Kyle Rittenhouse, convicted by the media, changes the Kenosha narrative

It was a striking tragedy among the many tragedies of last year’s urban riots, the shooting death of two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

And like a whole lot of people, I assumed that Kyle Rittenhouse, who at 17 illegally took an AR-15 rifle across state lines and also wounded a third man, was guilty of homicide.

That, after all, was the prevailing tone of the media coverage, which portrayed the teenager as a White supremacist — sometimes not bothering with "alleged" — who went to the Wisconsin city for reasons of racial animus.

But despite the racial tinge of the coverage, the key players — Rittenhouse and the three people he shot — were all White.

Suddenly, we are getting a much different picture at the trial, where prosecutors have made such a botch of things that they were scolded by the judge for opening the door to a mistrial motion.

What grabbed everyone’s attention at the televised trial — you’ve probably seen the clips by now — was Rittenhouse breaking down on the stand, sobbing and hyperventilating, as he began to recount the first violent encounter.

A SICKENING CULTURE OF DEATH THREATS AND ANIMATED KILLINGS OF LAWMAKERS

Rittenhouse, now 18, is no Boy Scout. Heading to a potential riot with a large gun and defying a curfew was a dumb move, notwithstanding his protests that he was looking to provide medical assistance and protect property.

But his defense, once his lawyers chose to put him on the stance, was self-defense. And his claims were plausible enough to muddy the deliberations and perhaps produce an acquittal or hung jury.

In one instance, Rittenhouse testified that he fatally shot Anthony Huber after the protester struck him with a skateboard and tried to grab his gun.

In the other, Rittenhouse said he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum after the protester had twice threatened his life earlier and was advancing on him.

That’s his version; prosecutors would have to prove his actions didn’t meet the legal standard for self-defense.

But the wounded man, Gaige Grosskreutz, acknowledged in court that Rittenhouse didn’t fire at him until he advanced on him with a gun and pointed his hands down at the defendant.

Keeping in mind that many conservatives have defended Rittenhouse and many liberals have denounced him, it’s worth looking at National Review’s synopsis of some of the past media coverage.

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF OF THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson branded Rittenhouse "the enemy." An MSNBC analyst, John Heilemann, called him "arguably a domestic terrorist." An ABC News article called him an "alleged white supremacist." On Twitter, a Daily Beast writer lumped Rittenhouse in with "armed militias, White power groups, Proud Boys, Boogaloo extremists," while calling him a "murderer."

On the political front, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Rittenhouse’s posting of bail a sign that "protection of white supremacy baked deep into our carceral systems."

There are lessons here for the press. Rushing to judgment is never a good idea. Neither is presuming what a jury may do. Or assuming someone is a flat-out racist.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The televised nature of the trial ensures that people will passionately argue for or against Rittenhouse’s guilt. Some are calling his crying an act, others insist he’s been horribly smeared. And of course folks are flinging strong opinions about Judge Bruce Schroeder and the prosecutors and defense lawyers. They have every right to do that.

But Rittenhouse is entitled to a fair trial, not just a trial by media.