Kyle Rittenhouse and the Evil of Generalized Justice

by | Nov 18, 2021 | Headline News | 10 comments

Do you LOVE America?


    This article was originally published by Jeff Deist at The Mises Institute. 

    In a decent society, real justice is specific and not general. In criminal matters especially, justice should be temporal and rooted in the facts of the instant case. Greater societal concerns, along with the identity of the defendant and victims (sex, race, religion, notoriety, social or economic status, etc.), simply should not be considered. This is precisely why we sequester jurors, to keep them focused on the facts rather than outside influences.

    Is America really prepared to fully and finally abandon this principle? To acquit or convict individuals based on the inherently amorphous idea of social justice rather than the specifics of any particular case?

    The criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin tests this question. The case now sits with the jury, awaiting a verdict. Given the tremendous media attention given this case, one can hardly discount the pressure on jurors to announce him guilty. Their anonymity is tenuous at best, and who wants more trouble in the leafy city of Kenosha?

    Anyone looking for a strong argument against cameras in the courtroom has found it. The Rittenhouse prosecutors and defense attorneys are now uncomfortable and unwanted celebrities of a sort. Ditto for the district judge (old white guy), whose purported pro-Trump politics are now on secondary trial. And with the nation watching, young Mr. Rittenhouse unwittingly serves as a proxy for a dominant political narrative. His case is now a matter of generalized justice, with enormous psychological and political outcomes hanging on his fate. This is disturbing and outrageous.

    The Left portrays Rittenhouse as an avatar for everything wrong with Deplorable America. He is a gun nut, a proto–militia member, a “thin blue line” supporter, and a thus representative of MAGA Trumpism. As such, he is a bad guy per se—and of course, the jury should consider this. In the Left’s conception, a straight white Christian conservative male (assuming Rittenhouse is all those things) simply can’t have legitimate political grievances. Men like him have power; the oppressed Antifa/BLM protestors do not. As such, his cause is illegitimate and his victims’ cause (ostensibly protesting the police shooting of Jacob Blake) is noble and righteous, even if it got out of hand.

    Furthermore, why would anyone—especially a teenager—even possess an “assault rifle” to begin with? And why would he arm himself with such a rifle to go mix it up in a riot? Not to mention he crossed state lines (a bizarre point repeated ad nauseum by his detractors)! By choosing to carry a weapon to the riot that evening, he placed himself in a position where he might use it. We might even infer his intent to use it. As the prosecutor said during closing arguments, “When the defendant provokes the incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense to a danger you create.” In other words, Rittenhouse was asking for trouble and got it. Never mind whether at the moment of the shooting he reasonably thought his life in danger. What matters is the general context leading up to the shooting. Bad guys (Trumpers) doing bad things (using guns they shouldn’t own to defend property in the face of a righteous protest) don’t get to claim victim status.

    Even beyond this assignment of generalized malice to Rittenhouse’s actions that night, there are some who would throw him in jail for life to soothe racial tensions in America. Never mind that the three men Rittenhouse shot were in fact white; the mainstream media certainly did not make much effort to disabuse the false impression that they were otherwise (Chris Hayes at MSNBC expressed surprise at his own misperception about this). Facts aside, self-defense aside, why not sacrifice one young white kid to prison if it avoids enraging black Americans who already view the criminal justice system and as racially biased against them. Why not avoid more riots and unrest? This is generalized justice writ large. Or as Dave Benner put it:

    As for law enforcement and prosecutors, have we now reached a point where rioters will be allowed to burn city blocks or even police precinct houses if their underlying cause is considered sympathetic? This seemed to be the case last year, when in cities like Kenosha and Seattle violent protesters often went uncharged or even unarrested. It’s one thing for the police to retreat when outgunned or outmanned, or to make strategic decisions about deploying officers to mitigate property damage. It’s quite another for police, supported by mayors and city councils, simply to pull back and allow riots, looting, and arson to occur unchallenged because they sympathize with their perpetrators. As for libertarians who favor criminal justice reform, the Kenosha riots are decidedly the sort of thing that turns average people against criminals in support of cops. And you better believe wealthy people will find ways to use private security (or capture local government) to make sure Kenosha never happens in the Hamptons or Tiburon or Brentwood.

    Yes, proportional justice means we can’t shoot a fleeing thief in the back as he absconds with our laptop. Everyone recognizes this. But society is headed in a very bad direction if we allow widespread destruction, arson, theft, and disorder on the grounds that property can never trump human life. Property is necessary to sustain life, and our material surroundings are part and parcel of our humanity. “Mere” property is a tangible expression of human energy and past effort, not just corporate trinkets snatched from a smoldering store (“they have insurance!”). When it comes to force in defense of property, chase may be morally questionable but retreat is not morally required. This is especially true of one’s home.

