HASSAN: There’s no room for mob rule in legal judgments

Article content

Three white men were found guilty yesterday of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Southern Georiga. Another trial ending last week in Kenosha, Wisconsin, yielded a different verdict. Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges.

Article content

By all overt signs, the judgment appears to be yet another example of a failed justice system that unfairly favours white people. Black Lives Matter and other left-leaning groups, however, forget that Rittenhouse’s victims were white.

But since the victims were all purportedly protesting racial inequality, these groups continue to perceive a racist undercurrent in this case. Social media has been flooded with angry statements against Rittenhouse, calling him a “little racist” guilty of white supremacism and vigilante justice.

Juries have to be impartial and consider legalities. They cannot base their decisions on conjecture, political correctness, or sentiments. While racism continues to rear its ugly head in America, all judgments aren’t necessarily motivated by it, as the verdict in the Arbery case demonstrates.

Article content

Juries also cannot be influenced by mob rule. They usually get these verdicts right based on the facts of a case within the context of existing laws.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

The left has thus veered in the direction of untruths when it comes to social justice issues. BLM and other groups ignore the legalities around this case when they pass judgments on Rittenhouse. The defense based its not guilty plea on an individual’s right to self-defense. Unless the law is fundamentally changed on such issues, the decision by the jury to acquit Rittenhouse remains the correct one.

The jury saw his point after deliberating the antecedents of the case for over twenty-five hours. More than 30 witnesses had appeared in the two-week trial. The jury demonstrably reviewed their testimonies carefully.

Article content

The most compelling testimony was that of Rittenhouse himself, when he said he acted in self-defense. He broke down while relaying this. Had he not shot, he would have been shot, he said. In that stressful situation, he acted in the best manner possible, which was that he had to defend himself.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig said that “They (the prosecutors) pointed out some minor inconsistencies and things he said on the night of, and said later, but nothing that undermines sort of the core defense argument, which was, he was attacked.”

“Every time he shot, he was attacked.”

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Additionally, the prosecution could not prove that Rittenhouse provoked the violence that led to the shootings. Experts also state that Wisconsin law permits arms in self-defence.

One may think that arms should not be allowed in self-defense, but that is indeed how the law stands. Of course, one can also conclude that existing laws may have loopholes that allow criminals to go scot-free, or there may be other legalities that the prosecution may not be able to overcome.

Still, the conclusion that race is behind Rittenhouse’s acquittal would be far removed from the truth.

Source link

Leave a Comment