On Sunday, Jacob Blake was shot at least seven times in the back by Kenosha, Wis., police as he walked to his SUV in defiance of two police officers who pursued him with their guns drawn.
Mr. Blake’s three sons were in the back seat of the vehicle. He was unarmed. His only weapon was the contempt he obviously had for the two officers, who were visibly hyped-up by his lack of respect and obedience to kill him.
The shots to Mr. Blake’s back were at point-blank range. His sons, who range in age from 3 to 8, watched as their father was shot by an officer who, after shooting him with the clear intent of killing him, tried to render aid once the danger was “neutralized.”
What was the danger? Apologists eager to rationalize the shooting say that the mere existence of a knife on the floor of the car presented an existential threat to the officers, justifying the killing of the civilian if they deemed it necessary. Seven or eight shots into someone’s back is just the cost of living in the freest country in the world.
Of course these are some of the same people who consider vaccinations and the mandatory wearing of masks in supermarkets and other public spaces an assault on their civil liberties. These are the same folks who insist on parading their long guns and high-powered rifles in demonstrations on the steps of state capitols.
Miraculously, Mr. Blake survived the officer’s attempt to kill him, but doctors fear he’ll be partially paralyzed because one of the bullets severed his spinal cord.
As horrible a fate that is to contemplate, Mr. Blake is relatively lucky. He’s alive. Most people shot in the back by cops aren’t able to give their side of the story in court. The silence of the victims is often deafening enough to permit the excusing of the inexcusable.
But in this case, unless the jury box for the officer’s inevitable trial is packed with his friends and relatives, there will be plenty of sympathetic listening to Mr. Blake’s testimony and outrage about the shooting which would, in an ideal world, violate the norms of law enforcement training.
If Mr. Blake’s 8-year-old son is up to it, he will describe what he saw that day his world fell apart as his father’s blood spattered the interior of the car. No one with anything resembling a soul will be able to justify the shooting of Mr. Blake after hearing testimony like that.
Mr. Blake’s parents quickly and bluntly condemned the violent unrest that followed their son’s shooting, insisting through their angry tears that it wasn’t doing them or their son any good. But they reserved their angriest words for the police and the culture of contempt for ordinary citizens that condones the shooting of unarmed men — in the back — at point-blank range.
Across the border in the northern suburbs of Chicago, a 17-year-old gun owner named Kyle Rittenhouse saw the social unrest in Kenosha and decided he was duty-bound to do something.
The high-school dropout who idolizes the police grabbed his gun and drove to the heart of Kenosha’s urban storm to coordinate with a self-styled militia “protecting” some stores from looters and vandals.
Kyle was filmed by independent journalists and news agencies during the course of the protest many times. Each time, he made no distinction between his actions and those of the police. They were all a collective “we” as far as he was concerned.
Never mind that at 17, Kyle is too young to legally carry high-powered guns in public. The cops who gave him bottled water and fraternized with the young man didn’t ask any questions. Instead they welcomed his “help” and the presence of the militia. All they wanted in exchange was to be able to patrol the streets with impunity. For these men, the answer to “anarchy” is armed vigilantism.
The reluctance of the police to confront these men they knew could shoot back effectively “deputized” Kyle and made possible everything that followed next.
The chronology of what happened Tuesday is still being sorted out, but at one point in the night after running and tripping, Kyle fired on at least three alleged rioters, killing two of them. His apologists insist it was in self-defense, but many witnesses say otherwise.
When demonstrators pointed out to the police that Kyle had just shot several people, they made no attempt to arrest him even after he initially surrendered. Kyle was carrying his gun, still hot from being recently discharged. As far as the cops knew, he was still a vigilante in good standing.
Kyle was arrested at his home in Antioch, Ill., on Wednesday and charged with first-degree intentional homicide in the killing of two people and the serious wounding of a third person.
The right-wing media quickly rallied to his defense. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson led with a doozy of a rhetorical question on his Wednesday night show: “How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?”
Never mind that the streets were heavily patrolled by cops and National Guard units at the time. Mr. Carlson had no words of condemnation for Kyle Rittenhouse. He railed against “the academic left funded by big business” in a shadowy scheme to “crush the last remaining resistance to their control of the country.” That resistance with a big target printed on its head is “an independent American middle class.”
Meanwhile, commentator Ann Coulter, who denounced President Donald Trump for being insufficiently cruel regarding undocumented immigrants, gushed about the young alleged double murderer on Twitter by tweeting: “I want him [Kyle Rittenhouse] as my president.”
Once footage of Kyle standing in the front row of a Trump rally in Des Moines, Iowa,, began circulating, Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh moved quickly to sever any connection between the vigilante and the candidate before the narrative hardened.
“This individual had nothing to do with our campaign,” Mr. Murtaugh said. “We fully support our fantastic law enforcement for their swift action in this case.”
Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t the first of Mr. Trump’s admirers to be thrown under the bus. For now, the alleged killer has the appreciation of those who consider his actions admirable, if not advisable. Of course, what he is alleged to have done is considered justifiable by the same people who consider the shooting of Mr. Blake reasonable under the circumstances. If he hadn’t disrespected the police by walking away, he wouldn’t have been shot in the back. Seems reasonable ...
The title of James Balwin’s brilliant and influential book-length essay “The Fire Next Time” has been appropriated by those who desperately want to turn his prophetic warning into their own violent mantra: “Fire next time — again and again and again …”
Tony Norman: tnorman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1631. Twitter @Tony_NormanPG.
First Published: August 28, 2020, 4:00 a.m.
Updated: August 28, 2020, 9:49 a.m.
