Rittenhouse Revisited: How Media Misinformation Can Fuel Social Unrest

Below is my column in USA Today on the Rittenhouse trial and the role of media coverage in fueling anger in such cases by misrepresenting or ignoring key evidence. After the verdict, a riot was declared in Portland and protests erupted around the country.  Fortunately, there was not the type of arson and destruction seen in Kenosha last year. While the media often denounces “misinformation” or “disinformation” (and even supports censorship in some cases), it rarely acknowledges its own distortions from the Russian collusion scandal to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy to the Lafayette Park incident. Indeed, after the verdict, many of these same figures doubled down in denouncing the decision without acknowledging the evidence supporting the reasonable doubt of these jurors.

Here is the column:

The full acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse is now in. The result was hardly a surprise to many of us who watched the trial rather than the media coverage. The jury spent days carefully considering the evidence and could not find a single count that was supported beyond a reasonable doubt.

In rendering its verdict, the jury fulfilled its core function in our legal system. The jury was designed to protect an individual from becoming the grist of a criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court noted in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968):

“Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.”

The American jury is designed to stand between the mob and a defendant; between the government and the accused. The thin line of a dozen citizens can prove the most unassailable wall for justice in our system.

The media’s guilty verdict

There was, however, a second verdict in that courtroom for those who have been maintaining a distorted or incomplete account to this trial. From the outset, politicians and media figures insisted that this was a case of murders committed by a white supremacist. Then-presidential candidate Joe Biden labeled Rittenhouse a “white supremacist” in a tweet showing his photo and demanded to know why then-President Donald Trump did not “disavow white supremacists.” Much of the media followed suit with an echo chamber of coverage that led some people to believe that these were essentially executions on the streets of Kenosha.  Columnist Elie Mystal called the trial a sham.

The pressure clearly had an impact on the prosecution, which overcharged Rittenhouse (including with a count that was invalid). The case began to fall apart as the prosecution called its witnesses, who contradicted the core elements of these charges.

What happened next was even more chilling. Faced with a collapsing case in court, many of the same media outlets struck out at the judge, the jury, and the legal system. MSNBC host Tiffany Cross advocated for the judge’s removal. Rittenhouse was mocked for his “male, white tears” on national television. Georgetown law professor Paul Butler called the trial “white privilege on steroids.”

The danger of such reckless legal analysis is now evident. Judging from the coverage, one could have easily concluded that a conviction in this case was inescapable. Many reports prioritized still pictures of Rittenhouse walking menacingly with his rifle and omitted many of the countervailing facts that occupied much of the trial. Many viewers may not have learned that Rittenhouse spent his time cleaning graffiti off the high school.

The prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse provoked his first victim, 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum. Videotapes show the opposite, that Rosenbaum clearly pursued Rittenhouse. Casual trial observers would be unaware that Rosenbaum was a convicted sex offender who witnesses described as threatening to kill Rittenhouse.

A racist trial in a racist justice system?

Most people seem to disagree with the decision of Rittenhouse and others to show up at the protests armed. However, many also perceived the alleged victims as rioters who were engaged in violent acts, including attacks on Rittenhouse.

In our siloed society, people rely on news sources that tend to confirm their bias and presuppositions in such trials.

The problem is that such coverage is self-fulfilling.

By misrepresenting and not reporting key facts, media increased the likelihood that the acquittal will be read as confirmation of a racist trial in a racist justice system. That fuels the type of rioting that we saw in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake in a scuffling with police. Ironically, that case was also widely misrepresented in much of the media.

The Blake case was the subject of both state and federal investigations that rejected charges against the officer. Yet, the inaccurate coverage of that case continued to enrage viewers who were not fully informed of the facts leading up to the use of force. The various investigations found that the officers were required to arrest Blake on charges of third-degree sexual assault, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. Two different officers used a taser on Blake, which failed. Investigations also found that Blake was armed and resisting arrest.

The growing disconnect between actual crimes and their coverage is unlikely to change in our age of rage. Rittenhouse had to be convicted to fulfill the narrative and any acquittal had to be evidence of a racist jury picked to carryout racist justice.

That is what occurred in the Rittenhouse trial. The jury stood between a mob and a defendant to see that objective justice was done. On that chaotic night on Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha, few things were clear. What is clear however is that the shooting – and those killed and accused – became vehicles for broader narratives. Those popular portrayals crashed in Kenosha on a wall of 12 jurors who ruled by proof rather than passion.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is also a legal analyst for Fox News.

