In arguments that ended in Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial on Monday, the prosecution released a slide saying the then 17-year-old was in possession of a gun he was not authorized to have when he shot three people. Men during the 2020 Black Lives Matter riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The point is, on Friday, the judge dismiss accused Rittenhouse – who was pleading for the right to defend himself – of illegally possessing the gun.
The prosecution of Rittenhouse is on the first slide of his closing argument
Gun charge has been dropped pic.twitter.com/j837NrH7vU
– Kyle Hooten (@ KyleHooten2) November 15, 2021
But the prosecution ensured that the jury saw a slide saying that Rittenhouse “killed two unarmed people and severely wounded a third with an AR-15 that he knew he did not.” may have”.
An AR-15 that he knows he can’t have? Say who?
Not that Wisconsin law, under Section 941.28, only prohibits minors from possessing a rifle or a “short-barreled” pistol. Rittenhouse’s weapon is not a short barrel.
In addition, Section 29.304 restricts gun possession by minors to only those under the age of 16, and that is in the context of hunting, unrelated to the Rittenhouse case.
There are a lot of hot scenes about 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse being too young to open a rifle in Wisconsin
This @journalsentinel piece says it’s true, and so do many others
I’m pretty sure everyone is wrong
– Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) August 27, 2020
It’s no surprise that Judge Bruce Schroeder – who admitted the law was confusing even to him – dropped the weapons charge and ruled out what could be a probable jury verdict.
But why did the prosecutor show a slide saying that Rittenhouse had an illegal weapon?
Are they trying to pull one really fast?
This is not the first time, given the trick by prosecutor Thomas Binger last week when he told the jury that Rittenhouse refused to speak to police after his arrest, something that any freshman or law student has had. watch “Law and Order” replay know is his right. .
Schroeder objected to Binger’s apparent attempt to favor the jury, and the defense accused the prosecution of trying to work the case out to get it wrong.
It seems that the primary offenses in the courtroom are attempts to attempt to communicate unethical things to the jury that they are not called upon or authorized to consider.
Trial attorneys have a strong obligation to defend them – prosecutors for the state, defense attorneys for the accused.
But all must be kept the goal of seeking justice based on established laws, precedents and rules.
The conviction or acquittal of any charge against Kyle Rittenhouse must be based on what was properly presented in the courtroom, not by prosecution or the threat of civil unrest stemming from what some consider an unacceptable judgment.
As we witness the corruption of so many institutions – education, media, government, public health – it is important to retain the image of Lady Justice with the blindfold and his scale.
And that’s true no matter what one believes about Innocent or the guilt of Kyle Rittenhouse. That was especially true for the 12 jurors.
They must focus solely on the evidence and testimony regarding the official charges against Rittenhouse and his self-defence claims.
He was charged, among other charges, with the first-degree reckless murder of Joseph Rosenbaum, the first-degree intentional murder of Anthony Huber, and first-degree murder for causing a crime. love Gaige Grosskreutz.
https://www.westernjournal.com/prosecution-caught-lying-closing-argument-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial/ | Prosecution caught lying in conclusion in Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial