Rittenhouse trial prosecutor binger kenosha shooting
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger holds Kyle Rittenhouse's gun as he gives the state's closing argument in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wis., on Monday, Nov. 15, 2021. (Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP, Pool)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Scott Bauer, Michael Tarm and Amy Forliti, AP

Kyle Rittenhouse provoked the bloodshed on the streets of Kenosha by bringing a semi-automatic rifle and menacing others, and when the shooting stopped, he walked away like a “hero in a Western,” a prosecutor said in closing arguments Monday at Rittenhouse’s murder trial.

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

Binger repeatedly showed the jury a segment of drone video that he said depicted Rittenhouse pointing the AR-style rifle at protesters in the streets.

“This is the provocation. This is what starts this incident,” the prosecutor declared.

Rittenhouse, now 18, killed two men and wounded a third during a tumultuous night of protests against racial injustice in the summer of 2020, in a case that has stirred bitter debate in the U.S. over guns, vigilantism and law and order.

Rittenhouse said he feared for his life and acted in self-defense. Prosecutors sought to portray him as the aggressor who bears responsibility for the bloodshed.

Binger zeroed in on the killing of 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, who was the first man gunned down that night and whose shooting set in motion the bloodshed that followed. The prosecutor repeatedly called it “murder,” saying it was unjustified.

The prosecutor reminded jurors that Rittenhouse testified he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. Binger also said there is no video to support the defense claim that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse.

Binger disputed the notion that Rosenbaum was trying to grab Rittenhouse’s rifle. “Mr. Rosenbaum is not even within arm’s reach when the first shot occurs,” Binger said. He rejected the idea that Rittenhouse had no choice but to shoot, saying he could have run away.

And Binger argued that once Rosenbaum was wounded, he was not even capable of taking away the gun, which was strapped to Rittenhouse’s body, since he was falling to the ground with a fractured pelvis. Rittenhouse kept firing, delivering what the prosecutor called the “kill shot” to Rosenbaum’s back.

“I think we can also agree that we shouldn’t have 17-year-olds running around our streets with AR-15s, because this is exactly what happens,” Binger said.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial kenosha shooting
The prosecution prepares to give closing arguments in Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wis., on Monday, Nov. 15, 2021.  (Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP, Pool)

The young man from Antioch, Illinois, faces a mandatory life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge against him, first-degree intentional homicide.

After killing Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse shot and killed Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 28. But he testified that Rosenbaum had chased him down and made a grab for his weapon, that Huber hit him with a skateboard, and that Grosskreutz came at him with a gun of his own — an account largely corroborated by a wealth of video and some of the prosecution’s own witnesses.

Binger said that Rittenhouse also provoked the bloodshed that followed Rosenbaum’s shooting: Huber, Grosskreutz and others in the crowd were trying to stop what they believed was an active shooter, exercising their own right to self-defense.

When it was all over, Rittenhouse walked away like a “hero in a Western — without a care in the world for anything he’s just done,” Binger said, adding: “This is someone who has no remorse, no regard for life, only cares about himself.”

When the prosecutor displayed a photograph of Rosenbaum’s bloodied body lying on a gurney during his autopsy and another of Rosenbaum’s mangled hand, some jurors appeared to avert their eyes from the TV monitors.

As he spoke, Binger walked up to the jury box and lifted the actual rifle used in the shootings as if he were firing, the prosecutor looking down its barrel and pointing it at courtroom wall.

Rittenhouse was 17 when he traveled the few miles from his home to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, as the city was in the throes of violent protests that erupted after a white police officer shot and wounded Jacob Blake, a Black man. Rittenhouse said he went there to protect property.

Supporters have hailed him as a hero who took a stand against lawlessness; foes have branded him a vigilante.

Binger began his closing arguments by telling the jury that Rittenhouse had no connection to the business he said he was going to protect that night, he ran around with an assault-style rifle, and he lied about being an emergency medical technician.

“Does that suggest to you that he genuinely is there to help?” Binger asked.

Each side was given 2 1/2 hours to make its case to the jury before deliberations were to begin. The defense was expected to deliver its closing argument in the afternoon.

Earlier Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, a misdemeanor that had appeared to be among the likeliest of the charges to net a conviction for prosecutors.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial kenosha shooting
Judge Bruce Schroeder speaks to issues on jury instruction during Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wis., on Monday, Nov. 15, 2021. (Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP, Pool)

The underage weapon charge was punishable by up to nine months in jail.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin law has an exception related to the length of a weapon’s barrel. After prosecutors conceded Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, the judge threw out the charge.

Public interest in closing arguments was evident in the morning, when more people than usual stood in a line outside Courtroom 209 to get a seat.

Rittenhouse’s mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, listened intently in court during the jury instructions.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial kenosha shooting
Defense jury expert Jo-Ellan Dimitrious, left talks with Wendy Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother, before the start of the days proceedings in Rittenhouse’s trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wis., on Monday, Nov. 15, 2021. (Mark Hertzberg /Pool Photo via AP)

Rittenhouse is white, as are the three men he shot. The case has polarized Americans, raising questions about racial justice, vigilantism, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and white privilege.

Perhaps in recognition of weaknesses in their case, prosecutors asked the judge to let the jury consider several lesser charges if they acquit him on the original counts. Schroeder agreed to do so Monday as he launched into 36 pages of instructions to the jury, explaining the charges and the laws of self-defense.