119 thoughts on “Rittenhouse Revisited: How Media Misinformation Can Fuel Social Unrest”

  1. To appreciate the impact this has had on real flesh and blood human beings,
    do a search on this:

    Children’s Wisconsin on treatment of kids hurt in Waukesha Christmas Parade | FOX6 News Milwaukee

  2. Why is someone with such a long criminal history allowed to roam around in society
    with a freedom equal to someone with no criminal history?
    It defeats the purpose of prisons if the people who should be in them are not in them.

  3. I wonder if MSNBC will show any of the “white tears” of the relatives of the dead children: brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, etc. Probably not. They only show weeping and sobbing when minorities are the victims, whereas white people are given eternal dirt naps without much fanfare. If you are white, CNN and MSNBC don’t care about what happens to you. They are not your friends. They are your friends like Goebbels was a friend of Jews.

  4. Turley, your Fox News bias has now become laughable. As one of the themes you are paid to promote, you attack mainstram meda which you claim: “rarely acknowledges its own distortions from the Russian collusion scandal to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy to the Lafayette Park incident.” What a joke! If any media outlet needs to acknowledge distortions, Turley, it’s your employer, so before you go throwing rocks about media misinformation and need to correct misinformation, start with your employer.

    As to the “Russian Collusion”, a Senate Committee, the Mueller investigation and Dan Coats, head of US Intel, all say Russia helped Trump cheat by taking information provided by his campaign about the most-effective precincts in key battleground states where lies about Hillary Clinton would have the most effect. There’s no “Hunter Biden laptop controversy”, either. This fake controversy was dreamed up by Giuliani after Trump flopped badly in the first presidential debate: the plot was to try to distract Biden in the second debate by ginning up a fake “scandal” over what Giuliani (now disgraced attorney, suspended for lyintg to multiple court on behalf of Trump) claimed was a hard drive abandoned by Hunter Biden. They wrongly thought it would throw Biden off of his game. it didn’t work.

    You’ve been repeatedly corrected about the Lafayette Park incident, which we all saw with our own eyes. Trump was being excoriated for hiding in a White House bunker because he was scared of protesters. Tear gas was used to clear protesters as well as Episcopalian clergy and seminarians from the front of St. John’s church, so the fat orange joke could stroll over from the White House and pose with a Bible, in a futile effort to reverse his image as the coward that he is (as if we didn’t already know–he is a draft-dodger). Of course, there were 35 Secret Service members hiding in trees and bushes in case they missed any protesters. There was tear gas used by the City of Washington a block away. You’ve repeatedly tried to conflate the two incidents, but it doesn’t work, Turley.

    1. I am sorry, I miss to see where exactly you prove where the facts in the Rittenhouse case are false?
      For example:
      – where is your prove that Rittenhouse carried the AR-15 illegally?
      – where exactly is your prove that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defence as all vids show?
      – where is any other evidence that you have that dis-proves the acquittal of Rittenhouse?

      1. I didn’t say that he carried the penis substitute gun illegally, but I saw the videos, and I saw the court testimony. I saw a fat, friendless zit-faced kid who dressed like a gangster, who displayed virtually no remorse over taking 2 lives and injuring another person and who lied about being an EMT and who lied about being asked to defend a business that had been vandalized. I saw a fake crying jag in which there were no tears. I saw a judge who did everything possible to tilt the jury toward acquittal, including not allowing the victims to be called victims, but allowed them to be called “looters” without any proof that they did anything other than finding themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. And, if it were an open and shut case, it wouldn’t take 4 days to obtain a result. Someone (or maybe more than one) was fighting for justice and sanity, but they got worn down. This is what happens too often on a Friday.

    2. Could you please show me where exactly the Mueller report states that Trump was helped by Russia?
      I mean I read that report a dozen of times but I cannot find any proof of your suggestion.
      Let alone the recent news from Durham.

      1. You have NOT read Mueller, or you don’t have average reading comprehension. Why not look up what Dan Coats, head of U S Intel agencies had to say?

