The uncomfortable truth hidden inside the responses to the Ahmaud Arbery verdict
I think we can all agree that the Guilty verdict for Bryan and the McMichaels (I’m not typing out all of their actual names) is an unqualified good thing. Three racists chased a black guy down, cornered him, and shot him to death. They have no evidence or arguments in defense. Case closed.
But, as the Babylon Bee points out, it leaves a bit of a hole:
When everything goes according to plan – and let’s be real, this was never really in doubt, even with the racial makeup of the jury – a leftist is left with everything they want save one: something to bitch about. But don’t worry, there’s always someone out there ready to use some logical gymnastics turn the narrative on its head. Today it’s Brakkton Booker (yes, two “K”s) for Politico.
While legal scholars say the system worked as intended — this time — many hope the trial of the three white men convicted of killing Ahmaud Arbery will place greater attention on the entire judicial process, not just policing[…]
“This was a lynching in broad daylight that would have been perfectly okay,” said Justin Hansford, a Howard University law professor. “If it wasn’t for video footage and protests, these people would have walked scot-free.”
You see it only worked this time. If not for that unexpected thing called “evidence”, they would have gotten away with it! We’re going to have to watch the entire judicial process closely to make sure they keep using that stuff when it comes to white vigilantism.
Hansford’s not wrong. If you remember, the killing didn’t hit news until months later when the video came out. If it hadn’t – if Bryan hadn’t been stupid enough to think it would help them – then this never even goes to trial. But that’s how the system works. You need evidence and not just theories to get a conviction.
This is a great example of the system working and doing it well. They even admit so in the article, that the jury didn’t buy the defense’s bullshit, and they didn’t accept the racist tropes they tried to paint Arbery with. “The jury arrived at its verdicts despite these tactics.” Which is exactly what should happen, but Booker needs to paint this as a fragile arrangement, an outlier, that could change at any moment and return to the racist hellscape of yesteryear.
Booker also uses some transparently deceitful misdirection to bolster has idea that “white vigilantism remains a very real threat:”
The verdicts for the Arbery murder trial come at a period of renewed focus on the nation’s judicial system, thanks in part to a confluence of high-profile cases across three states underscoring America’s divergent views on race, guns and civility. In the span of a week, juries across the country rendered verdicts in three headline-grabbing cases that all dealt with some aspect of white vigilantism.
Three cases? Well, obviously that includes Kyle Rittenhouse, who’s vigilante goals were to put out dumpster fires and fix boo-boos, and got chased by a child-rapist for his trouble. But what’s the third? “On Tuesday jurors in Virginia found the white nationalist organizers of the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville liable for more than $25 million in damages.”
Could someone please explain what in creation this has to do with white vigilantism? The author doesn’t. He just says it. Like we’re supposed to just accept that “vigilantism” now includes tiki torch rallies. But now it’s out there, in Politico, so it’s “real news”.
This framing of the cases together, along with the racist arguments and behavior of the defense, is enough for those desperate for conflict to say, “Look! The system is racist even though the racists lost, and the white vigilantes are still out there prowling around!” The world has changed – for the better – and it has changed in favor of the crusaders cause. Unfortunately, when the cause is won, the crusade ends. But if you’ve oriented your entire life around the fight, you can’t let that happen.