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

[protectionist]

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.

I don't know where or how you came up with this gobbledegook (CNN maybe ?) but Travis McMicheal stated exactly what happened > he was standing still with his shotgun, and suddenly, Arbery attacked him, THAT is what he said, and that is what the video shows.

Arberry/McMichael video - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I don't know where or how you came up with this gobbledegook (CNN maybe ?) but Travis McMicheal stated exactly what happened > he was standing still with his shotgun, and suddenly, Arbery attacked him, THAT is what he said, and that is what the video shows.

Arberry/McMichael video - Search Videos

www.bing.com

I guess you didn't watch the proceedings yesterday where Travis admitted that Arbery presented NO threat to him before he raised his shotgun and pointed it at him?

HIS words, HIS testimony. For the longest time, the best evidence has been a confession which can be substantiated by physical or other evidence.

His attorney is an idiot for having let him testify considering all the contradictory and incriminating statements they've made to date. I actually had a moment where I felt sorry for him a little.

 

[flacaltenn]

I saw him on the evening news and what he said is that you can't CREATE or INITIATE a situation where you're then forced to defend yourself AND then claim self-defense.

And being the operative word here.

I think that after the prosecution DID say at least once -- you LOSE your right to self-defense by bringing a gun, they THEN went into lengthy MORONIC detail about how anyone being chased by a mob should USE THEIR FISTS.. I watched this in HORROR.. Because they are an AGENT of the law - advising people being attacked by a mob to "use their fists" and have a good ole fist fight qualifies the prosecution as clinically insane.

But -- they LIED from the opening statement with passing -- NOT DOG WHISTLES -- but NEON lit signals -- that KYLE was chasing the mob with a rifle. This was a clusterfuck of stupidity on display. The jury KNEW that lying thesbians had no case. So -- THUS -- all the fucking drama of NOT POINTING -- BUT AIMING an AR in the direction of people in the room..

THANK GOD -- these clowns botched the charges that PROBABLY never should have filed.

 

[Flash]

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

Rittenhouse doesn't not deserve a crown but it is good that his right of self defense was upheld and we are all glad that justice is serve. He will get 1/100000000 of the coronation that the George Floyd thug got.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

That's not true. If you're a store owner and looters are busting in -- if you make it clear -- you will USE the weapon if they do not leave -- if they break and enter -- YOU MAY protect your property.. A CAR LOT is a bit problematic, but BEING THERE with fire bombs and breaking and damaging cars is enough provocation..

I think maybe you THOUGHT that all that looting and pillaging last summer was UNSTOPPABLE.. It's stoppable,. A lot of store owners in LA demonstrated that in the Rodney King riots.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Did Newsweek get this wrong? It's in the headline.. You're PARTIALLY right because he immediately followed that headline quote with -- "You cant claim SELF DEFENSE if you initiated the threat" --- but the jury found NO REAL EVIDENCE that Kyle threatened anyone. So it's a mute question -- but NO ONE should believe that FIRST STATEMENT MADE IN FRONT OF JURY to rig a verdict.

Rittenhouse prosecutor claims defendant lost "right to self-defense" by bringing gun

Prosecutor Thomas Binger argued that Rittenhouse could not claim he acted in self-defense "against a danger you create."

www.newsweek.com

The lead prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case argued that the 18-year-old lost the "right to self-defense" by bringing an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to the protests in Kenosha last year.

"You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun," assistant district attorney Thomas Binger told the jury in his closing arguments on Monday.

"You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create. If you're the one threatening others, you lose the right to claim self-defense," he added.

According to these low-life attorneys -- FISTS are the only civil way to stop a mob attack on you..

 

[tahuyaman]

Rittenhouse doesn't not deserve a crown but it is good that his right of self defense was upheld and we are all glad that justice is serve. He will get 1/100000000 of the coronation that the George Floyd thug got.

He created his situation needlessly.

 

[Flash]

He created his situation needlessly.

No, you are confused Moon Bat.

The vigilantes that ran down Kyle and tried to kill him because Kyle tried to help put out the fires that they started are the ones that created the provocation.

The jury, after hearing all the evidence. determined that Kyle was not the provocateur or else he would not have been entitled to self defense so you are simply wrong.

 

[tahuyaman]

No, you are confused Moon Bat.

The vigilantes that ran down Kyle and tried to kill him because Kyle tried to help put out the fires that they started are the ones that created the provocation.

The jury, after hearing all the evidence. determined that Kyle was not the provocateur or else he would not have been entitled to self defense so you are simply wrong.

You are so simple minded that you can’t address disagreement in a mature and rational manner.

Rioters aren’t vigilantes. Thinking they are is absurd.

 

[Flash]

You are so simple minded that you can’t address disagreement in a mature and rational manner.

Rioters aren’t vigilantes. Thinking they are is absurd.

I'm sorry but you are confused.

When the dipshits decided to attack Kyle for helping to put out a fire that they started it sure as hell was vigilante justice. It was a vigilante mob attack complete with pursuit.

 

[tahuyaman]

I'm sorry but you are confused.

When the dipshits decided to attack Kyle for helping to put out a fire that they started it sure as hell was vigilante justice. It was a vigilante mob attack complete with pursuit.

That’s absurd.

 

[Flash]

That’s absurd.

What is absurd is you being confused about what really happen that night.

The bad guys were the vigilantes that tried to kill Kyle.

The filthy Left believes they can do whatever they want, and have used the legal system to pressure people into believing there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. You fell for it.

In this case, they wanted to destroy private property and kill anyone that opposed them. They tried to kill Kyle outright, but failed to do so and they are pissed.

 

[tahuyaman]

N

What is absurd is you being confused about what really happen that night.

The bad guys were the vigilantes that tried to kill Kyle.

The filthy Left believes they can do whatever they want, and have used the legal system to pressure people into believing there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. You fell for it.

In this case, they wanted to destroy private property and kill anyone that opposed them. They failed to kill Kyle outright, but failed to do so and they are pissed.

No Flush. I’m not confused.