurors. His apparently well-rehearsed testimony was probably the most important factor in the jury ultimately letting Rittenhouse walk.
All that money also allowed Rittenhouse’s lawyers to retain O.J. Simpson’s jury consultant — and arguably her skills helped the defense win the same “not guilty” verdict. Now, in the eyes of the law, Kyle Rittenhouse is just as innocent of homicide as O.J. Simpson.
Most criminal defendants cannot afford those kinds of resources. Rittenhouse, raised in a working-class family, could not have either but for influential people such as former president Donald Trump and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) acting as his cheerleaders.
On Monday night, Rittenhouse — in the tradition of dancing with the one who brung you — will be interviewed by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Regardless of whether Rittenhouse wants or deserves to be, he is now the poster child for reactionary White men who seek to take the law in their own hands, who want to patrol Black Lives Matter protests with assault weapons and who think that violence is a legitimate form of political discourse.
Some people have questioned how this case, in which a White man killed two White men and severely wounded another, implicates race. But it is impossible to imagine the right embracing the cause of a young Black man who brought a semiautomatic rifle to, say, a “Stop the Steal” rally and ended up killing two people and blowing the arm off another. For Rittenhouse’s supporters, his Whiteness is an integral part of his appeal.
Here’s where I am supposed to say that the issue is not that Rittenhouse had the funds to bankroll his defense but, rather, that other accused persons should enjoy that same benefit. To be sure, I do wish that each of the 10 million-plus people arrested in the United States every year — most of whom are poor people of color — actually were extended their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Too many are forced to rely on underfunded public defenders or overburdened appointed lawyers — no match for the prosecutor’s budget.
Still, I’m okay that not every armed White man who kills people while playing the role of a wannabe cop gets millions of dollars to turbocharge his privilege. I am glad that the defense is not as well-financed for the three men on trial for murder in Georgia after they killed Ahmaud Arbery as he jogged through their neighborhood.
When defendant Travis McMichael took the stand, his testimony was not nearly as smooth as Rittenhouse’s — perhaps because McMichael did not have as many chances to practice. Indeed, McMichael, testifying about how he, his father and a neighbor hunted down a Black man and demanded that he stop and justify his presence on public streets, sounded like a slave catcher. This was fitting because empowering White civilians to apprehend runaway slaves was the origin of the Georgia citizens’ arrest law — since revised — that is the linchpin of the defense.
That defense appears to be floundering. Maybe that is why, with closing statements scheduled for Monday, the lawyer for defendant William “Roddie” Bryan reportedly asked prosecutors if his client could cop a plea.
All criminal defendants have a right to spend as much money as they want on their case, but it’s a fanciful right for most defendants of color. Let them eat cake, and let them hire jury consultants. There is nothing wrong with begrudging all the resources Rittenhouse was provided to fight his case when those resources are a product of his Whiteness. Maybe that’s not the high road, but the high road is not leading to equal justice.
In the Georgia trial, in a sign of its confidence, the prosecution reportedly turned down Bryan’s late request for a plea. Perhaps if those defendants had Kyle Rittenhouse’s kind of money, things would be going differently. I am glad they don’t.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Some lawyers trained as prosecutors who observed the trial, stated publicly, mid-trial, that, in their opinions, the performance of the Rittenhouse prosecutor did not show that winning was a goal.
Mr. Butler’s criticism did not address the judge in the case, a graduate of Marquette law school (the only private law school in Wisconsin.) The judge sought applause for a defense witness before he took the stand (for his military service.) The judge berated the prosecution which the jury observed. The judge would not allow the release of the names of those who provided the defense’s funding. The judge would not allow as evidence, a videotape that allegedly showed Rittenhouse on a prior occasion discussing his intent in terms of his role in enforcement.
We can speculate why Butler narrowed his criticism and decide if it was convenient..
I assume this was part of your point, but you didn’t expressly mention that Marquette is a CATHOLIC school . . . .
Nor did I mention that Wisconsin is the site of one of the top 4 cities that World Population Review found were the most racist in the nation.
If Butler doesn’t want Georgetown to get credit for his hackneyed answer, he should make it clear that the principled people at Georgetown recognize that there were specific individuals who could have been blamed for the outcome.
WaPo- faceless money won’t sue.
I would like to know why the economic powers that be saw the Rittenhouse case so essential to their narrative. What made them throw so much money at his case, but not the McMichaels case?
The Rittenhouse was about legalizing the killing of those who protest anything that the right wing approves of. The Republicans only need to win one election because once they have any power, they use that power to quash dissent. Exonerating those who kill dissenters is part of making their anti-democracy “acceptable”.
The McMichaels was just the same old general racism, and Republicans already have that covered. The outcome of that case, even if the defendants are convicted, is no threat to the right wing’s attempts to end democracy.
nycpsp– “The Rittenhouse was about legalizing the killing of those who protest anything that the right wing approves of.” I think this is an [ugly] emotional instinct behind much rw sentiment regarding the trial, which the defense certainly played on. However, equally important: the case is tailor-made for legalizing the killing of public protest. Note that WI’s 2nd attempt on a ‘rioting’ bill [even broader than Florida’s] passed out of committee in September.
bethree5,
Yep. Scary.
I see a certain common theme in the way right wing legislation in Texas depends on vigilante justice for the control of abortion. Perhaps they need to normalize vigilante groups acting in social protest.
Doesn’t the existence of a jury consultant sully the concept of being judged by a jury of one’s peers? I have been called for jury duty numerous times and leave totally disgusted by the manipulation that is allowed in the process. The best justice system money can buy.
Doncha know? Only indigent defendants have to settle for a “jury of their peers”.
Defendants with money at their disposal are entitled to a “jury of their payers”
It has been odd to see the wall-to-wall focus on the Rittenhouse trial, with atmospheric allegations of “white supremacy” surrounding the discourse, while the Arbery trial has proceeded with a small fraction of the same attention.
It has been odd to see that some people don’t notice a difference in how the judges in the two trials are acting.
The Arbery trial itself seems to be running the way it would if the defendants were black and killed a white person. Because the judge is “fair”.
When the jury verdict comes in, there will be discussion of whether the jury was biased or not.
There’s wall-to-wall coverage of the Rittenhoue case because the right wing turned it into a cause célèbre. They made it all about self-defense and gun rights, they turned KR into a right wing hero. The jerks on Fox news waxed eloquent about the kid as did talk radio which is 98% right wing. Trump praised KR as some kind of hero in defense of American values. Not so much for the thugs in Georgia. They created go fund me web sites for KR. The right wingers in Congress set time aside lauding the little assassin.
Rittenhouse absolutely benefited from having money. But he also benefited from bias.
And I think that the normalization of his trial is like the normalization of Congressman Gosar – a certain segment of our society – which happens to wield a lot of power and privilege – seems to be going the way of normalizing what shouldn’t be normalized and defending what shouldn’t be defended.
The judge was terrible. I can’t help wondering why certain people here think that’s okay.
In terms of the “long gun” argument? Let’s recall that if that was so obvious that teenagers could legally carry certain assault weapons, the judge would have simply ruled on that before the trial began. He did not. He delayed a ruling until hours before the closing argument when it was too late to appeal. The judge did the same thing with the pinch and expand, finding at the very last minute an exception to logic that benefited the defense. And those are far from the only two examples.
I still don’t understand why the legal standard of self-defense when applied to white folks who kill “expendable to white people” victims is whether the armed white person felt threatened. Shouldn’t it come down to whether a reasonable person in those circumstances feels threatened? Isn’t that the standard that juries would apply if the defendant was black and said he was afraid that the white man grabbing for his gun after he shot someone else with it would turn the gun on him?
There were hundreds or maybe thousands of heavily armed men patrolling the streets of Kenosha that night. No one else was killed. Kyle Rittenhouse – because he was 17 and ignorant – acted recklessly and caused deaths. The idea that he gets off for acting recklessly and causing deaths is because he felt scared is white privilege. And I don’t think all the money in the world would convince a jury of white people to buy that defense for a black teenager who killed unarmed white people. It is just the opposite — they would be exonerating the people who killed him.
Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a) states that “Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
However, WS948.60(3)(c) excludes from coverage under that statute people under 18 EXCEPT [caps mine] those who are in violation of WS941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.
941.28(2) says, “No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.” The rifle carried by Rittenhouse doesn’t meet that description. It was an AR-15 style rifle, not one of the kind usually referred to as a “short-barreled rifle.”
29.304(b) also exempts Rittenhouse, for it reads, “Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm ” and goes on to list exemptions. ” Rittenhouse was over 16, so he is excused from that, too.
Section 29.593 requires a certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. Rittenhouse wasn’t engaged in hunting, as that is defined. So, that doesn’t apply here.
So, even though it is TOTALLY ABSURD, Rittenhouse’s running around playing vigilante with an AR15-style weapon in his hands was legal under Wisconsin law.
Is this insane? Yes, of course it is.
How does a law that convoluted and that full of gaps one can drive major offenses through get written? Well, this might be the answer:
Song of the Wisconsin Legislator
We get by with a little help from our friends.
[At the NRA.]
People die with a little help from our friends.
[At the NRA.]
Bob,
I hear two completely contradictory things.
Let’s assume that the Wisconsin law is clear that Kyle Rittenhouse could legally carry his assault weapon.
If the law is this clear, why didn’t the judge simply rule that it was legal before the trial began? The defense asked for this and the judge did not want to rule.
The judge would have no reason to delay his ruling until after the prosecution put on its entire case if it was this obvious. Can you make a credible argument for why the judge would not have simply ruled that charge should be dropped at the beginning of the trial if that was the case?
There are two plausible reasons for the judge to delay the ruling. The first is that he was biased and wanted to screw with the prosecutors by not telling them his ruling. The second is that this is not as obvious as it seems which is why the judge didn’t simply issue the ruling before the start of the trial.
Maybe there is a 3rd possibility. I did hear the judge tell the prosecution something like “well you should have planned for my ruling in advance so you could appeal” and when the prosecutor answered something like “we can’t appeal the ruling until you make it”, the judge said something like “oopsie”. (obviously I’m paraphrasing here)
The ruling by the judge was biased because it was intentionally issued at a time that made it extremely difficult to challenge or appeal.
It is contradictory to present this as cut and dry and obvious, and not offer any logical reason for the judge to wait to rule on it until the end of the trial except “oops”.
But if you want to argue that it’s cut and dry but the judge wanted to mess with the prosecution and let them think they had a chance to keep that charge, I accept that. But it confirms the extreme bias of the judge. Which infected the entire trial.