In the case of Huber’s slaying, the judge said that if jurors find Rittenhouse is not guilty of first-degree intentional homicide, then they can weigh whether he is guilty of second-degree intentional homicide. If he is not guilty of that count, then they can decide whether he is guilty of first-degree reckless homicide

In his instructions, the judge said that to decide that Rittenhouse acted lawfully in self-defense, the jury must find that he believed there was an unlawful threat to him and that the amount of force he used was reasonable and necessary.

After closing arguments, names were to be drawn to determine which 12 of the 18 jurors who heard testimony would deliberate, with the rest dismissed as alternates.

With a verdict near, Gov. Tony Evers said that 500 National Guard members would be prepared for duty in Kenosha if local law enforcement requested them.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Now we know how Alec Baldwin shot someone. To imagine that a supposedly experienced law officer, in this case the prosecutor, doesn’t know how to handle a firearm it’s no wonder people get shot.

      • You are going to cry big, fat crocodile tears when Rittenhouse walks, little boy…

        (A *very* little boy, I’ll bet! 😉 😉 😉

      • I guess it’s indicative of the stereotypical liberal mindset to see that you came up with a conclusion, i.e. mention of furry, when no rational human could conceivable reach that conclusion based on what was written.

        Oh yeah, the felon who got shot in the arm also lost his right to self-defense when he brought a gun to the riot too, am I correct?

      • Huh what does that even mean? Do all you Lefties always respond with ridiculous statements when you have no rebuttal whatsoever that has a shred of intelligence associated with it?

        • They have no facts, common sense, or popular opinions to twist into something supporting their narrative. When it goes from emotional appeals to personal attacks they are completely out of debate ammo and get vicious and potentially violent.

  2. “As he spoke, Binger walked up to the jury box and lifted the actual rifle used in the shootings as if he were firing, the prosecutor looking down its barrel and pointing it at courtroom wall.”

    Its a good thing Alec Baldwin was not the prosecutor.

      • He had only an electronic optic, but it appears to have been removed before it was brought into the courtroom. Possibly It didn’t belong to him and he removed it before turning himself in. You’ll have to ask Kyle after he’s acquitted.

  3. Rittenhouse isn’t on trial here as much as the right of self defense. If Kyle is convicted then defending your own home from a terror gang will be viewed as cold blooded murder.

    • According to McProsecutor Kyle brought a rifle to a fist fight.

      Then he also said no one dies in a fist fight.

      Because as everyone knows a fist fight is equal to a tickle session.

      Free Kyle

    • If Kyle is convicted then any incentive to only shoot the direct threats is gone. Once you have to shoot one person, even if it was a “good shoot”, you might as well shoot everyone chasing you, everyone throwing things at you, and for sure everyone recording video. Good time to be wearing a gray man suit and a face diaper.

      • If Kyle is found guilty of murder then we need to understand this means you come in anonymity and should you shoot… You fu&$in scoot!

    • That was my take away as well. Binger went out of his way to excessively paint Rittenhouse as poorly as possible to the jury, clearly trying to get at least one juror to see Kyle as anything other than innocent of self defense.

      We all know the saying (different versions abound, but this is how I learned it):

      “If you have the facts on your side, the facts.
      If you have the evidence on your side, argue the evidence.
      If you have neither, malign your opponent’s character.”

      Binger’s closing arguments sounded like a defeated man desperately trying to walk away from the feasting table with at least a crumb.

      • “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

        Carl Sandburg

      • This Binger guy…I keep looking to see if he forgot to wear his clown outfit, i.e., the Emmett Kelly nose, the Bozo hairdo and the Ronald McDonald makeup.

        Pointing that rifle at the jury box with his booger hook on the bang switch was waaaayyyyyy over the top!

        • “Pointing that rifle at the jury box with his booger hook on the bang switch was waaaayyyyyy over the top!”

          Many are assuming facts not in evidence.
          – Did the prosecutor actually point the rifle at the jury box?
          (some have reported the barrel was pointed at a wall)
          – Was the firing pin removed, and observed as such by the judge, and attorneys (and bailiffs)?
          – How likely is it that a fully functional firearm is

          Isn’t this all just a nitnoy distraction, full of sound and fury…signifying nothing?

    • ChoseDeath, that prosecutor’s statement is the second stupidest statement he has made to date.

    • This is every lawyer’s dream of saying the most outlandish and irrational things to win a case.

  4. “AP: …(Prosecutor declares), ‘Kyle Rittenhouse provoked the bloodshed on the streets of Kenosha by bringing a semi-automatic rifle and menacing others,…’ ”

    Right on cue.

  5. Typical AP trash, immeadiatly after admiting Rittenhouse is white and the three men he shot were white they spew the usual leftist trash “The case has polarized Americans, raising questions about racial justice, vigilantism, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and white privilege.” Nothing in that quote is true, except amongst the hard left who always take the position that everything a white person does is white privilege and therefore racist.

    • The brain dead leftist logic: You aren’t allowed to interrupt our riots, I mean our fight for racial justice. Anyone who would help clean up our mess or interrupt our “protests for racial justice” is by default a racist.

      • It’s not brain dead.

        It has internal consistency and cohesion as well as external benefit. These are the hallmarks of a well designed system in advancing towards a goal.

        The majority of adherents are brainwashed, not braindead. Failure to understand the difference here is a potentially fatal mistake.

        Regardless of the rank-and-file’s mental acuity, be assured that the leadership is smart, ruthless, determined and, from your point of view, extremely unethical.

        • “It’s not brain dead”

          correct. it is hostility. tribal hostility. they hate you, because you are not them.

        • “The majority of adherents are brainwashed, not braindead.”

