Wisconsin

Today is the day for examination of the myriad things as a part of the state of truth, for it illuminates all the myriad things.

Yesterday, a jury in Wisconsin found defendant Kyle Rittenhouse innocent of all charges against him (including murder), saying that he was acting in self-defense.  

What wasn't disputed is that the defendant crossed state lines with a semi-automatic gun he wasn't legally allowed to purchase (because of his young age) with the intention of acting as a one-person, unregulated militia to defend businesses in Wisconsin from crowds of looters and arsonists.  Those looters and arsonists were in the same crowd as others lawfully protesting the police shooting of an unarmed suspect, Jacob Blake.  There is no evidence that the defendant had any training in distinguishing between lawful protesters and unlawful rioters (not that the law allows "open season" on unlawful rioters).

As I understand the testimony I heard (I watched much of the trial on television - one of the benefits of being a Retired Old Man), the defendant inserted himself into several situations, including pointing his gun, an AR-15, at some people.  When people expressed their understandable distaste for having a lethal weapon pointed at them, things got confrontational and in the heat of the moment, the defendant felt he had to shoot one person.  Some in the crowd, concerned for their safety with an active shooter in their midst, then pursued the defendant, who then felt he had to shoot two more people to protect his own personal safety.

The cowardly little boy, driven to the protest by his mommy, was basically cosplaying as a vigilante defender of property - he testified that he chose an AR-15 because he thought it "looked cool," he wore military fatigues, and had his baseball cap on backwards.  But when faced with real crowds of real people expressing real anger, he panicked, and now two people are dead and one wounded.

And there's nothing that can be done about it under Wisconsin's laws, which allow lethal force if one considers themselves to be in danger, even if they were the one to cause the danger.  The jury got it completely right - the defendant was not guilty of the charges brought against him under the letter of the state's law, even if his actions were morally and ethically reprehensible.  The fact that the judge was obviously a right-wing loon who was clearly biased in favor of the defendant is besides the fact.  The jury got it "right" because the laws are "wrong."

I wonder if the families of the defendant's victims have a case for a civil suit against him - as I recall from the days of the O.J. trial, the standard of proof for a civil trial is different from that of a criminal trial.

I find it ironic that the same people celebrating the Wisconsin verdict are in many cases the same people so upset about the Capital Police, a legitimate well-regulated militia, shooting Ashli Babbitt during the January 6 insurrection attempt.  

I worry for our nation.  The lesson many will learn from the trial is that it is perfectly alright to insert oneself into a hostile situation, to make that situation even more hostile by pointing a gun at those you disagree with, and if those persons react to your hostile actions in a way that makes you uncomfortable, to shoot them dead on the spot.  Not only will some vigilantes and militias take this as a license to kill, future crowds of protesters, knowing there's a target on their back, will become even more aggressive and hostile, and less tolerant of counter-protesters.

The powder keg has been there for a while, primed and ready to blow, and now the fuse has been lit.