I watched almost all of the Darrel Brooks trial, and I want to push back slightly against Glenn's characterization--and maybe John's as well--of the events.
The prosecutor never imputed any motivation onto Brooks. Much like Derek Chauvin's trial there was no mention of race by any party. We can reasonably infer that it was racially motivated given Brooks' history of anti-white racism online, but the actual course of action that led to the atrocity seems to suggest there was minimal premeditation: he was out on bail, he had just beaten his ex-girlfriend, he was hopping mad, and he wanted to do something evil. It is not entirely clear that he wouldn't have done this same thing had the parade been full of black people (and while the victims were technically all white, several of them were Hispanic).
I'm not saying that it wasn't racially motivated. Only that I don't know for sure. It's certainly flattering, for white right-wingers (like me), who are constantly accused of being domestic terrorists and white supremacists by a corrupt corporate media, to point at Brooks and say, "See! It isn't us!" But I'm not sure doing so would be intellectually honest.
Whether or not Brooks' behavior in the courtroom was informed by his 'blackness' was something I thought about while watching him attempt to represent himself. It's tempting to say, as John does, that it's representative of certain pathologies or attitudes toward authority or what have you. But any attempt to argue this is complicated significantly by his pro se representation (or pro per, as he would demand)--and the fact that he clung desperately to sovereign citizen arguments in an attempt to get acquitted. His behavior was deranged--he's clearly mentally ill--but it was also calculated. He looked up 'how to get out of life in prison' on Google and found a pamphlet (literally, we found the one he used online) about how you can say the magic word of sovereign citizens, and he ran with it 100%. That explains his actions far better than his race.
Demanding to address "subject matter jurisdiction" every five minutes and shouting "grounz" constantly and being utterly disrespectful to a good judge looks ridiculous in court, but I think a white man in a similar situation could have done the same thing if he thought his only way out was sovereign citizen mumbo jumbo.
As for his behavior more generally, it was shocking to see someone with such little regard for the process, but Brooks had nothing to lose. He wanted to be held in contempt. He wanted to cause a mistrial. At first I thought that this wasn't something you would see if someone like me were in his position, and to some extent that might be right; Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, was not like this at his recent trial. But I'm also not so sure. If I were schizophrenic, and I thought my only hope was to cause a mistrial, and somehow I found myself in a position where I had committed a crime as unbelievably evil as what Brooks did--I do think I, or someone like me, could have acted somewhat like him. I'm not convinced race is as important as it's being made out to be.
I should add that I view behavior as distinct from demeanor. Brooks' demeanor was reprehensible and inexplicable; he never showed any remorse whatsoever for his crimes, and regularly laughed and tried to joke with his own victims on the stand. He's a monster through-and-through. But I don't think that has anything to do with blackness. Anyone who can drive a car through a parade is clearly a psychopath and there are psychopaths in every ethnic group.
Do you believe EVIL comes from with out (the Devil) or with in (bad seed) and how much does today's hyperbolistic rhetoric play a part, i.e. the anti-racist's tearing down of western civilization or the hyper conservative, borderline supremacist's? The Press, the Internet, and/or 15 mins of fame?
I watched almost all of the Darrel Brooks trial, and I want to push back slightly against Glenn's characterization--and maybe John's as well--of the events.
The prosecutor never imputed any motivation onto Brooks. Much like Derek Chauvin's trial there was no mention of race by any party. We can reasonably infer that it was racially motivated given Brooks' history of anti-white racism online, but the actual course of action that led to the atrocity seems to suggest there was minimal premeditation: he was out on bail, he had just beaten his ex-girlfriend, he was hopping mad, and he wanted to do something evil. It is not entirely clear that he wouldn't have done this same thing had the parade been full of black people (and while the victims were technically all white, several of them were Hispanic).
I'm not saying that it wasn't racially motivated. Only that I don't know for sure. It's certainly flattering, for white right-wingers (like me), who are constantly accused of being domestic terrorists and white supremacists by a corrupt corporate media, to point at Brooks and say, "See! It isn't us!" But I'm not sure doing so would be intellectually honest.
Whether or not Brooks' behavior in the courtroom was informed by his 'blackness' was something I thought about while watching him attempt to represent himself. It's tempting to say, as John does, that it's representative of certain pathologies or attitudes toward authority or what have you. But any attempt to argue this is complicated significantly by his pro se representation (or pro per, as he would demand)--and the fact that he clung desperately to sovereign citizen arguments in an attempt to get acquitted. His behavior was deranged--he's clearly mentally ill--but it was also calculated. He looked up 'how to get out of life in prison' on Google and found a pamphlet (literally, we found the one he used online) about how you can say the magic word of sovereign citizens, and he ran with it 100%. That explains his actions far better than his race.
Demanding to address "subject matter jurisdiction" every five minutes and shouting "grounz" constantly and being utterly disrespectful to a good judge looks ridiculous in court, but I think a white man in a similar situation could have done the same thing if he thought his only way out was sovereign citizen mumbo jumbo.
As for his behavior more generally, it was shocking to see someone with such little regard for the process, but Brooks had nothing to lose. He wanted to be held in contempt. He wanted to cause a mistrial. At first I thought that this wasn't something you would see if someone like me were in his position, and to some extent that might be right; Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, was not like this at his recent trial. But I'm also not so sure. If I were schizophrenic, and I thought my only hope was to cause a mistrial, and somehow I found myself in a position where I had committed a crime as unbelievably evil as what Brooks did--I do think I, or someone like me, could have acted somewhat like him. I'm not convinced race is as important as it's being made out to be.
I should add that I view behavior as distinct from demeanor. Brooks' demeanor was reprehensible and inexplicable; he never showed any remorse whatsoever for his crimes, and regularly laughed and tried to joke with his own victims on the stand. He's a monster through-and-through. But I don't think that has anything to do with blackness. Anyone who can drive a car through a parade is clearly a psychopath and there are psychopaths in every ethnic group.
Do you believe EVIL comes from with out (the Devil) or with in (bad seed) and how much does today's hyperbolistic rhetoric play a part, i.e. the anti-racist's tearing down of western civilization or the hyper conservative, borderline supremacist's? The Press, the Internet, and/or 15 mins of fame?