If Wisconsin law is clear
I just quoted the law to you. You can read it. I did not make this crap up. It’s what it is.
It’s convoluted and crazy, but it’s clear.
Bob,
You are missing my point (which I accept all responsibility for) so I will try to restate my question.
I accept your statement that the law is clear. But if it was really so obvious that the law is clear, there was no reason for the judge not to issue the ruling before the trial began.
If I wanted to argue that the judge wasn’t biased, I would make the case that the law was not clear and the judge needed to take some time to think about it and thus it wasn’t until the prosecution was entirely finished presenting its case that the judge could make his ruling.
If I wanted to argue that the judge was biased, I would make the same case that you did about how it is simple for even laymen to be certain of the law, so the judge would have had known immediately that he was going to throw out the charge on legal grounds. Which means there was no reason to delay making that ruling at the beginning of the trial except to screw the defense.
There is another option. Which is that the illegality of the charge wasn’t quite as obvious as it is now being presented as being, and the judge delaying making his ruling for legitimate reasons of needing significantly more time to consider the matter and the law.
Because if the legal issue is as obvious as you have presented, an unbiased judge would have simply made that ruling to exclude that charge before the trial began. That is normal. What isn’t normal is to wait until the closing statements are about to begin.
I’m very ignorant of criminal procedure, having never had a class in this, so I can’t speak to the question you raise.
Bob,
You didn’t make up the crap about the Wisconsin law being so obvious that even you, someone who is “very ignorant of criminal procedure”, could be absolutely certain after reading 3 paragraphs that a 17 year old could legally arm himself with the assault weapon Kyle was carrying.
I didn’t make up the crap about the judge intentionally choosing not to issue any ruling on this matter until shortly before closing arguments, after the prosecution’s presentation of their case was over, even though the defense brought it up before the trial began.
No need to have any special expertise to notice what is off.
NYC, I quoted to you the relevant law regarding the carrying of firearms in Wisconsin, and though somewhat convoluted, it is quite clear. I have never had a class in criminal procedure nor read a book on this, so I have no basis for making a WARRANTED judgment regarding when or for what reason the judge rendered the decision regarding the firearm.
This comment sounds to me like, “You looked once into the kitchen and saw flames leaping from the cabinets, and based on this it seems so obvious to you that the kitchen is on fire.” Well, yes, it does. The law says what the law says.
Again, the law is stupid and dangerous and convoluted, but it is quite clear.
Criminal procedure deals with the rules that govern proceedings in criminal law. This is different from familiarity with a particular law. In fact, the law generally holds that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so everyone is expected, de facto, to held accountable for “knowing” the law, though only people trained in it are expected to know what is proper procedure in criminal cases. So, it is hardly surprising that I would know what the law states with regard to carrying firearms in Wisconsin but not know criminal procedure, so I don’t understand why you would write, “even you, someone who is ‘very ignorant of criminal procedure,’ could be absolutely certain. . . .” Your comment doesn’t make any sense.
In other words, people are accountable under the law for “knowing,” even if they don’t, the law that applies to them. Ignorance is not an excuse. Since I don’t represent or prosecute people in court or act as a trial judge, the laws governing criminal procedure, which would cover whether the judge acting properly or not, don’t apply to me, so my ignorance of that body of law, while regrettable, is moot. However, that ignorance, again, makes it impossible for me to make a WARRANTED judgment about whether the judge acting properly in stating what the firearms law is when he did.
Bob,
I am talking about the TIMING of when the judge ruled on this.
If I take you at your word that this is so obvious that the judge could have ruled on it immediately, then the only reason for the judge not to rule on it immediately and wait until right before closing arguments is to sabotage the prosecution.
If i take you at your word that the legal question is so obvious, then there is no plausible reason for the judge not to rule on this immediately. I realize you can speculate that there is a plausible reason, just like I can speculate there is a plausible reason for another judge to give a rapist probation instead of jail sentence. But since we will never prove their motives, we criticize their actions when they act in a way that favors the defense.
I think your argument is that you have no idea how judges generally act in trials, but you are absolutely certain this ruling is so obvious that someone with no knowledge of the law can figure it out in a few minutes.
The right wing gets away with doing quite reprehensible things while the rest of us get caught up in the propaganda they push — if we can’t determine their motives for taking those actions, we must accept them. But the double standard is that the right wing has criminalized “motives” (and the media and some on the left help them) by demonizing people who might have revealed their opinion in an e-mail but whose actual conduct is beyond reproach.
If the Rittenhouse judge had acted as an unbiased judge and had issued rulings like the judge issued rulings in the McMichael trial — none of which were out of the ordinary — the right wing would have amplified that he was a democrat (many decades ago) and used that to smear the judge.
I don’t care whether either judge is a democrat or a republican. What they believe personally should be of less concern than whether they are acting in a way that is biased. If even a layman like you could read the law in a few minutes, then the Rittenhouse judge’s intentional delay in issuing a ruling served as a “legal” way for him to hurt the defense.
It’s like the judge who gave probation to the rapist. He is never going to admit he has any bias. But actions speak louder than words. If we aren’t allowed to talk about how specific actions demonstrate bias because “we don’t know the motivation” of those actions, then the judge who gave the rapist probation is beyond criticism. And I don’t believe he is.
NYC PSP, you have a habit of making unwarranted assertions, of saying, “Well, you must think this or that.” I believe that the timing of the judge’s instructions regarding the firearms law is a matter of criminal procedure, and not being knowledgeable about proper procedure in a criminal trial, I have no warrant for forming an opinion on the subject. I could drop everything in my life and do an exhaustive study of that, but, hey, it’s not happening. So, no more.
Ofc, I recognize that your question is about the timing. I raised the issue of the rules governing criminal procedure because these bear upon the question you raise. I was trying to be delicate about this issue of making unwarranted accusations. But I’m just going to come right out and say it. Often, you make comments to others on this blog of the “then you must believe that” variety, and these are unwarranted unless you have psychic abilities. LOL. There, I finally, in exasperation, have just come out and said it. There are many comments here that I disagree with, but I hope that I never pretend to be able to read others’ minds and hearts. I hope that I don’t say things like, “You don’t like Peppermint? Then you must be against Christmas.”
My point, above, NYC PSP, is that inductive inference is tricky. It’s not deduction. From the fact that there are white swans, you cannot conclude that all swans are white. Obviously, there are many people who support various aspects of the Rittenhouse trial as it played out, who are racists and/or have substantive implicit racial bias. However, one cannot conclude, logically, from that fact that all people who support any aspect of what happened in the trial are racists or have substantive implicit racial bias. Do I believe we should be sensitive to facts that TEND to suggest racial bias? Absolutely. But we do ourselves no service in jumping to the conclusion. In fact, we do the exact opposite–we alienate folks who might be on our side, who might be reasoned with.
Bob & nycpsp– check out the article I referenced after this exchange. The law isn’t actually clear. There are two clear prohibitions that technically conflict. The more current law prohibits any minor from possessing a firearm. An earlier statute prohibits 14-16y.o.’s from possession a short-barreled firearm. Not every defense lawyer would think to highlight the outdated statute as a ‘conflict,’ but defense sees it as a potential opening for getting the gun charges dismissed. “Criminal pro” [procedure] is a whole field that JD’s study in law school. As far as I can determine thro reading, there’s nothing in it (nor even a ‘norm’) that requires the judge to make his ruling on a question at any designated phase of the trial. There’s also nothing preventing prosecution for taking the Q to an appeals court in the middle of a trial, before the judge has ruled on it.
See the laws that I outlined above. The statute against the minor carrying around a firearm is nullified in Paragraph 2 except in three specific circumstances detailed in other referenced laws. This is my reading of it. Is there a different Wisconsin statute than those I listed that is in conflict with the ones that I listed? If so, I’m not aware of it.
This sort of reasoning, NYC PSP, is invalid:
Some ducks have feathers.
Eagles have feathers.
Therefore, an eagle is a duck.
The article is referencing the very laws that I cited above, Ginny. They are convoluted, but their meaning is clear enough, though stupid and dangerous. The very law that says that minors can’t carry firearms then goes on, in its second paragraph, to except minors over 16 from that law except if they meet three conditions in other (yes, earlier) laws. The Rittenhouse situation meets none of those.
You can think of this in this way. Suppose that there were a law, Bob Statute 99, that reads as follows:
No man will wear Speedos on the beach.
Excluded from this law are all men except those who meet the criteria in Bob Statutes 6 and 10.
Bob Statute 6: People wearing Speedos on the beach are prohibited from eating Cheese Whiz.
Bob Statute 10: People cannot simultaneously wear Speedos on the beach and sing Neil Diamond songs.
In such a situation, a man wearing Speedos on the beach who was not singing Neil Diamond songs and not eating Cheese Whiz would be exempt from BS99.
BTW, I wrote “Some ducks” because a plucked duck is still a duck.
The Wisconsin carry law is specifically written in such a way as to exempt people from it. I think it worth looking into whether pro-gun advocates and/or organizations specifically crafted this law to have such glaring gaps–to appear to address the issue but not to do so in highly significant, widely applicable ways.
Bob,
I never said that the Rittenhouse trial had “racial bias”. There were times when I spoke in general about how I have noticed that it seems that we can only talk about bias when mostly Black juries acquit Black defendants but not when mostly white juries acquit white defendants.
Instead, it seems to me that instead there is a lot of normalizing what happens when white juries acquit white people who have quite obviously killed someone who wasn’t armed after they themselves were responsible for instigating the encounter.
I don’t know anyone’s motives, but one doesn’t have to know motives to notice when something is off. A judge deciding a white rapist doesn’t need jail time. A judge delaying until right before jury summations a decision on a ruling of law that is supposedly so obvious. A judge deciding a defense’s objection to pinching and expanding a video on an Ipad is valid. That’s all I am saying.
If I seem to be disagreeing with you, it is only when I can’t understand why you are contradicting my noticing that something is off. It’s like if you characterized the judge’s decision to give the no prison time sentence to the rapist and I kept correcting you about how you have no idea whether there might be some good reason for that. That’s all. I don’t think we really disagree. If I notice incongruities, I wonder why. I welcome people offering an explanation for why — bethree5 did so when she said that the ruling was not as obvious as it appeared and the judge may not have felt confident in immediately ruling on a more complex issue. If someone had posted some context to explain the judge’s decision not to give a rapist jail time (i.e. the victims asked him not to), I welcome that. But when the response is “I am sure there is a reason for the judge giving that very light sentence to a rapist so don’t know why you would even mention it” I find that annoying and not helpful. Maybe I am reacting that way to you and it is off-putting, so I apologize. Not trying to be rude.
