MSNBC headline saying 'Laken Riley's killer never stood a chance' sparks backlash: 'Absolutely sickening'

Fox News - Archive
Social media users tore into MSNBC.com this week after it published a remarkable headline saying that "Laken Riley’s killer never stood a chance."

The digital outlet’s Thursday article discussed how the legal defense team for Jose Antonio Ibarra, the illegal immigrant who was convicted on Wednesday of murdering Georgia nursing student Laken Riley in February, "had no chance" because of the overwhelming evidence against their defendant.

Prominent people on X found the headline for the piece too sympathetic to Ibarra and not focused enough on the victim and her grieving family.

"You know who never stood a chance? Laken Riley. The actual victim," conservative commentator @AGHamilton29 remarked on the social media platform.

MSNBC’s article made the point that the verdict for Ibarra, who was convicted on multiple counts of murder and other crimes and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, was "never in doubt," as it was a "hopeless case" for the defense team.

"For the defense, this was a hopeless case. The defense did the best it could with bad facts. It almost surely knew it was going to lose," MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos wrote.

His piece was not received well on X, with the headline going viral and drawing heat from those outraged over Riley’s murder at the hands of a criminal who had fled Venezuela and illegally crossed into the U.S. in 2022.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, interpreted the headline as sympathetic to Riley’s murderer. He wrote, "Laken Riley’s killer is now the victim, according to MSNBC."

Donald Trump Jr. skewered the outlet, writing, "You literally can’t make up this level of depravity. These people are sick. The guy is a murderer. He’s an illegal alien that killed an innocent young woman, but MSNBC would rather go to bat for him. However, much you hate MSNBC, it’s not enough!"

"And this is why MSNBC, the brand, is being sold off for pennies," The Spectator contributing editor Stephen Miller wrote, referencing recent news that NBC News and MSNBC parent company Comcast is planning to spin off several NBCUniversal networks, including MSNBC.

The "Defiant L’s" X account trashed the headline to its over one million followers, stating, "Hey MSNBC, you know who also ‘never stood a chance’? Laken Riley. Laken Riley should be alive today. But she never stood a chance because of this monster."

Conservative commentator Adam Johnston condemned the headline, posting, "Look at how @MSNBC framed the conviction and sentencing of Laken Riley's killer. Jose Ibarra never stood a chance? No. Laken Riley never stood a chance against this monster."

"Absolutely sickening," he added.

Conservative commentator Paul Szypula wrote, "MSNBC headline paints Laken Riley’s convicted k*ller as a victim. Legacy media is evil."

Former GOP communications person Steve Guest ripped the outlet and the piece’s author, writing, "An actual headline from MSNBC: ‘Laken Riley's killer never stood a chance.’ Ask yourself: Why is MSNBC writing sympathetic headlines for an illegal alien monster and killer? Why is MSNBC’s ‘legal analyst’ Danny Cevallos ok with this headline?"

Tea Party Movement co-founder Debbie Dooley blasted MSNBC staff, posting, "The scumbags at @MSNBC showed sympathy to the animal that brutally murdered Laken Riley. It was Laken that never stood a chance."

MSNBC did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
The article referenced, which now has a different title: The guilt of Laken Riley's killer was never in doubt - Archive
Subheading is still the same: For all the political controversy surrounding Jose Ibarra, the case against him was always a simple one.
 
  • Lunacy
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711, Cardef1121, Exterminatus and 12 others
Click to expand...
Article (Archive)

MSNBC has faced widespread backlash after publishing an opinion piece sympathizing with the killer of Laken Riley.

Legal analyst Danny Cevallos came under fire for his take on the Georgia nursing student's brutal murder and the trial of Jose Ibarra, 25, an illegal immigrant and member of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, published under a headline saying he 'never stood a chance.'

Ibarra was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole on Thursday, as a judge found him guilty after hearing volumes of damning evidence, including Ibarra's DNA found under Laken's fingernails from when she fought for her life.

The 22-year-old was beaten and strangled to death in February near the University of Georgia campus after Ibarra attacked her when she was out on a morning run.

The murder also became central to the issue of immigration in the presidential election, as conservatives blamed the Biden administration's weak border policies for releasing Ibarra into the country in 2022.

Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Cevallos argued that 'for all the political controversy, the outcome of this trial was never in doubt.'

Cevallos went on to detail how Ibarra's conviction was a certainty because of technicalities in the legal system, sparking anger from those who say he brushed over the savage murder.

The president elect's son, Donald Trump Jr. led the backlash, tweeting in response: 'You literally can't make up this level of depravity.'

After facing outrage over the op-ed, MSNBC appeared to change the headline of the article on Friday morning to: 'The guilt of Laken Riley's killer was never in doubt.'

Trump Jr. continued: 'These people are sick. The guy is a murderer. He's an illegal alien that killed an innocent young woman, but MSNBC would rather go to bat for him.'

Joe Rogan also waded into the controversy, sharing an image of the article's headline with a savage six-word response: 'What the f*** is this s***.'

In his op-ed, Cevallos noted that that Ibarra requested a bench trial, meaning his fate was decided by a single judge rather than a jury, because of the clear evidence against him.

'For the defense, this was a hopeless case,' Cevallos then sympathized. 'The defense did the best it could with bad facts.'

While acknowledging Ibarra's defense stood 'no chance with a jury', Cevallos appeared to imply that the killer's bench trial was somehow stacked against him.

'But it apparently had no chance with the judge, either, since he was convicted anyway,' he wrote.

The legal analyst argued that the bench trial was still Ibarra's 'best chance' at having the chance at parole down the line - even while conservatives fumed at the decision not to seek the death penalty in his case.

Cevallos concluded his piece by summing up the technicalities of Ibarra's case, explaining that the killer will serve consecutive sentences instead of concurrently, which went against Georgia law, offering 'the best glimpse into the judge's opinion of this defendant.'

The opinion piece was quickly met with backlash, with many taking issue with the headline and branding it an attempt at 'engagement farming.'

'Disgusting article headline suggesting the killer was convicted for reasons other than he did it,' one critic said on X.

Cevallos shared his take to his X account, and took a matter-of-fact line as he captioned it: 'The Jose Ibarra murder case was open and shut. Here's why even the defense knew it.'

His tweet was also met with criticism, as one X user questioned: 'What is the point of this article?'

'Are you somehow implying that the court proceedings were a sham? That he could in fact be 'innocent'? Are we supposed to feel bad for him?'

'Laken Riley never stood a chance....' responded another.

The outrage over the op-ed comes after the nation watched droves of horrifying evidence and heartbreaking victim impact statements presented at Ibarra's trial over the past week.

Riley's devastated family shared stories of the 22-year-old and what Ibarra tore from them, including a poignant moment at the conclusion of the trial where her stepfather John Phillips shared one of her last diary entries.

Phillips revealed that she wrote a 'letter to my future husband' shortly before she was killed, and addressed Ibarra as he said 'Laken's life was abundantly and exceptionally full of promise.'

The entry opened: 'To my future husband - as silly as I feel writing this, my old small group leader once recommended it, so here I am.

'I want you to know I'm thinking about you. I'm working every day to become the best wife I can be by working through my current relationships to best prepare me for ours and our kids one day.

'I am focusing on God and what he defines as a faithful Christian wife so that I can best embody those characteristics.

'I pray that you know that is with my full faith and trust in God, that I know this relationship has been handcrafted by him.'

The reading brought an emotional response from the court in the same hearing where Ibarra learned he would spend the rest of his life behind bars.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Feels
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Hoplixe, Arkin O'Brien, pot of sneed and 13 others
So it was the article version of this:
sheeeit.jpg
I'll never understand people excusing the behaviour of rapist monkeys.
Fucking abhorrent shit.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: wopirish, Broadside, Cardef1121 and 27 others
MrJokerRager said:
Phillips revealed that she wrote a 'letter to my future husband' shortly before she was killed, and addressed Ibarra as he said 'Laken's life was abundantly and exceptionally full of promise.'

The entry opened: 'To my future husband - as silly as I feel writing this, my old small group leader once recommended it, so here I am.

'I want you to know I'm thinking about you. I'm working every day to become the best wife I can be by working through my current relationships to best prepare me for ours and our kids one day.

