Kyle Rittenhouse Jury Selected – Trial Begins Tuesday

[mystery-ak]

Prosecutor in Rittenhouse Trial Is Immediately Debunked After Making Wild ‘Heroic’ BLM Protesters Claim
By Sister Toldjah | Nov 15, 2021 6:15 PM ET

Closing arguments are being made today in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial as the jury prepares to begin their deliberations on what was presented over the last two weeks by both sides in the courtroom.

As we previously reported, the prosecution is making some pretty wild, demonstrably false statements in their closing argument, including the preposterous suggestion that once you’re carrying a gun you no longer have a right to claim self-defense.

My colleague Nick Arama correctly pointed out that what Assistant D.A. Thomas Binger said “is just flat-out wrong under the law. If it were true, then you could never have a self-defense case, no one who has a gun could ever claim self-defense. And perhaps that’s the aim here — to impugn the right to self-defense with a gun in general. Binger also told them you can’t claim self-defense if the person is unarmed. That’s also untrue.”

But something else Binger said today raised a lot of eyebrows, specifically as it related to proclaiming the Kenosha rioters including the mobs that ran after Rittenhouse as a “crowd full of heroes.” Watch:

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1460329580942745603

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2021/11/15/prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial-is-immediately-debunked-after-making-wild-heroic-blm-protesters-claim-n476278

[Right_in_Virginia]

[240B]

[quote author=mystery-ak link=topic=452804.msg2530520#msg2530520 date=1637027234
So without further ado, I present to you things that absolutely did not happen, by Cori Bush.

https://twitter.com/CoriBush/status/1460335492415819786

So, how many of 'your people' as you say, were shot and killed? You had White Supremacists hiding in the bush shooting at you. These are obviously highly trained marksmen. How many did they shoot? Who was injured? (other than the obvious White people; who deserved it anyway)

[Elderberry]

Rittenhouse Trial:  Defense Delivers Disappointingly Weak Closing Argument

Legal Insurrection by Andrew Branca Monday, November 15, 2021 at 09:35pm

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-defense-delivers-a-disappointingly-weak-closing-argument/#respond

Rittenhouse deserved a great deal more than Attorney Mark Richards delivered.

The closing statements are now done in the Rittenhouse trial, and the jury will now begin deliberations—although not until tomorrow morning.  That means, of course, that we’ll be launching or VERDICT WATCH blog post in the morning at Legal Insurrection, so keep your eyes there for breaking news on a verdict.

And with that, let’s dive into the unpleasant task of noting the poor closing argument presented by the defense in this case.
Defense Delivers Disappointingly Weak Closing Argument

This is an unpleasant task because on the legal merits Kyle Rittenhouse ought to be acquitted by a unanimous jury on every one of the five felony accounts against him, with the State having failed to prove provocation beyond a reasonable doubt and having failed to have disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that may still happen. I hope it does. He deserves those acquittals.

That said, I’m well aware that sometimes defendants who deserve acquittal end up getting convicted, regardless.  There might be many reasons that could occur.  One of those reasons is a weak legal defense, and particularly a weak defense in the critical closing argument, the last opportunity the defense team has to plead their narrative of innocence to the jury.

Poor Choice of Tone if Goal is Persuasion of Jurors to Defense Narrative

Perhaps the single biggest weakness I saw in the defense closing argument was apparent from the first moments of Attorney Mark Richard’s speaking to the jury, and which I suppose was predictable by his generally gruff manner—and why I would have preferred to have Attorney Core Chirafisi do the defense closing argument.

And that was the angry and personal tone Richards took to the prosecution.

Let me make clear, there’s no question to my mind that the prosecution, in this case, has earned every bit of that anger.  The State has played fast and loose with both the facts and law in this case, trying to gin up a conviction from crumbs left on the bakery floor, all with the goal of putting Kyle Rittenhouse into a cage for the rest of his life by legal means not soundly based on facts and law.

Drive a Narrative of Innocence Consistent with, not Contrary to, the Jurors’ Sympathies

If this jury convicts on any of these charges—and they well might—it will be because the prosecution has been successful in fostering some degree of sympathy among the jurors for the people killed, maimed, and purportedly endangered at the hands of Kyle Rittenhouse.

To put it another way, unless that’s happened an acquittal is already secured, and the defense need not engage in the fire-and-brimstone display at all.  But we can’t know that, of course, so we must assume that some degree of sympathy for the “victims” has been successfully fostered by the prosecution.

If that’s so, you don’t make ground with those jurors in particular by shouting your outrage about those horrible people. Instead, you just come across as unsympathetic—which, of course, reflects on your client.

Failure to Step Methodically Through the Elements of Self-Defense

My next point may be more a reflection of my own temperament, and is perhaps just a personal or professional preference on my part—but I would have been far more detailed and specific in stepping through the elements of self-defense as applied to each of these felony charges.

For each count, I would have made clear in plain language exactly what circumstances would lead Kyle to believe he was facing an unlawful forcible attack (Innocence), that the harm feared from that attack was either already being inflicted or apparently immediately about to occur (Imminence), how the nature of the threat presented an apparent risk of death or serious bodily injury (Proportionality), and how all of this was not just genuinely believed but objective reasonable (Reasonableness).

More at link.

