Many people assume trials (and court cases in general) are about the morality of the situation. Actually, it's all about the technicalities of the situation. It's all about the technicalities of the individual case, not about sending a moral message to society.
In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove that the defendant is guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. The defense attorney doesn't really have to prove anything, they only need to plant a seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors. If the juror has a reasonable doubt, he/she/etc has to acquit.
People who are acquitted were not really proven innocent, it's just that the prosecutors didn't prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I remember being a juror in a restraining order case. The defendant was accused of approaching his ex at a nightclub and moving in an intimidating manner. The defendant's friend said that never happened and to "check the cameras". The prosecutor didn't provide us video footage from the nightclub. That itself gave the entire jury reasonable doubt. Some of us acknowledged that the defendant could be a "douchebag" but there is still reasonable doubt because if the incident happened, the prosecutor would've shown us a video and it would've been an easy slam dunk for the prosecution. One of the jurors mentioned about the ex's safety, but still, there was reasonable doubt. Therefore, we had to acquit the defendant. Not because he was "proven innocent" but because we had reasonable doubt. The defendant wasn't proven innocent, the prosecution just couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
This came to mind due to two legal decisions this month.
First was the Honolulu prosecutor's decision to not put Chris Deedy on trial for a 3rd time for the killing of Kollin Elderts in 2011. The first time ended with a hung jury in a case where the jurors could only decide if it was murder, not allowed to decide if it was manslaughter. The second time was a hung jury on a manslaughter charge.
Learn more about the incident at
my 2013 blog post "Chris Deedy and Kollin Elderts" https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/09/chris-deedy-and-kollin-elderts.html
Nina Wu, “Honolulu Prosecutor Says Federal Agent Christopher Deedy Will Not Face Jurors a 3rd Time,” Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 15, 2021, https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/11/15/breaking-news/honolulu-prosecutor-says-federal-agent-christopher-deedy-will-not-face-jurors-a-3rd-time/.
It's been 10 years already, and prosecutors can't just keep trying to convict the same person over the same incident.
This has nothing to do with whether Chris Deedy is a "good person". Prosecutors couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deedy didn't kill Elderts in self-defense.
Deedy made the wrong decision to get drunk while armed on his first night in Hawaii. Deedy should've tried de-escalation instead of just approaching Elderts with a badge. But once Elderts attacked Deedy, it was on! And going on technicalities, you can't call this incident "murder".
Activists claimed that Deedy is a white colonizer and that Elderts is on his own native ancestral land. But the technicalities of the case has NOTHING to do with whether "white is right" or "white is wrong", it's about treating them as individuals who made choices, and how those choices fit the technicalities of the law. So even though Deedy made some bad choices, the trial isn't about those bad choices before he shot Elderts, the trial is about why he shot Elderts. Deedy claimed self-defense, the video showed self-defense, some of the jurors agreed. Because of that, he faces no prison time.
And also this month, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of homicide.
Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident last year, was in Kenosha, Wisconsin armed with a rifle his friend gave to him to defend a business his friend once worked for when riots broke out in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
Blake was approached by Kenosha police for violating a restraining order while he walked off towards his car. The police shot him in the back paralyzing him. Because Blake was African-American, the cops were European-American, and the incident happened a few months after George Floyd's death, this set off riots in the city.
Because the riots were in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake, some people had the mistaken assumption that Rittenhouse came to the scene to shoot "black protesters". But the people he shot were NEITHER African-American NOR were they peaceful protesters.
The 3 people Rittenhouse shot were rioters (who happened to be of European-American ancestry) who attacked him when he fell down. The video proves that Rittenhouse was running away from the crowd, the video proves that Rittenhouse was being attacked after he fell down, the video proves Rittenhouse only shot the people who attacked him and DID NOT SHOOT ANYBODY ELSE.
See the video here
Chicago Sun-Times video "GRAPHIC: Video allegedly shows 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shooting 3 people, 2 fatally in Kenosha"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
As you may recall, I mentioned that trials are about the technicalities of the situation.
In this case, it's whether Rittenhouse committed murder instead of self-defense.
The technicalities of the case were NOT about whether Rittenhouse made good choices before he was attacked.
Rittenhouse was 17 years old, he should've stayed home and let the adults handle the situation dealing with the business in the riot zone. But that's not what the case was about.
Rittenhouse should've avoided hanging out with the Proud Boys after he was released on bail. But the trial wasn't about that.
The trial was about whether Rittenhouse committed murder or was it self-defense.
Now some activists do have legit concerns about Kyle Rittenhouse and white privilege.
After Rittenhouse shot the 3 rioters, he ran off with his rifle still strapped around him and ran towards a police car with his hands in the air.
I doubt anybody of African-American or Latin-American ancestry with a rifle could run toward a police car without being shot by police. I would advise any civilian (especially those of non-European ancestry, but anybody really) to not run toward a police car while having a rifle strapped around you. Rittenhouse (and anyone in that situation) should've stayed in place as soon as they see police cars coming in their direction. Stay in place, keep your hands up, wait for the police to approach you, and follow police orders when they approach you. If the police are being jerks, fight the issue in court, not in the streets.
But even then, some people wouldn't give African-Americans the benefit of the doubt. Whereas Kyle Rittenhouse was able to run toward a police car with a real rifle strapped around, 12-year old Tamir Rice was shot for having a FAKE gun and wasn't even given a chance to put the FAKE gun down when confronted by police.
