The public and the media too often try to be judge and jury based on cell video, partial information

By Gary Abernathy

When all the facts are revealed, they often contradict initial conclusions. But the damage has usually been done.

“Believe your own eyes,” insist people who want everyone to see what they see in regard to recent officer-involved shootings captured on cell phone video in Minneapolis.

And yet, we can each examine various angles of video captured by bystanders and reach very different conclusions, based on perspective, length of video, voices captured as video is being recorded, and other factors.

Here’s a good rule of thumb for the public and the media: We should not appoint ourselves judge and jury on events that play out in public, no matter how much “evidence” we think we have.

Over the years as a reporter, I covered numerous trials, from the sordid (domestic and civil disputes) to the sensational (politically motivated prosecutions) to the violent (murder and rape). In many instances, the first-take appearance of a case — including media reports based on the facts and evidence that were initially available — were placed in doubt or given a new perspective once the actual trial got underway.

It’s completely irresponsible for once-respected media outlets — including print, digital, broadcast and cable — to dissect public data and claim to reach definitive conclusions about recent shootings in Minneapolis involving federal law enforcement and protesters.

For instance, over the weekend the far-left political outlet known as the New York Times posted on social media the following: “Videos verified by The New York Times show the man federal agents shot and killed in Minneapolis on Saturday was holding a phone, not a gun, before the agents took him to the ground and shot him. In total, at least 10 shots appear to have been fired within five seconds. Here's our moment-by-moment analysis of how the shooting unfolded.”

The New York Times’ “moment-by-moment analysis of how the shooting unfolded” is worth about as much as a lifetime warranty on a paper towel. It does nothing but contribute to the rush to judgment that responsible media once cautioned against. But it was guaranteed click-bait.

Later the Times posted a story with a sub-headline that claimed Alex Pretti was “a target who didn’t pose a threat.” Didn’t pose a threat? At the very least, he was reportedly armed, had additional rounds of ammo, did not carry any identification or permit papers (which made carrying his weapon illegal) and attempted to intervene in a law enforcement action. That represents a threat, whether or not he was brandishing his weapon.

But that’s my opinion. The far-left (formerly mainstream) media and others convince people that such cases are cut-and-dried, and that law enforcement acted improperly. Then, when the official investigation based on more complete details results in a different conclusion, more chaos erupts.

No matter how many video angles there are of sensational events that might be posted online — and in this day and age, one must assume that a trip to the mailbox and back has been captured on someone’s cell phone or Ring camera — it is no substitute for a careful law enforcement or defense team investigation, an application of the rules of evidence and the protection of the rights of both the accused and the victim, followed by the careful consideration of a judge or jury following the law.

The opinions of average citizens, attention-seeking governors and mayors and even a president of what happened in the cases of both high-profile deadly shootings in Minneapolis based on media reports, eye witness accounts and even cell phone video are meaningless and, too often, inflammatory.

And yet, the news media in particular increasingly casts aside responsible journalism and any devotion to fairness (non-existent these days) to rush to judgment.

As I have previously stated, I consider whatever blood has been spilled to be on the hands of state and local leaders in Minnesota and Minneapolis who have encouraged confrontation against federal officers who are enforcing our laws and attempting to carry out their duties.

Rather than resisting or refusing to assist ICE officers or border patrol agents and talking about them as though they are the enemy, state and local law enforcement should be fully cooperating with them.

Rather than claim that federal immigration law doesn’t apply in “sanctuary cities” — much like various states argued that “states’ rights” superseded federal law in order to enforce Jim Crow laws that maintained segregation, restricted voting, etc. — state and local officials should acknowledge and obey the law and encourage others to do so as well.

Protesters who are aggressively confronting federal agents are risking their own safety in a misguided effort to shield illegal immigrants from being apprehended and deported — including many who are hardened criminals who need to be off the streets. Again, it’s a tragedy that those here illegally are allowing U.S. citizens to risk their safety or even their lives on their behalf.

It is a good question: Why isn’t Minneapolis-style turmoil happening in Texas and other places where ICE is carrying out its duties? Because state and local officials are cooperating with federal officials, and governors and mayors aren’t inciting the public to unrest and violence. It’s that simple.

But those are my opinions, based on what we see and read. When it comes to the shootings, I’m in the camp that believes that people should not interfere with law enforcement when they’re carrying out their duties.

To be sure, the Times and other far-left (formerly mainstream) media outlets are proud partners in the resistance — the resistance that hates Donald Trump because he calls them out for their anti-American actions and sentiments.

Previous presidents, including Barack Obama, aggressively deported illegal immigrants. Let’s be clear: ICE and other federal agents under assault are merely proxies for Trump, which is why the radical left fights them so aggressively. Turns out, Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.

But I’m the first to admit that there are facts of the specific shooting cases that I do not know, nor do most people know them. Attempting to definitively say “here’s what happened” based on cell phone videos or media reports is the height of irresponsibility — a fact that does not stop the New York Times and others from playing judge and jury and inciting more unrest and violence.