Media, judge got it wrong in the Rittenhouse trial

The best Hollywood writers would not have been able to dream up a story like the Rittenhouse trial and the aftermath. You have a teenager driving from his home in Antioch, Ill., to Kenosha, Wis., walking the streets at night to help protect the citizens property rights, armed with a semi-automatic rifle and carrying a large amounts of extra bullets, who murders two men, the filing of murder charges against him, his pleading of self-defense and being acquitted of all charges. This all happens at a time when vigilante justice is popular and the verdict is sure to give the movement encouragement because the defendant got off without even a slap on his hand.

Imagine the monetary gain Rittenhouse is bound to realize? The sale of Rittenhouse caps, shirts and the clothing he was wearing, the increase in the sale of the weapon he used, his sale of the rights for a movie and book of the incident and the probability of a foundation being formed for donations to cover his legal expenses.

As usual the media went wild covering the story. The fact he appeared on Fox News for a lengthy interview shortly after his acquittal, where he was treated as a national hero, was enough to make you throw up. It shows there are no limits on the media if they believe the story should cause an increase in their circulation.

For those who watched the Rittenhouse case on television, you saw a trial judge violate a longstanding rule of court procedure that he or she needs to be fair and impartial in presiding over the trial. In this proceeding, it was clear from the beginning of the trial that the judge favored the defendant and was going to make it hard on the prosecution to obtain a guilty verdict. Rarely do you see such a blatant disregard of the rules; it was if the judge was one of the defense attorneys. If you were sitting on the jury, what would you think about how the trial was being conducted? Does the judge know something that they don’t? Will he be removed from office because of how he handled the proceedings? Maybe he will also be considered a hero.

What is so damaging is the fact that even if the judge were found to have been prejudiced in favor of the defendant, the prosecution is unable to appeal the verdict. The defendant was probably surprised that he wasn’t convicted of a lesser crime. However, you must remember that the judge was reluctant to allow for a conviction of a lesser crime in his instructions, which is normally done in a case like this. That should have been a clear signal he didn’t believe the defendant should be convicted of anything.

You can imagine that Rittenhouse is already looking for other cities where he can assist law enforcement in monitoring crowds where he doesn’t believe local authorities are up to the job? BASS TRUMBO

Fayetteville