Some hope for the justice system
Could an African-American claim self-defence like Kyle Rittenhouse did? Actually, he probably could.
In the wake of Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal, I did my best to stay far, far away from the Twitter madhouse. But I did come across more than a few tweets along the lines I expected:
Also, the current incarnation of the ACLU expressing its outrage about a criminal defendant being acquitted in a case involving prosecutorial misconduct will surprise only people who think the ACLU is still the ACLU.
Rittenhouse’s treatment as a white kid (convicted of shooting other white people, a fact many observers either don’t know or don’t care about) is inevitably being compared to how a similar case involving an African-American defendant would be handled. I wrote a post about it last week.
As it stands, on the same day the Rittenhouse verdict came down, a court in Florida made its decision in the case of a Black man charged with attempted murder after shooting back at sheriff’s deputies in a no-knock raid.
He claimed self-defence. And it worked:
Andrew Coffee was found not guilty on all counts of murder and attempted first degree murder Friday.
Coffee is accused of firing at Indian River County Sheriff's Deputies during an early morning drug raid at his home back in 2017.
His girlfriend, Alteria Woods was caught in the crossfire, shot 10 times and later died. Coffee was charged with the murder of Woods after a grand jury exonerated two law enforcement officers for her death.
Before the case went to the jury's hand, Coffee took the stand to defend himself — blaming deputies for his girlfriend's death.
The defense said Coffee was asleep and thought the flash-bang was gunfire so he fired his gun because he thought the was under attack.
“I was trying to protect me and Alteria and I thought I was doing that, but I feel I didn't protect her. I can't sleep with that ... they killed her,” Coffee said.
This comes not long after an African-American defendant in Minnesota was acquitted after shooting back at law enforcement officers, and on the same day a white cop in Missouri was convicted of manslaughter for killing a Black suspect.
And I’ll bet you haven’t heard about any of these cases.
“Aha!” I can hear right-wingers saying. “This proves racism is over and that the system works as it should!”
Yeah…no. Blatant inequities in the system at all levels - police, courts, jails - are still too obvious to ignore. I’m not going to say Rittenhouse would have been shot on sight, as some of my readers have insisted to me, but I don’t think officers would have offered him a bottle of water, either.
I think the people complaining about the Rittenhouse verdict are misguided - his self-defence claim was really quite obvious, even if going to Kenosha in the first place was shockingly irresponsible - but I think at least some of them are comparing it to their own experiences with law enforcement.
And even while Coffee was acquitted of attempted murder, the whole incident still emerged from the same kind of no-knock raid that killed Breonna Taylor (whose boyfriend was also able to claim self-defence after shooting back) and he may still face an obscenely long sentence - up to 30 years’ imprisonment - on a weapons charge.
The reason I’m bringing this up is not to say everything is fine. That’s like saying racism was over once Obama was elected President. But I am saying that the reality is much more complicated than the social media narrative.
Either the system can be reformed and made to work for everyone, or it’s fundamentally rotten and must be torn down and replaced. (Replaced with what? “It’s not my job to educate you.”)
This week we should see a verdict in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, tracked down and killed by a posse of Georgia good-ole-boys last year. I know the sordid history of racially-charged trials in that part of the country, and I’ve been punched in the stomach too many times these past few years to make a confident prediction. One stubborn juror can cause a mistrial.
Plus, I’m keeping in mind how much media coverage of the Rittenhouse case was blatantly misleading and wonder if the news about this case is any more accurate.
But even the defence lawyers appear to think their clients are screwed:
What was expected to be a relatively calm day in the trial for the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery ended in fireworks once again.
The judge ruled Friday afternoon that under Georgia’s old citizen’s arrest law, the one applied in this case, the arrest would have to occur right after any felony crime was committed, not days or months later.
The defense argued that the ruling guts their case.
“If you are going to instruct the jury as you say, you are directing a verdict for the state,” said Bob Rubin, attorney for Travis McMichael.
Channel 2′s Tony Thomas has been in Brunswick covering the trial since the beginning. He said the defense attorneys were livid over the jury instructions Judge Timothy Walmsley plans to give next week.
“We have built this whole case around the probable cause and you are gutting all of it if you give this particular charge,” Rubin said.
[…]
“I understand the significance of this charge,” Walmsley said.
Just throwing this out here: one of the defendants should have tried angling for a plea bargain before the trial started.
Rittenhouse’s acquittal, I’m told, is proof that the justice system favors white supremacists. (That Rittenhouse is a white supremacist is a given.) If the Arbery trial defendants are convicted - something that would have been unthinkable within living memory - are we supposed to just ignore it?
Mind you, if they’re acquitted, I may start rioting.
This post is free to all, but I also have a lot of premium content available only to paid subscribers. Until the end of November, a monthly or annual subscription is 25% off the regular price.
Pulse accurately taken on this as usual. Posted about my experience as a juror in a criminal shooting case vis a vie Rittenhouse. Let me elaborate a bit here to support your tag line premise...
The case I was seated for was Black on Black intra-family shooting. An all white jury was seated. Not because there weren't Blacks in the jury pool. I'd estimate that number at maybe 30%. And the random selection of candidates called for actual questioning during voir dire pretty much reflected that in the number of Blacks who took their seats in the jury box and were vetted by the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge.
Won't get into how the jury ended up all white under those circumstances. That's a whole 'nother story. I'll just say that the defendant had a fair shot at the racial make up of the jury reflecting that of the population as a whole, or even possibly being skewed to the plus side. And the fact that it didn't turn out that way was in no way nefarious.
The moment the doors closed on the jury room for deliberations, the 10-ton elephant in the room became apparent pretty quickly...all white jury, Black kid charged with a serious crime.
Everyone - and I do mean everyone - felt it. It was discussed a bit, resolved and then set aside. And I can say with absolutely 100% confidence that every individual in that room - young, old, male and female - did their absolute best to do the job correctly and give that kid the benefit of the doubt, if there were indeed any reasonable doubt to be had.
And there was for some in that room. A fact reflected in the verdict. Which was not arrived at without a few tense moments.
Charged with 4 counts ranging form assault with intent to murder down to felony firearm, the verdict was guilty on the lower 3, but not the top count. And this took nearly an entire day to accomplish. Could have just as easily been guilty all around in 1/2 an hour if that room had been filled with...well, pick your own loaded term related to race and the criminal justice system.
My point is that, despite all the flaws you mentioned, I think this is what happens far more often than not in jury rooms across the country. I could be wrong. I have a rather limited perspective of experience. But if I'm correct, then your premise that an African-American could stand in Rittenhouse's shoes and be found not guilty is also correct. And, because of my experience, I believe that it is.