Prosecutor In Rittenhouse Trial Aims AR-15 At Jury With His Finger On The Trigger

[protectionist]

When did he say it?

You want the hour, the minute, and the second ?

 

[protectionist]

This is what I was referring to. Nowhere does it state that by the mere act of carrying a weapon that you lose your right to self-defense, he's referring to being able to "claim" self-defense after the fact if the threat to which you responded to with deadly force was initiated, started, created, however you want to word it, by you:


Closing arguments in Kyle Rittenhouse trial focus on claim of self-defense

Not one iota of this scenario was "initiated, started, created, however you want to word it", by Kyle Rittenhouse. Prosecution has ZERO case here. The whole stupid thing is based entirely on politics, and never should have gone to to court, at all.

Obvious self-defense, including videos which the prosecutors tried to hide. If this idiot trial were to result in a conviction, the whole precious principle of self-defense in American law, will have been destroyed - similar to how the principle of the Fleeing Felon Rule was destroyed in the Michael Slager/Walter Scott case.

Liberal lunatics are destroying the foundations of American law, and destroying America. I don't think they realize the damage they're doing.

 

[protectionist]

The law does state that one loses the right to claim self defense when they provoke a confrontation.

Generally arming yourself snd entering a violent riot on one side or the other is views as a provocative act.

Not hardly. Simply going to a riot (not matter whose side you are on) is not provoking anybody or anything, unless that is what you do by some particular provocative actions, when you're there. Just going there ? No.

Arming yourself is not provocative (except in the warped mind of clueless liberals who have a trauma abut guns, and no sense of self-defense)

 

[protectionist]

Don't you ever get tired of being stupid?

And wrong?

Try reading the post you quoted again. This time maybe a little slower. God, this liberals are IDIOTS.

 

[protectionist]

So is the courtroom. But not every cubic inch. That would just be silly. So where is the picture of him pointing it at people, and not at a wall?

Thousands of people have been killed by bullets richocheting off walls. That's why hollow point bullets were invented.

Another example of liberal cluelessness about firearms.

 

[Burgermeister]

Thousands of people have been killed by bullets richocheting off walls. That's why hollow point bullets were invented.

Another example of liberal cluelessness about firearms.

I got em for killing power and not going through more than one inside wall.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

What point do you imagine Baldwin was making in that diseased lump you call a mind?

The point he conveys is
He’s an uninformed elitist moron that doesn’t have a clue what the NRA does or the 2A means yet the world must hear his idiotic opinion.

 

[Crepitus]

The point he conveys is
He’s an uninformed elitist moron that doesn’t have a clue what the NRA does or the 2A means yet the world must hear his idiotic opinion.

Yes, I'm.sure that's exactly what the millionaire actor had in mind while practicing quickdraws on his movie set.


DeRp

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Yes, I'm.sure that's exactly what the millionaire actor had in mind while practicing quickdraws on his movie set.


DeRp

If the millionaire actor took a basic NRA safety class a woman would be alive today.

 

[Markle]

Instead of saying “brought the gun,” he should have said “provoked the confrontation.” That’s the law in Wisconsin. Had he been a competent lawyer that’s what he would have said.

Malarkey.

Regardless of what he "should" have said, what did Rittenhouse do to "provoke the confrontation"?

Rittenhouse was also carrying a fire extinguisher and used it to put out some small fires. That angered the thugs who then set upon Rittenhouse. The police were sitting in their cars after having been told to stand down by the Mayor of Kenosha.

 

[whitehall]

It's a criminal violation. I've never heard of it but it might be grounds for a mistrial if the prosecutor commits a crime in court.

 

[tahuyaman]

Malarkey.

Regardless of what he "should" have said, what did Rittenhouse do to "provoke the confrontation"?

Rittenhouse was also carrying a fire extinguisher and used it to put out some small fires. That angered the thugs who then set upon Rittenhouse. The police were sitting in their cars after having been told to stand down by the Mayor of Kenosha.

Why do some people need things explained over and over again.

I don’t get the crowning of Rittenhouse. I think some of you guys would vote for him for POTUS. It’s like he’s got a Svengali hold on you

 

[Markle]

Why do some people need things explained over and over again.

I don’t get the crowning of Rittenhouse. I think some of you guys would vote for him for POTUS. It’s like he’s got a Svengali hold on you

No one has "crowned" him. I'm sorry if you consider the FACTS so offensive that you feel a need to attack.

I appreciate your facetious comment about voting for Rittenhouse as opposed to the current occupant. At least Rittenhouse has shown a love of his country and where he lives. President Biden has not.

