By John Johnson II
America’s criminal justice system defends and protects white people who commits crimes of murder against Black people. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R -FL) labeled Rittenhouse as a hero for murdering two white men who were amongst the crowd of Black people protesting in-justices.
Before examining the bias interpretation of specific Wisconsin laws, one must examine the very behavior of Judge Bruce Schroeder. Jessica Levinson, MSNBC Opinion Columnist, writes that, “Judges Schroeder’s behavior was controversial- but it wasn’t unfair.” Sadly, Judge Schroeder’s behavior was excusable.
Controversial behavior by jurors may get them removed by the judge following a re-quest by either the defense or prosecuting attorneys. Since the scale of justice can be tilted easily, the avoidance of controversial behaviors or remarks by a judge should constitute a judicial norm.
One shouldn’t ever be so naive as to believe that Judges, even novice ones, aren’t aware of how to utilize controversial tactics to sway jurors for or against a defendant. Why did Judge Schroeder’s behavior tend to convey favorable sentiments towards Kyle Rittenhouse? You be the judge!
Let’s turn our attention to Wisconsin’s Law regarding vigilantism and 939.48 Self – Defense and defense of others. Wisconsin’s state law prohibits paramilitary organizations and forbids civilians from acting like a public officer.
On the other hand, Wisconsin’s Statutes 939.48, allows a person to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person believed to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.
The media is correct! Kyle Rittenhouse and Vigilantism were both on trial. Rittenhouse clearly violated Wisconsin’s Law which prohibits citizens from acting as vigilantes. This certainly includes Rittenhouse.
It’s now clear in America that in violation of Wisconsin state law, a white mother can drive her son armed with an assault weapon to another city crossing state lines for the purpose of becoming a vigilante. Also, this mother as well as her son were aware that his weapon could be lethal if fired at protesters or any persons. The question is, “if a person disregards the law and chooses to become a vigilante and then murders other humans, is he then protected by Statute 939.48?’’
A simple vignette might shed a glaring light on the controversial application of laws in Wisconsin as well as the jurors’ verdict of acquittal:
Vigilante (A) travels to Wisconsin armed with an assault-style rifle to serve as a vigilante during a protest. Vigilante (A) is confronted in a parking lot by protester (1) who attempts to chase the menacing armed vigilante away. Vigilante (A) recognized the protester as a threat; therefore, he then turns and fires four shots into the protester, with the shot to the head being fatal. Protester (2) after witnessing the shooting of a fellow protester, gives chase to the fleeing Vigilante (A) merely wielding a skateboard.
Why wasn’t Protester (2) viewed as a vigilante attempting to subdue an armed young boy who had just shot an unarmed protester. Vigilante (A), then shoots and killed protester (2), armed only with a skateboard, for attempting to capture him. Vigilante (A) also wounds protester (3) who brandished a pistol while attempting to capture him. Did the two dead men and the wounded man only commit crimes?
To remove any possibility of a conviction for Rittenhouse, the defense attorneys convinced Judge Schroeder to drop the gun charge. They provided a Wisconsin’s law that allowed youths under eighteen to carry a long-barreled rifle (18 in.), but specifically for hunting. However, the law surely doesn’t imply underaged youth can use an AR – Style semiautomatic rifle to hunt humans.
Rittenhouse wasn’t in the woods hunting animals. And Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber weren’t animals. America continues to reveal that justice isn’t blind!
QUIZ: Who does Rittenhouse resemble if you paint a black toothbrush mustache below his nose?
