1. Rittenhouse is on trial and rightfully so, but much like in the Chauvin trial, policing is getting a pass. Regardless of the verdict here, the racialized and violent institution of policing is once again poised to be acquitted.
2. Rittenhouse was a product of the racist, militaristic, and masculinist cop culture he idolized. The teen, dolled up in authoritarian finery, armed with an illegal weapon of war, went to battle "rioters," not his 1/6 allies, but those who dared protest raced police brutality.
3. Meanwhile police wereat the scene, also geared up for war & in tactical vehicles. We were told they were there to keep the peace. Rittenhouse, looking like a kid dressed up, paraded by with in his assault rifle - a lit match walking into one big powder keg. What happened?
4. Police didn't say "Hey kid, get out of here, this is dangerous & you're making it worse." They didn't think, "How does a kid have a rifle like that - I should check if it's legal." And they certainly didn't arrest or or force him away as they do to unarmed BLM protesters.
5. They said, "We appreciate you guys. We really do," literally as they were telling protesters to leave. These "peacekeepers" enabled an untrained, amped up teen with a rifle to patrol the streets, where he would encounter conflict and maybe a person with mental health issues.
6. These cops who bust heads in the name of "peace" stared into the pubescent face of impending disaster and said keep up the good work. Just another pebble in the mountain of evidence that police don't don't prevent violence; they're in the business of dealing violence.
7. And in a twist, it was the defense that made the connection. The defense argued that Rittenhouse's violent, reckless, and racially motivated behavior was simply police-like behavior ordained by the police themselves. But they argued that this connection redeemed Kyle.
8. For many, a conviction represents symbolic justice and an acquittal confirms that there will never be any racial justice. But, in reality, the case brings into play some complex crim. law questions about when an armed person can be called a "first aggressor" or provokes force.
9. Rittenhouse may very well succeed on his self-defense claims, and for many that will be an outrage. But even if he is convicted, we should be outraged at what the Kenosha police let happen, both to Jacob Blake (his shooter has been fully cleared) and to Rittenhouse's victims.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#Dershowitz was my criminal law prof, and he was a good one. But as a crim law prof myself, I can say his motive argument (Congress shouldn't examine the internal motives of potus so long he could have had a good reason for withholding aid) is shockingly wrong. Here's why:
The crux of any bribery or bribery type case is the defendant's desire to obtain something of personal value. This is actually intent, not motive. So with Trump, the very question is whether he withheld aid with intent to receive the personal benefit of dirt on Bidens.
Trump's motive for getting the dirt (He fears Joe winning, hates Hunter, just rolls that way) is secondary. The important question is whether he sought a personal benefit. If not, it's not bribery or abuse. If so, then it is bribery or abuse. We must ask that question.