In the Ida B. Wells “Mob Rule in New Orleans” excerpt there were countless moments where
she makes inventive and innovative use of evidence. The instance that stood out and seemed the
best use of evidence was the use of the police’s statements. During the Charles Robinson ordeal,
the policemen who assaulted he and Pierce said so themselves that they were indeed the ones that
engaged first. Robinson and Pierce were targeted because they were simply black men. Wells
uses this specific piece of evidence to express Pierce and Robinson’s innocence. Although, at the
time, it was against the law for people of color to openly go against white people. With the
evidence of the Policemen’s statements Wells was able to decipher and prove that Pierce and
Robinson were not doing anything to go against the law. She also went on to use this evidence to
prove that the newspaper outlets in New Orleans are biased. Although the evidence clearly states
that the officers engaged the victims first and without reason, the newspaper outlets still flipped
the story because the officers were white. She establishes the biased persona of black men being
the aggressors vs. white officers insinuating and provoking violence with just this one piece of
evidence. The evidence of their statements may be a small factor, but it is also the most
important. Without this piece of evidence Wells would not have been able to make certain
connections and prove a slither of Pierce and Robinson’s innocence. In a way this fits into the
broader narrative of just blatant racism. If Pierce and Robinson were not black, then the situation
would have never occurred. It always boils down to racism and societal norms. At that point in
time, society looked at people of color as the aggressors in any and every situation because of
their skin color.