To the Editor:

On Nov. 12, Charles Milbert wrote that “This is not the time for enabling” and went on to condemn violence committed in the name of “Black Lives Matter.” Mr. Milbert, I agree that this is not a time for enabling.

I hope that you would condemn a blatant act of enabling: The fact that Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother allegedly drove him to Kenosha, Wisconsin. He did not travel to Kenosha with a semi-automatic weapon with a benevolent purpose, and, by allegedly driving him, his mother enabled him. Do you condemn that act of enabling?

The Black Lives Matter movement, which Mr. Milbert referenced, does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in part because of police violence against Black men and women. There have been too many instances where the criminal-justice system enabled police officers who appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner, and the police officers suffered no punishment. Mr. Milbert, do you condemn this type of enabling?

During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump instructed the Proud Boys, a known white supremacist group, to “Stand back and stand by.” He did not condemn them, and they got the message: By the following day, they were marketing shirts with Mr. Trump’s words printed on them. Mr. Trump’s words did not condemn the Proud Boys and could be said to have emboldened them and enabled them. Mr. Milbert, do you condemn Mr. Trump’s enabling message to a white supremacist organization?

Jill Loew

Guilderland