          Some eventually see the light, but weak-minded, emotional people looking for a group to hate seem to be highly susceptible to the propaganda. Try talking to them. I have. They’ll argue that up is down without blinking because that’s what their approved news source told them. I understand the leaders don’t believe a word of what they say. Their followers are called useful idiots for a reason.

        • Well I think an argument could be made for a person who allows themselves to be brainwashed in a free society can’t really claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Being smart and having common sense are a lot of times not present in the same individual. They may be fact and knowledge smart but their decision making skills are next to non-existent. In my opinion a true intellectual looks at all sides of an issue objectively to test their beliefs against those of others. Being able to accept that perhaps you are wrong and others right is not a defeat but a victory. Good intellect dictates knowing right from wrong and accepting that no one knows everything or is right about everything. When you have been brain washed you have surrendered your intellect. Just my opinion.

        • “Well I think an argument could be made for a person who allows themselves to be brainwashed in a free society can’t really claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed.”

          If you believe even 10% of what Yuri Bezmenov claimed then essentially 99% of people born after 1940 fall into this category.

    • White privilege , WTF ? What do you call the nearly 700 Chicago murders so far this year, 75% of which are black on black ? Let me guess, MORE white privilege, cuz rayciss !!!
      How the fuck can they conitnue to spew their b.s.with a straight face? Felons bringing illegally posessed handguns get a pass in their book though….criminals gotta crim.

      • They do it because they can and there are no consequences. Therefore, they don’t care if it makes sense or not because like a little child they just want to say it because it makes them feel good. Looking for a rationale for it will only drive you crazy because there is none and with them that is fine.

      • It’s a racist view that only white people would or should have a gun. “They know” that a law abiding non white person, would never have a gun.

        • to Walter E Beverly III
          Yes it’s very true. There are white people, mostly they are socialist progressive in their political orientation, and different sexual orientations, all who think only white people, should have guns. And they think only certain white people should have guns.

    • “Typical AP trash…”

      The enemy hands you their plans and you look a gift horse in the mouth?

      It really isn’t a mystery why gun rights have advanced slowly while “marijuana rights” have taken off like a meme stock.

      • It absolutely is trash. Sure, knowing what’s in it and understanding how they made it can be useful…but it’s still trash.

        No different, nor any better than all the other leftist propaganda (aka “the news”). And TTAG repeats it wholesale now.

        • So you’d rather not know what the Ministry of Truth is telling the people you’re going to meet tomorrow?


          Personally I’m a big fan of people giving me their talking points in advance. It makes it very easy to destroy them.

  6. Some ask how it’s possible that this argument could be advanced when the guy (whom I will not name) that got his bicep blasted on is somehow a victim.

    I explained this last night and I’m not going to bother to find some happier, nicer way to explain it, I’ll just repost it but with a bit of bolding. What follows is how these people think. It’s a self-contained logic similar to really old Catholic philosophy. Within its own framework it is unquestionable, therefore to those who operate within that framework this is gospel.

    The one thing I’ll add is that the logic is contained in the last paragraph, which apparently is too hard for some people to get to, so I’ll add a note up here. This entire philosophy rests on the basis that you accept a basic principle key to the overarching schema of thought. Just like ancient Catholic dogma from 1500+ years ago.

    For the Left, that basic principle is “Utopia is achievable”. All subsequent thought flows from the assumption that this premise is correct.

    If you don’t believe me, ask Antifa members. They’ll explain this but with a lot more Marxist buzzwords thrown in.


    “But it wasn’t self defense. Rittenhouse quite literally couldn’t be engaged in self defense because he’s not capable of such an action.

    See, the people who got shot were seeking and actively working towards utopia. Utopia, by definition, is pure good. So, the people who got shot were seeking and working towards pure good. Because what they seek is pure good nothing they do in attempting to attain that goal can be anything other than pure good because PURE good cannot be built from anything less than pure good itself.

    Conversely, anything that in any way impedes the attainment of pure good is itself pure evil because, by definition, it impedes pure good and is therefore the polar opposite of pure good.

    Further, as everyone knows self defense is good.

    Therefore, by definition, Rittenhouse, being evil couldn’t be engaged in self defense and the people who were shot, being engaged in pure good, must be the ones who were engaged in this good thing that is self defense.

    Further still, anyone who doesn’t intrinsically and instinctively understand this argument is also evil. Therefore anyone who even has a question in their mind about either the guilt of Rittenhouse or the benevolence (dare I say, piety) of his victims is themself evil.

    To say otherwise is akin to saying that Satan saves souls or God’s a right evil bastard Himself.

    It’s a very simple test. You either unwaveringly support the people who got shot from the jump with zero questions or you’re evil. (Yes, your post here makes you evil).

    It’s really all quite logical provided you’ve bought into the base assumption of the belief system. In that regard it’s like old-school Catholic philosophy, if you accept the base premise the rest of it is inarguable. If you don’t accept the base assumption then you’re a heretic and deserving of punishment. Hell, even the faithful have to constantly engage in purifying penance for their transgressions.”

    • ” It’s a self-contained logic similar to really old Catholic philosophy. Within its own framework it is unquestionable, therefore to those who operate within that framework this is gospel.”

      Author John McWhorter goes into some detail on this. According to him, it’s an actual religion, little different than any other ‘accepted’ major religion, and that’s why fighting it is likely to prove futile, unless you wake enough up to the fact of what it actually is :


      • It’s not really a religion. Religions allow and actually encourage questions.

        This is a properly termed a “cult”.

        As I said last week, Nietzsche warned you about this but too many smoothbrains took him as an advocate of nihilism rather than an examiner of it. But hey, heavy German philosophy should come with a warning label.

