Agreed. Your piece here shows that there are lot of nuances in the details of these highly publicized and highly charged incidents that often get overlooked by narrative hungry partisans.
If there is one thing I learned in the Arbery incident, that people should wait until the facts come out before jumping to any conclusions. In that case, the facts clearly pointed the to Arbery’s death as a racially motivated murder, with audio/video footage showing his killers calling him an “F’ing N-word”.
I’m not sure what the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case will be. But this seems like one where the legality and morality of his actions are separated by a wide chasm. He was clearly seeking to stir the pot and take matters into his own hands, breaking several laws along the way. If he is acquitted on grounds of self-defense(which seems to be a much more likely verdict now, given what happened recently), his actions of self-defense would only be legally permissible. But it still wouldn’t be morally justified in any way. He used his agency to make poor choices that led to people getting killed. There are many people who ended up being acquitted for criminal wrongdoings due to technicalities in the law and sufficient ambiguities in the circumstances that result in a non conviction. Yet they are still morally guilty of wrongdoing. Regardless of how the verdict turns out, hopefully the public will see the virtue in taking a nuanced approach in these kinds of matters.
Arbery's death should never have happened. Even if he were stealing, it could not have been much more than a box of screws. In Rittenhouse's case, I do not think he was trying to stir the pot but I'm pretty sure he broke at least one law. I do not think a riot is any place for a teenager but he had a right to be there. He should not have been carrying a rifle but it may have saved him from serious harm or death by assailants who definitely weren't good guys.
I think in Arbery's case, he was walking through construction, and I could be wrong, but I don't remember hearing him taking anything from construction sites. It's more of a man's activity in visiting home construction sites.
I think that is a fair point you make in that maybe it wasn't stirring the pot intentionally, but that Kyle had a zeal to push back against the rioters. And maybe in that zeal, he made some foolish moves himself, and as you mentioned, broke a few laws in the process. Sometimes, people who react within the heat of emotion, are not prone to making good decisions. I agree that he had the legal right to be there. It's kind of a situation of where certain actions are clearly legal, but aren't prudent or morally justifiable.
Then again, I haven't been following the Kyle Rittenhouse case as much as some others have, so I'm not really sure as to what his intent and motives were.
But if he had not been carrying, he might be dead. The rioters had a right to be there also but had no more right than Rittenhouse to brandish firearms and they had no right at all to loot and burn.
"But it still wouldn’t be morally justified in any way."
Just a little correction and clarification on my part. I think self-defense on Kyle's part can be morally justified on its own merits. The attackers were not morally or legally justified in attacking Kyle. But the decisions that he made to get to bring him to that predicament is also not morally justifiable, and as David mentioned, broke some laws along the way.
" If he is acquitted on grounds of self-defense(which seems to be a much more likely verdict now, given what happened recently)"
I forgot to include to include the possibility of him convicted on lesser charges, such as that 2nd degree intentional homicide, which is broadly equivalent to manslaughter. In the best case outcome for Kyle's self-defense claim, it would obviously be full acquittal. If Kyle was being tried in a state that unlike Wisconsin, had the typical two-tier manslaughter charges, and was found guilty, that based on what I've read so far, it seems more tilted towards involuntary as opposed to voluntary manslaughter.
The Arbery case seems to be pretty cut and dry murder. And the words they were calling him as they murdered him pretty much shows that race played a part in their actions.
The Rittenhouse case really showcases a flaw in the American judicial system. Dude was carrying a gun he wasn't allowed to carry. In a situation he volunteered to be at, to render aid he wasn't in any way qualified to give. That is a mountain of bad choices, but it just puts him at the point that matters. And there is plenty of doubt as to what happened in those faithful seconds. I would hate to be in that jury box.
That's also similar to police killings. Cops can make a lot of bad choices that lead up to a killing , but almost none of that will matter in the end. The question will be whether they reasonably feared for their lives in that moment.
Maybe but there are no meters you can attach to cops to show their state of mind when bad things happen rapidly. There are bad practices such as no-knock warrants that should never be allowed unless there are iron-clad indicators to justify it. Systems do not work when IMMEDIATE action is called for. They are great for pre-flight checks and reactor start-ups. Maybe cops should be required to operate in teams of three if we could afford it. Teams of two can become close buddies. Three would greatly reduce the odds of bad cops getting away with unrighteous killings but such killings would still happen. The other option is perfectly vetted, trained and tested cops and even that is not flawless.
I'll leave my thoughts regarding the trial at the doorway and simply say this: The judge in the trial, Bruce Schroeder might be the biggest jack ass i have ever seen. He is the epitome of what is wrong with our legal system. Pompous, would be a very generous and kind description of him. And yes, i know he was first seated on the bench by the democratic governor in the 80's. Justice and maybe more importantly judges should be blind to whatever bias they have.
Very good questions but I do believe the case hinges on whether Rittenhouse believed he was in danger of serious harm or death by his attackers at the moment he fired.
Agreed. Your piece here shows that there are lot of nuances in the details of these highly publicized and highly charged incidents that often get overlooked by narrative hungry partisans.