 

[tahuyaman]

This Rittenhouse kid has cast a spell on a certain type of person. It’s bizarre.

 

[tahuyaman]

No one has "crowned" him. I'm sorry if you consider the FACTS so offensive that you feel a need to attack.

I appreciate your facetious comment about voting for Rittenhouse as opposed to the current occupant. At least Rittenhouse has shown a love of his country and where he lives. President Biden has not.

I don’t give a shit about Biden. I voted for Trump in 2020.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Not one iota of this scenario was "initiated, started, created, however you want to word it", by Kyle Rittenhouse. Prosecution has ZERO case here. The whole stupid thing is based entirely on politics, and never should have gone to to court, at all.

Obvious self-defense, including videos which the prosecutors tried to hide. If this idiot trial were to result in a conviction, the whole precious principle of self-defense in American law, will have been destroyed - similar to how the principle of the Fleeing Felon Rule was destroyed in the Michael Slager/Walter Scott case.

Liberal lunatics are destroying the foundations of American law, and destroying America. I don't think they realize the damage they're doing.

You're being hysterical.

You cannot use deadly force to protect property, but that's what he unlawfully armed himself to do originally, right?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

HEY dumbfuck, the poster you responded to posted that you do not lose your right to self defense because you have a gun. YOU stated he was wrong. Proof you’re an uneducated blind sheep merely parroting your Dim masters. Then lying about what YOU stated. Typical. Now take your ignorant ass and hit the bricks liar.

And the poster I responded to is unable to speak for him or herself? I mean really, I wouldn't someone as mentally defective as you are (and wrong on every point) speaking for you.

How's your wife going to feel when she finds out what crap you've dragged her into? You're being the same kind of stupid as Rittenhouse.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You want the hour, the minute, and the second ?

No, I was asking if he stated this in his opening argument, upon cross examination, in his closing argument, WHEN? Surely he didn't ONLY state this once?

By the way I posted what I saw in a subsequent post. For some reason you all can't even acknowledge that he made more than one comment and phrased the laws regarding self-defense in more than one way, more than one time and probably said it better in one instance than others.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Not one iota of this scenario was "initiated, started, created, however you want to word it", by Kyle Rittenhouse. Prosecution has ZERO case here. The whole stupid thing is based entirely on politics, and never should have gone to to court, at all.

Obvious self-defense, including videos which the prosecutors tried to hide. If this idiot trial were to result in a conviction, the whole precious principle of self-defense in American law, will have been destroyed - similar to how the principle of the Fleeing Felon Rule was destroyed in the Michael Slager/Walter Scott case.

Liberal lunatics are destroying the foundations of American law, and destroying America. I don't think they realize the damage they're doing.

Maybe if you close your eyes as tightly as you can and wish REALLY hard, you'll get the imaginary country that you've always wanted instead of the United States of America we have where everyone has equal rights (still working on that part), at least on paper.

In other news Travis McMichael's idiot attorney let him take the stand and testify in his own defense. After the prosecutor taking him through his paces in which he asks him essentially
"Is it not true and that your training in the coast guard taught you that .."

1. "Is it not true that your training in the coast guard taught you that if someone doesn't want to talk to you, they don't have to correct?" To which he answered in the affirmative
2. "Is it not true and that your training in the coast guard taught you that if someone doesn't want to talk to you and walks away you have to let them go correct?" Affirmative
3. "Is it not true that your training in the coast guard taught you that pulling (or displaying) a gun can be considered psychological coercion" Affirmative
4. Travis McMichaels admitted he flashed his shotgun at Arbery as a means of coercion to convince him to not try to leave.

The prosecutor also got him to admit that prior to pointing his weapon at Arbery, Arbery did not speak to him, did not shout at him, and did not threaten McMichaels. In other words, there was no threat that Travis was responding to when he pointed his weapon at Arbery.

Travis McMichaels really should fire his attorney.

 

[protectionist]

You're being hysterical.

You cannot use deadly force to protect property, but that's what he unlawfully armed himself to do originally, right?

Wrong. ..NO, that is NOT what he did. He armed himself to defend himself (while protecting property), in case he were to need to use his gun to protect/defend himself. This is perfectly proper , and in accordance wit self-defens law, and the US Constitution.

This is the same as George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, Betty Shelby, Yanez Jeronimo, Michael Slager, and Rusten Sheskey, all of whom were accused of murder by "hysterical" fanatics, clueless about guns and law enforcement., All of these except Slager were exonerated (and Slager should have been).