        Nietzsche was telling you what happened if you took away the very top of the hierarchy, which was that which provided the rules for the rest of it. Chaos. He argued that post-modern thought did exactly this and he talked of it in terms of “killing God” which, in German philosophy was understood. English Christians just took it the wrong way.

        Regardless, the loss of the “rule maker” (which by necessity cannot be a person, but rather must be God or a philosophy akin to God) creates chaos and cognitive dissonance in those below. He was a profound influence on both Jung and Freud in this regard. Today even Jordan Peterson makes this argument.

        And, as predicted, people are going to try (and fail) to create a proper substitute for the “rule maker”. You see this in apocalyptic environmentalism quite clearly but the thread runs throughout Lefty thought.

        Nietzsche was absolutely right, this is a form of fire that, if you play with it, you’ll burn down everything.

        • strych9 That Catholicism is a “cult”, is your OPINION. It is your opinion that you thing that a religion allows you to ask questions on its beliefs. Not on your wildest dreams. A religion has beliefs that are not debatable. Jesus himself said to St Peter, “”I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19
          In his works, Nietzsche questioned the basis of good and evil. He believed that heaven was an unreal place or “the world of ideas”. His ideas of atheism were demonstrated in works such as “God is dead”. He argued that the development of science and emergence of a secular world were leading to the death of Christianity. IN other words he did not believe in any religion. Nietzsche was a “philosopher”, not a truth sayer. Apparently nor do you.

        • strych9, Read it. The implication is there. Catholicism has not changed. In fact is has been pretty constant.
          “I explained this last night and I’m not going to bother to find some happier, nicer way to explain it, I’ll just repost it but with a bit of bolding. What follows is how these people think. It’s a self-contained logic similar to really old Catholic philosophy. Within its own framework it is unquestionable, therefore to those who operate within that framework this is gospel.”

        • areyxh9 When God passed out brains, you thought he said trains and too the express out of town. By the way,the conductor is still looking for you as you failed to even pay for the ticket, right Forest?

    • “For the Left, that basic principle is ‘Utopia is achievable’.”

      no. for the left, imitating their owners, they are the humans and the rest of us are pack animals put here to serve them.

      the prosecutor says rittenhouse lost his right to self defense when he brought a gun, but that’s not what he means. what he means is rittenhouse has no rights, period. that YOU have no rights, period. that grosskr?, rosenbaum, and the other guy have rights, period.

      • rant7 So what the prosecutor said is not what he means? ROFLAMOBT! This guy has put his foot in his mouth so many times, I’ve lost track of the count.

    • It’s scary because it’s true. It really comes down to one thing: knowing the difference between right and wrong. These people that are always “fighting for justice” don’t know the first thing about treating people equally. They despise equality. Their parents failed to prepare them.

      I think more than a few people are attracted to the left wing movement because they’re offered a chance to be virtuous. I suspect many of these people lack true virtue in their lives, so they find the opportunity very appealing.

      • Study has shown the Left to attract neurotics.

        This is unsurprising since their main tactic is to instill/enhance fear and then offer the antidote in the form of the warm, safe embrace of control.

        Freedom can be scary, in fact it IS kinda scary. The Left offers an escape from that in exchange for your autonomy. Neurotics are willing to make that trade on a pretty regular basis.

    • Nice read and well written.

      However, as you admit that is Chapter 1 material. My question at this point is not “… how these people think.” But rather why do they think that way? What is the hard wiring that predisposes the “utopia” mindset?

      One major variable identified is an overdeveloped fear center. MRA testing has identified the increased anxiety present in the leftist brain when shown images of conflict.

      However, I’m leading and would appreciate your take on Chapter 2 or 3 or whatever.

      • Nothing is hardwired in terms of “utopia” itself.

        As I said to Geoff, Nietzsche explained this to you in granular detail.

        Get past the “killed God” heavy German analogy and realize that what he was telling you was that post-modern thought was acting towards society as a sniper acts towards officers and for the same reason.

        That reason is to sow chaos in the lower ranks by removing the top of the hierarchy that provides the overarching stabilizing “rule making” system for society. The analogy of a sniper is rather apt in some regards here.

        Had he chosen to not be so damned Germanic he wouldn’t have been rejected by the Christians (to their own detriment I might add).

        You can make exactly the same argument using other analogies (I prefer to use a lighthouse and a compass) and no one gets all butthurt about it. Talk about “killing God” and lots of panties get very knotted very fast.

        • Damnit like my reading list isn’t long enough. Kidding aside the idea of killing of the moral authority and replacing it with something inherently dysfunctional but able to be used to control the masses is inherent in pretty much every totalitarian regime (almost like there is a blueprint) for over a century. Can’t speak to Nietzsche (20 years since a rushed read) but the theory of your assessment fits the facts.

        • strych9 It is clear that you are a follower of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was an atheist for his adult life and didn’t mean that there was a God who had actually died, rather that our idea of one had. … Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us.
          Much of his philosophy is the precursor of Fascism and Nazism. Both of which are kindred to socialism.

        • *Yawn*

          I’m not a “follower” of anything you’d even begin to comprehend since you can’t even read short posts for content. But watch, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

          Nietzsche’s personal religious views are irrelevant to the fact that he accurately predicted where post-modern thought would lead and the cognitive dissonance it would produce in the bulk of people.

