Prof Claims Rittenhouse Verdict Will Lead to ‘Open Hunting Season on Progressive Protesters’
“White people now have the apparent right to travel around the country, heavily armed, and use violence to protect the country from whatever and whoever they believe to be threatening to it”
Can you recall a trial that sparked more insane hot takes than this one?
The College Fix reports:
UGA prof: Rittenhouse verdict will lead to ‘open hunting season on progressive protesters’
Following the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, a University of Georgia professor published a column in The Guardian headlined “Kyle Rittenhouse has walked free. Now it’s open season on protesters.”
Professor Cas Mudde works in UGA’s School of Public and International Affairs. He teaches several courses, including one called “Democratic Erosion” and another titled “Far Right Politics in Western Democracies.”
In his column, Mudde expresses his disapproval of Rittenhouse’s “not guilty” verdict, explaining how the idea of self-defense has become a “racialized” concept in this country: “We know that ‘self-defense’ – often better known as vigilantism – is legally protected and highly racialized in this country.”
Mudde (pictured) did not respond to emailed requests from The College Fix seeking comment, and in particular a question asking about black defendants acquitted of murder charges by citing self-defense.
In his column, Mudde predicted the Rittenhouse verdict will cause problems.
“In essence, the Rittenhouse ruling has created a kind of ‘stand your ground’ law for the whole country,” he wrote.
“White people now have the apparent right to travel around the country, heavily armed, and use violence to protect the country from whatever and whoever they believe to be threatening to it,” the scholar wrote. “Given the feverish paranoia and racism that has captured a sizeable minority of white people in the US these days, this is a recipe for disaster.”
Mudde argued that one of his biggest fears following the verdict is that it gives “rightwing vigilantes a legal precedent to take up arms against anyone they consider a threat – which pretty much runs from anti-fascists to so-called Rinos (Republicans in Name Only) and includes almost all people of color – means it is now open hunting season on progressive protesters.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is it just me, or do these nut jobs work on making sure what they say is 180 degrees out of phase with the truth?
They used to just shade a little here, a little there; offer up non sequiturs.
Now, their lies are so blatant they’re either delusional or they really are that evil.
Maybe both.
Perhaps this is more accurate: ““Progressive socialists and anarchists have the apparent right to travel around the country, heavily armed, and use violence to attack the country from whatever and whoever they believe to be threatening to it,” the “scholar” wrote. “Given their feverish paranoia, racism, and imaginary white guilt that has captured a sizeable minority of white leftists in the US these days, this is a recipe for disaster.”
They really are that evil. I keep coming back to Theodore Dalrymple’s observation that much communist propaganda isn’t for the purpose of informing, persuading, or even misleading. It serves to humiliate the proletarian audience. To this end, the further from the truth it is, the better.
They’re making the outright threat that it’s safer to believe what your owners are telling you than to form your own opinions on reality itself.
It’s a fatal mistake to think that they’re stupid or delusional. In fact, we are stupid and delusional for believing that they are open to debate. Presenting them with facts at best invites mockery; persist, and sooner or later you’ll get a rifle butt to the face.
tl;dr–They’re violent trolls.
I know the answer (because liars), but how does this square with:
All three (white) defendants found GUILTY of murder in the Ahmaud Aubery case, despite their claims of SELF DEFENSE (and where only one defendant did the actual shooting)?
And how about Andrew Coffee IV? A (black) defendant who fired at sheriff’s deputies during a drug raid, in which his girlfriend was killed? He was found NOT GUILTY of murder (his girlfriend died in the crossfire) and and NOT GUILTY attempted murder of (white) law enforcement officers by reason of SELF DEFENSE?
Perhaps Mudde is admitting that most “progressive protesters” who smash and loot stores and burn down buildings are violent, like child molesters and domestic abusers.
If they are violent people, and they viciously attack anyone who is trying to stop their arson, burglary, and vandalism, then I hope he is correct that they are likely to meet with forceful defense.
People who are trying to protect life and property should not have their lives threatened by violent mobs. They have a right and an obligation to defend themselves. That applies to both civilians and cops.
It continues to amaze me that progressives think they gain something by rhetorically erasing obvious, common sense distinctions between proper behavior and misconduct.
Sensible people see the left claiming rioters, rapists, pedophiles and felons as their own. The left doesn’t seem to understand that this reduces their own credibility and morality in the eyes of the public.
Sensible people also see the left reviling anyone with white skin as a racist and anyone who uses standard English pronouns as a bigot. The leftt doesn’t seem to understand that this de-stigmatizes and normalizes prejudiced views that were previously confined to a tiny outcast minority.
“the feverish paranoia and racism that has captured a sizeable minority of white people in the US”
Interesting. Is he really this delusional or is it just something he thinks he’s supposed to believe? Does it make a difference?
White people now have the apparent right to travel around the country, heavily armed, and use violence to protect the country from whatever and whoever they believe to be threatening to it
There’s probably a down side I’m not seeing.
Heh.
“…Now it’s open season on protesters.”
Ha! If only this was true.
“White people now have the apparent right to travel around the country, heavily armed, and use violence to protect the country from whatever and whoever they believe to be threatening to it”
Easily rebutted.
If this were in the least true, you’d have been dead long ago.
Self-defense is vigilantism? I thought the meme that the left wants to eliminate the right to self-defense might be hyperbole, but apparently not.
This is radical hogwash
Is this an “expert?”
I no longer believe that this trial was about Kyle Rittenhouse; he was just the excuse.
No, this was about testing the limits of deliberate prosecutorial misconduct.
In essence, Rittenhouse was on trial for counter-revolutionary activities. Since this is an undefined crime, there is no defense against it, and there are no rules or procedures to limit the prosecutor’s tactics.
ADA Binger got away with everything he tried. Sure, he was severely scolded by Judge Schroeder. But if this had been an honest trial, when, after repeated violations of procedure, Binger pointed the rifle at the jury, His Honor would have ordered the bailiff to arrest him for assault with a deadly weapon and jury tampering, at least.
Instead, he was not even cited for contempt, is still employed as an ADA, and has not yet disbarred. He was protected, he knew it, and proved it for all to see.
Rittenhouse was a small fish in a small pond. He’ll be taken care of behind the curtain, once the furor dies down.
Cas Mudde: Desperate for recognition. It worked.