    As with the recent announcement of a federal indictment against former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, Americans increasingly sense that prosecutors at all levels of American government often wield power as a political bludgeon. Will selective prosecution become the order of the day, rooted in identity and the perceived politics of the parties? Will guilt or innocence in criminal trials increasingly hinge on broader desirable social justice outcomes? Will we put people in jail or acquit them based on context rather than specifics?

    Our common law legal tradition urgently counsels against this. So too did the late Sam Francis, who coined the term anarcho-tyranny to describe a scenario where government officials selectively decide who is exempt from the rules and who gets the book thrown at them. We should resist this, vigorously.


    It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point

    Gold has been the right asset with which to save your funds in this millennium that began 23 years ago.

    Free Exclusive Report
    The inevitable Breakout – The two w’s

      Related Articles


      Join the conversation!

      It’s 100% free and your personal information will never be sold or shared online.


      1. “Generalized Justice… In a decent society, real justice is specific and not general.”

        Since the civil rights era, it has generally been assumed that all vandalism, at all places and times, has been committed by leftist interests. Whether in parks, telephone booths, gutters, buffets, movie theaters, museums, restrooms, you can generally tell where a leftist interest has passed through.

        I have relatives, from literal shithole countries, who faced literal persecution, during historical times, who never would have thought to wreck the fixtures and light the city on fire. No serious country would allow it, irrespective of politics.

        Even Bezmenov — accused of being American — said the vanguard would be be first to get put against a wall, during the stage which is called ‘normalization’.

        • Other countries don’t have the freedom of expression our Constitution grants us.

          • They were supposedly pushing a flaming dumpster toward the people at a gas station.

        • You are discussing the mentality of a time when people were generally more civilized. For example, in the Great Depression people were far more self reliant than today. Yes, there was desperate people and some of them did desperate things, but there was no common mentality of entitlement among the people.
          I grew up in a rural county (1970’s) and there were a few poor white families in the area. I went to school with some of them, they didn’t ask or expect anything. A few times I was invited to their home. The house was run down and the furniture was shabby and used, but the home was clean. The kids were well-behaved, exhibited good manners, and looking back I realize they were even well adjusted.
          One thing I remember was they accepted the charity of local people, but none of them were on welfare or other social programs, and believed no one owed them anything. (My family always had about 200-300 chickens and we gave away dozens of eggs almost every day.) As the years went by they all eventually rose above their circumstances; some went to college, some the military, a few now own local businesses, and other took gainful employment and have been on the same job for many years, with no indication they had been poor.
          I don’t understand why there is generational poverty, or why there is 3rd generation people on welfare, or why there are generations in families where no one has graduated from high school. Whereas frequently, we often see immigrant families who succeed and become wealthy in one generation.
          We now have 10’s of millions of people who feel entitled. I read an unbiased article stating literacy was high in Southern states, and lowest in the major urban centers across the US where there are large numbers of people who can barely read or actually cannot read or write. Should the SHTF there would be social and political chaos accompanied by unprecedented crime and violence in urban areas (it would be a very bad mistake to come to my county and start trouble, they would find zero tolerance, and I mean zero).
          Times have have changed.

      2. We all know whats gonna happen,and we all know whats coming. Prepare accordingly. Steel your nerves. Exercise wisdom. Don’t be broadsided by the freight train coming.

      3. The Rittenhouse persecution is indicative of the attitude of many in the American legal system. We subjects (they think sheeple) dare not try to thwart leftist efforts to burn down the society we (Patriots) built. We are to stand aside like gelded bulls while Antifa & other trouble makers burn down our hometowns. Sorry insurrectionists, your BS reaches a certain level and it will NOT be tolerated. When the govt. (police, etc.) are not allowed to insure orderly protest, you can expect certain citizens to fill the vacuum. Liberals want someone to condemn – look at the real cause of the problem – the idiot politicians that told the police to stand down.

      4. Justice has been evolving into a political/racist/financial area instead of a true right versus wrong for a longtime and it is now at a point that one has to really question what the mold of society has become and how WE as the SANE ones can reinstall the values that have been removed.

      5. Just find him guilty and be done with it, restore some peace to our nation and protect Kenosha from violence.

        Really no different than chunking a virgin into a volcano to appease the volcano god and save the rest of the tribe from destruction the way they do in Hawaii.

        The greater good has to be considered.

      6. Hmm, I don’t know, but I’m just guessing.
        As long ( time wise ) as they ( the jury ) is taking a long time to come to a decision on the kid, they are going to hang the kid. Hang him out to dry, make an example of him to bring the rest of us into line, to make us obey

        • Let’s look at it another way (12 Angry Men).
          Granted, it could go either way. But with even just one juror holding on to the possibility of the actual truth (…that this is all BS), just might sway the rest.
          Either way, get ready for a ride.

          “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t …
          … please all the people all of the time”
          ~ Poet John Lydgate (as made famous by Abraham Lincoln)

      Commenting Policy:

      Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.

      This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.