flash points from Hell
I spy a filler news item — commentary by one of the members of the 90s R and B group TLC along giving a hopeful that the white juries will “get it right” on the two loaded court cases of the moment — Rittenhouse on one hand and the killers of Arbery the other.
Troubling in that, peering from a distance, the correct verdicts for the two cases — and that which is most likely — appear to be an acquittal for Rittenhouse and guilty in that other one.
There is a line I ran into which I have found applicable in various situations. That… Have you ever noticed that… Once you have decided someone is an asshole, everything they do confirms that they are an asshole? Replace the term “a-hole” with whatever negative adjective is applicable. So I am greeted by think opinion pieces dissecting Rittenhouse crying on the stand — never mind I would be greeted by the same commentary if he sat there emotion-less and stern-face.
And staring ever deeper into the rule — “once you have decided”, I am trapped on some commentary regarding the judge. And I understand the narrative line, that you do not like the judge in the Rittenhouse case, and are set to make him scapegoat or symbol in the very probable situation where Rittenhouse is found “not guilty” or where a hung jury happens —
And here we find everyone is suddenly situational in their biases on defense and prosecutorial deferences — the news reports I see from the likes of Mother Jones and Huffington Post noting that the judge has a history of defense deference — which, if it is the case and holds up across the lines, drops him from the snarky “trying out for a Fox News gig” commentary —
And with the commentariats in a state of dead certainty that comes with dashing things out on twitter… I watch the video placed with the “wtf?” Outrage expressed at the judge …
The dilemma of the politics of the day where no explanations are needed and sarcastic jibes are deemed sufficient explanation… It is where I stare and need a bit more context or explanation of the “this therefore that because of thing” to understand how I am suppose to leap to anything from this clip.
Yes. You hate this judge. And I guess in looking over the litany expressed by Dave Niewart maybe there is some signs elsewhere to be irked by — he has Lee Greenwood in his phone — if you decide that is something. But Otherwise, here, specifically it is — what? — Maybe he is playing to the cameras a tad and doing a variant of a “Now, I am just an old fashioned country lawyer” act just a tad in explaining his reasoning.
The problem — the “What Fresh Hell is this?” question — is a basic desire for an acquittal (or any verdict, for that matter) to mean jack squat beyond narrow terms of the case. That it does not mean a subscription to the JD Vance / Tucker Carlson thesis — some “hero” and broad “victim” status accrued, not worthy of a cause celebre status. But the meaning understood by such an outcome — expressed explicitly by the likes of Dave Niewert and implied by the TLC member — is along the lines of “It will mean open season on white vigilantes in protests against racism!”
What Fresh He’ll is this?
I guess it helps in just skipping and jumping between the two cases, and tying and wrapping them up in a bow.