Lead Prosecutor in Rittenhouse Political Prosecution Says Rittenhouse Chased His Antifa Attackers. Then He Shows Video Of Antifa Chasing Rittenhouse.

[Vrenn]

That's all you got?
The judge himself said the weapons charge was questionable because thw wording is vague.

Fact remains - your statement is only true if, by "exactly" you mean "after you remove a number of important details".

So you cherry pick to attempt to make it sound not nearly as serious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you cherry pick to attempt to make it sound not nearly as serious.

Cherry pick? There isn't much more to it.
Rittenhouse could not -buy- the weapon - and he didn't.
The law itself is unclear as to if the -possessed- the weapon illegally
And exactly -no one- is "authorized" to own or use an AER15 in the state of Wisconsin.
Lastly?
The weapons charge is a misdemeanor.
What's supposed to be "so serious" here?

 

[Vrenn]

Cherry pick? There isn't much more to it.
Rittenhouse could not -buy- the weapon - and he didn't.
The law itself is unclear as to if the -possessed- the weapon illegally
And exactly -no one- is "authorized" to own or use an AER15 in the state of Wisconsin.
Lastly?
The weapons charge is a misdemeanor.
What's supposed to be "so serious" here?

You aren't worth the effort. Have a nice day.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The prosecution should be trying to find a career saving path out of this case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You aren't worth the effort. Have a nice day.

I accept your surrender.

 

[Vrenn]

I accept your surrender.

No surrender over here. I just know not to continue with the mentally ill.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No surrender over here. I just know not to continue with the mentally ill.

You already surrendered - no need to do so again.
You cannot meaningfully respond to what I said, and you know it .

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No surrender over here. I just know not to continue with the mentally ill.

So, regardless of whether Rittenhouse should have been there or was illegally in possession of a firearm (like several others there) he still had a right to self-defense, right?

The law is pretty clear, right?

Wisconsin Statutes 939.48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, regardless of whether Rittenhouse should have been there or was illegally in possession of a firearm (like several others there) he still had a right to self-defense, right?
The law is pretty clear, right?

Correct.
The fact Rittenhouse my or may not have been in illegal possession of a firrearm does not in any way negate his claim of self-defense.

 

[Orangecat]

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Didn't the prosecution go first? It looked to me like they were making a case for not-guilty.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So...a new view..via the Drone footage. I guess the crux of the case is whether or not Kyle felt threatened enough to open fire, I dunno. all my legal friends are saying it's a waste of money..that this will be a textbook hung jury..what say the crowd?

Prosecution rests case in homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse

Prosecutors rested their case on Tuesday against Kyle Rittenhouse.

abcnews.go.com

Prosecutors rested their case on Tuesday against Kyle Rittenhouse by playing for the jury a new drone video of the teenager allegedly shooting the first of three men -- two of whom died -- during a 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The prosecution wrapped up its case after six days of presenting evidence that they contend proves Rittenhouse is guilty of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
"The state formally rests its case," prosecutor Thomas Binger told the court Tuesday afternoon.
Prior to resting their case, prosecutors showed the jury a drone video, which they obtained on Friday, of Rittenhouse apparently shooting Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, multiple times, in a used car lot in downtown Kenosha the night of Aug. 25, 2020. Rosenbaum died from his wounds.
The defense began presenting its case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense by calling its first witness, Nick Smith, 23, a former employee of Car Source, the car dealership Rittenhouse and other armed men said they were protecting the night Rittenhouse allegedly shot three people. Smith testified that the owner of Car Source called him and asked if he could put out fires in a car lot and to get a group together to protect his businesses, including two other car lots, during protests that had turned violent.
Smith testified that he spoke to Rittenhouse soon after the teenager allegedly shot the three men and that Rittenhouse repeatedly told him, "I just shot someone. I had to shoot someone." Smith said Rittenhouse had earlier in the evening loaned him his body armor and helped protect the Car Source businesses.

 

[eagle1462010]

Hung. Everything I saw was that he didn't fire til they caught him. One that was shot that the prosecution called was the best DEFENSE WITNESS they had. lol

Even with that...........I believe the witness pool will be tainted by politics and hang itself.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Self Defense. Easy

Rosenbaum(having been released from a mental ward earlier) clearly chased, threw a bag, Kyle spun, kept running away, Rosenbaum kept chasing, closed in to the point anyone would have thought to do him harm and was put to sleep

Huber chased Kyle and hit with him skateboard while Kyle was down from Jump Kick Man. Kyle put him to sleep

Gayge ran up on Kyle, while he still down, with his weapon drawn and aimed at his head. Kyle was quicker on the draw and Vaporized his bicep

Any other verdict than Not Guilty would be ridiculous even for clown world

Kyle shouldn't just walk but should walk to the bank a rich man after this malicious prosecution whipped up and made into a frenzy by the media

 

[Meister]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? No

 

[theHawk]

So...a new view..via the Drone footage. I guess the crux of the case is whether or not Kyle felt threatened enough to open fire, I dunno. all my legal friends are saying it's a waste of money..that this will be a textbook hung jury..what say the crowd?

Prosecution rests case in homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse

Prosecutors rested their case on Tuesday against Kyle Rittenhouse.

abcnews.go.com

Prosecutors rested their case on Tuesday against Kyle Rittenhouse by playing for the jury a new drone video of the teenager allegedly shooting the first of three men -- two of whom died -- during a 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The prosecution wrapped up its case after six days of presenting evidence that they contend proves Rittenhouse is guilty of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
"The state formally rests its case," prosecutor Thomas Binger told the court Tuesday afternoon.
Prior to resting their case, prosecutors showed the jury a drone video, which they obtained on Friday, of Rittenhouse apparently shooting Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, multiple times, in a used car lot in downtown Kenosha the night of Aug. 25, 2020. Rosenbaum died from his wounds.
The defense began presenting its case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense by calling its first witness, Nick Smith, 23, a former employee of Car Source, the car dealership Rittenhouse and other armed men said they were protecting the night Rittenhouse allegedly shot three people. Smith testified that the owner of Car Source called him and asked if he could put out fires in a car lot and to get a group together to protect his businesses, including two other car lots, during protests that had turned violent.
Smith testified that he spoke to Rittenhouse soon after the teenager allegedly shot the three men and that Rittenhouse repeatedly told him, "I just shot someone. I had to shoot someone." Smith said Rittenhouse had earlier in the evening loaned him his body armor and helped protect the Car Source businesses.

The prosecution crashed and burned. They didn’t prove anything, much less “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The only question is whether or not there are woke BLM idiots on the jury who are disconnected from reality.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? No

I agree on the intentional homicide charge...however...on the lesser charges..Kyle might be in trouble--even though, again, i think that a hung jury is by far the most likely scenario.
Just too many people who will vote their politics and their culture..and not the facts.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The prosecution crashed and burned. They didn’t prove anything, much less “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The only question is whether or not there are woke BLM idiots on the jury who are disconnected from reality.

Or closet Q-berts who are just as disconnected

 

[two_iron]

Zero chance of a guilty verdict. Zero.

The prosecution will point at the jury and tell the knuckle draggers to "go after them, we did our job"..... anybody messing with a juror should be shot in the face and left on the court house steps for a few weeks.

 

[theHawk]

Or closet Q-berts who are just as disconnected

Closet Q-Bert?

 

[JGalt]

Zero chance of a guilty verdict. Zero.

The prosecution will point at the jury and tell the knuckle draggers to "go after them, we did our job"..... anybody messing with a juror should be shot in the face and left on the court house steps for a few weeks.

If anything, Rittenhouse should be put on trial for murdering the prosecution's law careers.