[MORE] It is important that those who advocate on behalf of black lives don’t accidentally advocate for an equality of degradation or less “rights” or more slavery for all. It is true that if Rittenhouse was black he would have been arrested on the spot and that he was presumed innocent and given the benefit of the doubt by white authorities solely because he is white. Clearly, black people should be treated the same way but are not due to the system of RWS. But, to demand that all persons be similarly subjected to a system of injustice or similarly degraded in the manner black people are is perverse or reverse advocacy for “freedumb.”

Furthermore, advocates for Black people should overstand that the application or inapplication of any law by racist lawmakers, jurors, judges, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and prison officials will create injustice for non-whites if they are practicing racism when doing so. Neely Fuller calls such laws "non-laws." Racism is the problem, not laws. It is deception or delusional to believe that the elimination of or creation of more laws will have an affect on the way in which racist white people relate to Black people.

From the beginning, in the spectacle the dependent media has parroted a racial narrative in this self-defense case involving white-on-white crime. This episode is not like the Freedom Summer murders of white civil right workers in Mississippi in 1964. Here, the white teen defended himself against white men participating in a riot. Undoubtedly rioting has political value - but unlike regular protest it is unlawful. Do persons rioting have a reasonable expectation that nobody can interfere with their conduct when they are rioting? Similarly, would a thief attempting to take a car stereo really have a gripe to pick if someone caught him and beat his ass? Were do-gooders really expecting the court to balance the “reasonable expectations” of rioters with the defendant’s right to self-defense?

Allegations and theories must be tested against reality - in the legal context, proven in court with evidence. Testing theories in the real world determines their actual worth. In the Rittenhouse case the theories that he was a “chaos tourist” looking for trouble or that he was a racist looking to harm Blacks on behalf of white property owners were not established at trial by the government. Such theories and allegations turned out to be nothing more than MSNBC, CNN and others talking points - talking points in accord with the appetite of the liberal viewer, not in accord with what actually occurred in reality. The prosecution failed miserably to prove Rittenhouse was a villain - watch the government’s cross examination of Rittenhouse for yourself and try to stay awake. Contrary to the liberal narrative, uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that the teenager worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha, where his father lived. However bad his judgment in showing up with a weapon he didn’t own at a riot, his intention was to stand guard in front of businesses and administer first aid. [MORE] The white prosecutor’s eye rolling and sarcasm are not evidence and did not impeach the teen’s testimony.

The facts and legal issues at trial did not concern racism white supremacy. Rittenhouse was not charged with killing or attempting to harm anyone black or randomly killing people he thought were black. Contrary to the media’s implied narrative, the government did not allege that Rittenhouse murdered or assaulted the 3 white men because they were protesting on behalf of black people or that he did so to defend the rights of aggrieved white property owners. In fact, he did not randomly attack anyone. From the videos, evidence and unimpeached testimony it appears obvious that he was under attack and defended himself. The following facts were undisputed by the Government;

in a matter of seconds, Rittenhouse killed 1) Rosenbaum (a white man) after he was chased by the white man across a parking lot. Rosenbaum lunged toward the rifle before Rittenhouse, who was trapped against parked cars, fired. According to Mr. Rittenhouse and another witness, Rosenbaum had threatened to kill the teenager earlier in the night. 2) Then while fleeing the scene with a group of people chasing him he fell down in the street. While on the ground another white man hit him in the head with a skateboard. While still on the ground Rittenhouse fatally shot the white man (once) as said white man attempted to also kick him in the face. Subsequently while trying to flee 3) a 3rd white man attempted to grab Rittenhouse’s gun, so Rittenhouse shot him once and fled.

Clinging to the racial narrative despite reality is called dogma.

