Rittenhouse and self-defence

Barrie Hardy (Solidarity 616) is correct in writing that we should oppose vigilante groups taking the law into their own hands. This is precisely why his opposition to Rittenhouse acquittal is so bizarre.

While offering first aid, Rittenhouse was attacked by a man hurling anti-black racial slurs and death threats at him. Rittenhouse ran away but was soon caught. A shot was fired by one of his attackers as they were attempting to take his rifle to kill him. Rittenhouse defended himself with deadly force.

Rittenhouse was then chased by a vigilante mob — exactly the sort that Bas claims to oppose — down the street. He was kicked to the ground and an illegally carried pistol was aimed in an attempt to execute him. Rittenhouse again defended himself. A guilty verdict would have been a gift for the right: permission to gun down counter-protesters they believe to be armed. To follow the argument through, a perceived threat, even if they are fleeing, is a fair target. This makes Bas reporting on this trial alongside that of Arbery’s murderer so perverse.

The left has made Rittenhouse the right’s mascot through its support of the vigilante attack on him, and the fiction it has built of the case to justify its conclusions. Even Barrie Hardy repeats the falsehood that Rittenhouse carried a rifle across state lines and suggests that it’s unusual to maintain the principle of innocent until proven guilty through banning the term “victim” in a self-defence trial.

Supporting working class self-defence and opposing vigilante mobs necessarily means supporting the Rittenhouse acquittal.

Charlie George, Romford