Thread by @AmySwearer

This continues to be the worst hot take on the Rittenhouse acquittal. A thread.

https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1462865137547816974

(1) The framing of basic facts here is appalling. This wasn't a peaceful protest. Those ended hours earlier. By the prosecution's own admission, at the very least Rosenbaum - had he lived - would have been prosecuted for his actions that night.

(1)(cont.) Grosskruetz was himself armed with a gun. The whole thing is taking place in front of a minority-owned car lot that's actively being destroyed, during riots that cause $50 million in damages, and begins with Rittenhouse trying to put out an intentionally-set fire.

(2) None of those "protestors" had a right to be there engaging in or tacitly endorsing the wanton destruction of property well-past an emergency curfew. Nor did Rosenbaum have a right to chase down and threaten Rittenhouse, then try to take his gun.

(3) Far from endorsing vigilantism, the government - through its gross mismanagement of the riots - was tacitly endorsing mob rule and the criminal destruction of (again, disproportionately minority-owned) property stirred by professional agitators in the name of racial justice.

(4) There are PLENTY of laws, both in Wisconsin and at a federal level, that prohibit private citizens from threatening protestors or forcibly interfering with the exercise of another person's constitutional rights...and allow for the criminal punishment of those who do.

(4)(cont.) Why wasn't Rittenhouse charged with any of those offenses? Because....he didn't commit any of them.

(5) The legal justification of "self-defense" is not some new, previously unthinkable aspect of law that will now be abused as a "loophole" by "vigilantes." It is literally a natural right that has existed in basically every body of western legal and moral theory, forever.

(5)(cont.) By definition, those who are acquitted on grounds of self-defense cannot be vigilantes, because their actions fell within the scope of the existing legal framework. Nor is the process of having to raise this defense during a trial somehow encouraging vigilantism.

(5)(cont.) Seriously, find me one person who is cognizant of the complete hellish circus Rittenhouse's life turned into, the massive amounts of legal fees he owes, and his breathless wait to find out whether he'd spend his life in prison...and says "yeah, I want that."

(6) Nothing in the law or its interpretation has changed. It has always been the case that you can defend yourself against those who threaten you with imminent violence. This was and continues to be distinct from shooting peaceful protestors "just because" you don't like them.

(6)(cont.) The real fear should be that people will now be far more afraid to use their 2A rights to lawfully defend life and property against criminal hooligans rioting under the laughable guise of "peaceful protests," because they don't want to live Rittenhouse's hell.