What is Uncle Brother’s goal here? Is it to do away with self-defense, so people can no longer defend themselves? Liberal doo-gooders in the dependent media have been actually discussing curtailing the right to self-defense. Implying that only costumed authorities should have the right to use force [see do-gooder in this video at 11:23]. This is the low calorie logic of slaves. Having less freedoms will make us more free? Apparently, the media intends to further purposefully confuse the public by conflating the “the right of self-defense” with the police use of ‘deadly force’ and the concepts of political authority [the right of authorities to initiate force and the citizen’s legal duty to obey, even if unlawful] and sovereign immunity. Will having less rights on the street be a good thing for law abiding black people in their relations with police or criminals? How about for the thousands of Black defendants who will be subject to greater confinement in the racist criminal justice system. In fact, Wisconsin, the source of the do-gooders reactionary politics, leads the nation in locking up Black people [MORE]. Clearly, less rights or a diminished right to self defense at trial would only help authorities to lock up even more black folks. If these freedumb fighters want to do something about the defense of self-defense it might be to advocate for changing laws that prohibit citizens from using self-defense against an unlawful arrest by cops (the law in most states). Of course that would mean that liberal do-gooders would actually begin to challenge “authority,” instead of worshipping it, violently imposing it on others and believing it solves the problems that it causes.

The following information below is presented for greater understanding and refresher material in light of the misinformation presented about self-defense and the extraordinary number of Black people incarcerated in this already unjust system of injustice.

From [Sentencing Project] When former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck in 2020, the world witnessed the most racist elements of the U.S. criminal legal system on broad display. The uprisings that followed Floyd’s death articulated a vision for transforming public safety practices and investments. Almost one year later, Chauvin was convicted for Floyd’s death, a rare outcome among law enforcement officers who kill unarmed citizens. The fight for racial justice within the criminal legal system continues, however. The data findings featured in this report epitomize the enormity of the task.

This report details our observations of staggering disparities among Black and Latinx people imprisoned in the United States given their overall representation in the general population. The latest available data regarding people sentenced to state prison reveal that Black Americans are imprisoned at a rate that is roughly five times the rate of white Americans. During the present era of criminal justice reform, not enough emphasis has been focused on ending racial and ethnic disparities systemwide.

Going to prison is a major life-altering event that creates obstacles to building stable lives in the community, such as gaining employment and finding stable and safe housing after release. Imprisonment also reduces lifetime earnings and negatively affects life outcomes among children of incarcerated parents.1) These are individual-level consequences of imprisonment but there are societal level consequences as well: high levels of imprisonment in communities cause high crime rates and neighborhood deterioration, thus fueling greater disparities.2) This cycle both individually and societally is felt disproportionately by people who are Black. It is clear that the outcome of mass incarceration today has not occurred by happenstance but has been designed through policies created by a dominant white culture that insists on suppression of others.

At the same time, states have begun to chip away at mass incarceration. Nine states have lowered their prison population by 30% or more in recent years: Alaska, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Alabama, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, and California.3) This decline has been accomplished through a mix of reforms to policy and practice that reduce prison admissions as well as lengths of stay in prison. Still, America maintains its distinction as the world leader4) in its use of incarceration, including more than 1.2 million people held in state prisons around the country.5)

Truly meaningful reforms to the criminal justice system cannot be accomplished without acknowledgement of its racist underpinnings. Immediate and focused attention on the causes and consequences of racial disparities is required in order to eliminate them. True progress towards a racially just system requires an understanding of the variation in racial and ethnic inequities in imprisonment across states and the policies and day-to-day practices that drive these inequities.6)

This report documents the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Latinx individuals, providing racial and ethnic composition as well as rates of disparity for each state.7) The Sentencing Project has produced state-level estimates twice before8) and once again finds staggering disproportionalities.

Key findings

1. Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at nearly 5 times the rate of white Americans.

2. Nationally, one in 81 Black adults in the U.S. is serving time in state prison. Wisconsin leads the nation in Black imprisonment rates; one of every 36 Black Wisconsinites is in prison.

3. In 12 states, more than half the prison population is Black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

4. Seven states maintain a Black/white disparity larger than 9 to 1: California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.

5. Latinx individuals are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 1.3 times the incarceration rate of whites. Ethnic disparities are highest in Massachusetts, which reports an ethnic differential of 4.1:1.