Bob,
I accept your criticism of me. But I advise you to look at how you are also responding in a similar way to bethree5.
bethree5 made two comprehensive posts citing some legal reasoning about how the law is more complicated than you presented.
bethree5 wasn’t taking a position on whether the judge was right, she was just explaining that the reading of the law was more complicated than you had presented it.
I don’t understand why you are arguing with bethree5 on that point. Why are you so vested in presenting the question of whether a 17 year can carry that particular weapon as something so clear and obvious that even a non-legal scholar like you can see?
I don’t want to get into another argument with you — the Rittenhouse judge ruled one way but waited until right before closing arguments to do so. Those are facts we can agree with. And both bethree5 and I agree that the matter of law isn’t quite as obvious. The judge’s decision isn’t “wrong”, but that doesn’t mean the law is as clear cut as you present it. It seems such a minor point of disagreement.
Thanks, Bob, lots more info on laws than I had, and your analogy is wonderful. I have added it to my memory in comic-book format to go with those Jack LaLanne ads at the back where a big guy kicks sand on a weakling—now supplemented by onlookers wearing speedos, eating Cheese Wiz and singing pop songs 😀
nycpsp– No one has really addressed your point on the long-gun thing. There’s an article here that explores it in detail:
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/11/15/explainer-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge/ To boil it down, WI’s general prohibition on minors in possession of firearms is complicated by an older statute (1991) that prohibits 14-16yo’s from carrying short-barreled rifles. (Legal community says many such state laws were passed in those years as a way of countering gang wars, which were typically fought with sawed-off rifles.) The importance of the issue is underscored by a local criminal defense attorney who has argued many jury trials before Schroeder: per legal doctrine, when statutes aren’t clear they must be read in favor of the defense. Prosecutors can ask a state appeals court for clarifications and rulings in the middle of a case; they don’t have to wait until a verdict comes down.”
A federal prosecutor interviewed for the article also criticized the prosecution’s inaction, noting: in view of the difficulty of countering self-defense claims, you must vigorously pursue the gun charge, so as to avoid the distinct possibility of coming away with nothing. He says in a case of this magnitude, when they heard early on there was some doubt, they should have done something to make sure it’s clear. They should have headed Schroeder off by asking an appellate court for a ruling or filing more briefs.
The article gives some insight on whether prosecution could have done a better job (as opposed to, the judge was biased). Legal experts have criticized other aspects of the prosecution, but most conclude it was an uphill battle: (1)because Grosskreutz [a prosecution witness– misstep?] gave credence to self-defense when he testified he was pointing his handgun directly at KR before KR fired, and (2)as a Milwaukee defense lawyer & former prosecutor pointed out in a WaPo article 11/11), “extensive video evidence portrayed a scene of mayhem on Kenosha’s streets, before Rittenhouse opened fire.” Which is not surprising considering WI’s absurd gun laws; as a cop testified, there were as many crowd members armed as not over the course of the protests. That’s not ‘normalizing’ KR’s actions. It’s a normalization of street warfare.
“WI’s general prohibition on minors in possession of firearms is complicated by an older statute (1991) that prohibits 14-16yo’s from carrying short-barreled rifles”
You left out a couple yo’s
14-16yo yoyo’s
There are not many 14-16yo’s who aren’t yoyo’s in my experience teaching that age group. Or 17 yo’s for that matter. Rittenhouse certainly is no exception to that rule.
bethree5,
I appreciate this comprehensive post. Note that you seem to be agreeing with me about the legal issue of Rittenhouse having the gun being a lot more complex than how Bob Shepherd presents it.
However, I don’t accept that it is as simple as “Prosecutors can ask a state appeals court for clarifications and rulings in the middle of a case; they don’t have to wait until a verdict comes down.” Notice the sneaky language there. The prosecution doesn’t have to wait to ask, but it never said “the court will rule on it” if the prosecution asked. Likely because what happens is that the appeal court says to them “wait until the judge rules”. There was that brief conversation where the prosecutor possibly implied that he had to wait for the judge’s ruling and the judge didn’t contradict him — he basically said “oops, my bad”. So people who are presenting this as if the prosecution could have easily appealed it before the judge ruled seemed to be pushing the false narrative that the court would rule on it if the prosecutor asked, and leave out the important information that the appeals court responds “wait until the judge decides to appeal” except in very rare exceptions that would not include these kinds of circumstances. If you, yourself believed that “if the prosecutor had appealed before the decision, he would have had a ruling”, it speaks to how pernicious these false narratives are. I suspect that intentionally misleading narrative is intended to normalize that the judge waited until right before closing arguments to issue his opinion.
But the more disturbing aspect (to me) is how we have normalized when all or mostly white juries acquit right wing gunmen who kill people the right wing doesn’t like, twisting ourselves into knots to legitimize a self-defense plea that would have been laughed out of court if a Black defendant used it. We bend over backward to say that any fear felt by a right wing gunman justifies that he killed unarmed people. White juries accept that fear and the so-called liberal media and all of us look for every reason to justify their decision as just or fair. Reading that quote you posted about how dangerous all those unarmed people were, I was struck at how it accepted without question the absurdity of an armed white man’s defense that he had to shoot first because the unarmed person might take his gun and kill him with it. If a defense lawyer used that defense for a Black client, he would probably be sued for malpractice when his client was convicted.
And if a Black jury acquits a Black defendant, everyone is allowed to talk about their biases, whether their distrust of police played a role, etc. What you almost never hear is the non-stop drumbeat that “the jury’s decision was fair and just”.
Think about the double standard. When OJ Simpson was acquitted, there was a lot of talk about how different witnesses’ testimony was trusted or not trusted by the jury. People were allowed to talk about jury bias and what was rarely heard was that OJ Simpson trial was “fair and just” so shut up and stop talking about it.
The judge who just gave a white rapist probation instead of jail time didn’t do anything illegal. Apparently by definition, that decision was “fair and just” and demonstrated no biases at all. So I guess we better not criticize it.
See my note, above, Ginny. The article you list deals with the very laws that I quoted, and those definitely, though convolutedly, exempt Rittenhouse. Stupid? Dangerous? Yes. But that’s what the very laws I mention say. It makes no sense, of course, to say, thou shalt not kill. And this applies only to red-haired people who kill at 12:00 noon on Tuesdays. But that’s just like what the Wisconsin law says.
Ginny, the article deals with the same laws that I quoted and or summarized above. However, I made a couple mistakes in my example of analogous laws. Here, a revision:
You can think of this in this way. Suppose that there were a law, Bob Statute 99, that reads as follows:
BS 99(1). No man may wear Speedos on the beach.
BS 99(2) Excluded from this law are all men except those in violation of BS6 or BS10.
BS6: People eating Cheese Whiz on the beach are prohibited from wearing Speedos on the beach.
BS10: People singing Neil Diamond songs are prohibited from wearing Speedos at any time and in any place.
In such a situation, a man wearing Speedos on the beach who was not singing Neil Diamond songs and not eating Cheese Whiz would be exempt from BS99.
The Wisconsin firearm carry laws are just like this. The law prohibiting minors from carrying firearms that you mention, Ginny, contains this huge exemption except under three specific conditions, none of which were met.
As I said earlier …
This is one of those frog-in-warm-water discussions. The absurdity we’ve all too gradually lost the ability to sense is the idea that some punk can carry an assault rifle to a protest and somehow not have lost the presumption of innocence from the moment he picked it up.
How Did It Come To This?
A Supreme Court Full of Brain Dead Megaphones, That’s How …
Arguing over the technical details of the trial and verdict in our current circumstances is every bit as pointless and absurd as debating the fine points of a Stalinist show trial.
Jon,
I agree. Except “some punk” should be replaced with “white person with right wing views whose victims weren’t expressing right wing views”.
Because this is a law that is not applied equally.
If some right wing assassin had carried an assault weapon into a mass protest and killed 2 and maimed a 3rd person, he’d be in jail today for life. NJ gun laws are much stricter than Wisconsin gun laws. You cannot walk around with a gun in NJ, concealed or open carry, unless you are a cop, or have a good/legal reason or if you are a criminal. The standard for getting a license to carry a gun in NJ is strict and high and granting of said license is rare to the max.
Joe Jersey,
I agree that should be what happens, but it would not necessarily happen in NJ if the judge and jury were extremely biased.
Who “should” be convicted or acquitted is not who is convicted or acquitted in NJ or elsewhere and race does play a role. Juries have implicit biases and whether they believe someone when that heavily armed person makes claims of feeling in danger or not is influenced by that.
What I find abhorrent is people (not you, Joe Jersey) who don’t want to talk about that and instead say “whatever the jury decides is fair”. That is what show trials depend on. Accept it and move on. That’s a precursor to fascism.
Completely agree, Jon
Frogs jump out of the pot well before it reaches boiling temperature.
Frogs are much smarter than humans in that regard. And in most other regards as well.
Yes, I should have said proverbial frog …
And proverbial flowers never bend with the rainfall …
Frogs jump out, fools rush in.
I believe it’s spelled “proverboil frog”
Jon– “The absurdity we’ve all too gradually lost the ability to sense is the idea that some punk can carry an assault rifle to a protest and somehow not have lost the presumption of innocence from the moment he picked it up.” The absurdity you’re talking about is in our laws [or at least in WI’s laws]. We have states with such lax gun control that in fact it’s perfectly legal to carry any sort of firearm, concealed or not, to a protest. So you get a protest like this one where a cop testified there were as many participants armed as unarmed during the course of the ‘unrest.’ Add multiple videos illustrating an out-of-control melee before shots were even fired—what could possibly go wrong /s/? At the same time you have a set of trial laws based on presumption of innocence. The latter can’t deal with the former.
Pew says gun sales have risen in recent years, particularly during the pandemic—peaking in July 2020. The number favoring stricter gun laws dipped from 60% in Sept ‘19 to 53% in April ‘21. But– that includes 81% Dem/leaning Dem: we are not frogs in water.
bethree5,
You are correct that there were a ridiculous number of heavily armed people in Kenosha walking around during the protests. But only one of them shot and killed two unarmed people and maimed another one.
Again, does anyone really think that the benefit of the doubt would go to the one heavily armed person who killed two unarmed people if that one heavily armed person who killed two unarmed people wasn’t a white right winger who the police looked on favorably but was instead a Black BLM supporter? Regardless of whether everyone is heavily armed, does that automatically mean that everyone – regardless of race or political leanings or who their victims* happen to be – is perceived as believable when they claim self-defense?