If there is one thing I learned in the Arbery incident, that people should wait until the facts come out before jumping to any conclusions. In that case, the facts clearly pointed the to Arbery’s death as a racially motivated murder, with audio/video footage showing his killers calling him an “F’ing N-word”.
I’m not sure what the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case will be. But this seems like one where the legality and morality of his actions are separated by a wide chasm. He was clearly seeking to stir the pot and take matters into his own hands, breaking several laws along the way. If he is acquitted on grounds of self-defense(which seems to be a much more likely verdict now, given what happened recently), his actions of self-defense would only be legally permissible. But it still wouldn’t be morally justified in any way. He used his agency to make poor choices that led to people getting killed. There are many people who ended up being acquitted for criminal wrongdoings due to technicalities in the law and sufficient ambiguities in the circumstances that result in a non conviction. Yet they are still morally guilty of wrongdoing. Regardless of how the verdict turns out, hopefully the public will see the virtue in taking a nuanced approach in these kinds of matters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dont-cry-for-kenosha-killer-kyle-rittenhouse
Arbery's death should never have happened. Even if he were stealing, it could not have been much more than a box of screws. In Rittenhouse's case, I do not think he was trying to stir the pot but I'm pretty sure he broke at least one law. I do not think a riot is any place for a teenager but he had a right to be there. He should not have been carrying a rifle but it may have saved him from serious harm or death by assailants who definitely weren't good guys.
I think in Arbery's case, he was walking through construction, and I could be wrong, but I don't remember hearing him taking anything from construction sites. It's more of a man's activity in visiting home construction sites.
I think that is a fair point you make in that maybe it wasn't stirring the pot intentionally, but that Kyle had a zeal to push back against the rioters. And maybe in that zeal, he made some foolish moves himself, and as you mentioned, broke a few laws in the process. Sometimes, people who react within the heat of emotion, are not prone to making good decisions. I agree that he had the legal right to be there. It's kind of a situation of where certain actions are clearly legal, but aren't prudent or morally justifiable.
Then again, I haven't been following the Kyle Rittenhouse case as much as some others have, so I'm not really sure as to what his intent and motives were.
I'll stipulate that Rittenhouse had a legal right to be present that night, but he did not have a legal right to be carrying his gun.
But if he had not been carrying, he might be dead. The rioters had a right to be there also but had no more right than Rittenhouse to brandish firearms and they had no right at all to loot and burn.
"But it still wouldn’t be morally justified in any way."
Just a little correction and clarification on my part. I think self-defense on Kyle's part can be morally justified on its own merits. The attackers were not morally or legally justified in attacking Kyle. But the decisions that he made to get to bring him to that predicament is also not morally justifiable, and as David mentioned, broke some laws along the way.
" If he is acquitted on grounds of self-defense(which seems to be a much more likely verdict now, given what happened recently)"
I forgot to include to include the possibility of him convicted on lesser charges, such as that 2nd degree intentional homicide, which is broadly equivalent to manslaughter. In the best case outcome for Kyle's self-defense claim, it would obviously be full acquittal. If Kyle was being tried in a state that unlike Wisconsin, had the typical two-tier manslaughter charges, and was found guilty, that based on what I've read so far, it seems more tilted towards involuntary as opposed to voluntary manslaughter.
The Arbery case seems to be pretty cut and dry murder. And the words they were calling him as they murdered him pretty much shows that race played a part in their actions.
The Rittenhouse case really showcases a flaw in the American judicial system. Dude was carrying a gun he wasn't allowed to carry. In a situation he volunteered to be at, to render aid he wasn't in any way qualified to give. That is a mountain of bad choices, but it just puts him at the point that matters. And there is plenty of doubt as to what happened in those faithful seconds. I would hate to be in that jury box.
That's also similar to police killings. Cops can make a lot of bad choices that lead up to a killing , but almost none of that will matter in the end. The question will be whether they reasonably feared for their lives in that moment.
I agree that's a bad system.
Maybe but there are no meters you can attach to cops to show their state of mind when bad things happen rapidly. There are bad practices such as no-knock warrants that should never be allowed unless there are iron-clad indicators to justify it. Systems do not work when IMMEDIATE action is called for. They are great for pre-flight checks and reactor start-ups. Maybe cops should be required to operate in teams of three if we could afford it. Teams of two can become close buddies. Three would greatly reduce the odds of bad cops getting away with unrighteous killings but such killings would still happen. The other option is perfectly vetted, trained and tested cops and even that is not flawless.
I'll leave my thoughts regarding the trial at the doorway and simply say this: The judge in the trial, Bruce Schroeder might be the biggest jack ass i have ever seen. He is the epitome of what is wrong with our legal system. Pompous, would be a very generous and kind description of him. And yes, i know he was first seated on the bench by the democratic governor in the 80's. Justice and maybe more importantly judges should be blind to whatever bias they have.
Very good questions but I do believe the case hinges on whether Rittenhouse believed he was in danger of serious harm or death by his attackers at the moment he fired.