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.)  

The Rittenhouse Verdict, Part II (A Few Words From Democratic Officials)

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass) Tweeted this:  "A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR15.  He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity and worth of Black Lives."  One lie after the next.  No evidence of white supremacy and not a domestic terrorist.  Traveling across state lines meaningless, and did not so with a rifle.  How is it that the widespread damage and destruction to local businesses in Kenosha did anything to support the "value, dignity and worth of black lives?"  And, STOP saying Rittenhouse is white, unless your intent is to start a race war.  I was not aware that it is a criminal offense to be white.

Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-MO) Tweeted this:  "The judge.  The jury.  The defendant.  It's white supremacy in action - this system isn't built to hold white supremacists accountable."  So now everyone involved is a white supremacist.  Which is curious, because the identity of the jurors is unknown.  And, it's a safe bet that the jury consisted of both Democrats and Republicans, as Kenosha is fairly evenly split.  And she does know that the people who were shot were white, right?  

Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  He Tweeted that it was a "heartbreaking verdict (and) a miscarriage of justice."  Imagine that - the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee doing his best to undermine the judicial system.  (Remind me again, who is the threat to democracy?)  Nadler:  this "sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ."  Here is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee pandering to the mob.  Someone ought to explain to him that the jury system, while imperfect, is meant to act as a bulwark against the mob.  

Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) had this to say:  "It is disgusting and disturbing that someone was able to carry a loaded assault rifle into a protest against the unjust killing of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man."  By protest, does he mean violent burning and looting?  Rittenhouse testified that he went there to protect businesses.  Unjust killing of Jacob Blake?  Blake is not dead.  Unjust?  Both the state and federal investigations found no basis to charge the police involved in his shooting.  Unarmed?  He had a knife.  Black man?  Yes, but yet another example of the dangerous attempt by the left to divide the country into black and white.

Here is Joe Biden, the President of the United States, appearing to get it right:  "I stand by what the jury has concluded...the jury system works, and we have to abide by it."  But shortly after we got this:  "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken."  There's Biden, contradicting his own attempt to sound reasonable by saying he is angry.  If he is angry at the jury, then he does not accept and abide by the jury's decision.  But if he is angry, he should have kept it to himself, instead of pandering to the left-wing mob.  After all, he claimed numerous times during his campaign and in his inaugural speech, that he would be a unifier.  Not unifying when you are trying to undermine our jury system. 

I will not set forth here all the times that the mainstream media have lied about Rittenhouse being a white supremacist.  Nor will I rehash all the other lies they have made.  Some, before the verdict was handed down, even referred to him as a "murderer," as opposed to an "alleged murderer."  So, while many of us are not surprised by the mob mentality of the left-wing media, it is extremely disappointing that elected officials, even though they are Democrats, truly have no respect for our judicial system, nor for our democracy.   

The Rittenhouse Verdict, Part I (Let's Dispense With The Misconceptions, Irrelevancies and Lies)

(Note:  Some context.  In August of 2020, Jacob Blake was shot, and seriously injured, by the police in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  Blake is black.  Both the state investigators and the federal government looked into the shooting and concluded there was no basis to charge the police officers involved in the shooting.  But that did not deter a mob from not only immediately protesting, but burning and looting as well.  Only a few days later, Kyle Rittenhouse was on the streets of Kenosha, and armed with a rifle, he shot and killed two men and injured a third.  He has been acquitted of all charges relating to those shootings.  A further note.  I only watched a little of the trial, but I have read some of the testimony and other analyses.  As an attorney trained to look at the facts and the law, I believe the jury reached the proper verdict, notwithstanding what was likely an enormous amount of pressure on them to find Rittenhouse guilty.)

Rittenhouse has been repeatedly referred to as a "white supremacist."  I have not seen any support for that allegation.  The men he shot were white.  But I'm wondering if just being white today is enough to get one branded as a white supremacist.  

Rittenhouse "crossed state lines."  Yes, he lived in Antioch, Illinois with his mother and sister,  But his father lives in Kenosha, and Rittenhouse has worked there.  Question: when did it become illegal to cross state lines?  Was the media concerned about how many "protesters" crossed state lines following the shooting of Jacob Blake?  

Rittenhouse was a "vigilante," and initiated aggressive actions against those he shot.  Wrong.  Joseph Rosenbaum (who was shot and killed) was seen charging after Rittenhouse on video, and reaching for the barrel of the rifle.  Rosenbaum was previously heard threatening Rittenhouse.  Rosenbaum had a criminal record, but that is also irrelevant, as we don't get to shoot people for having a record.  

A star witness for the prosecution was the man who was shot and survived, Gaige Grosskreutz.  But here is how it went on cross-examination by defense counsel:  Question:  "When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"  Answer:  "Correct."  Question:  "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?"  Answer:  "Correct."  The defense to the shootings was that they were done in "self-defense."  The prosecution helped to prove that.

The other man who was shot and killed was Anthony Huber.  A video seems to show Huber chasing Rittenhouse, and hitting him with a skateboard in the back of the head and knocking him to the ground.  So, in none of these instances was Rittenhouse the aggressor.  Huber also had a criminal record.  Again, irrelevant to the issues.  

Commentators have said that Rittenhouse not only crossed state lines, but did so with the rifle.  No, he didn't.  The rifle was in Kenosha.  

Finally, as we always hear from the mainstream media, the protests following the Jacob Blake shooting, were "mostly peaceful."  I am not sure how peaceful protests result in the destruction of 40 local businesses, and a total of at least 100 being damaged.  (And for those concerned about the source, it was not Fox News, but the Chicago affiliate ABC News.)