The climax by itself isn't enough

I saw a Kenosha video in which the youth was being chased, knocked down, and attacked--and when he shot back. Absent other information, that's pretty cut and dried self-defense.

But. As I commented over breakfast this morning, what happened before that video is key. If the first shot was unprovoked, the kid was committing a crime, and other deaths occurring as a consequence of it are murder. If it was provoked, he's innocent of everything except being a minor carrying a rifle in public, and perhaps not even that.

What happened before the chase-down seems to depend on who you talked to. Unsurprisingly. So the climactic scene doesn't tell you as much as you might hope.

FWIW, Andy Ngo seems to have done the research the State Journal didn't: identify the perforated ones. I remember reading about Bernard Goetz and wondering how, if he was such a bigoted random shooter, he managed to hit so many with criminal records. The rally organizer said about the perforated ones: "They came out here every time with us. Sweet. Loving. They were the sweetest hearts, souls." Kindred souls, perhaps?

Allegedly protesters in Madison are trying to limit who gets to associate with them, but they haven't always been very effective at that.

UPDATE: A detailed analysis can be found here.. First time I've heard of the site, btw. It seems plausible, though no doubt if I was on the jury I'd hear other things as well. I couldn't make head or tail of the video I saw of the first shooting--it was too blurry, obscured, and had too many gunshots.

Witch hunts; can we stop them?

There were times of witch hysteria, in which an accusation meant ruin or worse. We had to read The Crucible in high school--I wonder if it is still required. Given the popularity of witch hunts now, probably not. Of course we don't use the term "witch", but the notion that subjective testimony outweighs any objective evidence is still central to convictions. Racism is a real thing, but the term gets slung around like mud. Remember the reaction to Damore's memo? Accusation=conviction, no appeal.

There's a bright spot in that link above:

Calef reports that in October 1692, a “worthy gentleman of Boston” was accused of witchcraft by a resident of Andover (the actual location of many of the “Salem” proceedings). The accused gentleman immediately responded by lodging a “thousand pound action for defamation” (a ruinous sum) and advising the accuser to get his evidence ready for trial. Not surprisingly, the gentleman’s accuser changed his mind, and shortly thereafter the accusations of witchcraft dried up altogether.

I gather that some of the Covington parents are contemplating this kind of option. Given that the reporting didn't bother with due diligence, and that there was obvious malice on the part of a number of commentators e.g. Disney producer Jack Morrissey, they might have a good case. The old saw says you shouldn't try to argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel, but I think I'll root for the underdogs.

Accusations

I'm a bit conflicted. Nobody believes the casting couch ever went away, and I'm content to believe that the overwhelming majority of the accusations are true, or at least largely so. What facts do manage to leak out past the PR over the years don't inspire confidence in the moral fiber of Hollywood folks, and sometimes the PR itself is telling.

But I have to give the devil his due. It is easy to make an accusation in this atmosphere, especially if it is old enough or vague enough to be un-actionable. After all, if your accusation goes to court, you might get cross-examined. Hollywood is a famously backstabbing place, and if a friend of a friend puts your competitor in a bad light, you might be generously grateful.

So while I hope this shakes out some "bad actors" who think fame or power entitles them, I also hope we take care to vet the accusers too.