  5. Jonathan: Your obit on the Rittenhouse trial is in. The “media” is the only guilty party by “fueling anger in such cases by misrepresenting or ignoring key evidence” and by encouraging the view that the trial was “essentially executions on the streets of Kenosha”. This is because, in your words, “people rely on news sources that tend to confirm their bias and presuppositions in such trials”. This perfectly describes how Fox covered the trial. For months Fox and Tucker Carlson took up Rittenhouse’s cause–portraying him a “hero” and “patriot” for defending himself against a mob of violent BLM protesters. Same thing in the coverage of Jan. 6 where Carlson has a new series, “Patriot Purge”, that portrays the supporters of Trump as the true “patriots”. The series is packed full of fabrications and conspiracy theories–full of misinformation and disinformation you complain about other media outlets–but not Fox. But two executives at Fox have finally had it with Fox’s biased reporting. Steven Hayes and Jonah Goldberg, with solid conservative credentials, have resigned in protest over Carlson’s incendiary series. Goldberg said about his resignation: “It’s basically saying that the Biden regime is coming after half the country and this is the War on Terror 2.0…It traffics in all manner of innuendo and conspiracy theories that I think legitimately could lead to violence. That for me, and for Steve, was the last straw”. There is apparently a lot of tumult at Fox with news anchors moved around to accommodate more Trump friendly content. “Bias” doesn’t begin to describe what is going on at Fox–a topic you totally ignore.

    Getting back to the Rittenhouse trial the real “bias” was not in mainstream media coverage. It was in the bias of Judge Schroeder who made unwarranted comments to the jury and the prosecutor and handed the defense many favorable rulings. The bias was also in the laws of Wisconsin that required the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not deserve the right to self defense–rather the other way around in many other jurisdictions where the defendant has the burden of proof. The liberal gun laws in Wisconsin also played a role in permitting a minor to carry an assault weapon–even though he obtained it illegally in the state. That’s the part you don’t want to discuss.

    1. FOX covered the farce of a trial because it was evident from day 1 that it was a political PERSECUTION. It was beyond obvious to anyone with half a brain it was SELF DEFENSE, it wasn’t even up for debate.

    2. Where exactly is your prove that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defence?
      Where exactly is your evidence that Rittenhouse has obtained the rifle as you state illegally?

      These are simple questions that you can prove wrong.. or not..
      If you cannot prove that wrong then where do you get the audacity to judge Jonathan Turley, let alone Rittenhouse?

    3. Dennis,

      I agree with your criticism of Turley’s ignoring the defections at Fox. Here is my take on it which I posted in another topic in case you missed it:

      WHY WE ARE LEAVING FOX NEWS

      Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg

      “The tension between doing that work well and remaining loyal to Fox has tested us many times over the past few years. But with the release of Patriot Purge, we felt we could no longer “do right as we see it” and remain at Fox News. So we resigned.”

      https://thedispatch.com/p/why-we-are-leaving-fox-news

      There can be no question that Turley is aware of these resignations, and they certainly put pressure on his decision to remain at Fox when serious academics finally have had enough of Fox’s Trumpism. His friends, students and colleagues will demand to know what he thinks of their reasons for resigning. Will he appear again on Carlson’s show and continue to legitimize him?

      Turley must search his soul as his intellectual and academic peers condemn Carlson’s “Patriot Purge.” Turley is NO Trumpist, and his resignation from Fox IS inevitable. For how long though can he maintain his academic credibility while stuffing his pockets with Fox cash earned from such lies?

      Though thehill.com, an outlet for which Turley works, duly reported these resignations from Fox, he won’t dare mention it on this blog. After all, what would he say? What could he say?
      Instead, we will hear the usual sound of crickets….

      1. Turley seems quite adept at missing the exit ramps in spectacular fashion. Not leaving when Barr got fired/quit was a huge swing and a miss. If he blows this one we’re talking a failure equal in scope. That leaves him with the third strike which shows promise of being even more of a head scratcher. Turley shows all the signs of being like one of those traders at a big bank that just keep doubling down until they take the whole institution with them…

        Time to get out of a bad trade is when it goes south on you, Turley. That happened a long time ago with Fox, unless of course Turley values Fox money more than whatever of his reputation is still left in the academic sphere. At one time I guessed that his reputation carried more weight to him — now I don’t think that it does.

        eb

        1. Eb,

          I suspect Turley is holding his breath until he can promote on Fox his forthcoming book. I don’t think Turley has authored a book in his life. Obviously, it will be a polemic if it is marketed to Trumpists instead of a law textbook intended for students.