*I realize it was improper for me to call them victims, as I am only supposed to refer to them as rioters” or “arsonists”, which I am sure would have also applied had Kyle Rittenhouse been the victim. Or not. If the guy with the handgun had shot Rittenhouse instead of choosing to save Kyle’s life and try to disarm him instead, what would Rittenhouse be called instead of “victim”? Rioter? Arsonist? Shooter? Peacekeeper? Medic? Somehow I suspect it would be one of the final two choices.
Nycpsp— your opening question: in a court of law, political leanings and how they color perceptions of believability are not part of the equation, because our system is based on allowing people to hold whatever crazy opinions/ beliefs they may have as long as they don’t break xyz laws. Yes intent is part of equation but notoriously difficult to prove in relation to the violent incident, and the more chaotic the situation giving rise to the violence, the more difficult.
My main problem with your line of argument: these things may be obvious but they don’t lead toward solutions. We can anticipate wrong-headed thinking, prejudice etc, it’s all around us, but how do we minimize its impact on the justice system? One path is education toward cultural change, but that takes years and meanwhile we turn out decisions like this one which continue to erode faith in our democratic institutions. Another path has to be toward better laws. (Of course they go hand in hand.)
I find that protest in WI so unsettling because virtually zero gun control is lawlessness, leads straight to more people arming themselves for self-protection, to armed vigilantes making peaceful protest untenable, to clamping down on all protest, to military-style policing, to fascist laws.
From NBC news: Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he’s found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count. end quote
Irony much.
Is Dominick Black white?
If so, he can make what certain folks here would deem a credible defense — that he was afraid that if he did not give the gun to Kyle Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse would grab it from him and kill him with it.
According to those folks, what came before is irrelevant. We must start at the moment Kyle and Dominick were together, with Dominick having possession of the gun. His actions from that point on were all because he feared for his life. Kyle stepped toward him. That’s when he handed over the assault weapon. The Rittenhouse jury would apparently have acquitted Dominick had he decided to shoot Kyle instead, so there is no reason to doubt that a similar jury would acquit Dominick for choosing to hand over a weapon to protect himself from what he perceived as certain death instead of killing Rittenhouse. Fear is fear and anyone who feels fear can’t be convicted of any crime if he claims self-defense was the cause. Or maybe that rule is “any conservative pro-gun white man” who feels fear can’t be convicted if he claims self-defense.” His perspective is supreme.
Dominick Black would be exonerated by certain folks here if he uses the defense that he believed that if he did not give the gun to Kyle, Kyle would simply grab it from him and kill him with it. What matters is how Dominick Black felt. If Dominick Black says he felt he would be in danger from Kyle if he didn’t hand over the gun, that’s what matters. And when the jury lets him off, those folks will say it was the correct verdict.
It’s the perfect defense, since it is the exact same defense used by Rittenhouse. As long as the white guy in possession of an assault weapon says he felt threatened that the other guy would take it away from him and use it against him, it is of no consequence whether it is reasonable of the white guy with the gun to feel that way. The very fact that he feels that way means that self-defense acquittal is always necessary, regardless of whether the man with a gun shoots the other person dead, or decides to willingly hand over the gun so the other guy doesn’t get mad, grab it from his hands, and kill him with it.
The defense will be that he didn’t know Rittenhouse was underage.
Daedalus: Dominick Black was friends with Kyle R. He damn well knew he was underage, that’s why he got him the gun.
Joe,
I’m sure the self-defense claim would work better. As long as Dominick testifies that he thought Kyle would act in a certain way, it’s a slam dunk. It doesn’t matter if it is highly unlikely that Kyle would have grabbed the gun and shot Dominick if Dominick didn’t just hand it over. It just matters that Dominck felt that he would and therefore acted to protect his own life by immediately handing over the gun so Kyle didn’t grab it instead and kill him.
My guess is that Black will use the “defense” that he did not “sell” the gun to Rittenhouse but merely acted as a currier for the transaction.
He has already admitted to buying it but says he used Rittenhouse’s money, so I guess that makes it all kosher (or so he seems to believe, at any rate)
Unfortunately for him and for any legal team he assembles, he has already said more than he should have for his own good (much of it under oath)
But we shall see.
He’s the one who lent KR an AR-15 on the day. As far as the state law is concerned, this charge against him makes sense. What’s not clear is who’s gonna be a judge. I really don’t like a guy who sat on the RT case or anyone who holds a similar ideology.
A 17 year old boy should not have been at the Kenosha riot, with or without a gun. The three men he shot should also not have been at that riot. But they all had a right to be there, however unwise that was. And Wisconsin law allowed Rittenhouse to have that gun, which is why the weapons charge was dismissed as a matter of law as all judges are required to do.
You may believe that Rittenhouse committed murder, but the standard to prove guilt in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone who paid attention to legal experts outside the partisan left-wing bubbles of CNN, MSNBC, and almost all the rest of the media could see the acquittal coming. One attorney said that when listening to several prosecution witnesses he thought he was listening to defense witnesses because the testimony was making credible the claim of self-defense. The judge had some odd moments, but a little disclosed fact is that he once ran as a Democratic candidate for the State Senate and was originally appointed by a Democratic Governor – hardly the caricature drawn of him as a Trumpkin.
The response of much of the Left to this verdict is dismaying but not surprising to a traditional liberal like me. There are few principled liberals remaining who favor due process (and free speech) for people they dislike. We see this on college campuses all the time, and we see this on this blog all the time these days, too.
Liberalism is almost nonexistent. Suggestions that CNN and MSNBC are leftist is laughable. A supposedly “Leftist” president passed a Republican plan for health insurance and was pilloried for it. The media are almost all center-right to far right. We have proceeded to a point where advocating infrastructure legislation is “on the left.”
Amanda Kinney, J.D.,
In other words, what you are saying that had the jury convicted Kyle Rittenhouse on any of the counts, it would have been a huge miscarriage of justice with a tainted and biased jury convicting an innocent man?
Got it. Your opinion speaks for itself.
Yes, Amanda spends all her time pillorying the left/liberals, not so much the right wing or Trump who canonized Kyle R. as some kind of gun toting saint/angel in defense of the 2nd amendment, self-defense (vigilantism) and American exceptionalism. Tucker and Kyle, perfect together. Is Tucker a liberal, Amanda?
By the way, your pronouncement than a man carrying an assault weapon who has already instigated an encounter and shot and killed one unarmed man has any credible “self-defense” position against people trying to disarm him is not quite as cut and dry if that man isn’t white and his victims aren’t people that right wingers hate.
“And Wisconsin law allowed Rittenhouse to have that gun, which is why the weapons charge was dismissed as a matter of law as all judges are required to do.”
If it was so obvious, then why didn’t the judge dismiss this BEFORE the trial instead of at the end of the trial?
Your position that the judge himself was too stupid to know the law until right before closing arguments is pretty weak.
Also interesting to see right wing legal “experts” who seem to now be saying that they were very stupid not to realize that carrying that assault weapon was legal for Kyle and that’s why they never mentioned that it was obviously legal until after the judge ruled that it was.
If this was so “obvious”, the judge would have ruled on it at the beginning.
Amanda Kinney JD,
Jesse Helms was a Democrat
Judge Roy Moore in Alabama was a Democrat
Norm Coleman was a Democrat
Ivanka Trump was a Democrat
I could go on with dozens more. So what?
What is your point? Are you lying and claiming that we are all hypocrites who never criticize people who have been Democrats?
Please don’t project your own Republican view that anyone who swears fealty to the party leaders and those the party leaders favor, regardless of their crimes and ugly comments, is always right.
We are criticizing the judge on his actions and biases, not because he was or was not a democrat. That seems to be something that the Republicans are unable to do. Why?
By the time I lived in NC Jesse Helms was a Republican
Yes, I am pointing out that we have no idea whether this judge currently identifies as a democrat, but Amanda Kinney is trying to associate him with democrats. Furthermore, unlike the Republicans, who only criticize anyone from their own party who doesn’t swear fealty to their most racist and reprehensible members, the Democrats don’t condone reprehensible behavior.
Could you give an example of disdain for due process on this blog? The topic seldom comes up.
While the J.D. is part is hilarious, it’s the sentence, “The response of much of the Left to this verdict is dismaying but not surprising to a traditional liberal like me.” that gives away the game. The fact that someone ran as a Democrat in a previous life also has no legs. Sen. John Kennedy was an elected Democrat before he became a right wing buffoon.
As a J.D. will surely know, a good attorney can argue any facts for any verdict, a bad one can’t. We had an incredibly incompetent prosecutor who was working with laws specifically designed for a case like this. Just because the word “Black” is not in there doesn’t mean it’s intent isn’t obvious. May I cite the Jim Crow era and American history in general as precedents?
As Friederich Dürrenmatt once observed, justice has little to do with fairness.
Maybe it’s just my collegial sympathy speaking, I wouldn’t say Binger was “incompetent,” based on what I saw. I’d have done some things differently (although not necessarily better), but on the whole, I think Binger was much better than he’s being portrayed in the media.
So, any assemblage of citizens to publicly display their opinion is a ‘riot’? That’s what the judge essentially said, and that’s the absurdity you appear to assert.
To me, a ‘riot’ involves violence on the part of the demonstrators, say similar to the 1/6 attack on the Capital Building. Of course, I might be wrong.
No, no, you are correct. Legally speaking. Do go on.
Under Flor-uh-duh’s HB1 (2021), an assemblage of 3 persons can be declared by authorities to be a riot. I doubt seriously that this will stand up to court challenges.
Former federal judge Nancy Gertner and others have made the point that the allowance of the use of terms like rioters, looters and arsonists while simultaneously disallowing the term “victim” is one of the things that indicates the Rittenhouse judge was not being
evenhanded.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/11/8/22770572/kyle-rittenhouse-ahmaud-arbery-vigilante-justice-self-defense-nancy-gertner-dean-strang-other-views
Here’s what the Rittenhouse Judge (Schroeder) said after disallowing “victim” to describe those who had been shot because it was a “loaded” term.
Let the evidence show what the evidence shows — that any or one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting or looting, then I’m not going to tell the defense they can’t call them that”
That’s “interesting.”
Arson, rioting and looting are crimes for which people can — and do — go to jail if convicted.
But normally, people accused in court of such crimes have first been formally charged and are then guaranteed due process to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
One might think that allowing individuals to be called “looters”, arsonists and/or rioters in open court would at a bare minimum depend on their first having been charged with the specific crimes.
