No vigilantes

I often read Brian Monteith’s weekly Perspective contribution. I rarely agree with his points of view, which tend to either be counter to my own opinions or simply wrongheaded rants. However, I read his articles because it is important to listen to those with whom you disagree, rather than listening in an echo chamber of those whose views you do agree with. Normally I just sigh and discount his points of view, but with regard to his 22 November column I feel I must protest.

Almost in passing, amongst a range of other complaints, he touches on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kinosha, Wisconsin. He claims that the telnicola

evised trial provided clarity but goes on to state that the victims (whom the judge stated could not be called victims by the prosecution) were “… intent on setting fire to the car dealership where the accused worked”. He clearly wasn’t paying attention. Firstly, the accused did not work at the dealership but had appointed himself as vigilante protector of the property after travelling 20 miles across the state with a loaded rifle.

Secondly, I would like to know what divine ability Mr Monteith has which allows him to know conclusively what is in the mind of individuals he has never met such that he is sure they are intent on burning and looting a property. Clearly there was violence and confusion in many quarters and it cannot be denied Rittenhouse was being pursued and attacked. But this was after he had already shot one man dead. Does Mr Monteith approve of vigilantism in some cases but not others? As someone who seems to believe in the upholding of law and order I cannot believe he can justify taking such a one-sided view. Rittenhouse has been cleared in due judicial process and that judgement must be accepted. But what cannot be accepted is approving the principle of vigilantism.

DAVID MORRIS Dalkeith, Midlothian