          What the guy argued, building off Kant (who no one hates on over this) was that classical moral sentiment based on Judeo-Christian ethics had some holes in it and that this needed to be investigated and repaired regardless of the butthurt feels it might produce because the classical morals of the time (the Victorian Era at it’s height) simply didn’t line up with what we actually are as a creature and in some cases leads us to rationalize as “moral” the worst aspects of ourselves. This leads to a moral acceptance of things like witch hunts, Crusades against other Christians, the Inquisition, denial of human rights, abuses of lower classes, slavery etc etc.

          It’s also important to remember that he’s writing this at what, historically though he couldn’t know this yet, was the height and tail end of Imperialism and the “Scramble for Africa”, the combination of which produced outright atrocities. He writes some of what he rights with apprehension of the horrors that the Germans are going to shortly produce in SW Africa when they commit genocide in Namibia in the 1890’s and later in the 1910’s. All of which is based on a sense of superiority driven by a wild mix of perverted Darwinism, religion, greed, power politics and

          However, in doing this he urged two things: Ruthless self examination and caution. Why? Because the post-modern thought sought to replace the top of the hierarchy with *nothing* and this was unacceptable because it would simply collapse society when people, searching for something to replace classic morality with, injected whatever the hell they felt like. This was already a problem within aristocratic nobility and accelerating it would just make things worse.

          Again, he wasn’t wrong. You can see that today. Apocalyptic environmentalism, Critical Race Theory and other Lefty positions are cults for exactly this reason. They looked at a system that wasn’t perfect, destroyed it and replaced it with bullshit in an infantile and [essentially entirely] un-planned quest for perfection.

          A singular example, let’s look at Nietzsche’s concept of “ressentiment”.

          In a nutshell the idea is that people who are on the lower rungs of society are often abused by those above them (royalty) and that this moral standards of the day allowed for this because those moral standards were based on a corrupted version Christian doctrine, something we know of as the “Divine Right of Kings”. Which is to say that the concept of “right and wrong” or “good and evil” was in control of a bunch of self-interested aristocrats who then perverted the notion on equality before God for their own benefit, always making themselves “good” and the people they oppressed “bad”. This led to things like the American and French Revolutions some decades prior to Nietzsche’s writings.

          But in most of Europe (which is what concerned Nietzsche, and specifically during the height of the Victorian period) this led to a different system. Where people were powerless to right these wrongs the system of morality that “gave more rights to the nobles” itself produced a simmering resentment where a sense of justice was replaced with a burning desire for revenge. This was both counterproductive, morally speaking, and very fucking dangerous.

          The situation created what he referred to as ressentiment a pattern of thought that was characterized by a moral concept designed for the sole purpose of moralistic condemnation of one’s perceived enemies.

          He argued that this produced a “persistent, corrosive emotional pattern of resentful hatred against their enemies” or those perceived as their enemies.

          Which is to say “those who disagree with me are not just wrong they are evil” is how such people think and that this was a natural outgrowth of the perversion of classical morals by a self-interested elite. It would lead to one of two things, Revolution such as in France or what would become the United States, or in places where the control systems were strong enough, the eventual corrosion of society to the point of collapse.

          Oh, look, by the 1870’s he’s told you how the Left would act in the US 150 years later. In fact, they’d start to act this way in Chicago just a decade after the man wrote this stuff.

          Funny, that. In science we’d call that a “good predictive model” that strongly suggests the hypothesis is correct.

          Did he put all these arguments into a provocative and bombastic package that we’d say was designed for “shock value” these days? Yes. Was that a good idea? Probably not. Does that make him wrong about everything he said? No, he was demonstrably correct about quite a bit of it.

      • stychr9 You aren’t a “follower of Nietzsche”. You quote him like he’s your idol. He again was the precursor of Fascism and Nazism.
        What holes does “Judeo-Christian” mores have? Be specific. The mores aren’t the problem, its people’s implementation. Philosophers have a tendency to be lofty high “thinking” individuals who have no concept of reality.
        I reiterate, Nietzsche was the precursor of Fascism and Nazism and you seem to worship his writings and thoughts. Sad.

        • Maybe you should try a book. Well, actually a few.

          First we have to back to the basics because you’re trying to run before you can roll over with your mom turning you.

          I suggest:

          The Myths of Ancient Egypt – Armour
          Egyptian Religion – Budge
          The Book of the Dead – University Press

          Now you can start to understand the roots of Judaism.

          Egypt and the Old Testament – Peet
          Ancient Israelite Religion – Niditch

          You can read now the Old Testament.

          Now you can start on Catholic philosophy:

          Start with Augustine and Aquinas just because they’re the best known. Then Ambrose, Hilary of Poitiers, Abelard, Ockham, Martin Luther, Lombard, Assisi, Bonaventure and Catherine of Siena.

          Then you can jump back to Dionysius of Corinth, Paul of Tarsus, Clement of Rome and maybe for some funzies Novatian too.

          At that point, when you’ve got a pretty good grasp of Catholic teaching through the 1400’s you can go back and read the New Testament!

          After that, spice it up a bit with some Ghazali to see how things can go terribly wrong.

          At that point we can start on history, I’d begin with taking a couple history classes on Europe from ~400-1800 since the selection of reading is worth it. Your previous understanding of Judeo-Christian thought will make this far, far simpler to understand.


          The Fortunes of Africa -Meredith
          Africa Speaks – Hoefler

          Now, basically read everything Kant wrote outside the the pure sciences but particularly:

          Critique of Pure Reason
          Critique of Practical Reason
          Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
          Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason

          At that point you’ll have a decent understanding of where to start reading Nietzsche both in terms of philosophy and the historical background of what he’s discussing.

