The far right justifies political violence by villainizing a decent man
I'm officially opposed to open carrying rifles after this. It appears to be asking for trouble. But the difference in reactions to Rittenhouse and Foster is incredible.
The complete lack of support for Philando Castile from the NRA was all I needed to know about them, and about the right's commitment to gun rights.
This brilliantly crafted piece pushed me from "free" to paid subscription. Well done lad.
This is what happens when both parties think they are the “good guy with a gun”. The rash moves toward permitless carry are going to make these incidents more common.
I was hoping you would write on this case. The comparison to Rittenhouse is very compelling. I was wondering if you would weigh in some more on the governor's planned pardon? It seems like that in itself is an escalation of the culture war, too.
I wonder if the family of Mr. Foster has any grounds for some type of legal redress. perhaps in civil court. Never mind whether it would win, given our bent-right judiciary environment, but Gov. Abbott's pardon seems to lean heavily upon the idea that BLM is a terrorist organization and therefore, Mr. Perry had some legitmate right to "self-defense", in spite of the fact that he initiated the action with his car. And of course, Mr. Foster's 2nd Amendment rights as a CITIZEN were not respected.
Thank you for this very balanced look at this topic. I think a lot about the whole open-carry, permit-less concealed carry, and the infusion of ideological hatred that has become the stock and trade of too many in rightwing politics. Political violence will accelerate in this country because there is no price to pay for the daily antagonism, scapegoating, and othering that is foundational to the far right today, enabled by the feckless cowards of their party who refuse to stand up to them. Nearly every one, taking money from the gun lobby, who line their pockets deeper with every tragedy, by selling more fear, paranoia and hate.
A quibble on your Rittenhouse summary. Rosenbaum, a mentally disturbed homeless man, attacked Rittenhouse. Not "protestors." Rosenbaum was the first person Rittenhouse shot. Others, not knowing the circumstances, would certainly be reasonable in seeing Rittenhouse as a threat at that time.
I think the jury verdict was reasonable in his case. I think he had a clear claim of self-defense against the three he shot at after Rosenbaum, and the only real question in the killing of Rosenbaum was whether deadly force was justified in self-defense as Rosenbaum was unarmed. The jury decided it was, and, again, I think it was a reasonable conclusion. I think they reasonably could have decided deadly force wasn't reasonably warranted, as well. It was a close call, and it seems to me close calls should go to the defendant.
Had Rittenhouse ended up being killed by Grosskreutz or badly injured by Huber and/or others, they would have had strong self-defense arguments given he was armed with a rifle and had just shot someone.
Perry, in contrast, was the aggressor. Even under Texas's Stand Your Ground law, the aggressor has a duty to retreat or otherwise try to defuse the situation before resorting to force in defense of himself.
Preventing abuse of 2nd Amendment and self-defense rights as basically allowing open season with no threshold of reasonable perception of threat is the issue which gives me purpose post retirement. This and Tennessee Tyranny against minority urban and moderate suburban voters by super majority MAGA legislators with open, arrogant disregard for the Constitution. I will march, write, sing and shout in peaceful but assertive protest.
Am I remembering wrong? Didn't Rittenhouse take his gun to Kenosha, not Waukesha?
Who'd ever have thought that even Greg Abbott would be so degenerate as to pardon a convicted terrorist? Except, well, everybody who knows Greg Abbott . . .
It would be nice if that Texas board of pardons and paroles reads this before ruling..
Very thoughtful post, which convinced me to get a yearly subscription. Doesn't get much more persuasive than that.
Thank you for writing about this. I appreciate the depth of your analysis.
Thank you for writing this article. I followed the situation very closely. Information about Garrett's innocence and likely Daniel Perry's guilt was already well available back in August 2020. Media and right wing sources ignored the cases and let the right wing media flourish. I documented a lot of it with the help of other protestors. Local media and the police ignored these details and let Daniel Perry's lawyer shout out he was innocent for a long time.
NSFL, killing in the video, which was available shortly after the killing and was ignored.
I think you mean Abbot can’t do anything without the pardon board’s recommendation.