The Rittenhouse Trial Shows Us Why Cameras in Courtrooms Is the Proper Move for Our Legal System – Opinion

We were fortunate to be able, for the last few weeks, to see the Rittenhouse trial ourselves..

Make no mistake, there has been no shortage of imbalanced visuals and cerebrally-challenged commentary surrounding the case over the past weeks that is the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. From a prosecution team that had dreams of a post-verdict TV career to a judge who was very comfortable in his robe or the defendant who became social media fodder after breaking down on the stand and a lawyer whose face-palm became a meme after his witness unraveled their case with one answer — this had all the earmarks of a legal jesters’ cabaret.

We should be thankful that the event was recorded live.

It is obvious that this case was fraught with controversy. Many people claim the camera presence only made it more hysterical and encouraged some of the mischief. Thomas Binger, the lead prosecutor, felt that he could have a career in front cameras. However, his ineptitude was highlighted by him pointing a gun towards the jury. He was trying to demonstrate recklessness and worse gun management.

Judge Bruce Schroeder also had a great time in front of the lens, loudly condemning certain actions by the prosecutors, but also allowing the case’s shoddy state to go on despite many reasons for a mistrial. Considering that this prosecution team has been such a disaster that airbags should have gone off at the plaintiff’s desk, the trial has not been curtailed. This would reduce the time on camera.

We then witnessed the MSNBC/NBC News dramatize with possible jury tampering. A stringer for NBC was chasing down the juror’s vehicle, seemingly looking to learn who they were, in defiance of the safety protocols set up for them. But don’t you dare call the press the “enemy of the people.” The past few weeks, the journalists have been behaving like jackals, as there has been no shortage of wild claims about this case made in the press. There are many misrepresentations, lies, and misapplications to the law.

• Kyle Rittenhouse was not a citizen of any other state. He lives in Kenosha with his family and works in the community. They had provided assistance in this area. for days.
• Kyle’s mother did not drive him to the riot. After that, Kyle had continued to live in the same area.
• His gun was not illegally brought to him. The gun was kept by a friend at his Kenosha house.
• Kyle didn’t illegally own his firearm. According to Wisconsin law, anyone his age can possess the gun Kyle was displaying that night. Therefore the weapon charge against him was tossed.
• Rittenhouse’s charges of being white supremacists have not been proved. FBI searches did not find any evidence supporting such claims.
• Kyle was accused wearing gloves that night in order to conceal his fingerprints. The photos of him sometimes wearing gloves are disproved. In the gloves photos you can clearly see his face..
• Even though all of the players are white, it is still being called a trial based on race.
• Reports claim that Kyle inflicted violence upon the city, after being inspired by Kenosha. He was brainwashed with false stories of conflict and strife. This fable must be reconstructed by ignoring the years of violence before Kyle arrived.
• Kyle didn’t shoot the first time; he was instigated by all those who shot.
• While Rittenhouse is being demonized for having a weapon, the media must ignore that Gaige Grosskreutz also had a gun. She pointed it at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse was shot.
• Grosskreutz gave interviews following his testimony and refuted it.
• Joe Scarborough stated Rittenhouse fired 60 rounds of ammunition. It was an outrageously false statement that was cited in closing arguments. This was to demonstrate the conduct of the media during trial.

These errors, misrepresentations and lies are just a fraction of what has been said about the case. The media has made a circus out of false narratives and defamatory representations.  But the great thing about all of this is there was a tonic to all this delirium — we were able to see the facts for ourselves. It was easy to watch the trial and not rely on the dramatic musers who had an agenda. We could actually see the details for our own benefit.

The fact that cameras were allowed in this courtroom had a two-pronged effect — we could ascertain the facts of the trial, and it exposed the media as the corrupt cabal that they are. Joe Scarborough inadvertently proved the need for these proceedings be televised. He was embarrassed for giving inaccurate information about the case and he ranted in defense declaring that he was embarrassed. on behalf of the defense lawyerfor noting his rationality in court records.

Joe went one step further. After hearing the ridiculous claims that Kyle Rittenhouse fired 60 shots, Joe lashed out and assumed his statements to be true. Take a look at this: a TV pundit can be mad! At the audience to listenBelieve him and listen to his words. 

To anyone who had been watching the case for longer than 60 seconds, this is clearly wrong. It was actually 60 seconds. Thank you for this. https://t.co/opGKvw6VEL

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) November 15, 2021

What is most noteworthy about Scarborough’s testimony? His asinine accusation was quickly refuted because we could follow the trial. Because we were able to see the evidence, facts and witness testimony, he was immediately called out. Imagine how many falsehoods would have been propagated in the media if there were no cameras at that court.

Yes, the trial proceedings can be affected by the presence of cameras. With the Panaflex battalion’s arrival, the participants will behave differently. Keep in mind that media doesn’t behave differently. They have an agenda and are incapable of controlling their coverage. It is up to us as individuals to observe the situation and assess how bad it is.

Although you may not enjoy the look of roaches in your yard, try to picture what their activities are if they do. NotTurn the lights on.