          I’d start that with

          On the Future of our Educational Institutions, Home and Classical Philology
          Early Greek Philosophy & other Essays

          Now with your toes wet and the background to understand him we can get a bit deeper:

          Will to Power 1-4
          The Joyful Wisdom
          Thus Spake Zarathustra
          Beyond Good and Evil.

          Now maybe you’ll have some idea what the actual fuck you’re talking about.

          At that point with your brain overflowing with things you didn’t know about, because they were withheld from you by a shitty educational system turn to

          The Rape of the Mind – Meerloo

          and realise you’re not at fault but rather a victim of brainwashing and have been for your entire life.

          Then if you’d like there’s Freud and Jung. After which you might be ready for more than just the basics of what someone like Jordan Peterson is talking about.

          Oh, and a side note, if you want to know about the precursors to Fascism and Communism you’re barking up the wrong tree (ROFL!) that would be none other than Ivan Pavlov’s work to develop conditioned response as adopted by the acolytes of Marx. The Nazis stole this idea, Meerloo will tell you ALL about that but they were never quite as good as the Soviets, Pavlov being Russian and all, so they could hold on to Pavlov’s more… uh, “interesting” discoveries.

          Books, you need them. Try it out. You might learn something.

          Or just keep accusing me of being a disciple of Nietzsche, because you know I totes read all about Egyptian religion and how it’s intertwined in Judaism and what this has to do with Continental European history and the history of colonial Africa just so I could advance an argument that makes Christians mad.

          Because that’s just how I roll. (According to you.)

        • strych9, you are a follower of Nietzsche, I haven yet to hear a denial.
          I my adversary am very well read. I also have a mind that believes in the American way of life and the Constitution. How about you?

  7. So, if he’s convicted, the precedent will be set that walking around with an openly displayed firearm will be considered provocation. If you pull out a concealed firearm to defend yourself from one scumbag, the act will be considered provocation.

    I hope the jury has a mean I.Q. above 90.

    • “I hope the jury has a mean I.Q. above 90.”

      I bet we will find out in a short hours…

      • All it requires for either an acquittal or a mistrial is one stubborn SOB who merely isn’t a moron.

        That’s both the good news and the bad news; unfortunately, people who can think clearly and are willing to stick to their guns when they see what’s right aren’t as common as they ought to be.

    • no. the precedent will be that if you’re not submissive to them and not controlled by them and not working for them, that’s a provocation.

    • Because removing the sights from an AR disables the platform. Every prosecutor knows that.

      And don’t you dare question it. He has a J.D. so quite obviously he knows things about stuff that you don’t. So STFU pleb.

    • There is also no magazine inserted, meaning the gun must certainly be unloaded. After all, no semi-auto gun can fire a round unless it has a magazine in it.

      [I hope nobody needs me to add a /sarc tag]

      • You know, this is really getting tiring seeing my comments hijacked and turned into marketing links. When I submit a comment to TTAG for posting, I create the wording with a certain intended context. I really don’t like the site altering my words without my permission.

        Dan, Jeremy, whomever…??

        • Those who own TTAG decided to monetize the comment section.

          About the only defense you have is to modify your words, like the Marsupial One does with ‘gunms’…

    • Cause he is trying to send a message to the jury. Notice in some of the pics of Kyle his finger is indexed along side like its suppose to be unless you are actually going to pull the trigger. The prosecution is trying to send the message that the only way to hold the rifle is with the finger on the trigger ready to shoot. Its a common tactic on cases against self defense so the jury is left with the image of a finger on the trigger ready to pull the trigger.

  8. Using “hero in a Western” as a pejorative = proclaiming your hatred for everything uniquely American about America.

    I’d dismiss the case on those grounds alone.

    • He also went on to claim that the real heroes of the night were the people trying to ‘stop’ Kyle…the mostly peaceful types that were just protesting racial injustice. Rosenbaum, Huber, and Gross-kreutz. Yeah, those types are what the prosecutor referred to as heroes. Think about that for a moment. Does he really believe that? Unsure–but that’s what he’s presenting as fact.
      What a joke.

      • Rekieta Law over on YT is a much better choice. Of course YT is also currently striking down independent coverage of this trail so it’s hard to say if they’ll still be up for long.

        • my indoctrination [and neuroses (is that plural?)] began with the magic door as it was the only show on sunday morning that wasn’t the farm report or a test signal chart.
          but henson’s little commies and the rest of the crew were a contributing factor. anything was better than syd and marty croft.
          thank goodness for ray rayner.

    • I’ve watched most of the trial. I’m just now watching today’s proceedings. That fat cretin prosecutor has just dumped a heaping pile of garbage on the jurors. Sumbeach should be taken behind the barn, and whipped with a cat o’nine until he’s a bloody mess – then have salt rubbed into the wounds.

      And, the skinny bastard is no better. Whip him too.


  9. So basically your rights are only in affect until some moronic leftoid decided they don’t.

    You know… there’s a LOT of problems with the right side of American politics, but the left side is IRREDEEMABLE.

    • This started when the Left got away with calling the Constitution “A living and breathing document that ‘changes’ with the times”.

      In other words it means whatever we want it to mean. We can invent new rights whole cloth, like in Roe, or ignore any amendment, like the “second class citizen” 2A.

      Their dogma and emotions are their “Virgil”.

    • “So basically your rights are only in affect until some moronic leftoid decided they don’t”

      no. you have no rights, period.

      except of course the right to submit to them.

    • Agreed. I hate Republicans, but I hate progressive/leftist/socialist/communist/America hating Democrats 100 times more. And, some people don’t understand that.

  10. Based on this logic, then that means the rioters lose their right to self-defense since rioters by nature provoke violence. I can’t believe this is even a discussion.

