The Left isn't watching the same Rittenhouse Trial I'm watching

After reading this article, it's clear that the Left isn't watching this trial and paying attention to the evidence that's been presented. The opening paragraph started with "Earlier this week, a friend texted me this prediction about the outcome of Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial: 'Kyle Rittenhouse walks or only [gets convicted] of minor charges and gets probation.'"

It continues, saying "Though my response was glib, I thought it was realistic at the time: 'He'll be convicted. He won’t walk. He may not get as much time as he deserves, but he’s going to jail.' My logic was based on the fact that all of Rittenhouse’s victims were white and that you can’t kill white men in America, even if you’re white yourself, and not face severe consequences.

After that, Mr. Norman's opinion changes:

That was before Wednesday, when Kyle Rittenhouse put on a masterclass of performative white innocence. The show featured tears, soulful hyperventilating and strategic scrunchy faces to endear himself to a judge and jury desperate to pinch his cheeks and reassure him that everything will be all right.

This left me no choice but to amend my original answer to my friend: "Yesterday’s courtroom shenanigans dashed any hope of a conviction. When the judge screams at the prosecutor twice and his ringtone playing [Lee Greenwood's 'God Bless the USA'] goes off when the defense is asking for a mistrial, the fix is in! Rittenhouse is going to walk."

Apparently, Mr. Norman didn't read this NPR article, which reports this:

In three hours of dramatic testimony Monday, Grosskreutz, 27, acknowledged that he was armed with a pistol on the evening of Aug. 25, 2020, but said that his hands were raised when Rittenhouse raised his rifle at him and that he feared for his life.

"I was never trying to kill the defendant," he testified. "In that moment, I was trying to preserve my own life. But doing so while also taking the life of another is not something that I'm capable of or comfortable doing."

It's important to remember that Rittenhouse had just gotten blindsided and knocked to the ground prior to raising his AR-15. What person in a riot situation who'd gotten knocked to the ground wouldn't fear for his life if someone pointed a gun at him? Further, people have asked why Rittenhouse was in Kenosha. That's irrelevant other than the fact that Wisconsin's Democrat Gov. Tony Evers didn't protect the city. There'd been rioting prior to the night of the shooting. Should business owners sit idly by as their properties and livelihoods get destroyed? Those are questions the MSM isn't interested in. This news report would've helped Mr. Norman reach a more informed first opinion:

On cross-examination, Grosskreutz admitted that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until Grosskreutz lowered his hands and pointed his handgun at Rittenhouse. That's what the defense was looking for. That established as fact that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life. That, in turn, gives Rittenhouse the right to use force to defend himself. The guy who wrote this is a moron:

Honestly, there’s no point in being angry about this. The American criminal justice system was designed to operate like a room full of clowns juggling plates and bowling pins with the lights dimmed half the time.

Apparently, Mr. Norman isn't interested in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence, the principle of confronting one's accusers, aka the right of cross-examination of witnesses like Mr. Grosskreutz, and the right of due process.

That isn't as sexy as watching a videoclip on the evening news and jumping to a conclusion without hearing the testimony of witnesses. Still, if you're going to do a legitimate investigation, attention to detail and thoroughness is required. When you're just a glib journalist who's only interested in trying someone in the court of public opinion, you can take these types of shortcuts.

Real justice requires seriousness, not a glib attitude.