          Turley often chastises the mainstream press for its silence on matters such as the Biden laptop while he remains silent on matters about which he should make his opinion known. He does not practice what he preaches.

      2. Jeff: Have you noticed the vitriol directed at you and me as a result of our dissent to anything Turley might say on a subject? One comment suggested I had no right to participate in what is supposed to be an echo chamber for Turley’s views. Take heart. All the name calling, distractions and non relevant comments should not deter us from our task–to bring some sanity and objectivity to the discussion. That is what “free speech” is all about. So keep it up and don’t desert me! I don’t want to be the only voice crying out in the wilderness against the lemmings who live on a daily diet of Fox and Turley. Notice we are having a effect. We are getting under their skins! Changing the terms of the debate is a good thing!

        1. Dennis,

          I’m not going to let the Trumpists cancel me off this blog. As long as we are civil, Turley will not ban us in spite of the wishes of many of his followers. Understandably, our pointing out Turley’s hypocrisy embarrasses them. Instead of defending Turley though, they largely resort to name-calling.

          Frankly, I don’t give a damn what Trumpist liars think of my contributions. I’m mainly here to talk to rational people like yourself and to witness Turley’s struggle as he tries to maintain his academic integrity while doing Fox’s bidding.

          We need to keep the pressure on him. Though Turley may be indifferent to what is said on his blog, there are those who know him well who undoubtedly monitor this blog if only out of curiosity. They need to see what Turley is deliberately neglecting, and the price he is paying to his reputation as a fair and impartial legal analyst by his colleaguing with the likes of Hannity, Carlson, Levin and Ingraham. We can only hope that those closest to him will shame him.

          1. Jeff: Did you see Trump met with Rittenhouse at Mar-a-Lago and called him a “really good young guy” Sound familiar to Turley’s description of Rittenhouse in his latest column? It seems Rittenhouse is now allowing himself to be used by Trump, Fox’s Carlson and others on the far right to justify the use of violence. Turley has now joined that crowd. Reps. Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz are offering Rittenhouse internships. What will be Rittenhouse’s duties be for the two Republican congressmen? Probably carry around his AR-15 in the House chambers to defend them when they refuse to wear face masks. Hey, just the right of “self-defense”?

            1. Dennis, it seems you want to protect criminals, rapists and murderers rather than those who have done nothing wrong. Why?

              Why do you sympathize with Brooks who ran over a marching band, injuring scores of people including women and children, while killing 5? Your policies of letting people like Brooks out on bail ($500-$1,000) time and time again led to this travesty. Your support of violent BLM activity led to these deaths. Listen to what Brooks said. That is something you appreciate.

              When are you going to support hard working Americans instead of criminals?

      3. They left because their contracts were up, and they were hardly on TV. Nobody will miss them. They are the Squad of the right.

  6. This is eerily reminiscent of the media’s guilty verdict before the double murder trial of OJ Simpson. The full acquittal of OJ came after the jury spent days carefully considering the evidence and could not find a single count that was supported beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ’s defense attorneys made a compelling case that there was a rush to judgement by the police to convict OJ & Detective Fuhrman was defined by his past racist remarks

    However, as Turley pointed out last week: “Rittenhouse could face lawsuits from the families of the deceased much like the litigation against O.J. Simpson after he was acquitted.”

    Regardless, in rendering their verdicts, the Rittenhouse & OJ juries fulfilled their core function in our legal system. The thin line of a dozen citizens can prove the most unassailable wall for justice in our system.

    1. No one is going to sue Rittenhouse. It’s laughable to think they would have any grounds to after the verdict and video evidence. Criminal or civil, doesn’t matter, it’s beyond obvious the kid had no other choice but to defend his life lest he be murdered or maimed by the mob that was chasing and attacking him.

    1. And the crowd self identifies as idiots.
      The KR case, the government, in fact charged KR with 6 criminal charges. Enough to put him behind bars for several lifetimes. A communist regime would have prevailed, as the govt has all the power, and the People have no power and no protection from the Government. KR was protect from the government by the Constitution. Thank God.

  7. When the Restoration occurs there should be a statute of Kyle Rittenhouse in every town in America.

    Sorry, s@@tlibs, the “mostly peaceful” protestors, “heroes” who were burning down Kenosha picked on the wrong guy this time!

    antonio

  8. Professor Turley Writes:

    “In our siloed society, people rely on news sources that tend to confirm their bias and presuppositions in such trials”.
    ………………………………………………

    Turley is dead-on with this analysis. But he could be “siloed” himself.

