Photo By Adam Rogan/The Journal Times: Kyle Rittenhouse carries a weapon in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Aug. 25, 2020.
Column By Mike Bibb
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. In August 2020, four white guys went to a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin and three of them ended up getting shot by the other, younger white guy.
The media immediately declared it was racist because hundreds of black people were also participating in the upheaval.
Except, the younger white guy did not shoot any black people. Instead, murder charges were brought against him for shooting and killing two of the white guys who attacked him and wounding a third white guy who had pointed a handgun in his face.
Still with me? One young white man shot three older white men who were chasing and assaulting him. No black people were involved in the altercation.
National news brainiacs reflexively jumped up and down yelling “racism,” “white supremacy” and “vigilantism.” If permitted, they probably would have drawn and quartered the young man on cable television.
Following the shootings, the teen surrendered to police.
It was total hysterics, intentionally promoted by a media machine that has seemingly become a propaganda tool for the far-left.
I’m not alone in thinking many news organizations are empty vessels, propped-up by large corporations whose boards of directors are not always in sync with American values.
Media billionaire John Malone, recently remarked, “I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing.”
Imagine, CNN factually reporting the news using real reporters without scripted, predetermined or unbiased views? That would be “unique and refreshing,” and might help lift their ratings off the floor.
Skip forward over a year later to November 2021. After a couple of weeks of convoluted courtroom antics, testimony, and presentation of evidence, followed by three days of jury deliberations, the teenager was found not guilty on all five charges. Originally, there were seven charges, but the judge dismissed two of them.
It was successfully argued the young man was lawfully acting in self-defense of his life, which witnesses and video plainly confirmed.
Yet, the state foolishly brought murder charges against the accused teenager with virtually no corroborating evidence or sustaining witness testimony. They were simply attempting to deceptively manufacture a crime to fit an existing scenario in order to prosecute someone for something.
Justice demanded a suspect, regardless of the facts. Luckily, reality got in the way.
The next logical question becomes, what legal recourse can a falsely accused defendant have against a rouge state prosecutor who willfully endeavored to ruin the young man’s life?
There has to be some mechanism to seek fairness and retribution. Particularly, since the prosecutor had full knowledge his case was not based upon factual circumstances and evidence. The accused had not performed any criminal acts in a manner the state alleged.
The entire courtroom affair consisted of multiple legal blunders, performed by an amateurish or incompetent prosecution, mistakenly presented before an alert jury.
It was a deliberate attempt to convict and imprison a citizen for the single reason of trying to remove from society a lawfully armed individual who used a gun to preserve his life. Without it, he very well could have been stomped to death, shot, or had his head bashed in by the marauding mob.
Interestingly, all three of his assailants had prior criminal records. They were not innocent bystanders who suddenly decided to chase and attack the young man because he had a weapon, too.
Kenosha was burning, it was not another “peaceful” protest as the media often fictitiously reported. The teen’s father lived in the town. As a result, the young man – only 17 at the time – went to the community to see if he could assist business owners and authorities regain control of the situation.
Perhaps a foolish decision, but not criminal or done out of malice.
Nevertheless, the media and its hollow talking-heads immediately labeled the teenager a “white supremacist” and “vigilante” without any verifiable evidence to support their claims. Presidential candidate Joe Biden chimed in by insinuating the young man must be a white supremacist to do what he had done.
After all, what other explanation could there be?
How many multi-million-dollar lawsuits is the media going to pay before it finally figures out it cannot continue to slander, libel, or intentionally defame innocent people. The Covington, Kentucky high school case a couple of years ago should have been a wake-up call. Printing and broadcasting obviously false information can get very expensive, very quickly.
Prior to trial, there was absolutely no credible evidence to corroborate the allegations before the jury had been seated to decide the case. Pretrial attorney review of video coverage proved it. Merely a fanciful illusion of speculation, conjecture, legal salesmanship by a team of clueless prosecutors and round-the-clock media hype.
In essence, the case should have never been brought. It was baseless.
After the verdict, the whole world knew how phony the allegations were. They also heard the bogus press and distorted opinion reportings and the President’s reckless rush to judgment of a young man who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, but with good intentions.
Actually, at one point during the trial, MSNBC News was prohibited by the judge from further participating in television coverage and removed from the courtroom because one of their reporters had been discovered unlawfully following and photographing the jury bus as it transported jurors.
Another faux pas in a series of faux pas that seemed to dominate this trial.
While pronounced not guilty, the young man’s future will probably be altered in ways none of us can imagine. Meanwhile, I won’t hold my breath waiting for Joe to offer an apology for his inappropriate comment.
By what rational reasoning did Joe Biden announce his opinion of the matter before the trial began and a verdict rendered? Did he secretly know something about the defendant that the jury didn’t?
Also, at the time Joe was still a private citizen, subject to lawsuits. His presidential immunity was not in effect.
More importantly, what personal interest did the future president of the United States have in this particular case that would compel him to publicly proclaim his thoughts on the matter?
There are murder trials going on all the time, but U.S. presidents don’t normally inject themselves into the cases. Why this one?
Later, in a sort of mi culpa moment, Joe said he respected the jury’s decision but did not retract his earlier statement.
Maybe, because the young man was determined not guilty on all counts and it’s driving the progressive-socialists bonkers. Without their constant “racist” and “white supremacy” yammerings, they’ve got nothing . . . and offer even less.
Editorial Note: The opinion in this article is that of the author. A jury cleared Rittenhouse of charges of homicide, attempted homicide, and reckless endangerment on Friday in the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, on Aug. 25, 2020.