Before we end our consideration of the entire sorry sequence of events in Kenosha, let’s recall where the finger of blame really should be pointed: the Kenosha police. It was a Kenosha police officer’s shooting of Jacob Blake that impelled the demonstrations in Kenosha that turned into riots. If the police had controlled the situation Kyle Rittenhouse would never have gone to Kenosha and two men who are now dead would in all likelihood still be alive.
We will never live in the alternate reality where those kids aren’t in the back of Blake’s car and the police officer is only faced with danger to himself. From the article I linked in the comment for the other post —
“They arrived to find Blake placing the couple’s three children in the back seat of the woman’s SUV. Graveley said officers had no choice but to arrest him since he was wanted. He said Blake resisted, fighting with the officers as they tried to handcuff him. Officers used a stun gun on him three times to no effect.
Noble Wray, a Black former police chief and a use-of-force expert who reviewed the investigation, said Blake had a knife that apparently fell to the ground during the struggle. Blake picked it up and officers disengaged and drew their guns. Blake then tried to get into the SUV, Wray said.
“Any officer worth their salt, they’re not going to let someone leave under these circumstances,†Wray said. “This is the stuff Amber Alerts are made of.â€
In the end; its still every individual’s choice to on whether to wait to understand the situation before expressing an opinion and use legal means to express their opinions.
“If the police had controlled the situation Kyle Rittenhouse would never have gone to Kenosha and two men who are now dead would in all likelihood still be alive.”
Before the Rittenhouse case began I had forgotten what precipitated the riots. I think CO’s citation is correct. But does anyone recall if the police were told to stand down by political authorities? Further, its hard to imagine they would not have been overwhelmed even if not so commanded.
The real police mistake was not taking away the gun from Rittenhouse when he was wandering around in a crowd.
Steve
Many police departments have been rendered impotent by being tried and judged under ludicrous public opinion, and upheld by mostly blue checked political mayors and leaders. Police are basically damned if they try to control a situation (being called unfairly harsh) or damned if they don’t. There seems to be no consensus anymore as to the right way to control crowds preventing escalation. And then, with the media chiming in, the police always seem to be the bad guys, no matter what happens.
Jacob Blake is a perfect example of such a policing conundrum. If they had disengaged and permitted Blake to drive off with the children, they would have been chastised for not protecting the children. When they thwarted the forced taking of the children, politicians, including Kamala Harris, sided with Blake.
I just took a quick scan down the comments over at OTB. I think Joyner basically got it right, although I think he’s wrong on the weapons charge. Size matters in WI, and the charge was thrown out based upon barrel length and WI law.
But the comments did not exactly distinguish that crew. It reminds me of the day they were all dancing on Rush Limbaugh’s grave. Not sure why I wasted so much time over there in the past.
“The real police mistake was not taking away the gun from Rittenhouse when he was wandering around in a crowd.â€
Like there were no other weapons or guns in that Kenosha mob, such as the one pointed at Ritterhouse? Get real, Steve!
Unless there was a crime, the police have no authority to just confiscate someone’s gun. And from what I saw on the video, hundreds of people were carrying.
As for Blake, I’m not sure what the alternative was.
I think the police and government erred in not controlling the rioting.
Who do the police take orders from?
“Unless there was a crime, the police have no authority to just confiscate someone’s gun. And from what I saw on the video, hundreds of people were carrying.”
How many children? From what I saw there weren’t any other kids carrying.
Steve
Contrary to some popular opinion, Rittenhouse was allowed to have the gun because it exceeded 16 inches. The police had no right to confiscate it under law. The fact that other minors may or may not have been in possession of a weapon is irrelevant. Furthermore, Steve can only have seen a tiny fraction of the people there, making his observation irrelevant.
Do you have the capacity whatsoever to formulate any kind of step by step logical argument Steve?
Agree that Joyner has it mostly right, especially with this comment.
” it should have been illegal for Rittenhouse (but then also Gaige Grosskreutz) to carry weapons to a protest or that the self-defense doctrine shouldn’t apply in circumstances the accused helped create. ”
PD will know the law but it looks like the law, and this is worse with stand your ground I think, allows a guy with a gun to start or provoke an altercation but it they start to lose they can shoot and kill the other guy, and its legal. The law needs to be changed.
Steve
I would add that the moment the first rock, bottle, or firecracker is thrown it is no longer a legal demonstration but an illegal disorderly assembly and it is the affirmative responsibility of the authorities to bring it under control. Failing to do so invites vigilantism.
Although I am certainly sympathetic to Daves last point, I’m not sure they have the latitude to defy orders, if that is what occurred. You don’t have the luxury of resigning over policy when the fires start. The politicians in WI, WA and OR should be recalled. How about those in CA allowing shoplifting? How about Chicago?
“…allows a guy with a gun to start or provoke an altercation but it they start to lose they can shoot and kill the other guy”
Steve, if you are referring to the Rittenhouse situation you don’t grasp the very essence of the prosecution’s case. They wanted to show that Rittenhouse lost his right to self defense because he provoked the first guy, a point that all the legal types agreed was in fact the law. Its why the withholding of the high rez images was immoral and a potential cause for mistrial. It obviously did not sway the jury.
Can those who feel threatened attack legally armed citizens and cry murder when they lose the contest?
Ahmaud Arbery did just that and if you think the defendants will get an unbiased jury, just Google “jogger murder”.
“Can those who feel threatened attack legally armed citizens and cry murder when they lose the contest?”
Yes if they didnt initiate the conflict. In this case the armed people chased the guy in their trucks then claimed they were making a citizens arrest for stealing stuff, when Arbery was unarmed and not carrying any stolen stuff. The guys with the gun initiated this. There were 3 of them. Why did they need a gun? How did Arbery know they weren’t just going to shoot him?
If you want to take on the responsibility of playing judge, jury and executioner then you need to bear the consequences when things go wrong.
Steve
If for some reason I were jogging in the predominantly black side of Philadelphia
and three black men with guns pursued me in two vehicles yelling “stop or I’ll blow your fucking head off “ I’d seek shelter at a home or business.
I would not attempt to disarm or overpower them.
But that’s just me, maybe the average Joe would normally rush the gun and I’m just a cowardly jogger.
Because Aurbury rushed the gun holder we’ll never know what his intentions were, if HE even did.
Look, these guys are guilty of something, and so is the county Attorney, but I doubt that It’s 1st degree murder unless CNN can overrule the court by whipping up public opinion to the point of violence again.