The responses to the findings in this case, as with many other similar ones in recent years, show just how incapable of fairness people have become in this era of intense partisanship. I find it terrifying that a person’s political affiliation can almost always accurately predict their opinion about the outcome of any legal proceeding. Change the races of the actors, but leave the other details the same, and the majority of people would flip flop immediately to support for the side whose actions they previously found unsupportable. It seems as though people have quit even trying to be fair to everyone. They simply want their team to win.

I agree with @FarmerJayhawk that the kid made a terrible choice to be there with a weapon in the first place. However, his presence there was not illegal, the mob had no right to come after him, and any reasonable person would have felt they meant him harm at that point. I would ask those of you who think he should not have fired shots to put yourself in that situation. If you, having already made the dumb decision to be there in the first place, found yourself attacked by a mob while armed, do you truly believe you would hold your fire and let them beat you in the interest of fairness to them? I seriously doubt anyone would do so and I question the honesty of anyone who insists they would.

As far as directing the prosecution not to call his antagonists “victims”, that is only reasonable. Using that term presupposes the conclusion that he committed a crime against them and presupposing guilt is not supposed to take place in any semblance of a fair court proceeding. Regarding dismissal of black jurors, that can also be perfectly fair in some situations. I have more than one black friend who can freely admit their inability to be fair in any case with so much as a semblance of racial injustice about it. The subject is too emotional for them. There is nothing inherently dirty about trying to have jaded jurors dismissed.

I’ll also agree with @FarmerJayhawk that the Arbery case was disgusting and the actions of the vigilantes in that instance seem without the least sensible justification. I don’t personally see any similarity between the two cases, though I’m confident that most people will do as is common today and decide how they feel about both cases based upon their team membership, rather than any use of critical thinking skills or purposeful fairness.

@mayjay I get that this particular case riles those with gun control sentiments because they find it frustrating that Rittenhouse was allowed to have a gun there in the first place. They certainly aren’t wrong that the presence of the gun inflamed and escalated the situation. Those on the other side, however, might use this case as an example of why those laws should remain just as they are. One person’s flaw is another person’s feature. Both arguments could be supported quite reasonably, in my opinion.

Personally, it’s hard for me not to see the hand-wringing from so many with regard to Rittenhouse as frustration that their team’s mob was not allowed to intimidate and bully unchecked. How can you argue that Rittenhouse was looking for trouble without seeing that his opponents were bent on creating conflict, as well? If you support mob rule and intimidation as a political tactic, it rings hollow when you accuse others of looking for trouble or creating conflict.

I think the authorities in so many cities that quite nearly openly supported rioting last year, ordering police forces to stand down and leaving citizens to fend for themselves, bear the brunt of the blame for foolish vigilantism in the mold of Rittenhouse. The actors in this situation were all young and reasonable people could forgive them for their poor choices, not so the mayors and chiefs of police who were supposed to be the adults in the room but abdicated their responsibility to provide order in favor of pandering to the mob.

@wissox Yes, it does make him culpable. Please don’t think I’m defending Rittenhouse here. I’m simply pointing out that the other team spewed forth thousands of Rittenhouses (angry young people who went out looking to intimidate and cause problems) last year, including the ones the actual Rittenhouse had it out with that day. Anyone who didn’t condemn them has no moral authority to complain about Rittenhouse himself. I’m not on either team, so I can see the faults of both without any need to deflect, dissemble, and justify one group while lambasting the other for similar behavior. We won’t be a whole country again until more people give up their teams and become Americans again. That’s my position. I get that this is a left wing site and my pointing out that the left lives in a huge glass house when it comes to the subject of mob behavior is going to be unwelcome. I’ll shut up and go away. Thanks for the discussion.

@mayjay Fair enough. I don’t disagree with you at all there and I apologize again for making assumptions about your position or ability to be nonpartisan. The reason I keep pointing out the mob itself is only to say that their presence in the first place, incited and supported by people who should know better, is even more of a problem than the yahoos who came out to argue with them. Thanks for the discussion.

@wissox Yes, it does make him culpable. Please don’t think I’m defending Rittenhouse here. I’m simply pointing out that the other team spewed forth thousands of Rittenhouses (angry young people who went out looking to intimidate and cause problems) last year, including the ones the actual Rittenhouse had it out with that day. Anyone who didn’t condemn them has no moral authority to complain about Rittenhouse himself. I’m not on either team, so I can see the faults of both without any need to deflect, dissemble, and justify one group while lambasting the other for similar behavior. We won’t be a whole country again until more people give up their teams and become Americans again. That’s my position. I get that this is a left wing site and my pointing out that the left lives in a huge glass house when it comes to the subject of mob behavior is going to be unwelcome. I’ll shut up and go away. Thanks for the discussion.