And one might think that calling them looters, arsonists and/or rioters in open court without first charging them would be deemed out of bounds by a judge.
But this judge’s pretrial ruling indicates that one would obviously be wrong if one thought that.
None of the three individuals that Rittenhouse shot was ever charged with looting, rioting or arson. And two of them are now dead so they could not even defend themselves against such labeling (which basically amounts to an accusation)
Quite apart from violating evenhandedness in the Rittenhouse trial, allowing the individuals in question to be called looters, arsonists and/or rioters in open court before they are even formally charged would seem to fly in the face of any reasonable definition of “justice” to the three individuals themselves. It would essentially accuse them of crimes for which they had never been charged.
Imagine yourself being called a looter , rioter or arsonist in open court (in a nationally televised trial to boot) without ever having been charged and with no way of defending yourself or clearing your name afterward.
I’d hate to think that this is an accepted part of our legal system.
Or imagine having a father, brother, uncle or other family member who was killed by Rittenhouse being called a “looter” , “arsonist” or “rioter” open court without first being formally charged.
Here’s the basic inconsistency in Judge Schroeder’s pre trial ruling.
Schroeder essentially argues that whether the people who were shot are “victims” should be left up to the jury to decide.
I can actually see the logic in that, since “victim” can and might be interpreted as “victim of a crime” in which case calling them victims might bias the thinking of the jury against the shooter.
But at the same time, Schroeder essentially says that whether the people who were shot can be called “rioters”, “looters” and/or arsonists” (ie, whether they are guilty of looting, arson, or rioting) is something that he alone will decide (presumably based on evidence that he has reviewed). No jury required.
But if no jury is required (only the judge’s ruling) for deciding guilt in the latter case, why is one required for the former?
Why doesn’t/didn’t the judge just decide whether those who were shot were victims” in the legal sense and dispense with the jury altogether?
Wouldn’t that make things easier?
If he is going to designate himself The Decider (TM) of innocence/guilt for one case, why not for the other?
Let Judge Wapner Decide
Take the jury for a ride
Let the Wapner judge decide
Wapner knows the mind of God
Something really to applaud
SDP– Gertner has an excellent point. Even though I and others have said in a previous post that it’s SOP not to use “victims” so as not to sway jurors, those pejorative characterizations of protestors should be disallowed for the same reason– and also to promote the sense that the judge is being even-handed, giving equal pts to each side.
BTW, to Daedelus’ point: the nutty 3-people definition of riot etc just as per FL’s new law passed WI Senate committee two months ago. I expect we’ll see a rash of them throughout the usually suspect states…
Gertner and Strang make the following comment in the article I linked to
True, juries decide who is, or is not, a victim in a legal sense. But American judges routinely allow prosecutors to describe people injured or killed as “victims” in jury arguments. Imagine a domestic violence trial in which the judge would allow the husband’s defense to refer to the wife as a “brawler” but not allow the prosecutor to describe her as a “victim.” We can’t.”
Honestly, that doesn’t sound to me like it’s standard operating procedure to disallow the use of the term victims.
But I have to trust that a former federal judge and University law professor know what the hell they are talking about.
Over the claims , of , say some commenter on a blog who claims to be a lawyer.
Wisconsin state law is seriously flawed and Kenosha city officials did absolutely nothing to keep the kid(s) from walking with an assault rifle. Kenosha police secretly allowed him to serve as a vigilante–with no accompany of law enforcement, even though he was underage and unregistered to carry a gun. That is the main problem and it’s exactly the reason why this tragedy happened. It could have been prevented should the city officials and local police department provided security so that the defendant would not act himself alone in the dark with AR-15 and he would not become the target of people in the street. One of the two victims he shot named JoJo had a history of troubling criminal record, and was alleging to attack Rittenhouse (and the man did confront him, chasing behind, according to the video submitted to the court). Wisconsin’s law puts excess burden on the prosecutors to disprove Rittenhouse’s case is an act of self-defense–i.e., whether victims were really protestors acting in faith or mere instigators to create chaos, but it makes them extremely hard because the law is outdated.
Regarding the verdict, people are free to express whatever opinions about the defendant or the verdict. But it doesn’t really change the fact that national media chose ideology over state’s flawed system that accounts for the ground of social injustice. Neither Biden administration nor federal grand jury considered the shooting of Jacob Blake for criminal investigation. And national media didn’t even mention anything about the system that normalizes the gun rights under police-less law. Instead, they let city officials and police off the hook, and showcased the Rittenhouse trial. They framed the defendant as racist/supremacist like Dylan Wolfe, Alex Fields, or George Zimmerman to fit into their narrative, without even bother looking into the basic background information, evidence, and the court hearing. It’s absolutely horrendous to see a lot of misinformation coming from the national media. Some international media wrongly reported that all three victims Rittenhouse shot are blacks.
I’m not saying Rittenhouse should be innocent. There are still some grounds that could hold him accountable for weapon carriage. Yet, I doubt guilty verdict will make any change in the first place. The way national media portrayed the defendant is kind of exploitation of psychology for collective lynching., which is something I despise, such as publicly shaming anyone who got caught in media dragnet— such as survivors who were held hostage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria as selfish, inconsiderate citizen (Yes, this happened in Japan several times). The defendant didn’t have to deal with this kind of media lynching.In the absence of utmost culprits normalizing the police-less law, national media got a shining moment to act the utmost villain. That’s what infuriates me the most.
Making sure I understand your point here.
Are you blaming the national media for being too mean to Kyle Rittenhouse?? You think Kyle Rittenhouse got a “media lynching”?
Did you notice the entire mainstream media bending over backward to normalize a completely outrageous defense that would have been laughed out of court (and the defense lawyer disbarred for incompetency) if it was used to defend a 17 year old Black teen carrying an assault weapon who instigated an encounter with unarmed people, shot and killed someone, and then ran down the street brandishing his assault weapon and proceeded to kill one more unarmed person trying to disarm him and maim another person who had a handgun but did not use it because (unlike Kyle himself) he was trying to save lives and not simply kill anyone who looked dangerous to him.
Maybe it is remotely plausible that an all white jury would acquit a Black teen brandishing his assault weapon who instigated an encounter and killed one person, and then used his gun to kill and maim two additional people trying to save lives and disarm him. But I would bet you quite a bit of money that they would not.
And I would also bet you that if the jury wasn’t white and they had acquitted an assault weapon-wielding Black teenager who killed two unarmed people, the media would be talking endlessly about jury nullification.
Kyle Rittenhouse was treated with kid gloves by the media compared to a typical person who has shot and killed two unarmed people. Please do not insult those who really are victims of media lynchings by minimizing what that word means.
Yes, I do. Do you think TV reporters and commenters at CNN and MSNBC watched the televised hearing, video evidence, and testimony? Why do you think so many international media in UK, Brazil, and elsewhere made such errors like Rittenhouse carried a gun by crossing the state boarder or he shot blacks in the protest? Even I myself learned that the victims were all white, the next day he turned himself in after the tragedy last August. The gun didn’t belong to him. It was his friend’s stepfather’s.
Even before the trial began, Rittenhouse was already stigmatized as the utmost villain simply because of his preference for Trump and photos taken with guys who happened to be members of Proud Boys. That appeared in the media repetitively for over a year since he was arrested.
I would say the way national media framed Rittenhouse is exactly the kind of lynching exploiting psychology of public sentiment. The more people the authority get on the side, the closer people consider it as truth. That’s not exclusive to this case. He’s certainly not the first–and won’t be the last. There are so many cases where ordinary citizen–regardless of race, gender, nationality, ideology–gets caught into media dragnet for any legal/national-political issue in the US.
So, if Kinney or her loved ones, while in Wisconsin, try to stop an active shooter, she doesn’t want charges brought against the killer because that’s the law.
Amanda,
You forgot to include the spin about the GOP as the party of Lincoln.
I listened to a talk this morning on WBEZ on the case. Apparently Wisconsin law requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person did not act in self defense. I guess in most states the burden of proof is on the defense. I believe it was a former judge who commented on this judge’s blatant bias and gave several examples including violations of the judicial code of ethics. I was in the car when I turned it on mid conversation, so I didn’t hear it all. I was surprised to find out that it is not unusual for judges to not allow “victims” in a murder trial to be called “victims” because that assumes guilt. However, in that case the judge should not have allowed the”victims” to be called “rioters” rather than protesters because there was no evidence of their rioting.
As always happens on this blog when there is any dissent from far Left orthodoxy, personal attacks follow. The topic under discussion is the criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, not whether Trump is execrable or whether right-wing pundits blindly supported the defendant. I prosecuted criminal cases for 16 years, and a cardinal rule of criminal procedure is that evidence is allowed only when it is relevant to the case. And even if the defendant is an unsympathetic person, the jury is not supposed to allow their personal antipathies to sway them into voting for conviction; most jurors don’t which is why the jury system overall works well. I’ve perused this blog occasionally for a few years, and it’s obvious that almost all the commenters here would make lousy jurors – way too partisan to decide a case fairly if they don’t like the defendant for political reasons. In the Rittenhouse case the standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt wasn’t close to being met – the jury got it right.
Right, you have already made it clear that you would have been outraged at the miscarriage of justice if the jury had not totally exonerated a man with an assault weapon who instigated a violent encounter with unarmed folks and shot one dead, then was running waving his assault weapon and killed every person who tried to disarm him based on his “fear” that every person trying to disarm him would take that gun and shoot him dead.
Does that count if it would have been a white policeman who tried to disarm him? After all, why wouldn’t he forget he was a white man and assume he is a black man and the policeman would shoot him dead?
You believe it would be a miscarriage of justice to convict an assault weapon wielding white man who killed two people because the assault wielding white man felt scared. You have made it clear that would get you out on the streets protesting is only if an armed white man who killed two unarmed people was convicted.
Personal attacks? I would say it was a very vigorous criticism of your obviously biased and slanted opinions. Telling the truth about you is not an attack, it’s a description. I’m surprised you even visit this blog since you have such a high disdain for those who comment here on a regular basis.
Perhaps the real issue here is whether or not there needs to be some statute that can be reasonably used to prosecute a person who knowingly carries a lethal weapon into a volatile situation and hurts someone thereby. Or do we want vigilante justice? Lynchings in the post Civil War South make a good argument against that.
I could imagine some state legislatures enacting such a statute.
