I don't think I've seen as much division among the populace about a murder trial outcome since the O.J. trial. Here's why I make this distinction.
Unlike the many recent trials in the past few years that were spectacular in their ability to get people riled up, one way or the other, today's wrap up of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was much more like that famous 1995 case than the more recent ones.
Like the O.J. trial, the murders in question were not, on the surface, racially motivated. No one ever speculated that O.J. allegedly killed his white wife and her white friend Ron Goldman because they were white. Similarly, it seems unlikely anyone would contend that Rittenhouse shot the white men he did because of their race. Yet, in both instances, when the verdict was read, the nation witnessed an outcry from all corners of the country pretty much following racial lines. What I'm talking about here is the unwavering support for the outcomes of each case. People of color in the O.J. verdict and white people in today's case.
The other recent cases I mentioned don't really apply to this comparison because they were all about race. Travon Martin, George Floyd, and likely even more so, the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial currently underway, are totally racial motivated killings. And these are just a few examples. Yes Virginia, in America, Black lives do matter...in so much as they can be a target for racist bullets and boots.
People on todays NOT GUILTY verdict for Kyle seem to be outright virtue signaling as loud as they can, especially decidedly right-wing whites. Kyle, IMHO, is their O.J.
Back in '95, I remember media getting to the heart of the phenomenon after the dust of the shocking NOT GUILTY verdict then settled. The overwhelming and loudly proclaimed support by many black people from our next door neighbors, our co-workers and black community leaders was unwavering support for it. To them, many O.J. supporters admitted, it was finally a case where "the system" was used in favor of a black man. I think it could be construed that many a black person knew, given knowledge of the facts of the case, that O.J. was in fact guilty, but they overlooked that detail in order to, well, virtue signal their approval of a positive outcome for "one of their own."
Today, from what I'm reading on Twitter and seeing on YouTube, right-leaning whites are jumping aboard the Justice for Kyle train 'cause they see "the system" aligned, perhaps inappropriately so, towards "one of their own."
I think the only major difference between then and now is the political element. This issue, like almost everything these days, and I do mean everything, has divided people into camps. Generally, those on the Left and those on the Right. Rare is the voice heard of people like me, who slowly but surely have been gravitating back to the middle ground of moderation.
What do I have to say about today's verdict?
When I heard the O.J. verdict being read live, it was over the radio while I was taking a shower. I still remember to this day the shock I felt. Unfortunately I was temporarily without a TV so I had to wait until I went into work that night to watch all the news coverage about it, but watch I did, all night long.
Today, I was streaming the proceedings live via CourtTV's coverage on YouTube. I wasn't shocked. I got to admit, I felt pleased that he got off. Does this make me racist? Do I support systemic racism? Am I applauding White Privilege? You see, that's where the ultra-liberal side gets it wrong. This wasn't, IMHO, about race.
Yes, Kyle showed up, crossing state lines, hanging a big ol' AR-15 rifle from his neck for all to see and walking jauntily amongst clearly irritated protestors gathered because of yet another shooting of a black man. Yes the dudes he shot were obviously there to be a part of the protest and were ostensibly part of the potential crowd of "rioters" Kyle was there to defend property from. Yes, by "defend" could his actions be seen to be enacting action in the spirit of the well-known statement the "best defense is a strong offense?"
But when you boil down the facts, Wisconsin is an open carry state. In an open carry state, it is illegal for someone against the "look" of it, or their interpretation of the appropriateness of open carrying, to try to disarm the carrying citizen. It's also just damned sure stupid. So whether you believe Kyle was opting to push the collective buttons of the mass of protestors towards starting shit with him, or, that he was hoping to deter violence, vandalism and looting by a show of force, is all just speculation. His story was that he was armed to protect himself as he stood vigil watching over the property he was hired to watch over, namely, car lots...a type of property targeted and destroyed by fire in previous riots that tumultuous summer in other communities by similar groups of "protestors."
A few boisterous dudes came at him and he did what he had to do. I saw the video, we all saw the video, but like the evidence in the O.J. trial, I guess we all saw what wanted to see.
So far, as I write this, I don't hear tale of any burning buildings, but perhaps, as they say, the night is young.
If so though, maybe Kyle, now a free man, will be a' strollin' along. Maybe O.J. could back him up?