The Rittenhouse trial and the trial of the murderers of Ahmad Arbery have great importance. Coming as they do after the Texas abortion law, these trials will determine whether vigilantism will be increasingly sanctioned. It is a threat to the entire working class and it is not looking good.
It’s become so clear that even CNN has to comment on it numerous times: The judge, Bruce Schroeder, in the Rittenhouse trial is doing everything he can to get Rittenhouse off.
- For example, he prohibited the prosecution from referring to
those who were shot as “victims”. Numerous lawyers on CNN said this is unheard of. Yet he has allowed the defense to refer to the protesters as “rioters”. Note: All of those shot were, in fact, Rittenhouse’s victims; not all, and probably only a minority of those protesting were “rioters” even in the legal sense.
- Schroeder admonished the prosecution for making faces but, according to some CNN reporters, the defense was doing the same thing at times.
- Schroeder prohibited the prosecution from bringing up the (white supremacist) political background of one of the defense witnesses despite the fact that that would obviously be related to that witness’s credibility.
- On Thursday, Veterans Day, Schroeder orchestrated a round of applause for the veterans in the court room. The only self-identified vet in the courtroom was a defense witness. Schroeder thereboy gave additional credibility to that witness. That is in addition to the fact that Veterans Day is a patriotic holiday and, as such, reflects a conservative and “law and order” agenda.
As for Schroeder, he’s known as a pro-prosecution judge. In fact, in the past he had a conviction of an accused murderer thrown out on appeal because he allowed some testimony that he should not have. So why is he pro defense in this case? The reason is that his pro-prosecution bias is a political bias in favor of a generally repressive society.
All of this will be used against the labor movement, especially in open carry states. In the past, striking workers have physically prevented scabs from crossing a picket line. At most, this usually lead to physical confrontations and battles. Now, in open carry states, scabs will be carrying arms. They will be entitled to shoot to kill if they feel “threatened”. Strikers will not have the equal right because they will have to be the “aggressor”, physically blocking the scabs. And that is completely aside from the fact that the entire criminal (in)justice system is almost always on the side of the scabs and against strikers.
Update: Today, Schroeder ruled that the prosecution may introduce the notion of provocation. In other words, if they can show that Rittenhouse provoked any of the aggression against him, then self defense doesn’t apply. Somebody must have pulled Schroeder’s coat and told him in effect: “Look, if you continue down this road so blatantly, then you will be contributing to the demise of any credibility for the judicial system. There has already been sharp criticism of you on major media like CNN. You must at least appear to be impartial.”
Categories: politics, repression
Leave a Reply