I don’t dislike Kyle for political reasons. I dislike him because he murdered two men and blew off the arm of a third, and he will face no accountability for his actions. Two families lost loved ones. A genuine medic (unlike Kyle, who falsely claimed to be an EMT) lost his arm. I don’t like the person who did these awful things.
Did you pay any attention to the facts of the case? The third man who survived admitted he pointed a loaded gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. No jury will convict based on that testimony alone. Correct that – only a jury comprised of this blog’s blindly partisan commenters will convict based on such testimony.
The second man that Kyle killed was “armed” with a skateboard.
Amanda Kinney,
So now you are going on record that it would have been perfectly legal for the man with the handgun to simply shoot Kyle from further away and kill him? Since both of them were “pointing their guns” at one another? As we all saw in the photo. Was whoever shot and killed the other first justified?
And of course, you do find it irrelevant that one man pointing a gun had already killed someone with it, and the other man was not.
Your arguments keep implying that in your legal opinion, the guy with the handgun who refrained from shooting dead a heavily armed Rittenhouse who had ALREADY killed one person would have been well within his rights to simply shoot Rittenhouse dead?
And of course, you left out that two of Rittenhouse’s victims were not armed.
Do you pay any attention to the facts of the case yourself?
But as long as you go on record as saying it would have been legal for Rittenhouse’ victim to shoot him first — which certainly makes sense given that Rittenhouse has already shot someone dead and everyone felt in fear of him as evidenced by most of them running for their lives – I will know this isn’t about exonerating a right winger for killing victims who aren’t important to you.
I doubt you are anything but a troll hoping your hypocrisy isn’t noticed.
3rd man responding to an active shooter.
I have served on several juries. My personal experience: each time, i walked away with enormous respect for how ordinary citizens, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker–people with extremely varied educational backgrounds, took their work extraordinarily seriously and proceeded with the utmost deliberation and care.
I can’t say that I can say the same for the breathtaking inequity that comes from being able to hire, or not, the best legal representation.
Since I can no longer “like” comments (because I’ve deleted WordPress), I will just say that I like this comment.
I guess that I, too, am an outlier here. I think that the jury in this case acted in accordance with Wisconsin laws that are totally FUBAR, ones that allow a child to appoint himself a vigilante to protect property from protesters and walk around the streets, during the protest, with a military-grade weapon. I recently taught 17-year-olds. They are extremely emotionally unstable, as yet unformed, and their heads are full of crazy and contradictory notions. I strongly condemn laws that treat them as competent adults. I highly recommend, in this regard, Fredrick Brown’s short story “The Weapon.”
Bob, thanks for teaching me a new acronym. FUBAR. I had to look it up.
I had to look up FUBAR. I’m of the Snafu generation.
From Catch-22.
Greg, agreed. I have known of SNAFU for many years. Not FUBAR.
Bob,
So you think a Black teenager with an assault weapon would have been acquitted under the same circumstances as long as the people he killed were in Wisconsin?
Would a white antifa teen with an assault weapon been acquitted under the same circumstances as long as the people he killed were in Wisconsin?
There were hundreds (more?) people armed in Kenosha, but only one person instigated an encounter that left 2 unarmed people dead. During the days of armed people at those protests, how many were shot to death?
With the OJ Simpson trial, there was lots of discussion about being a rich defendant with the best defense money could buy.
There was also lots of discussion about the role of race and how it can play out in jury trials. I must have missed where right wingers demanded that all be silenced, or no one would trust the legal system anymore. Maybe because it didn’t happen.
Money does play a part, but that should never be used to silence people pointing out that biases also play an arguably more important part.
We all concede that money in trials affects outcomes. But one side won’t concede that race does, too. Ask yourself if they are being honest or not?
So you think a Black teenager with an assault weapon would have been acquitted under the same circumstances as long as the people he killed were in Wisconsin?
Where did I say that? I didn’t.
Bob, I was responding to this:
“I guess that I, too, am an outlier here. I think that the jury in this case acted in accordance with Wisconsin laws that are totally FUBAR, ones that allow a child to appoint himself a vigilante to protect property from protesters and walk around the streets, during the protest, with a military-grade weapon.”
Maybe I misunderstood. I took this to mean that you think that any Wisconsin jury acting in accordance with Wisconsin laws would of course also acquit a Black defendant under the same circumstances.
If you are saying that they would not, that completely contradicts all of the points that flerp is making and you two seem to be in agreement instead of taking completely contradictory points.
I never said that. I am quite aware of the extent of systemic racism in our justice and penal systems.
In fact, I suspect that given this system, if the defendant had been black, he would never have made it to court given what would have happened to him on the scene at the hands of police.
Objection. Speculation. Goes to defendant’s state of mind.
Bob,
I feel that part of our disagreement is about semantics.
A New York state judge just handed down a sentence to a white man who raped 4 teenage girls under 18. The white man got only probation – no jail time.
I don’t understand why we can’t express outrage at this without having the discussion always hijacked by a discussion of whether it was “legal” for the judge to do this.
Just because a ruling or action that demonstrates bias can be interpreted as being legal doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be criticized.
When people expressed outrage at the Rittenhouse verdict, it got hijacked by people who wanted to silence the critics of the verdict. They wanted to reframe the discussion on their terms “if the jury accepts the self-defense verdict, that makes it legal”. Those people were trying to silence the critics of the Rittenhouse verdict by presenting the false narrative that anything that can be interpreted as “legal” can’t be criticized. But it can be criticized and should.
The NY state judge who gave a rapist probation without jail time was biased. We can and should be allowed to discuss that without someone trying to silence us by posting “what the judge did was legal” to justify their attempts to attack and silence critics of that judge’s decision.
That decision was really obscene.
I too was outraged by the judge’s decision to give only probation to a serial rapist. His defense was that he started watching porn on the Internet when he was 7. He should have served jail time.
The serial rapist used the Sargeant Krupski defense.
It was obscene. The fact that the judge acted in a “legal” way doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to discuss the problems with that judicial decision or and it doesn’t mean that you should be criticized for calling it “obscene”. Just because the judge’s actions were “legal” does not mean the outcome must be characterized as “fair” and “just”.
But it seems that with the Rittenhouse case, the fact that some biased judicial decisions were “legal” is being presented as the argument for why criticism of those actions are not allowed.
An action can be “legal” and yet demonstrate serious bias in the system.
Larry David is so freaking funny! Thanks.
The disagreement at the blog is that you, Amanda, citing the law, don’t want charges brought against an active shooter who may murder you or your loved ones if they are in Wis. Some advice, run from active shooters, don’t try to save your fellow citizens or family.
Others here, recognize the danger posed by self-appointed enforcers of property crimes who murder with A-15’s even when the enforcer has no knowledge about property damage by an individual.
I have no doubt that Amanda Kinney JD could make an excellent argument about how the jury in the Emmett Till trial “got it right”. Because “the standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt wasn’t close to being met” for the defendants charged with murdering Till.
The weight and credibility that a jury gives a witness offering up a very questionable story is important. And when the jury accepts the most ridiculous evidence (like a sheriff insisting it wasn’t even Emmett Till’s body despite many other far more credible witnesses testifying it was), that is tainted by bias.
Or, as Amanda Kinney would say, it has nothing to do with bias and the real outrage would have been if the white men who killed Emmett Till were not acquitted since there was so much “reasonable doubt”. And Emmett Till’s murderers were acquitted in a “fair trial”.
I don’t think you can draw a conclusion with regard to Ms. Kinney’s take on the Emmett Till case, one of the hundreds of thousands involving race, in this country, where justice clearly was not done.
I can draw a conclusion from people who say that a decision that a jury makes is – by definition – a fair decision.
I can draw a conclusion from people who won’t even concede that racism and other biases affect trials.
All of the arguments boil down to “I agree with the weight and lack of weight that the jury used to reach their decision, so it was fair and reasonable and all discussion of bias is hereby forbidden.”
While Kinney didn’t say this, others who agree with her did try to promote the outrageous view that even talking about the racial biases in the legal system is dangerous because it undermines people’s faith in the legal system.
Of course what undermines people’s faith in the legal system is saying there are no biases and any criticisms of verdicts and jury and judge bias must be shut down.
That’s why the Emmett Till trial is relevant. It isn’t that the jury made a biased verdict. It is that this country, eventually, was allowed to discuss that the jury made a biased verdict. Imagine if we had today’s situation, with people claiming that it would undermine faith in the legal system if we talked about that.
I think that this would be covered, in the law, by what is known as speculation.
I responded above.
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
Millions of dollars was donated to pay for the lawyers that defended Rittenhouse in court leading to a jury verdict that Rittenhouse was innocent. The reason for those donations didn’t have anything to do with Rittenhouse being innocent or guilty. that money was spent to send a message that it was okay to kill people if those murders support white supremacy.
One of the subtle ways that implicit racism is part of our culture:
There have been a times when either a Black juror has been a hold out against conviction in a trial of a Black person, or a primarily Black or all Black jury has been harshly criticized for being biased against police and acquitting a black defendant.
The right wing propaganda machine never shuts down those discussions by the blanket statement that “the trial was fair” so any decision by a juror must not be criticized.
On the contrary, the words “jury nullification” are bandied about and lots of talk about biased Black jurors is allowed to be part of the conversation.
There was endless discussions about bias and a lot of skepticism when those who liked the verdict tried to silence anyone who criticized the OJ verdict by saying “the trial was fair”.
Yes, remember how we weren’t allowed to discuss the OJ verdict publicly because anyone who criticized the verdict was told to shut up because “the trial was fair”?
There was allowed to be lots of discourse about the OJ Simpson trial.
And a lot of reasonable skepticism to those who tried to shut down all discussion of the OJ Simpson verdict because “the trial is fair”.
Biases of white jurors aren’t allowed to be acknowledged or discussed by the same folks who readily discuss biases by black jurors.
It is perfectly reasonable to discuss how jurors may have different perspectives of how credible and truthful the testimony of a police officer is because of his race.
But apparently we are forbidden to discuss how jurors may have different perspectives of how credible and truthful the testimony of an armed white man who gunned down multiple people is because of his race and because his victims had the wrong color skin or were supporting a movement against racism.
Why? Implicit racism. Why can’t we acknowledge that many white jurors are absolutely biased in favor of armed white men who kill (if their victims are Black or support BLM)? They often give them the benefit of the doubt BEYOND what is reasonable but that is forbidden from being discussed because any acquittal in those circumstances is considered fair and justice. That discussion is not forbidden when there are acquittals of Black defendants.
