The Rittenhouse Verdict, Part III (You Cannot Even Trust The Dean Of An Elite Law School)

Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.  Berkeley law school is an elite school, and arguably among the top five law schools in the country.  So, what the Dean of this school says should be considered as important, right?  Wrong.  Chemerinsky wrote an Op-Ed that was published in the 11/20/21 Los Angeles Times.

After stating that the jury only gets to decide the case before it, he said this:  "The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all counts sends a chilling message about the acceptability of vigilantism."  How does it do that?  The evidence showed that the aggressors were the ones who Rittenhouse shot, not Rittenhouse.  And what message does the Dean want the jury to send - ignore the facts and the law and hand down a verdict that is acceptable to the mob?  I don't get it.  

After noting that Rittenhouse testified to going to Kenosha to protect local businesses, Chemerinsky said this:  "There is so much that is disturbing about that: a teenager deciding that he needed to provide law enforcement, when he lacked training or experience, and illegally arming himself with a semiautomatic rifle."  First, teenagers also fight in our armed services.  Second, the allegation of illegally carrying a weapon was dropped by the prosecutor, apparently because it was not illegal.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, private citizens might not feel a need to arm themselves if the police did their jobs.

But the police are not allowed to do their jobs, their hands having been tied by left-wing elected officials and district attorneys.  If you need any examples, then you were asleep during the summer of 2020 when mobs caused an estimated $2 billion in damage to businesses, and even government facilities, across the country, following last summer's "mostly peaceful" protests (read, riots) following the murder of George Floyd.  It is completely unreasonable to ask people to stand by and watch their businesses, their life savings often, be destroyed by a mob.  

Some on the left have suggested to me that these businesses have insurance anyway.  What kind of answer is that in a civil society?  Let the criminals run amok because it's only insurance companies who have to pay?  Pretty outrageous.  Plus, many of the businesses destroyed last summer did not have insurance.  And even if they did, taking months to collect and then rebuild could easily put them out of business.  

I am also disturbed by the way Chemerinsky presents the fact of the case.  He said Rosenbaum "allegedly" grabbed at Rittenhouse's rifle.  From the video I saw he definitely appeared to grab for the rifle.  Chemerinisky said Huber "apparently" struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard.  From the video I saw, Huber struck him in the back of the head, knocking him to the ground.  Most egregious was Chemerinsky saying Grosskreutz "reached for a weapon."  Grosskreutz's own testimony was that he pointed his gun directly at Rittenhouse.  He didn't just reach for it.

Chemerinsky:  "I worry that the acquittal conveys the message that Rittenhouse did nothing wrong..."  Well, Dean Chemerinsky, the jury found exactly that - Rittenhouse did nothing wrong legally.  Chemerinsky:  "But looking at the events in this way obscures what precipitated these shootings: A 17 year-old with an assault weapon was misguidedly taking the law into his own hands."  See above paragraphs.  Further, the jury found that those Rittenhouse shot precipitated the shootings.  And if we are looking at the bigger picture, the violent mob following the lawful shooting of Jacob Blake were the ones who precipitated these events.   

Chemerinsky ends with this:  "The tragedy in Kenosha could have been avoided.  Sometimes the law really ignores common sense."  I cannot help but wonder what change in the law Chemerinsky seeks?  Eliminate the thousands year old doctrine of self-defense?  

(A closing note to these three posts.  Readers will notice that I have not celebrated anyone's death.  But if I have to choose between harm to a perpetrator versus harm to an innocent, in any situation, I will always side with the innocent.  And, we can debate all day long about whether any 17 year old should be out on the streets at night during violent protests.  The fact that Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as the ones burning and looting should go without saying.  However, these nighttime protests are rarely, if ever, peaceful.  But if you ask me, would I like to see my own son at age 17 out on the streets in the midst of violence (armed or not), I'd say definitely not.)