    The Rittenhouse case illustrates how the Culture Wars have dumbed-down America to the point where the public is totally incapable of learning from events.

    Leftists cannot seem to grasp that large, undisciplined protests can degenerate into riots; especially after dark. Nor can leftists understand that riots leave scars on communities that last 20 years or more.

    Yet conservatives cannot grasp that Open-Carry gun laws create confusing scenarios with regards to ‘self-defense’. That is, when people Open-Carry at large public gatherings they are no longer defending their ‘own’ property.

    Therefore the parameters of ‘self-defense become greatly obscured. Rittenhouse’s acquittal adds to this confusion in such a way that the concept of self-defense is now an open debate.

    Leftists are appalled at the spectacle of militias supporting police. And conservatives would be equally alarmed if urban street gangs Open-Carried at large public gatherings. But again, Americans are so siloed by the Culture Wars that few are likely to learn from Kenosha.

  9. For those of you commenting on the horrific episode in WI yesterday, please remember that the person charged (? – has he been) is entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process. Don’t become like the other side – be better

    1. The big difference is one was CLEARLY self defense, the other is a crime. So while we should wait for it to play out legally, there is very little wiggle room for tolerance for such a person.

    2. is entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process.
      I will wait for charges. That being said, I saw video clearly showing KR being chased and his use of self defense
      I have seen video of a red Ford Escape drive into a parade. I am searching for a legal basis to justify driving a car through manned barricades and drive into participants of a parade. As of yet, no person has offered a justification.

        1. Local residents explain that the city is large enough that there are plenty of alternate routes the driver could have taken without bursting through barricades and heading through the crowded parade route.

    3. Yes….until the moment the Jury declares him Guilty of Five Murders, Forty Assaults with a a Deadly Weapon, numerous counts of Intentional Maiming, and any other charges the DA can find in the Law Books.

      All those people blocking street and looking the other way as he drove over them at forty plus miles and hour….yeah sure seemed an honest mistake that could happen to anyone especially after that Cop popped off the Rounds trying to murder him as he drove in a mostly peaceful manner in the Parade for many Blocks.

      Sometimes remaining silent is a better approach rather than making yourself look somewhat vacuous.

  10. Didn’t Biden say that the innocent verdict of Rittenhouse was a shame? What type of nut do we have leading the nation?

  11. It’s funny that Turley complains about media misinformation when his own employer is just as guilty. Of course he never mentions Fox News, OAN, or Newsmax’s own misinformation during the election. All are currently being sued exactly because they engaged spreading misinformation or outright lying about the election. While Turley has a right to point out the left leaning media’s faults he still ends up being quite the hypocrite by not pointing out his own employer’s issues with misinformation.

    1. Svalez, Turley knows very well what side most of his readers want, and he delivers. How many of his Trump base would leave in a New York minute if he was to point out the lies and outright propaganda of FOX and the rest of the right-wing misinformation machine.

      1. You don’t have the brains to list any lies, much less important ones. That is why you want Turley to do it for you. He doesn’t because that is not what he does on the blog, but you have yet realized that.

      1. “Fox spread a dangerous lie about the 2020 election. Now the network could face expensive consequences.”

        https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22352213/dominion-fox-news-1-6-billion-tucker-carlson-lou-dobbs-maria-bartiromo-defamation-first-amendment

        Fox News suddenly stopped claiming the election was stolen when dominion sued. They were spreading misinformation just as Turley claims the left leaning media does. Turley never criticized fox for what he is criticizing cnn, msnbc for.

          1. The lawsuit which is being allowed to proceed is using Fox News own reporting and their pundits spreading clearly provable lies about the company. This is no different from what Turley is complaining about. As soon as the seriousness of the lawsuit became apparent Fox News suddenly stopped reporting the misinformation it was constantly reporting before the lawsuit. A few pundits were temporarily suspended from the air over the claims and some shows were cancelled. Turley can be deposed anytime by dominion lawyers and Turley knows he can’t comment on the obvious lying his employer engaged in. Turley will eventually be forced to admit his own employer has engaged in the type of journalism he often criticizes others of doing.