'I am focusing on God and what he defines as a faithful Christian wife so that I can best embody those characteristics.

'I pray that you know that is with my full faith and trust in God, that I know this relationship has been handcrafted by him.'

The reading brought an emotional response from the court in the same hearing where Ibarra learned he would spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Click to expand...
Here is the reading of this letter.

 
  • Feels
Reactions: CarlosDanger, Exterminatus, Bankingway and 7 others
Try reading the story, it's some basic bitch lawtube commentary.


The guilt of Laken Riley's killer was never in doubt
For all the political controversy surrounding Jose Ibarra, the case against him was always a simple one

By Danny Cevallos, MSNBC legal analyst
Jose Antonio Ibarra was convicted on multiple counts of murder Wednesday in the February killing of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley. Ibarra was immediately sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with other consecutive sentences for lesser crimes, including aggravated assault with intent to rape and “peeping Tom.”
Riley’s murder became a political rallying cry at this summer’s Republican National Convention because Ibarra entered the country illegally in 2022. But for all the political controversy, the outcome of this trial was never in doubt.

The verdict was going to be guilty.
The sentence was going to be life without parole.
For the defense, this was a hopeless case. The defense did the best it could with bad facts. It almost surely knew it was going to lose. That’s probably why it requested a bench (judge-only) trial instead of a jury trial.

Generally, defense attorneys prefer jury trials to bench trials. One reason is math. With a jury, it takes only one out of 12 to deadlock and avoid a conviction. With a judge, there’s only one “juror,” so those chances decrease by 11. There are only a few reasons defense attorneys will waive a defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial. Perhaps the case involves unusually complex legal issues that a jury might have trouble understanding. But even then, complexity can benefit the defense: If jurors don’t understand the prosecution’s case, they can’t find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ibarra case involved no complex legal issues.

Defense attorneys might alternatively push for a bench trial because the evidence against a defendant is both overwhelming and horrific. That’s likely what happened here. The defense had no chance with a jury.

But it apparently had no chance with the judge, either, since he was convicted anyway. Still, the bench trial was a good call by the defense. Saving the judge from a pointless jury trial might have been Ibarra’s best chance at life with the possibility of parole. While you probably won’t see that written in any rules or law books, in my experience as a defense attorney, judges (and prosecutors) appreciate defendants who don’t waste the court’s time. Sometimes a bench trial can help avoid the “trial tax” — the harsher sentencing when a defendant opts for a three-week jury trial instead of a four-day judge-only trial.

Of course, in Ibarra’s case, the judge cut him no breaks — jury or no jury. In fairness, Athens-Clarke County Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard, who presided over the trial, didn’t have that much to decide. Normally, judges have a lot of sentencing options. Criminal statutes often provide for a mandatory minimum or a statutory maximum sentence, leaving a lot in between. For example, when FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of masterminding a massive fraud last November, federal prosecutors asked the judge to sentence “SBF” to 100 years in prison. His defense argued for 6½ years. It’s often a challenge for a judge to determine what is an appropriate sentence while considering minimum sentences, maximum sentences and sentencing guidelines. (Bankman-Fried is serving a 25-year sentence.)

Not in this case.
In this case, the judge had only two options for the murder convictions: life without the possibility of parole and life with the possibility of parole. He chose life without. Undoubtedly the heartrending testimony of Riley’s loved ones helped justify that decision.

The judge also hit Ibarra with consecutive sentences instead of concurrent sentences. A concurrent sentence is much better for a defendant. It means he serves all his sentences at the same time. Three concurrent 20-year sentences mean a defendant serves 20 years. Three consecutive 20-year sentences equals 60 years behind bars. Under Georgia law, concurrent sentences are the default, but the judge here felt concurrent sentences — for life sentences, no less — weren’t sufficient punishment. This provides the best glimpse into the judge’s opinion of this defendant.

Sometimes defense counsel just gets handed a truly awful, unwinnable case. The defense’s choice of a bench trial not only saved the state the resources of a wasted jury trial; it also likely avoided unnecessarily prolonging this traumatic experience for the victim’s family.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Gregar.io, (‿ˠ‿) ԅ(≖‿≖ԅ), Coo Coo Bird and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back