Imagine that you or I had been accused of what Matt Gaetz has been accused of. We would have been arrested immediately. We have two legal systems in the United States, one for the wealthy, white, and/or powerful, and another for everyone else. Take, for example, the Teflon Don 2.0. Please.
Resources certainly matter for criminal targets and defendants. A defendant who is not wealthy, even an educated defendant, is helpless when fixed in the sights of the government.
But the “two legal systems” is too cynical and simplistic when it comes to race. And I think it undermines the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly.
You raise a good point about undermining confidence in the system, but I’ve seen so much of this. “A defendant who is not wealthy, even an educated defendant, is helpless when fixed in the sights of the government.” Exactly.
It undermines your own integrity when you don’t want to allow discussions of racial biases in trials as it pertains to white defendants, especially when you don’t seem to be concerned about shutting down discussions of biases by Black jurors in trials where Black defendants are exonerated.
Are you now going on record as stipulating that all examples of Black jurors not trusting the testimony of police and acquitting Black defendants are correct and do you strongly object to any discussion of those trials that does not first stipulate that the jury was absolutely right to acquit because no other verdict was possible?
Because I would like to see you be half as critical of those who talk about that and I would like to see you state for the record that race absolutely played no part in the decision.
Are you now stipulating that the legal system cannot function properly if there is any discussion at all about how some juries might be skeptical of the testimony of white police officers? Because you seem to be presenting yourself as some non-racist arbiter and yet you (as usual) always criticize and attack only one side.
Let’s remember that OJ Simpson had lots of resources and was acquitted.
But what is different is that people like flerp were not saying “we must not discuss the OJ trial because it was an absolutely fair and just verdict”. There was allowed to be a lot of discussion about how race and racism influenced the trial and how jurors perceived evidence and the credibility of those giving testimony.
Why isn’t that allowed here? I think it is very obvious why some people want to censor all of us from discussing biases in the Rittenhouse trial, using the ridiculous argument that because it was fair and just to them, no discussion is allowed.
By the standards offered by flerp, the Emmett Till trial was fair and cannot be discussed and had nothing to do with race.
After all, the jury just happened to completely embrace the evidence of the white sheriff who supported their decision to acquit Till’s murderers and disbelieve every bit of evidence that would have convicted them.
flerp seems to be fine with a discussion about the influence of money in trials, as a means to distract from any discussion about jury biases or system biases, which flerp tries very hard to censor and stop.
flerp’s argument is very dangerous, and he presents no real evidence to support it except using scare mongering tactics about how we should all be afraid that the system will fall apart if we call out when there are serious problems with the system.
I think most of us understand that insisting there is no bias when there is obvious bias is what makes people distrust the system and makes the system fall apart.
FYI, flerp is basically using the same argument that the people who insist that American history should be whitewashed are making.
That dishonest argument is that if we talk honestly about the bad parts of history, students will “hate” America and the country will descend into chaos.
But in fact, it is telling students lies when they can see for themselves that they are lies and ordering students to accept those lies as fact that is far more dangerous and makes students hate America.
We all know this. I hope no one buys into the false narratives presented by some people here who demand that the only thing we are allowed to say is “the Rittenhouse verdict was fair and just”.
Their propaganda is pernicious. Our country is in grave danger when we don’t realize how much.
How are your memoirs coming along, and is the tentative title still “Flerp Says: My Thoughts About What Flerp Said”?
flerp writes: “…the “two legal systems” is too cynical and simplistic when it comes to race. And I think it undermines the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly.”
flerp may very well believe that there is no racism in the legal system. If so, that speaks for itself and explains why flerp is so critical of people who want to discuss racial biases.
But giving flerp the benefit of the doubt that flerp does acknowledge racism in the legal system, maybe flerp can enlighten the rest of us as to the proper way that racial biases in the legal system are allowed be discussed. After all, none of us want to “undermine the integrity” of the legal system. Does that mean we can’t discuss racism in the legal system at all because discussing it undermines “public confidence” in the system?
I believe that DENYING the racism in the legal system undermines the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly. Does flerp? We already know flerp believes talking about racism in the wrong way is a problem. Is there a “right way” to acknowledge it, according to flerp?
I doubt that I am the only one who noticed that flerp is implying that it is people who talk about the racism in the legal system who are the ones who are “undermining the integrity of an essential institute”!
We are the problem! It is all of us – having this discussion – who are responsible for undermining the integrity of the legal system! We talk about the racism in the legal system in the wrong way!
What’s the right way? We don’t know but suffice it to say flerp definitely knows when people are doing it wrong. And it those people talking about racism the wrong way who are all to blame for undermining its integrity.
Just once it would be nice to see flerp also acknowledging that people who deny the racism in the legal system undermine the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly. It is an entirely white-centric view to believe that people who see the racism in our legal system will have more confidence in it if those in power completely deny that racism exists, or will lose confidence in the legal system if the racism is acknowledged.
Acknowledging that there are racial biases in the legal system helps build public confidence in the legal system.
Shutting down discussion of those biases undermines public confidence in them, especially among those people who experience those biases directly.
I wish flerp would enlighten us as to how he wants to discuss racial biases in the legal system. Or does he not want to discuss it at all?
There have been interesting comments on racial biases in the legal system. I want to know if there is a way to do so that is acceptable to flerp or not. Because if flerp is going to find something objectionable with any discussion of racial bias, then that speaks for itself.
“Chapter 10: The Time I Totally Nailed Flerp by Getting Him to Go on the Record, and Everyone Clapped”
Our country is in grave danger, but not for the reasons you think. It is disgusting what the democrat/media did to Kyle Rittenhouse. What do you mean you aren’t “allowed “ to discuss bias and race? THAT is the ONLY topic your side discusses. Period.
jacquilenhardt5598, you and flerp seem like you have similar views of the world.
Bob, you asked me yesterday about lessons of the Third Reich for us today and I kind of went in a different direction. But our new JD and resident one who never sees race in anything, any where focused my thoughts. What people don’t realize today is the swiftness and ease with which the legal system and mechanisms of government switched course and functioned. What they really don’t realize is how quickly and seamlessly it will happen here if allowed to. And our two JDs are perfect representations of why.
First, it must be remembered that the job of lawyers is to deal with law as it is. Discretion exists about what the word is exactly is and that’s why they have work. When the complete fascist takeover happens in a few years, the lawyers will go about their work and interpret the new laws with same gusto and rates they currently do.
Second, the state can very easily become the engine of fascism. Civil servants become eyes and ears for the central authority. They have pensions to keep, after all. And enforcement becomes arbitrary, based on political power, not “blind justice,” whatever that is. We saw that quite clearly with the behavior of the judge in the Rittenhouse case. There were any number of times he could have ruled differently and still found justification in statutes. What many Jews learned up to Kristallnacht and none could deny it after, the line between having the law on your side one day and against you the next was virtually nonexistent. All that really changed were the people in charge. And they had a sinister agenda. And there were lawyers as far as you could see who lined up with the qualifications to the job.
“There were any number of times he could have ruled differently and still found justification in statutes.” Exactly.
I am appalled at those now easily conceding the right wing point that clearly it was perfectly legal for 17 year old Rittenhouse to carry his assault weapon.
Let’s recall that the judge did NOT make that supposedly obvious and easy ruling before the trial began. Even though it is apparently so obvious, the judge did not treat it as obvious, and there were not newspaper articles and pundits professing that of course Kyle Rittenhouse could legally carry that gun and why is the prosecution even bringing those charges.
On the contrary, all those supposed legal experts — including the judge himself — seemed to have no idea this was so obvious.
But once the judge made the ruling — allowing the entire trial to proceed without ruling and deciding right before closing statements — suddenly all those people said it was obvious?
Pernicious right wing propaganda whose loud drumbeat amplifies only what helps promote their POV and silence all the facts that don’t.
I am appalled at those now easily conceding the right wing point that clearly it was perfectly legal for 17 year old Rittenhouse to carry his assault weapon.
Wisconsin law forbids open carry by a person 16 or over only under some very specific conditions–e.g., that the weapon is a short-barrelled one–none of which were met in this case.
The law is FUBAR.
Including the PROSECUTOR who brought the phony charges in the first place.
Bob,
If that was the law, why didn’t the judge rule that at the beginning of the trial?
I don’t understand the need to normalize what is not normal.
The judge could have ruled on this supposedly obvious rule before the trial began. The prosecution could have appealed to a higher court and there would have been a far more credible decision than just a judge deciding at the last minute, after the prosecution had completed its case, that 17 year olds in Wisconsin can now legally carry those types of assault weapons whenever they want.
By definition, the last minute decision demonstrates that this was not as cut and dry as people are now saying. It’s how right wing propaganda infects our discourse. It is impossible to point out how the judge was biased because people keep normalizing actions he took without looking at the context.
Would that “too late to appeal” decision by the judge have happened if it were a Black teenager who had an assault weapon and had killed people trying to disarm him after he had already instigated an encounter and shot someone?
Not a chance, unless the judge was certain that teenager was getting convicted for homicide and that charge was irrelevant.
I think it is obvious that judge made that decision when he believed from watching the trial that Kyle was likely to get off on all the other charges.
But when I hear people say both that the decision was obvious and that it makes perfect sense that an unbiased judge would not rule on that “obvious” decision until the prosecution completed its entire case, I can’t help noticing that those two things are contradictory.
Absolutely, Greg.
Nailed it, Greg. Ofc, after this happens, the United States will still be subject to supervening international law, including the human rights laws embodied in the ICCPR and the ICESCR, but that hasn’t stopped it before, has it?
I expect, after the Repugnican fascist takeover, a wholesale rewriting of American law. I do believe, however, that bad law in Wisconsin was the PRIMARY reason for the doleful and absurd outcome in Rittenhouse’s case.
Here’s another way to look at it. Assuming Republicans sweep in 2024 and have absolutely no checks on their power. Does anyone doubt they would, at every level of government from legal to administrative law and everyday bureaucracy, interpret the Constitution in perverse ways without changing a single word of it? Is there any question about who the “winners” and the rest of us will be?
The lesson of New Deal, FHA, and GI Bill-funded and -supported is this: the laws on the books were fabulous, only they were written by and for whites only. Passage of most New Deal legislation came at the price of excluding Blacks from the benefits. Frances Perkins was the lone person who stood for principle and she was ignored on this issue. Administrators of FHA loans were specifically given orders and shown how to deny funding to Black applicants and local governments colluded with zoning and enterprise zone laws. And there is ample evidence that Blacks returning from WWII (and Japanese-Americans) were denied most, if not all, education, housing and transition assistance benefits. All this happened with laws that had no hint of racial intent on the books.
