Prosecutor In Rittenhouse Case Mocked Over This Latest Decision

Various critics have slung an insane amount of criticism and lampooned the lead prosecutors overseeing the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse after, in his closing statements, the attorney claimed that Rittenhouse’s possession of his rifle negated his entire right to self-defense.

Thomas Binger, the Assistant District Attorney, spoke to the jury this past Monday for closing arguments on the murder trial of Rittenhouse and made one last-ditch effort to try and convince the jurors of the case that Rittenhouse was the overall aggressor in the events that took place back on the night of August 25th, 2020 and that the two men that were killed by Rittenhouse and the one that was wounded were justly attempting to stop a mass shooter.

“You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun, when you’re the one creating the danger, when you’re the one provoking other people,” exclaimed Binger to the jury.

New Collection 600 x 300

This statement was rightly laughed at all over various social media platforms.

“‘Carrying a gun disqualifies you from using it,’ said the clown in a suit,” exclaimed Seth Dillon, the CEO of Babylon Bee.

“News to police officers!” tweeted out Stephen Miller, a well-known media critic and podcaster.

Even Jonah Goldberg, the Editor-in-chief of The Dispatch, took part and stated: “I’m not a Rittenhouse stan, but this is insane.”

David French, also from The Dispatch, went on to add: “This is completely wrong as a matter of law. There are certainly circumstances where an unarmed man can charge an armed man and create a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.”

The trial started with six charges, five felonies and a misdemeanor, being slammed against the 18-year-old. The judge overseeing the case quickly dismissed the misdemeanor charge, which was underage possession of a deadly firearm, because of an exemption in the law that lets 17-year-olds carry any weapon that is not short-barreled.

Rittenhouse is still looking down five felony charges for intentional homicide, reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment.

Members of the prosecution in the case have struggled over the past few days in terms of handling the trial against Rittenhouse. This past week, Binger was chastised multiple times by the overseeing judge, Bruce Schroeder, due to two violations of standard court procedure, one of which ran dangerously close to violating Rittenhouse’s 5th amendment rights.

As reported by The Daily Wire:

Later on during Binger’s examination, the judge sent the jury out again after the prosecutor began to veer into a line of questioning that Binger did not approve with Schroeder beforehand, and that Schroeder had suggested he would forbid in pretrial hearings. The second infraction brought an explosion from the judge over the first, and Schroeder again ripped into Binger for potentially violating Rittenhouse’s rights protected under the Constitution.

“I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant’s post-arrest silence. That’s basic law. It’s been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that! And it gives, well, I’ll leave it at that. So I don’t know what you’re up to,” Schroeder said.

“I have to be concerned that, with what Mr. Richards has said about the progress of the trial when you were way, well, I said you were close to or over the line on commenting on the defendant’s pretrial silence, which is a well-known rule,” the judge later added. “I am astonished that that would have been an issue. So I don’t want to have another issue for as long as this case continues. Is that clear?”

“It is,” Binger replied before the jury was again brought back to the courtroom.

You Might Like

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.