What the conservative media fails to mention in their defence Kyle Rittenhouse

What The Conservative Media Omits To Defend Kyle Rittenhouse

The story of Kyle Rittenhouse, like practically every other topic these days, was polarizing. The conservative media has defended him, and some have nearly deified him, while the mainstream left-wing media has demonized him with blatantly dishonest coverage.

Right-wing media, on the other hand, withheld critical elements from their coverage of Rittenhouse, who is on trial for shooting three people, killing two of them, during rioting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

While the right-wing media has correctly focused on the fact that Rittenhouse appears to have fired shots in self-defence – as the videos show him doing against agitators, including one who attempted to take his gun – other facts show that Rittenhouse was not completely blameless in his actions that fateful August night.

While Rittenhouse will very certainly be found not guilty of the homicide charges, he should never have been in Kenosha in the first place. So much for Conservatives promoting the concept of personal responsibility.

For starters, Rittenhouse was 17 and in possession of a firearm, in violation of Wisconsin law, which bars minors from possessing firearms unless they are used for hunting. Possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under the age of 18 is one of six counts Rittenhouse faces. Those convicted of the misdemeanour crime might face a sentence of up to nine months in prison.

Second, even though the judge in the case rejected the seventh and final allegation – refusing to obey an 8-hour curfew imposed by Kenosha County in response to the protests and riots that followed Blake’s shooting – Rittenhouse broke the curfew in the legal sense. He was clearly on the streets in violation of the curfew, as evidenced by the videos.

Third, even if Rittenhouse is cleared of the accusations of murdering these two people because he acted in self-defence, he might still be found guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree with the use of a “dangerous weapon.” Richard McGinnis, a video journalist for the Daily Caller, testified that he was in the crosshairs when Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum, the first victim.

Even if Rittenhouse is found not guilty of the homicide counts, he may still face the first-degree reckless endangerment allegation, which carries a maximum term of 17.5 years in prison.

“It’s a difficult question,” a criminal defence attorney in Wisconsin stated. Mediaite, according to Antoine Jurek.

“As worded, self-defense is a good defense against any crime,” he said. “So, hypothetically, it could be used, but besides, as stated, I believe the [Wisconsin] legislators meant for it to be used in situations such as when someone attacks you.”

To put it another way, Jurek said, “this is an open matter that the parties in the Rittenhouse case are discussing,” and that “I don’t think we can fairly conclude” that “only if Rittenhouse is acquitted of reckless endangerment in the first degree.”

Following the arguments, Jurek stated that the jury will be instructed and that the prosecution and defence will examine whether self-defence should be considered in the reckless endangerment allegation. in the first instance

However, Milwaukee-based criminal defence attorney Matthew Meyer told Mediaite that the claim of self-defence cannot be utilized to defend a charge of first-degree reckless endangerment (or second degree). Self-defence, he claimed, “needs a sort of direct action” of deliberately targeting someone while “recklessly compromising safety… concentrates on irresponsible driving.”

“It’s more of a carelessness offense,” he explained, “where I do something that isn’t meant at anyone else but puts someone else in danger.”

“Because Kyle Rittenhouse is charged with two counts of reckless endangerment of first degree security as well as differing degrees of homicide, absolutely, he can be convicted of reckless endangerment,” Sarah Schmeiser, a Wisconsin-based criminal defence attorney, told Mediaite. On these offences, he was sentenced to first-degree security and acquitted on separate homicide charges.

The right, including its media environment, frequently preaches the importance of protecting law-abiding individuals and pursuing lawbreakers. Ideological and journalistic standards should be applied without regard to any subject, including the administration of justice. In this aspect, the Rittenhouse case is no exception.

Be the first to comment on "What the conservative media fails to mention in their defence Kyle Rittenhouse"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Share Page