    2. Turley has called out FOX many times. Google instead of being ignorant. Every major network has a gaggle of high paid lawyers to deal with the constant lawsuits that come their way. Lawsuits alone don’t prove misinformation. Anyone can file a lawsuit. I hope Kyle Rittenhouse files many.

  12. Everyone who lied about Kyle Rittenhouse has caused harm. You can’t keep telling people that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist who opened fire on peaceful protestors without consequences. Activists are manipulating people’s emotions for political gain. You can’t make political hay as a savior if there is no rampant white supremacy.

    So many politicians and activists are either lying, or they did not watch the evidence presented at trial and made false assumptions.

    I hope to God Rittenhouse Rage was not the motivation for the mass murder at Waukesha. There has been no motivation listed yet. Terrorism, a wish to be a mass murderer, mental illness, drugs… I watched the video. The drier appeared to deliberately hit as many people as possible.

    The media needs to clean up its reporting on Rittenhouse. And they need to correct it immediately, repeatedly, and publicly.

    Rittenhouse was allowed to have that gun.
    The gun did not cross state lines.
    The gun was a semi-automatic rifle, not fully automatic.
    He had a family connection to the gas station.
    He rendered first aid to protestors and gave out water.
    He kept yelling, “Friendly! Friendly! Friendly!”
    He tried to run away from Rosenbaum.
    Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile. He had been acting unstable and made death threats.
    Rosenbaum ran down Rittenhouse and was shot in the act of grabbing his gun. There was powder residue on his hand.
    Huber had been convicted of domestic violence and had tried to strangle his own brother.
    Huber hit Rittenhouse in the head and neck.
    Rittenhouse shot Huber who was in the act of assaulting him.
    Jump Kick Man Freeland was shot at while in the act of kicking Rittenhouse’s head.
    Grosskreutz was illegally carrying a firearm.
    Grosskreutz was shot when he pointed that loaded gun point blank at Rittenhouse’s head.
    Rittenhouse had every right to be there that night.
    It was false that Rittenhouse came to do war. He ran when he was attacked and only shot when he was cornered, or on the ground.
    It was violent protestors who traveled to Kenosha with the intent of rioting, committing arson, and attacking people.
    All of the people Rittenhouse shot were white.

    All of this has been gotten wrong by the media, politicians, activists, teachers, actors…the usual propaganda players of the Left. There are people who claim Rittenhouse killed black people. The media reported he shot 60 times. It’s been reported these 3 people were shot “while protesting.” No. They were not. They were shot while assaulting Rittenhouse.

    The Left likes its victims passive. It will fight hard to render future victims as powerless as possible. The message is do not resist. Do not defend yourself, even if a Leftist points a gun in your face, or else they will attack your character and charge you with murder.

    People are getting fed up with the Left. Do something about it. Stop voting Democrat. They’ve gone too far Left. If there is a nationwide shunning of Democrats at all elections for the next few years, that, and only that, will reset the Democrat Party in a more moderate direction. They don’t care what Libertarians and conservatives think. They would care, very much, if their extremist behavior alienated voters. And politicians running against Democrats – get brutally honest about what happens when people vote Democrat.

    1. Karen, Honey, please get it through your thick skull that there’s no “Us vs. the Left”, or “People vs. the Left” that are getting fed up. You are a Trump disciple. You are fascinated with alt-right media that feeds you lies you believe, and part of your indoctrination is to be misled into believing that these sources speak for the majority. They do notm and you do not. If Republicans somehow win the next election it will be due to gerrymandering (which they’ve been feverishly working on) and cheating (which they tried to do in 2020, but couldn’t, so they’re feverishly working on chaning laws, so that someone like Raffensberger could actually manipulate vote totals), not because most Americans agree with them. You also don’t speak for Democrats or what they think or believe.

