Politics and justice

To the Editor:

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse raises several important questions. From a legal standpoint, it was a question of murder or self-defense. It appears the verdict was appropriate based on the evidence. Unfortunately, discussion of Rittenhouse's alleged politics and affiliations was raised, though they were irrelevant to the case. To clarify, let us engage in a thought experiment. Suppose Kyle Rittenhouse was a 17-year-old Black kid, living in Illinois with a father and friends in Kenosha where he stored a gun. He takes his rifle to the demonstration protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake. He is attacked, and kills two people. We can imagine that those on the right would condemn him as a “wanton murderer” who came to Kenosha to kill right-wingers. Left-leaning people would defend him for having acted in self-defense. If the assessment of a case can depend on the ethnicity and politics of those involved, then justice is no longer blind.

Our legal system is also corrupted by excessive and discriminatory pre-trial detention and questionable sentences for Jan. 6 rioters guilty of non-violent misdemeanors.

Don't misunderstand me. I do not support (but I can understand) the actions of the Capitol rioters. And I believe Rittenhouse is at best immature and misguided, at worst a sociopathic scumbag who while awaiting trial celebrated with Proud Boys, blithely disregarding the fact that his irresponsible actions had resulted in the death of two people. However, if we claim to live according to the “rule of law,” we must base our legal judgments and actions on relevant law and facts, not politics and emotion.

One conclusion, however, to me is certain: Firearms should be prohibited at demonstrations.

Phil Nichols

Sonora