Recommendations

1. Eliminate mandatory sentences for all crimes.
   Mandatory minimum sentences, habitual offender laws, and mandatory transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal system give prosecutors too much authority while limiting the discretion of impartial judges. These policies contributed to a substantial increase in sentence length and time served in prison, disproportionately imposing unduly harsh sentences on Black and Latinx individuals.

2. Require prospective and retroactive racial impact statements for all criminal statutes.
   The Sentencing Project urges states to adopt forecasting estimates that will calculate the impact of proposed crime legislation on different populations in order to minimize or eliminate the racially disparate impacts of certain laws and policies. Several states have passed “racial impact statement” laws. To undo the racial and ethnic disparity resulting from decades of tough-on-crime policies, however, states should also repeal existing racially biased laws and policies. The impact of racial impact laws will be modest at best if they remain only forward looking.

3. Decriminalize low-level drug offenses.
   Discontinue arrest and prosecutions for low-level drug offenses which often lead to the accumulation of prior convictions which accumulate disproportionately in communities of color. These convictions generally drive further and deeper involvement in the criminal legal system.

Click here to read the full report.

The following information is from the DC Criminal Jury Instructions. The instruction is typical.

Instruction 9.501 SELF-DEFENSE--AMOUNT OF FORCE PERMISSIBLE

A.-- NONDEADLY FORCE

A person may use a reasonable amount of force in self-defense. A person may use an amount of force which, at the time of the incident, s/he actually and reasonably believes is necessary to protect himself/herself from imminent bodily harm.

B.-- DEADLY FORCE

A person may use a reasonable amount of force in self-defense, including, in some circumstances, deadly force. "Deadly force" is force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. A person may use deadly force in self-defense if s/he actually and reasonably believes at the time of the incident that s/he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which s/he can save himself/herself only by using deadly force against his/her assailant.

C.-- EXCESSIVE FORCE (TO BE USED WITH EITHER DEADLY OR NONDEADLY FORCE)

Even if the other person is the aggressor and [name of defendant] is justified in using force in self-defense, s/he may not use any greater force than s/he actually and reasonably believes to be necessary under the circumstances [to prevent the harm s/he reasonably believes is intended] [to save his/her life or avoid serious bodily harm].

In deciding whether [name of defendant] used excessive force in defending himself/herself, you may consider all the circumstances under which s/he acted. A person acting in the heat of passion caused by an assault does not necessarily lose his/her claim of self-defense by using greater force than would seem necessary to a calm mind. In the heat of passion, a person may actually and reasonably believe something that seems unreasonable to a calm mind.

____________________________________

Comment:

Where evidence of excessive force is present, Part C of the instruction should be given, preceded by Part A or Part B, depending upon whether the defendant is charged with an offense involving the exercise of nondeadly force (A) or deadly force (B). See generally Sacrini v. U.S., 38 App. D.C. 371 (1912) (holding whether defendant's actions are reasonable depends upon whether the circumstances known to the accused would cause a reasonably prudent person, situated as the defendant, to believe s/he is being or about to be attacked); Kinard v. U.S., 96 F.2d 522, 68 App. D.C. 250 (1938) and McPhaul v. U.S., 452 A.2d 371 (D.C. 1982) (holding that defendant's belief must be both reasonable and bona fide to find self-defense); Perry v. U.S., 422 F.2d 697, 137 U.S. App. D.C. 260 (1968) and Inge v. U.S., 356 F.2d 345, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 6 (1966) (finding whether excessive force was used is determined by all the circumstances of the particular case); Brown v. U.S., 256 U.S. 335 (1921) (finding that claim of self-defense is not necessarily defeated because defendant, acting in heat of passion brought on by the assault, used more force than would have appeared reasonable to a calmer mind; if one reasonably believes s/he is in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm, deadly force may be used in defending her/himself); U.S. v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 157 U.S. App. D.C. 219 (1973) (defining deadly force as force capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm).

Cross references: Nos. 9.500-9.505, Self-defense--related instructions.