Marissa Alexander wasn't given the benefit of acquittal for self-defense when she was arrested for firing a warning shot when confronted by an abusive ex. She was sentenced to 20 years for "assault" (apparently, the technicalities called a warning shot against an abuser an "assault") but was paroled after 3 years.
learn more at
Shannon Prince, “Tamir Rice and Marissa Alexander Deserved the Rittenhouse Treatment,” MSN, November 21, 2021, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tamir-rice-and-marissa-alexander-deserved-the-rittenhouse-treatment/ar-AAQXVYT.
Irin Carmon, “Marissa Alexander Released from Jail,” MSNBC, January 27, 2015, https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marissa-alexander-may-be-released-msna515141.
On the same day that Rittenhouse was acquitted, Andrew Coffee, an African-American man, was acquitted of killing his wife and a cop after it was found that he was victimized in a no-knock raid and defended himself against what he thought was a home invasion. However, he was convicted for being ex-felon being in possession of a gun.
learn more at
“Andrew Coffee IV Found Not Guilty On All Counts of Murder, Attempted First Degree Murder,” MSN, November 23, 2021, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/andrew-coffee-iv-found-not-guilty-on-all-counts/ar-AAQUG4z.
Mia Cathell, “Black Man Who Fired at Deputies in Self-Defense Acquitted On Same Day as Rittenhouse,” The Post Millennial, November 23, 2021, https://thepostmillennial.com/coffee-rittenhouse-self-defense.
The case was similar to the Breona Taylor case in which the police committed a no-knock raid in which the police shot & killed her while her boyfriend Kenneth Walker shot back at what he thought was a home invasion by burglars. The case against Walker was dismissed, but he is currently filing a lawsuit again the police.
learn more at
Ivan Pereira, “Kenneth Walker, Boyfriend of Breonna Taylor, Sues Police and City of Louisville for Immunity,” ABC News, September 1, 2020, https://abcnews.go.com/US/kenneth-walker-boyfriend-breonna-taylor-sues-police-city/story?id=72754382.
And going back to the city of Kenosha, there is a pending case for Chrystul Kizer, an African-American female who was charged with murder when she was 17 years old (the same age as Rittenhouse in his incident. Kizer says that she was defending herself against an attempted rape. The person she killed, Randall Volar, had previous sex abuse charges for which he wasn't convicted.
learn more at
Rachel Pilgrim, “Rittenhouse Verdict Has Turned Eyes On the Case of Chrystul Kizer,” Yahoo, November 23, 2021, https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/rittenhouse-verdict-turned-eyes-case-223000878.html.
Because of these cases, many feel that Kyle Rittenhouse benefitted from white privilege, whereas those of non-European ancestries were treated with suspicion and even punished for self-defense. They worry that white jurors would assume non-European defendants to be "thugs" and wouldn't give them the same benefit of the doubt they would give to someone like Kyle Rittenhouse. Defense lawyers do have extra hurdles to acquit non-European defendants due to juror biases, and prosecutors also take advantage of this juror bias. Kyle Rittenhouse also had access to funds from sympathizers to pay for his attorney, whereas those without money don't have access to good lawyers.
But even with racial inequalities, this doesn't mean that Deedy or Rittenhouse are worthy to be found guilty, even if they do benefit from white privilege.
The goal for anti-racist activists is to get more European-Americans to not just assume that non-Europeans are "thugs" and to give them a fair judgment. In other words, give non-Europeans the same benefit that Deedy and Rittenhouse got!
------
Meanwhile, in Georgia, Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan (all of whom are European-Americans) was convicted for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery (who is African-American). The McMicheals and Bryan were videotaped chasing Arbery as he was jogging through the neighborhood, then shot him. They claimed they were chasing a burglary suspect, even though there was no evidence of Arbery committing burglary. They also claimed "self-defense" when it was they who started the confrontation with Arbery.
(learn more at
Associated Press, “All 3 Defendants in Ahmaud Arbery’s Fatal Shooting Found Guilty of Murder,” Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 24, 2021, https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/11/24/breaking-news/all-3-defendants-in-ahmaud-arberys-fatal-shooting-found-guilty-of-murder/.
While some activists claim that the Rittenhouse case & the Arbery case are similar, due to the fact that the suspects were European-Americans, it really isn't that similar.
Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to protect a business his friend once worked for. He ran from a confrontation, and only fired his weapon when he was physically attacked. The video proves that.
Meanwhile, it was the McMichael's and Bryan who started their confrontation with Arbery and shot him. The video proves that.
Things obviously get more tricky if there's no video recording, and it is harder for the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which was partly why the jury I was in had to acquit the defendant suspected of a TRO violation. (as mentioned earlier, it was in a nightclub and the defendant's friend said "check the camera" but the prosecutor didn't show video evidence).
And in case anyone is wondering, both the defendant and the accuser in the TRO case are of European ancestry. The defendant's friend looks as if he could be mixed-race, his background wasn't revealed in the trial. None of that is relevant, because we're supposed to judge people as individuals.
And that's the important thing: people have to be judged as individuals who made choices. They are not symbols of anything! They are individuals.
And laws aren't really about morality, it's whatever the lawmakers deem appropriate to satisfy whatever constituents they are appealing to.
And that that is why trials are about the technicality of the situation, not the morality of the situation.
