News Flash: USA Today is Ignorant and Biased

[Sgt.K]

This appeared in my Microsoft feed:

USA TODAY

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, but the assault-style rifles are (once again) guilty in deadly shooting
The Editorial Board - Yesterday 2:46 PM

Even as Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges Friday, the one crucial element responsible for the killings was never a subject of deliberation by the jury.
You can't put an assault-style rifle on trial.

But the Smith & Wesson AR-style semiautomatic rifle that Rittenhouse carried as he walked the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin during a riot the night of Aug. 25, 2020, was at the center of everything that went wrong.

The lure of the military-style weapon has become intoxicating for a segment of Americans, and Rittenhouse was no exception. The teenager acquired the gun a few months before the shooting, even though he was legally too young * 17 at the time * to own a dangerous firearm.

He said the weapon was a key reason he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum during the mayhem. "If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it," Rittenhouse testified during the trial.

Demonstrators saw the shooting and chased after Rittenhouse in an apparent effort to disarm him. One of them was Anthony Huber armed only with a skateboard. Huber grabbed the barrel of the AR-15, and Rittenhouse shot him to death.

"The irony of the case is that Mr. Rittenhouse has become a cause célèbre among gun-rights advocates, even though, according to his own defense, it was his carrying of the rifle that put him in danger in the first place," the Economist noted.

Such weapons were expressly designed for the battlefield, and that may be a good part of their appeal. *There are very few things that serve such a great form and function, and look cool,* one owner told NBC News several years ago.

They are also the weapon of choice in the worst killings. Assault-style rifles were used in the seven deadliest mass shootings of the last decade, according to a report by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Where four or more people were killed in one setting, these guns were used in 85% of the fatalities.

The low recoil allows rounds from semiautomatic versions to be fired in rapid succession. When Rosenbaum was killed, Rittenhouse fired four shots in three-quarters of a second, according to his defense lawyer's closing argument.

Moreover, the high muzzle velocity of an assault rifle rounds causes enormous tissue damage. The shock wave from the bullet acts like the bow-wave of a speed boat, creating a corridor of destruction in the human body. It's why the kill-rate in shootings that involve these weapons is so high.

Huber died from a single round to the chest. A third person shot by Rittenhouse that night, Gaige Grosskreutz, survived a single bullet wound to his right arm. But the round tore away 90% of his bicep, and when graphic images of the wound were shown to the jury, several looked away in horror.

In a less divisive time, versions of these guns were banned under federal law. But those restrictions lapsed years ago, and only seven states and the District of Columbia now have some type of prohibition on assault-style rifles. Sales have skyrocketed, with 20 million of the weapons in circulation, and the AR-version Rittenhouse carried is among the most popular.

The primacy of assault-style rifles in American society is not a Second Amendment issue. When the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia authored a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 underscoring the Second Amendment's right to possess firearms, he said the freedom is "not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever."

The Rittenhouse verdict may go a long way toward defining the limits of self-defense. But the trial itself illustrates * sadly, once again * how a firearm designed for destroying the human body proved its purpose, with two dead, one mangled, and a fourth forever scarred emotionally because of his love affair with an AR-15.

To pull out a few tidbits:

...the assault-style rifles are (once again) guilty in deadly shooting...

Nope. Can not assign guilt to the inanimate object. And the Jury ruled Kyle wasn't.

...the one crucial element responsible for the killings...

Oh, please.

...He said the weapon was a key reason he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum during the mayhem. "If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it," Rittenhouse testified during the trial...

No, he did NOT say the weapon was a key reason. He said - as f#$%ing quoted in the same paragraph - the reason was Rosenbaum was going to use it on him.

...Such weapons were expressly designed for the battlefield...

BZZZ... No. First designed for civilian use. Modified later for military use.

...Where four or more people were killed in one setting, these guns were used in 85% of the fatalities.

Can anyone corroborate this statistic? I've got to get to bed.

The low recoil allows rounds from semiautomatic versions to be fired in rapid succession.

Almost like it can be fired as fast as the user pulls the trigger...

When Rosenbaum was killed, Rittenhouse fired four shots in three-quarters of a second, according to his defense lawyer's closing argument.

0.25 splits, for accurate, *aimed* fire under duress? I'm impressed. How bout y'all?

...with 20 million of the weapons in circulation...

Not what one would call "unusual"...

...a firearm designed for destroying the human body proved its purpose...

No. It was designed to launch a projectile wherever the user wanted. It's purpose is up to the user.


Lotta Pinocchios up there, no?

[JaySmith]

...the assault-style rifles are (once again) guilty in deadly shooting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bbXgUNOws

...with 20 million of the weapons in circulation...

That feels like a really low count for AR style weapons... Maybe closer to 120m.

[eatmydust]

For any freedom loving, open minded, clear thinking individual, the AR15 was actually shown to be an excellent choice of self defense weapon. It was shown to be capable, lethal, and high enough capacity to defend oneself against multiple attackers.

I know the left wants to crucify Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary, black AR15 but, let's not forget, their "superhero" Gaige Grosskreutz was also wielding a firearm capable of accepting a 30 round magazine. Grosskreutz was just beaten to the draw by Rittenhouse, we know what his intention was, of his own admission.

[jthrelf]

The fact that Kyle could defend himself without special Navy seal operator training using a $600 tool is very telling. And it's exactly why the left wants them gone.

[Noah_Zark]

But also in USA Today, an editorial far different than one might expect:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ier/ar-AAQV7qu


USA TODAY

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.


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.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Noah

[jthrelf]

Nice summary and insight ^

[JenniferG]

Remember that the first thing communists do when they take over is to disarm the citizens and they usually annihilate those that helped them take power because they are a threat to the core power group. We can see this in Dopey Joe handler's treatment of their insurgent army of antifa and BLM. The communists in power now are trying to distance themselves from those they used to attain power.

[ray h]

Jonathan Turley will soon be looking for another job.

[SevenMilePete]

This appeared in my Microsoft feed:



To pull out a few tidbits:

Nope. Can not assign guilt to the inanimate object. And the Jury ruled Kyle wasn't.


Oh, please.


No, he did NOT say the weapon was a key reason. He said - as f#$%ing quoted in the same paragraph - the reason was Rosenbaum was going to use it on him.


BZZZ... No. First designed for civilian use. Modified later for military use.


Can anyone corroborate this statistic? I've got to get to bed.


Almost like it can be fired as fast as the user pulls the trigger...


0.25 splits, for accurate, *aimed* fire under duress? I'm impressed. How bout y'all?


Not what one would call "unusual"...


No. It was designed to launch a projectile wherever the user wanted. It's purpose is up to the user.


Lotta Pinocchios up there, no?

Using the enemy's own data, handguns were used in 81% of all mass shootings. So.....let's see. 81 + 85 %= 166% of all mass shootings used a handgun and an assault rifle. And not only that 61% occurred in private homes. Yeh, I don't think anyone will use an assault rifle at home.
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/m...ica-2009-2019/

[Defender]

Had he used a pump shotgun they would be decrying it's usage too.