According to Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse need not have proved that he acted in self-defense--rather, the state had to prove that he did not.
This is proper. Innocent until proven guilty.
It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse's actions.
I choose to celebrate his actions.
Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don't see the killings as "wrongful" in any sense,
Rightfully so. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself when you are violently attacked.
instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies.
Nonsense. Self defense is not retribution.
Rittenhouse's critics contend that his intentions were racist, because he showed up armed in anticipation of protests on behalf of Black rights,
Progressives falsely accuse people of racism whenever they are unable to defend their demented ideology with facts or logic (which means 100% of the time).
The ideological battle lines recall the 2013 George Zimmerman trial. In Zimmerman's case, prosecutors said he assaulted 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
The physical evidence proves that Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman and tried to murder him.
Zimmerman's defense claimed the then-29-year-old had been attacked by Martin, whom Zimmerman had been following. Even though Martin would have had reason to be concerned about a grown man following him,
Being followed does not entitle Trayvon to try to murder Mr. Zimmerman.
And Mr. Zimmerman had only followed at a distance, and had stopped following him altogether when Trayvon then came up to him and tried to murder him.
Zimmerman wasn't simply acquitted; some on the right embraced his actions as the fulfillment of a violent fantasy.
The author is an idiot. He or she should not presume to know what rightwingers think.
Few people ever use a firearm in self-defense--doing so is rare even for police officers--so the extreme elements of right-wing gun culture have to conjure the specter of impending catastrophe in order to maintain their political salience.
The author is lying. Self defense is quite common.
Sometimes this manifests in deranged reveries of armed revolution, sometimes in overt fantasies of murdering urban minorities, and sometimes in the make-believe of resisting a supposedly tyrannical government.
Like I said, the author is an idiot. Purchasing a gun for a specific purpose hardly means that the purchaser fantasizes about it.
And while the author may want black people to be able to rape and murder white people with impunity, in the real world self defense is in no way murder.
Not content to maintain that Zimmerman was innocent of murder, some of his supporters lived vicariously through his gunning down a Black teenager. People bought Trayvon Martin shooting targets.
Like I said, the author is an idiot. Shooting at a Trayvon target hardly means you are trying to live vicariously through Mr. Zimmerman.
Right-wing pundits marked his birthday with jokes, and spread falsehoods about his background in an attempt to retroactively justify Zimmerman's killing him.
What alleged falsehoods? It is hard to comment without knowing the specific accusation.
But based on the author's performance so far I'm going to guess that the supposed falsehoods are actually true.
Some people turned Zimmerman into a hero, because he killed the kind of person they liked to imagine themselves killing.
No. Mr. Zimmerman is a hero because he stopped Trayvon before he took PCP and broke into someone's house later that night.
The fact that then-President Barack Obama empathized with the fear of many Black parents, that their children will be seen not as children but as dangerous threats, by saying that if he had a son "he'd look like Trayvon," only added to the fantasy's appeal.
The author is an idiot. There was no fantasy.
Zimmerman had a right to defend himself; his supporters could see Martin only as the sort of person the right of self-defense was meant to be invoked against.
His supporters see a little something that people refer to as "reality".
The fact that Rittenhouse has become a folk hero among Republicans points to darker currents within the GOP, where justifications for political violence against the opposition are becoming more common.
Nonsense. Now the author is trying to make the GOP appear as if they were a bunch of progressives or something.
The party finds the apocalyptic fear of impending leftist tyranny useful not only for turning out its supporters, but also for rationalizing legislative attempts to disenfranchise, gerrymander, and otherwise nullify the votes of Democratic constituencies.
Leftist tyranny is indeed a problem.
The author is lying when he or she accuses the Republicans of trying to disenfranchise. It is the Democrats who use such tactics against the American people. Remember what the Democrats and Barack Obama did to Michigan in the 2008 presidential primary.
Gerrymandering wasn't a problem when it was the Democrats who were doing it. Why should it be a problem now?
Whether it's Donald Trump justifying his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Republican members of Congress threatening their colleagues, or Fox News hosts praising Rittenhouse for "doing what the government should have done," the desire to kill your political opponents is a sentiment no longer confined to the dark corners of the internet.
Oh nonsense. Photoshopping someone's face onto the bad guy in a popular cartoon is not a death threat. I can't wait to see the Republicans retaliate when they take power.
And Fox News was praising Mr. Rittenhouse for protecting businesses from looters and rioters, not for justifiably defending himself. The government should indeed have stepped in and confronted those rioters.
Mr. Trump was actually trying to send in federal forces to put a stop to the riots, but he was stymied by leftist traitors in the government who ensured that his orders were not followed. Those traitors should be identified and prosecuted.
The principle that canonizes Rittenhouse as a saint for defending his city from rioters, and the mob that stormed the Capitol as martyrs, is the principle that the slaughter of the right's enemies is no crime.
Correct. Self defense is not a crime.