    • “Based on this logic, then that means the rioters lose their right to self-defense since rioters by nature provoke violence”

      no. the logic is that the rioters were working for the ones behind all this, so their violence is absolutely legitimate and just and righteous. rittenhouse is illegitimate and wicked and evil for opposing them in any way.

      “I can’t believe this is even a discussion”

      better start believing it, and responding to it, ’cause they’re on the move against you.

  11. By this reasoning, one could just as well claim that JFK showing up in Dallas with a bunch of armed dudes “provoked” peaceful protester Lee Harvey Oswald, making Kennedy responsible for the violence that broke out between the two.

  12. “But the defense argued that Wisconsin law has an exception related to the length of a weapon’s barrel. After prosecutors conceded Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, the judge threw out the charge.”

    Can someone shed some more light on this? Is this a handgun vs. rifle?

    • It is not a short barreled rifle. starting at 3:58 in the below video the prosecution admits its a legal rifle. But go back in the video a little to get the full context.



      and the rioters intent on burning down the town were just acting natural.

    • 5.56/.223 is not high powered.

      Why do you get to decide what type of weapon anyone legally owns carries for self defense?

      Did you know a unloaded rifle is a club and the effective range is greatly diminished for self defense?

      • You beat me to Airborne..

        NTexas says …”HIGH POWERED”…
        ~snort~ it’s a souped up Twenty-Two.
        .500 Nitro Express is High Powered,,,a bunch more I’m leaving out.
        Also open carry and Kyle had every Right and reason to be there!

      • “High Powered” doesn’t have a legal definition. .223 does qualify in the service, national match, and Palma divisions for NRA High Power Rifle competition

      • *cough*

        By legal definition, according to the various game commissions, I believe that any center fire rifle larger than .22 or .25 is “high powered”. In fact, I think the venerable old .218 Bee was “high powered”, despite the fact that they didn’t want you to hunt deer with it.

    • Do you realize how incredibly stupid you look when you post? You are unable to express a coherent though via written language. I certainly hope you are in some sort of assisted-living situation, you are obviously not competent to be on your own. Get some help.

  14. Wow, the prosecution is really, really, trying hard to. Screw Kyle,
    Everyone associated with this case has their reputation on the line.
    Buck Fiden …

  15. Of course, this Prosecutor conveniently ignores the ironic fact his “star witness” Grosskreutz was charged with felonies, illegally carrying a semi-auto pistol to this same riot – but got his charges dismissed. Any arguments against forfeiting your constitutional right to self defense as a lawful citizen should go right out the window, but this prosecutor seems to be ignorant of the law and real justice based on his previous attempt to deprive Rittenhouse of his 5th Amendment rights. Anything this shyster says should be ignored.

    Kangaroo show trial. Acquit the Kid of all charges and let him walk free to sue the holy living hell out of every un-American hypocrite involved.

  16. I know I’m going to provoke some ire. So what. That’s what I do. I’ve remained silent on the Kyle thing. Until now. I think Kyle exercised poor judgement in deciding to travel to Kenosha. Exercising poor judgement is what 17 year old boys do. I know the argument about them being old enough to enlist. They’re still only 17. I read once that the average age of a U.S. infantry soldier in WWII was 24. Don’t know if that’s true, but I’m sure they’re a few people pecking away to find out.
    Anyway, the thing is all creditable defense instructors preach “avoid the confrontation.” It’s obvious Kyle sought it out. Yeah I know he lived in close proximity. Had friends/relatives in the area. Worked in the area? Yet, as I understand it he wasn’t defending any of these things. If I drove to Tallahassee to defend a strangers business and killed a couple of people I’d be looked at sideways.
    Was it self defense? Looks like it too me. But again, it looks like poor judgement also.
    Trouble comes to you. Deal with it. You go looking for trouble? You’ll find it. Guaranteed. Don’t cry about it later.

    • I’m inclined to say the same. Show up at a riot with a rifle, or any firearm, and things are likely to get out of control. That being said, you still have a right to protect yourself.

      Personally, I subscribe to the idea the best way to win a gunfight is to not show up. The second best way is to show up with a bunch of your friends that have firearms and know how to use them. I sympathize with Kyle, but if I was his parent, the first thing I would have asked him is “what the fuck were you doing there in the first place?”

      Avoid riots. Avoid protests. Not only because of the whackos/perverts/commies participating, but also because of the FBI provocateurs. If the riot comes to you, that’s a different situation altogether. We POTG are going to lose if we’re seen as the aggressors (whether we are or not). Unfortunately, we need to let the commie/fascists take the first shot.

      Let them start it, so we can finish it.

      • Jimmy you are full of double speak.

        “the idea the best way to win a gunfight is to not show up.”


        “Let them start it/take the first shot, so we can finish it.”

        Funny Jimmy how do you “finish it” when you have “not show up.”?

        Please tell us.

    • “It’s obvious Kyle sought it out”

      he sought to stand against it, in defense of his community. that’s the patriotic and responsible and adult thing to do. and THAT is what the left hates and opposes and seeks to destroy.

      • Precisely the “patriotic and responsible and adult thing” that the Second Amendment – written by men who founded our country by marching toward trouble – exists to protect.

        Not for standing armies (which they feared) or police (which didn’t really exist), but free citizens in arms.

      • hmmm… no, he was there to protect a car dealership according to his testimony, not defend the community, and he was being paid to protect that car dealership. Even his own defense attorney pointed this out in his closing statements.

        • quit trying to turn this kid into some sort of patriotic savior named Jesus out to defend the country against an invading hoard.