      Rittenhouse is a fat, zit-faced kid who watches too many video games which has blunted him to the reality of what it means to shoot a human being and to kill someone. He is a liar, too–he is not an EMT. He was not requested to go provide security for a busness that had been vandalized, and the business had not been vandalized. His main eyewitness was an alt-right gun nut, a fact that jury was not allowed to hear. The judge did everything possible to help produce the outcome, including refusing to allow those who got shot to be called “victims”, and he demeaned the prosecutor before the jury. People with brains and values see the truth: here is an overweight, pathetic, friendless kid who wanted to prove his manliness with his phallically-symbolic gun, who deluded himself into believing that he was an EMT and was going to Kenosha to be the big hero. Two are dead, and one was injured, and this fool is actually taking victory laps and posing at a barbecue restaurant with a big smile on his face like he did something good. And, you truly should be ashamed for repeating that bile about these victims that you got on the alt-right media you rely on. Rittenhouse is a heartless killer. The fact that alt-right media are trying to turn him into a hero or patriot is truly shocking. The people of Wisconsin did not get a fair trial, but the bigger implications are that there will be more loners with big guns who’ll show up at protests to compensate for their lack of manliness looking to be treated as heroes. And, dopes like you will fall for it. There are NO media who got any of this wrong, other than the media you rely on.

  13. “Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.”

    Interesting that Turley mentions this without discussing the reality of how juries are picked.

    Prosecutors can manipulate the makeup of a jury. Judges can instruct juries to disregard certain questions or evidence.

    “A jury of his peers” is not always guaranteed. Not as long as prosecutors or defense attorneys get to nitpick who is going to be on the jury.

    1. “A jury of his peers” is not always guaranteed. Not as long as prosecutors or defense attorneys get to nitpick who is going to be on the jury.
      *********************
      Yeah, insuring that only open-minded people are on the jury is “nit-picking.” Ever read what you write.

      1. Mespo, that’s not always the case.

        “ During jury selection in a criminal trial, the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to remove potential jurors whom they don’t want on the jury.”

        https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/discrimination-jury-selection.html

        Prosecutors and defense lawyers have the ability to manipulate the makeup of the jury that would best benefit their case.

        Look at the Arbery case. Qualified black jurors were dismissed except one and the judge himself admitted the selection was discriminatory. Then there’s the defense lawyer complaining about too many black pastors in the court room would “intimidate” the majority white jury.

        Juries are not always truly impartial.

    2. Svelaz– your comment shows a fair amount of ignorance about the jury system. First, juries are not “picked”. The prospective jurors, usually called a panel, are assigned numbers and sit accordingly. Each side of a case is given the right to challenge a panel member for bias against one side or the other which, if demonstrated, will authorize a court to strike the prospect from the panel. Second, each side is given a limited number of peremptory strikes which can be used to strike panel members for any reason other than race. Beginning at the panel member with the lowest number, the first twelve panel members that are left become the jury. In other words, a jury is not picked; a limited number of panel members can be deselected.

      Neither prosecutors nor defense counsel can “manipulate” the makeup of a jury other than as described in the preceding paragraph. Neither side has an advantage.

      I don’t know about other states, but in Texas a judge cannot instruct the jury to disregard evidence or questions submitted to the jury. That is grounds for reversal if he or she does. A federal judge can comment on evidence but even federal judges have limits on what they can do.

      Before people criticize a jury system that has worked well for hundreds of years, it would be helpful to learn something about it first.

      1. Nicely done – of course, it won;t make any difference to those people. They believe what they believe, even if demonstrably false. Unfortunately, this is a common place occurrence on both sides of the spectrum

      2. Honestlawyermostly,

        “ Neither prosecutors nor defense counsel can “manipulate” the makeup of a jury other than as described in the preceding paragraph. Neither side has an advantage.”

        Sure they can, they can weed out the jurors they don’t like by determining how they answer their questions. That’s picking who they want. The questions cannot be about race, but you proved my point when you mentioned that lawyers can pick individual jurors for any other reason. Thus manipulating the makeup of the jury. A lawyer can dismiss a potential juror if he/she has any potential to undermine a case or choose one that has the potential to help the case. I’ve been on jury duty before and it’s easy to determine what the lawyers want just by the questions they pose.

        For example a juror who has mentioned is an expert on speed radars won’t be picked by a prosecutor charging a speeder because such a juror would know if an officer is lying about how his radar works.

  14. My prayers to the people of Waukesha.

    After trying to incarcerate an innocent person in Kenosha, will the left now build a shrine to honor Darrell Brooks?

    1. No doubt we’ll be hearing that Brooks is an innocent victim of white supremacism. Watch how the demented Democrats will try to equate a self-defense shooting at a violent riot in Kenosha to a cold-blooded murder by a black supremacist criminal who mowed down innocent children at a Christmas parade.

