Thread by @Dreamweasel

This is basically the problem.

https://twitter.com/truelyesoteric/status/1462094484619988993

When the people who get to decide if Killing Two People Is Okay agree with the defendant that Yes, Those People Definitely Should Have Been Killed, it isn’t terribly difficult to generate some kind of reason why Killing Two People Is Okay.

There were other laws broken, which the judge decided to unilaterally dismiss so as not to distract from the central issue of whether Killing Two People Is Okay.

Many other judges would not have let these things slide. But Judge Schroeder knew the result he wanted.

When you hear that Rittenhouse was driven to another state, entered a protest carrying an AR-15, & shot two people, the overwhelming majority of people would not ascertain that Killing Two People Was Okay.

That is why the case required dissection.

Once you completely disregard the events that led to Rittenhouse being in a volatile crowd with an AR-15 and focus EXCLUSIVELY on how Rittenhouse was “attacked”, it might be easier to conclude that Killing Two People Was Okay.

That was clearly the result the judge wanted to see.

Imagining a non-white person bringing an AR-15 to the January 6th insurrection & volunteering to help with “crowd control”, I very much doubt he’d get away with citing self-defense in this courtroom.

Because to Judge Schroeder, these weren’t the people it was okay to kill.

Both Rittenhouse & the judge were targets of a years-long propaganda campaign in which BLM protests were deemed equivalent to nonstop rioting and looting. Clearly, something needed to be done about these thugs, these animals, these savages—

(barking dogs)

… you get the idea.