@mayjay As I reread your post, I have to say that your point about people seeking confrontation is exactly what I’m talking about. I think everyone there was seeking some sort of confrontation, not just the right wing guys. Why do the guys with the left wing point of view have the right to group up and be confrontational any more than anyone else? Rittenhouse should have stayed home, but so should they all have. Nothing good comes from grouping up and taking to the streets when you’re angry about something.

Your point about “police failures” seems disingenuous and deflective to me. They did not fail to police most of these incidents, they were ordered not to police them by politicians sympathetic to the mob. While I’m not sure I believe that Rittenhouse or his buddies had any actual property to defend there, as they claim, a purposeful refusal to police a mob by the authorities does open the door for people to feel like they need to play police themselves.

It was hardly “open season” out there. Rittenhouse had a rifle, with which he could have killed dozens from a hundred yards away if that was his intention. He was stupid and looking for confrontation. That is fair. The terms you are using are just hyperbole unsupported by fact.

@mayjay I apologize if it sounded like I was speaking about you in particular. I make no assumptions about your personal stances on anything outside of those which you claim on your own. I also abhor all types of purposeful confrontation, bullying, coercion, etc. as a means of useful discourse. Protests, even at their most peaceful (which was far too often not the case last year), are about intimidating and coercing others to support a given point of view. They are inherently confrontational. My intention was simply to point out that many people gleefully support the confrontational behavior among their own tribe while condemning similar activity by the other tribe.

@mayjay I get that this particular case riles those with gun control sentiments because they find it frustrating that Rittenhouse was allowed to have a gun there in the first place. They certainly aren’t wrong that the presence of the gun inflamed and escalated the situation. Those on the other side, however, might use this case as an example of why those laws should remain just as they are. One person’s flaw is another person’s feature. Both arguments could be supported quite reasonably, in my opinion.

Personally, it’s hard for me not to see the hand-wringing from so many with regard to Rittenhouse as frustration that their team’s mob was not allowed to intimidate and bully unchecked. How can you argue that Rittenhouse was looking for trouble without seeing that his opponents were bent on creating conflict, as well? If you support mob rule and intimidation as a political tactic, it rings hollow when you accuse others of looking for trouble or creating conflict.

I think the authorities in so many cities that quite nearly openly supported rioting last year, ordering police forces to stand down and leaving citizens to fend for themselves, bear the brunt of the blame for foolish vigilantism in the mold of Rittenhouse. The actors in this situation were all young and reasonable people could forgive them for their poor choices, not so the mayors and chiefs of police who were supposed to be the adults in the room but abdicated their responsibility to provide order in favor of pandering to the mob.

The responses to the findings in this case, as with many other similar ones in recent years, show just how incapable of fairness people have become in this era of intense partisanship. I find it terrifying that a person’s political affiliation can almost always accurately predict their opinion about the outcome of any legal proceeding. Change the races of the actors, but leave the other details the same, and the majority of people would flip flop immediately to support for the side whose actions they previously found unsupportable. It seems as though people have quit even trying to be fair to everyone. They simply want their team to win.

I agree with @FarmerJayhawk that the kid made a terrible choice to be there with a weapon in the first place. However, his presence there was not illegal, the mob had no right to come after him, and any reasonable person would have felt they meant him harm at that point. I would ask those of you who think he should not have fired shots to put yourself in that situation. If you, having already made the dumb decision to be there in the first place, found yourself attacked by a mob while armed, do you truly believe you would hold your fire and let them beat you in the interest of fairness to them? I seriously doubt anyone would do so and I question the honesty of anyone who insists they would.

As far as directing the prosecution not to call his antagonists “victims”, that is only reasonable. Using that term presupposes the conclusion that he committed a crime against them and presupposing guilt is not supposed to take place in any semblance of a fair court proceeding. Regarding dismissal of black jurors, that can also be perfectly fair in some situations. I have more than one black friend who can freely admit their inability to be fair in any case with so much as a semblance of racial injustice about it. The subject is too emotional for them. There is nothing inherently dirty about trying to have jaded jurors dismissed.

I’ll also agree with @FarmerJayhawk that the Arbery case was disgusting and the actions of the vigilantes in that instance seem without the least sensible justification. I don’t personally see any similarity between the two cases, though I’m confident that most people will do as is common today and decide how they feel about both cases based upon their team membership, rather than any use of critical thinking skills or purposeful fairness.