That’s what I fear will happen. The bureaucracy at every level of government will just be ordered–and they will comply to keep their benefits–to adhere to the new regulations. The Federal Register will become the key administrative tool to take over. We’re gonna have to come up with a 21st century American term for Gleichschaltung. “Going along and getting along” is just too long, however correct it will be. But make no mistake, you’ll be amazed at how quickly and widespread it will be. And there won’t be any dissent comparable to the anti-vaxxer racists today. The Fraternal Order of Police members are already salivating at the thought of being let loose. And for those of you counting on the military, forget it. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution. If not a word is changed…well, you get it. Especially when Michael Flynn will be Secretary of Defense, either officially or as the shadow secretary with unaccountable power. Not that anyone in such an administration will ever feel accountable to anyone other than those who sign their paychecks.
…criminal to administrative law…
Exactly right, Greg.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [note the gender, ladies] are created equal [but some are more equal than others], that they are endowed by their Creator [that would be Jehovah, folks] with certain unalienable [ones not applying to aliens] Rights, that among these are Life [in service of the Party], [the] Liberty [to think, act, and speak as the Party requires] and the pursuit of [the] Happiness [of Glorious Leader].
But there were be lots and lots of new legislation too.
But make no mistake, you’ll be amazed at how quickly and widespread it will be.
yup
Your point, and Hannah Arendt’s, that much of this depends upon the banal, mediocre background machinery of the fascist state and the unthinking, quotidian acceptance of interpretation, is spot on, Greg. And, of course, that was the major theme of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Give me a God, supernatural or human, to do my thinking for me, and some papers to stamp.
I find myself coming back to Dürrenmatt a lot these days. His farces written from the 40s through the 70s are turning out to be predictive. This fragment from The Assignment, a collection of 24 run on sentences about an act of terror: “…nonterrorists were also capable of atrocities, Auschwitz, for instance, was not the work of terrorists but of state employees…”
I very much wish your comments here, Greg, to be read and understood widely.
According to the control-F function in my web browser, the word “flerp” appears 34 times on this page.
“…the “two legal systems” is too cynical and simplistic when it comes to race. And I think it undermines the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly.”
By my count, that is ? times that flerp has been unwilling to defend his own comments but chosen to attack critics. (Sorry, unlike flerp I defend what I write instead of counting up how many times nycpsp is mentioned.”)
Grow up. You chose to participate in a conversation in which you have posted a provocative comment that blamed those who talk about racism for undermining confidence in the legal system.
Writing comments in which you blame those who talk about racism for undermining confidence in the legal system is your choice.
Choosing not to defend that very offensive comment from criticism is also your choice.
But instead of defending or clarifying your comment, you amuse yourself by gratuitously insulting me.
Bob Shepherd has no problem acknowledging the racism in the legal system. But you never do. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your provocative statement above was not a denial that there was racism in the legal system.
All you had to do was acknowledge the racism in the legal system and offer up some better ways that meet with your approval about how to discuss it.
I was taking you at your word that there was a wrong way of discussing racism that undermines public confidence in the legal system and a right way that doesn’t undermine public confidence in the legal system.
That would have been an interesting conversation to have.
But instead you threw insults.
If you don’t believe anyone should ever discuss racism in the legal system, just own it. Don’t pretend that your criticism of those who discuss racism in the legal system is an admirable attempt to protect its integrity and insure public confidence.
I’ve told you a hundred times I won’t engage with you substantively, and I’ve told you the reasons why. Engaging with you is like stepping into quicksand. It never ends, nobody’s mind is changed, it clutters up the blog, and it burns time better spent on other things. You also can’t disagree with someone without insulting them—for example, calling me a racist in this thread. This has been going on for years and I’ve explained it to you. I don’t think you’re a serious person, and I don’t respect you enough to engage with you. But I will crack jokes from time to time. I advise you get a sense of humor.
You engage with me all the time by gratuitously insulting me.
You posted a comment that criticized people who supposedly discussed racism in the legal system in the wrong way and you suggested that their language was undermining the integrity of the legal system. You wrote: “the “two legal systems” is too cynical and simplistic when it comes to race. And I think it undermines the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly.”
I didn’t want to make assumptions that you were trying to deny that there is racism in the legal system. You had a chance to clarify and you simply insulted me.
You are correct that you should not engage with me if your perspective is that racism in the legal system doesn’t exist or that any discussion of racism in the legal system undermines public confidence in the legal system. Readers can judge for themselves whether there is an implicit racism in that belief.
Maybe that isn’t your perspective, but you have given no reason for anyone to believe otherwise. You certainly were forthcoming in making clear your view that certain ways of discussing racism are “too cynical and simplistic” and “undermine the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly”.
It really shouldn’t be so hard to acknowledge that there is racism in the legal system if you actually believe there is racism in the legal system. It shouldn’t be so hard to offer up some ways of talking about it that aren’t “too cynical and simplistic”.
I certain do not expect you to acknowledge the racism in the legal system if you don’t believe there is racism in the legal system. I understand why you would not acknowledge something that you do not think exists.
I just don’t understand why you are criticizing other people who do believe there is racism in the legal system and invoking the false narrative that people’s faith in the legal system will be undermined if we use the wrong words to discuss the racism in the legal system.
That is not true. People will have MORE faith in the legal system if racism is acknowledged than they will if people deny that racism exists.
I don’t care if you don’t want to engage with me because I have nothing to discuss with someone who denies the reality that there is racism in the legal system. If you aren’t someone who is denying that there is racism in the legal system, then you are doing a very good impression of one.
And if you are willing to acknowledge that there is racism, are there ways to discuss that without “undermining the integrity of an essential institution that needs public confidence to function properly”?
Obviously that question is moot if you don’t believe there is racism. So I don’t really expect you to reply. Your silence will speak louder than all the insults you like to fling.
Don’t forget me! I contributed 50 dollars to his defense. He had the entire media, democrat pols, including President Brandon, and Hollyweird LYING about what happened that night, and they still are lying.
Don’t tell us, tell Anthony Huber’s heartbroken parents they should be grateful to you. Huber sacrificed his own life to protect innocent civilians. Huber’s parents heard “hurtful and nasty comments” from Rittenhouse supporters about how his death was justified.
“There was no justice today for Anthony (Huber), or for Mr. Rittenhouse’s other victims, Joseph Rosenbaum and Gaige Grosskreutz,” Karen Bloom and John Huber said in a statement that was released minutes after the verdict was announced in the Kenosha, Wisconsin, courtroom.
“Today’s verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son,” Huber’s parents said. “It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street.”
We will have to agree to disagree – you think Huber deserved to die. I don’t. Huber wasn’t trying to disarm one of the many heavily armed people who walked around Kenosha that night and didn’t gun down someone. Huber was trying to disarm the ONLY armed gunman in Kenosha who shot and killed another person. That you still believe that Huber deserved to die speaks volumes. So why don’t you go make his parents feel even worse, just like others of your ilk have done.
You, (j-5598), are nothing but a gun goon who would love to shoot Democrats, Hollywood liberals, or anyone who threatens you in the least. In other words, you are a coward hiding behind a gun, like most gun goons. Please feel free to have carnal knowledge of your beloved firearm.
Wait, it seems I remember something about a fool and money. Maybe it’ll come back to me.
The gun laws in Georgia are lax (as in Wisconsin), people can carry guns around, conceal or open carry. You can stand your ground and use your gun if you feel threatened. You are allowed to be judge, jury and executioner on the spot. Thus, Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William Bryan Jr. can claim self-defense as did Rittenhouse in Wisconsin. The right wing gun goons are now permitted to be range free vigilantes. But on the other hand, the Georgia gun goons don’t have the financial backing that Kyle R. had. So they will probably be convicted, one would hope.
And the judge in the Georgia case, Judge Timothy Walmsley, is not a clone of the judge in the Rittenhouse case.
The judge rejected a defense request for a mistrial, so that will make a big difference.
Lot of AR-15s outside the courthouse in the Arbery trial today in Georgia.
It was clearly self defense. Three people clearly came at him when he put himself their space . Of course one has to ask what kind of sh-t hole State allows its citizens to walk down the street armed with an assault riffle. The lesson to be gotten here is; don’t come to a gun fight with a skate board . After all if the victims (or rioters which ever you prefer) all had Ar 15s and then blew away the little Nazi. They could have claimed it was self defense. After all a Cretin walking in your general direction with an AR 15 is far more threatening than if he had brought a skateboard. Why, it would not even qualify as unequal use of force.
So I say the good people of Wisconsin should visit the legislature exercising their slave patrol rights. Visit them at home as well. Greeting them as they leave home in the morning locked and loaded.
Pretty soon the SCOTUS will probably double down on the slave patrol amendment. Making it more difficult for States to regulate fire arms.. Just when NYC was becoming the safest city in America again as murders have now dropped 6 months in a row.
Certainly what’s good for the States should be good for the Capital District.
YouTube video
Guns are for cowards.
This point can’t be emphasized enough.
Yes. Why does any ordinary citizen need to be armed 24/7? Why does the wannabe Rambo need to walk down Main Street with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder or with a concealed gun under his coat. What is he so afraid of that he must be armed at all times?
You don’t think I disagree . On the other hand how does it work when one side says ” when does the shooting start” . I would feel a lot better if every seditious pile of excrement who invaded the Capital was charged sedition.
I would feel even better if that extended to the politicians and the media companies pushing the big lie.
Equal justice I think not.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2021/06/30/iowa-activist-jessica-reznicek-sentenced-dakota-access-pipeline-sabotage-catholic-workers/7808907002/
This discussion would be comic if it wasn’t so tragic.
We all know the real question here is whether he was wearing socks and did he have long toenails …
that was some weird sh!t
No remaking the window once it’s broken…
WHAT part of our society has “agency”
to effect meaningful change?
Is it the gold medalists, the word-smiths,
in the universe of semantic gymnastics?
Is it the mind-readers that “just” know
what others are thinking?
Is it the predictors, “gifted” with the
“technology” of precognition?
Is it the insistors that demand
acknowledgement of their assumptions?
Btw, Florida HB1 (2021), signed into law by Governor DeSantis, contains language shielding from civil liability drivers who drive into protestors who are blocking streets, and it specifically makes blocking a street during a protest illegal. Like the language of the Wisconsin firearm carry law, the language of HB1 (2021) is convoluted and difficult. I suspect that it is purposefully so.
He was well funded. His victory will fuel gun advocates and the far right. But I watched the video and it did look like self defense.