        1. She got canned by the DuPage Democrat Party….she “resigned” and they immediately removed her from their Web Site.

          1. She got canned by the DuPage Democrat Party…
            She rose to her position exactly for those kind of values. Shared values of the Democrat Party of DuPage County.
            She got removed because she said the quiet part out loud.

        2. Karen, Honey, never cite Fox News as proof of anything. It gives you away as someone who knows nothing. You are not qualified to define “the Left”. Please stop it. It just proves the depth of your indoctrination to the alt-right media and their daily dose of lies.

      1. giocon1– if you want to see media bias in action real time, I checked CNN about an hour ago after other media had learned the name of the suspect (Brooks) and published his picture. CNN’s webpage did not carry his picture, did not mention his race and did not say anything about him having a comment critical of the Rittenhouse verdict on his social media page. Imagine if the verdict had found guilt and a white person was the suspect. Can you imagine how CNN would have run with that story?

    2. Darrell Brooks is a black separatist who wrote about the “injustice” of the verdict in People v. Rittenhouse. When does the Caucasian riot start with the burnings, looting and pulling down of the King statutes? Oh and the “look the other way” attitude of cops and politicians.

            1. Thanks Mespo for the site. I scrolled through the never ending criminal list but I did see one important item mentioned that should make all of us feel that Brooks was not a risk to society.

              “VIOLENCE ASSESSMENT – COMPLETE COURSE IN VIOLENCE ABUSE/ANGER MANAGEMENT.”

          1. Mespo – I watched video of the SUV plowing through the parade last night. The video was later taken down. It was traumatic. Heartbroken for all those affected, especially the kids. You could see the SUV bouncing up and down when it slowed down in places, running over people. Running over teenagers and children. He just kept going, seeming to aim for people. Plowed right through the marching band. Even took out the Dancing Grannies, if I recall the name of their troupe correctly.

            I’ve been emotional all day over this.

            If this does turn out to be motivated by Kyle Rittenhouse’s not guilty verdict, and that’s a big if as they’re still investigating, then there needs to be massive national backlash against the lying media and politicians. They’ve been lying to people with claims of white supremacy, racism, CRT…getting just about every detail of the evidence wrong. They’ve already whipped up riots with false information. Did they just inspire a mass murderer?

            How long can people systematically lie to black people, beginning in kindergarten, telling them the country is irredeemably racist, and that anything bad that happens is because of racism, and that cops hate them, and white people hate them, before there are dire consequences? BLM riots would likely never have happened if people had honest information.

            1. Karen, please stop repeating lies. No one is “systematically lying to black people beginning in kindergarten , telling them the country is irredeemably racist, and that anything bad that happens is because of racism, and that cops hate them, and white people hate them, before there are dire consequences”. That is part of the CRT lies that alt right media, especially Fox, keep harping on, and IT IS A LIE. Because this lie worked in Virginia, your alt-right media sources will still keep harping about it, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are LIES.

              BLM protests were not motivated by CRT–they started lately due to the murder of George Floyd and other black people unjustly killed by the police and others, like Armad Aubery. This is the truth. This is “honest information”, not the lies you rely on for confirmation bias that BLM protests aren’t valid.

    3. Darrell Brooks is a white supremacists. Pure and simple. If a white guy can shoot 2 white guys and he’s a white supremacists. Then Darrell must be a white supremacists also. He should be allowed a sense of white privilege. What’s fair is fair.

  15. White people, the victims of minorities.? According to CNN and MSNBC, this is impossible!!!!

    Do a search on this:

    WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT – Family shows aftermath of Wisconsin parade tragedy

    1. Darrell E Brooks according to reports lengthy rap sheet, could he be a “racist” or “black supremacist”?

      1. Margot: where did you get the “rap sheet”? I already know the answer, but why not admit it–you got that off of the alt-right media you religiously watch, to justify the theme Rittenhouse is somehow not only innocent for killing him but is somehow a hero. Does a “rap sheet” prove that he is guilty, but even if he were, how does that justify Rittenhouse killing him, lying about being an EMT, lying about being asked to defend a business that allegedly was being vandalized, both of which are lies?

  16. If the media is to have special 1st amendment protections for reporting that is proven false, then they should have special 1st amendment responsibilities to correct their false reporting. They should be required to lead broadcast news with a scripted mea culpa for some percentage of the time the ran the false story. Print media the same. Fines have to be on the table as well.

Leave a Reply