Arbery and Rittenhouse cases compared

Arbery and Rittenhouse cases compared

 

These cases have similarities and differences. In both cases, three White men, at least one heavily armed, pursued one person; the one pursued, when cornered, resisted; the three men attacked; shots were fired, someone died, and the case went to court.

In the Arbery case, the pursued one was Black, and unarmed, and died. In the Rittenhouse case, the pursued one was White, and armed, and his assailants died or were maimed. In the Arbery case, the pursuers were found guilty and imprisoned by the law; in the Rittenhouse case, the pursuers were shot by the pursued.

In the Rittenhouse case, two of the three men were lightly armed (with a plastic bag of hospital supplies, and a skateboard), and the third heavily armed, with a pistol. The two died, the one was maimed.

In both cases, all of those who had firearms survived, and all of those who did not died.

In both cases, the pursued one was found to be in the right by judge and jury, and the pursuers suffered.

In both cases, the pursued had good reason to fear for his life, and a pursuer later claimed to fear for his life. So in both cases, mutual fear caused mutual attack in mutual self-defense.

In both cases, a pursuer later claimed altruistic motives for the pursuit; namely, protecting the public from a suspected intruder.

In both cases, the pursuers should have broken pursuit after repelling the pursued.

          Where the cases differ, it is clear that it was better to be White than Black, and better to have a firearm than not.

There are possibilities not explored in these two cases. What if the pursued one was Black, and armed, and killed two pursuers, and lived? And what if the pursued one was White, and unarmed, and died? How would judge and jury rule afterwards?

          In the case of an unarmed White man slain after pursuit, I am fairly sure that the judge and jury would find the pursuers guilty. But in the case of an armed Black man slaying his pursuers, I am not at all sure that the court would find him not guilty. Given the history of this country, I am not at all sure that the law, as practiced, applies the principle of self-defense consistently across skin-tint lines.

The real rules appear to be: if you’re Black, and pursued, then you must die or be punished; and if you’re White, and pursued, then you must die or be armed. And even in these hypothetical cases, the pursuers should have broken pursuit after repelling the pursued.