"Rttenhouse appears to have been living in a fantasy world where police and car dealerships are more endangered than unarmed Black men in traffic stops, and where he was a warrior and self-defender, rather than a youngster who foolishly enrolled himself in a midwestern version of the Children’s Crusade. I can only imagine his fear when he saw the crowd coming for him—and the crowd’s fear, when it saw that a near-child was wildly firing a rifle better suited to a person with judgment and good training. I do not expect that the jury will be forgiving".
So writes Graeme Wood, staff writer at the Atlantic, in his last paragraph (August 28th).
But it's not clear to me that Wood isn't living in fantasy world too. Recall George Zimmerman and the self defense legal strategy. I fully expect a jury will acquit Rittenhouse, assuming charges are even brought.
Wood himself provides the basis for Rittenhouse's defense - that he was in fear for his life. Certainly by the time he was being chased and fell to the ground he could make that claim quite legitimately; given the circumstances I could imagine those chasing him could easily beaten him without mercy and even killed him. So the last two killings clearly fit the category of self-defense; and, if as has been alleged, he was attacked by a protester leading to his first shooting, then it likely applies there too.
That he came, at least in the eyes of the protesters, spoiling for a fight (as I imagine the prosecution will argue) and therefore put himself intentionally into harm's way does not, in my view, sufficiently weaken the self-defense argument. In both instances, although he was armed, he does not appear to have been the aggressor; and that is going to be critical.
No comments:
Post a Comment