Blake and Rittenhouse are being celebrated in their respective communities, Blake as a martyr because he got shot during an arrest, and Rittenhouse as a hero, because he shot three people (killing two) during protests related to Blake's shooting.
Both of these things are bad and wrong.
I do not think that Blake deserved to get shot. I have read a lot of coverage in the NYT and the Atlantic and there is a common reference to the fact that he got shot 7 times in the back, with no mention of the actions leading up to it, and what he was doing when he got shot. If you turn your back on an officer holding a gun and reach into your car then expect the officer to shoot you, wherever he can, and as many times as he wants. Blake fully understood this, and while there has been much mention that he was 'protecting his kids', that was not in evidence in the video. What I saw was a frustrated man acting irrationally. Why was he frustrated? Probably because the system is unfair, and because he knew he had an outstanding warrant, and because he knew he was going to get flushed through the system, lose his job, deal with drama with his partner / spouse, and so on. A grim prospect.
The boycotts from major sports teams seem misguided to me because I do not see an alternative outcome based on Blake's actions. Were the officers supposed to let Blake get something out of his car? Should they have let him get in his car and drive away? Should they let him walk away? They had already attempted to detain him and tased him; he resisted arrest, and then he went for his car, and then he got shot. This is not a vicious act of malignant racism or bad policing. Should they have attempted to subdue him before he got into his car? Supposedly they did so with a taser. Should they subdued him with physical force by piling on him and cuffing him? Maybe, but then we would be reading articles about the severity of their response and use of force. Should Blake have just sat back down on the curb when the cops pulled their guns and told him to sit down? Obviously yes.
The problem with Blake as a martyr is that he escalated his altercation with the cops. I agree that cops can be (and frequently are) power-mad shitheads that treat people terribly. I was treated roughly by cops a few times in college and learned that contrary to what you may see on TV, you have no rights when you are dealing with a cop. They can do whatever they want and you can take it, or you can get beaten up or worse. I saw it in person and experienced it myself, and I was a white kid. This has not changed since I was a kid, and I expect that it is many, many times worse if you live in a crime-riddled community or a low-income community. Police act with impunity because they are effectively immune to prosecution and retribution.
The guy that shot Blake should have done more to detain him before he got to his car, so that was a failure. Once Blake went for his car then the officer did exactly what any other officer would have done: Your car is a deadly weapon, and just trying to get into the driver's seat is reason enough for them to shoot you, never mind what you may have inside the car.
The root problem here, aside from systemic racism and inequality in Blake's and many other communities, is guns. Because America has so many guns, the cops also have to have guns. Every interaction with a police officer is potentially lethal. It's a travesty.
Speaking of too many guns in America, we have that idiot kid Rittenhouse and his enabler mom. That kid wants to leg-hump police officers and definitely watched way too much Fox News. And then he ended up armed at a protest to protect a car dealership? You can open carry in Wisconsin, so anyone can just walk around with a gun as long as it is out in the open. Rittenhouse was very poorly trained but entirely too well armed, which is a recipe for disaster. The police were overwhelmed, and they are far too lenient with the armed vigilantes that show up to 'protect' other people. Again, the problem is guns and escalation. Why was Rittenhouse allowed to have a gun (he is only 17) and wave it around at unarmed protestors? Why were the protestors allowed to set fires and vandalize property? Why did Rittenhouse even think he was necessary? Why do the police tolerate or tacitly endorse these vigilante nutjobs?
The law in CA is that if you are a civilian you are only legally allowed to shoot someone if you or someone you love is in mortal danger. You cannot shoot someone over property, such as if they are vandalizing your car. Looters muddy the waters a bit, because they might be stealing essential goods during a disaster, but in general if someone is just stealing something you are not allowed to shoot them under any circumstances except if you or someone else's life is in mortal danger. Arsonists are more easily justified, but you still have to prove mortal danger in court later. Not sure what the laws are in Wisconsin, but if Rittenhouse gets an all white jury and he can reasonably claim to have feared for his life then he will be acquitted of the murder charges. He still has the weapons charges, and whatever else they can pin on him, but murder? Not likely. (One of the people he shot was reportedly also armed, which Rittenhouse was unlikely to have known but will figure prominently in his defense.)
All of it is a huge, stupid, preventable mess. The solutions are obvious but the system is broken. Trump is actively making it worse. Fox News is actively making it worse. People that demonstrate in support of Jacob Blake are actively making it worse. Facebook is allowing Russia to actively make it worse. No idea what is next, but it all helps Trumps chances in November.
