Ben Crump Gets The Rittenhouse Trial Wrong

When Ben Crump, a veteran attorney at law- of considerable reputation, success with juries, and name recognition- insists on referring to a murder case defendant acquitted by a jury on all charges for reasons of self-defense as a "racist, homicidal vigilante" without offering the slightest factual or logical basis for leveling that charge, I think he has as much to answer for as the grandstanding Republican clowns who loudly made a point to cold-call solicit Kyle Rittenhouse for a position as one of their White House interns, illustrating their shock-jock mentality, and stupidity and shrewdness that realizes that it would make a perfect soundbite for maximum media exposure, and as an applause line for their fans.

While GOP Reps. Gaetz and Crawthorne are conferring their dubious laurels on Kyle Rittenhouse as if he was a hero, Ben Crump is condemning him as a racist murderer who benefited from a rigged system. The result is authentic political polarization- extreme stunting, in both directions. The country doesn’t need any more of that.

Crump's remarks, as excerpted in Newsweek:

""The Rittenhouse case has pulled back the curtain on profound cracks in our justice system—from deep bias routinely and unabashedly displayed by the judge to the apathy of officers who witnessed Rittenhouse's actions and did nothing," Crump said in a Friday statement.

"If we were talking about a Black man, the conversation and outcome would be starkly different," he added. "But we're not.... We're talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, a racist, homicidal vigilante who, like so many white men before him, not only escaped accountability but laughed in its face."..."

This needs to be seen for what it is- implicit race baiting. Not only of Kyle Rittenhouse (and if Rittenhouse has a record of making so much as one mildly suspect remark on a "race" topic in any social media or news report, I haven't read it), but also judge Bruce Schroeder* (whose record of "overt racism" presently consists of referring to Asian food as "Asian", or something); the police officers on the scene; and by inference, the jury who acquitted Rittenhouse on all charges. And also, presumably, everyone else who agrees with that verdict, like myself. At least, if they're of European ancestry. Even if- like myself- they don't view Kyle Rittenhouse as a "hero", or as someone who made a responsible decision when he decided to tote a gun to act as a self-ordained protector of a neighborhood without either a badge or invitation from the locals.

My biggest problem with Ben Crump is that I thought we were on the same side- allies in the cause of justice- and I don't like it when people on my side act like idiots. If Matt Gaetz and Madison Cawthorne make idiots out of themselves, that works for me. But when both sides do it, it indicates that things are heading in the direction of circling the drain.

The only thing worse than Crump continuing to double down on that hyperbolic nonsense would be for Wokist morons to insist on cancelling the allyship that I've offered so freely, because I've dared to disagree with a black man- and an accredited attorney at law, at that! notwithstanding the fact that I think Ben Crump is an intelligent man and an indisputably capable lawyer. But even smart people can get things wrong. They can even act like idiots, especially when they hang up on their own identity biases. The personal ego can be that way- it’s liable to those malfunctions. We all have personal egos, we know how it gets. Ben Crump is wrong on this one. It would be best if he took back his words there, but I don’t expect that, and I don’t feel like protracting this fiasco by harping on it. That said, the sooner Crump recalibrates his future public statements, the better.

To be fair about it, I'd like to see Republicans like Matt Gaetz do the same thing- stop the wingnuttery, the loudmouth shock-jock preening for the crowd, the casual trivializing of a cascade of wrongness that left two people dead and a third maimed. I'm going to continue to call things like I see them, be they smart or stupid, either way. With impartiality as a top priority.

Please, dear reader, kindly refrain from the temptation to delude yourself that people who insist on upholding that principle as a logical and ethical standard only do it because they're white.

[ *My own impression of Judge Schroeder's supposedly biased and suspect rulings- which I obdurately insist on deriving from the primary source record of the trial video- is that he found himself a little impatient with prosecution attempts to make the case into anything other than what it was: a tragedy that was initiated entirely by the decision of the two white men who ended up dead to jump someone in possession of a loaded rifle and take it away from him, with no provocation. (Although Ben Crump- and who knows how many other Americans- presently seem to hold the view that the mere fact of Kyle Rittenhouse's armed presence on the scene was sufficient provocation to justify an attempt to forcibly strip him of his rifle. A courageous act of street justice, rather than a mugging intended to steal a firearm from its owner.) ]

For anyone who lacks information on the Kenosha riots that prompted the decision by 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse to show up in the middle of the chaos with a rifle in his hands, this October 26, 2021 New York Times article is the most comprehensive reportage I’ve read. It is actual reportage, not just hot takes and sloganeering with the occasional data point tossed in, often out of context. Read it here https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/magazine/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-wisconsin.html

I’m on the verge of writing off the New York Times entirely, because of their obvious emphasis on a bien pensant, lifestyle liberal approach to news and current events. But if the Times were to get back to substantive reporting, I might recover some respect for their output. The story above proves that it can still be done.