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1460409606488870914

[Free Vulcan]

He did not get the firearm from a relative. He had a friend buy the firearm for him because he couldn't. He was a 17yo Illinois resident. It was a straw purchase and that is a federal felony.  Black loaning the firearm to Rittenhouse who is a minor is a felony.

Is your last name Binger per chance?

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PandaTribune/status/1460403211857182720

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1460354709374578688

[sneakypete]

There is no right to self-defense if you provoke.  This means he'll be found guilty of homicide.

@Right_in_Virginia

*I* say the crowd that chased them down,throwing rocks and trying to beat his brains in with skateboards were the ones doing the provoking.

[sneakypete]

Judge had done a pretty good job of slapping prosectution down for their silly bull shit.  Can't beleive he is allowing them to stake the kid's freedom on what appears to be a 768K pixel digitial camera shot at 500 feet away.

@catfish1957

Can you say "Grounds for appeal!"?

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/nypost/status/1460396706646921223

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

*I* say the crowd that chased them down,throwing rocks and trying to beat his brains in with skateboards were the ones doing the provoking.

I think the defense in its closing did quite a good job blowing holes in the "provoke" charge @sneakypete   

[sneakypete]

@DB
It will be recharged. He was in illegal possesion. The Wisconsin state law and Illinois state law both say so. Thete was absolutely no way for Rittenhouse to legally obtain and possess any firearm. He was a 17yo Illinois resident that had someone else by the firearm for him. Yes the judge is an idiot that doesn't know his own laws. The judge is also partisan on this case. The prosecution is one of the biggest idiots out there l. From the beginning of the case he has overcharged from the beginning.  Rittenhouse should be prosecuted by the DOJ for violating federal firearms laws as well as Wisconsin state firearms laws.

@Killer Clouds

Wrong a couple of ways.

1: Nobody bought the gun for him. His father legally owned the rifle,and legally allowed his son to use it.

2:His father is a resident of that city.

3:No city,state,or federal firearms laws were broken by him being in possession of the weapon.

[sneakypete]

I guess in Binger's mind (what there is of it), every time I go to the store, church, the library or anywhere else with a 9mm in my purse, I'm just asking for it - and have no right to defend myself when the SHTF. Gunman at Kroger or at the bank, aiming directly at me? I'll just move into a position where he gets a clearer shot, I guess. I asked for it.

 Got it.

What a maroon.

@mountaineer

Yeah,that's what *I* would do.

[txradioguy]

He did not get the firearm from a relative. He had a friend buy the firearm for him because he couldn't. He was a 17yo Illinois resident. It was a straw purchase and that is a federal felony.  Black loaning the firearm to Rittenhouse who is a minor is a felony.

You couldn’t be more wrong and understand the statue less if you tried.

Where are you getting your info from…Shannon Watts?

You really really need to sit this one out.

[Hoodat]

It's in the statute you posted.

What part of this do you not get?

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

[Smokin Joe]

You couldn’t be more wrong and understand the statue less if you tried.

Where are you getting your info from…Shannon Watts?

You really really need to sit this one out.

I pointed out twice, now, that there would be no youth hunting programs anywhere if someone under 18 could not possess a firearm. They cannot legally purchase one, but they can possess one.

[txradioguy]

I pointed out twice, now, that there would be no youth hunting programs anywhere if someone under 18 could not possess a firearm. They cannot legally purchase one, but they can possess one.

I got my first shotgun when I was 8th birthday.

Just sayin...

[txradioguy]

There is no right to self-defense if you provoke.  This means he'll be found guilty of homicide.

That's the false narrative being presented by the left and by the prosecutor.  Rittenhouse didn't provoke anything.

[Hoodat]

I pointed out twice, now, that there would be no youth hunting programs anywhere if someone under 18 could not possess a firearm.

Nor would schools provide excused absences for students to go hunting during hunting season.  And the State wouldn't be selling gun hunting licenses for people under 18 either.

[Lando Lincoln]

Rittenhouse and his attorneys must be concerned if the jury has the courage to acquit. Much like that night in Kenosha, the mob can frighten a lot of people.

[skeeter]

@Right_in_Virginia

*I* say the crowd that chased them down,throwing rocks and trying to beat his brains in with skateboards were the ones doing the provoking.

There was testimony Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse. Then there's the video showing Rosenbaum chase him, the kid fleeing before turning and shooting him.

The fact this farce has gone this far is the real tragedy. The prosecution has succeeded in getting everyone wrapped around the axle on this thing. Hopefully the jury sees clearly.

[Bigun]

There was testimony Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse. Then there's the video showing Rosenbaum chase him, the kid fleeing before turning and shooting him.

The fact this farce has gone this far is the real tragedy. The prosecution has succeeded in getting everyone wrapped around the axle on this thing. Hopefully the jury sees clearly.

I agree @skeeter This case should never have made it to a courtroom, but it did, and the Judge should have dismissed with prejudice immediately.

[mystery-ak]

Democrat Rep. Cori Bush: If Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted, White Supremacists ‘Can Shoot at Us’

Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) believes that if 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted on the grounds of self-defense, white supremacists will be emboldened to shoot at Black Lives Matter protesters.
Paul Bois15 Nov 2021, 10:47 PM PST

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/15/democrat-rep-cori-bush-kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-white-supremacists-can-shoot-us/

[mountaineer]

I prayed for this young man and the jury last night.