          He was being paid to be there, to protect a car dealership. He wasn’t even going to go until the offer of being paid came about. His own defense attorney pointed this out and he testified to it.

          Granted, there was some self defense. But he is not the ““patriotic and responsible and adult” people want to make him out to be, he is not a “hero of patriotism” standing up for the second amendment, he wasn’t there to defend the community and was there for the money. He is a kid that made a kids bad decision being enticed by the money to be there.

          Be realistic. It is what it is.

        • By that standard we shouldn’t call those who serve/served in the military patriotic since they are/were getting paid to do so. How about jurors getting paid to do their civic duty?

    • Drive a nice car, you’re just asking to get jacked at gunpoint ; your daughter went out in that pink miniskirt again ? It’s her fault that she enticed that rapist, he was just minding his own business before she walked by… gee, I guess that I DON’T agree with you, G. F.

        • Really Jimmy that’s the trouble?

          So people by living their lives are just asking for it?

          It’s not the criminals fault for car jacking you or robbing you, no you brought the “trouble coming to you” for owning a car, having a wallet, or wearing clothes?

    • No ire here as I think you’re 100% correct and I have the same look on the situation.
      He’s not a bad kid and I’m sure he wasn’t looking to kill anyone that night.
      What he was doing was being a 17 year old boy looking for excitement and a way to fit in, get noticed or whatever. I was 17 once and might have done the same thing just to say I did it and I was there. Friends look up to you. A sort of notoriety. Hell, might even get laid.
      Not my place to pass judgement and declare him guilty or not guilty, that’s for the jury to decide. Whatever verdict is rendered, he’ll live with this for the rest of his life. Shoulda just stayed home and this wouldn’t be happening.

    • No ire here. I agree on both counts.

      Rittenhouse made a bad call in going down to the riots, however well intentioned. I believe the kid wanted to help, and was trying to look out for local businesses and what not. I probably would have had the same impulse at 17, and it would have been a bad idea then, too.

      I also believe he was 100% justified in all 3 of his DGU’s. His assailants were trying to do serious harm to him at the very least, and probably intended to end him. Certainly Grosskreutz’s intent was to kill Rittenhouse.

      IMHO, Kyle is neither a hero nor a vigilante. He’s a kid who got in over his head and handled it as best he could (and handled it better than I would have at 17, TBH). He should walk free, but he should also be a cautionary tale for others.

    • Gadsden Flag said “I know I’m going to provoke some ire. So what. That’s what I do.”

      Allow me then to play devil’s advocate.

      Perhaps Kyle grew tired of all the grown men (who are intense keyboard commandos) who are constantly bragging about their proficiency, skills, ex-leo training, vast network of assets, and how wonderful their .308 rifles are.

      Perhaps Kyle didn’t want to sit in his comfy chair watching his neighborhood burn while waiting for a fat .gov pension check to arrive and actually wanted to put his money where his mouth is.

      Perhaps Kyle did not want to blame “creditable defense instructors” for his own cowardice.

      Perhaps Kyle felt that when good men do nothing and deflect by saying “avoid the confrontation” that evil wins.

      Perhaps Kyle knew these grown men, who either led us into this position, or allowed it to happen when they had the watch, would blame him for taking a stand, and then with their great “wisdom”, blame the young man for doing what they should have done or they should have prevented in the first place.

      I could hear George Washington tell Martha “Gee honey, we don’t even live near Concord”. “Sure we.. “Had friends/relatives in the area. Worked in the area” but but…”all creditable defense instructors preach “avoid the confrontation.” “It’s obvious I would have sought it out.”

      Ironic then when everyone thought the great Gadsden Flag meant “Don’t Tread On Me” it turns out it actually means “Don’t interrupt my duck hunting”.

      But ultimately perhaps Kyle felt grown men (supposedly with the exact skill set necessary) have become fat, complaisant, and cowardly.

      Perhaps Kyle is correct.

      • You sound like the ‘keyboard commando’ types you insult.

        What is your resume to pass judgement on others? All you’ve done is pass gas on a comment thread.

        What qualifies you to pass judgement on any body else. Name one thing.

        • And again. What have you done? You pass judgement, faulty in most cases, so, what did you do?

          How did you earn the right to judge others? You did nothing, did you. Kyle stepped up and you sat back. Now you hide your cowardice by barking at others.

          One citation of your activity. Just one.

        • He said he was going to play devil’s advocate and he did exactly what he said he would do.

          And, quite frankly, he makes some points that should be examined (as is the entire point of “playing devil’s advocate), though in a personal manner that it could be rationally argued was not really helpful.

          The overarching points however have some merit. The fact that they won’t actually be examined isn’t to anyone’s credit.

          In that regard it’s a lot like Niall Ferguson’s argument about higher education. Not a bad idea but other areas need to be examined if you want a reasonable chance of success. But those are “third rails” because they’re offensive to certain groups of people who, if we’re honest, fear being blamed for the situation in the academy and elsewhere in society too. Problems that go deeper and are wider and longer term than virtually anyone wants to admit.

      • “Perhaps Kyle grew tired of all the grown men…”

        What would someone who’s testicles never descended know about being a ‘grown man’? 😉

        • Be kind, because you’d be an asshole like Geoff if, like him, you’d never known the love of a woman, and your only friend was some cowardly pud who goes by ‘I Haz A Question’ on the Internet. Do us all a favor and go somewhere else, and take Haz with you 🖕.

          I’d also like to add that guns are great, so long as they’re not in the hands of incompetent chum gobblers like Geoff and Haz.

    • The Kenosha police testified under oath that they were told to stand down and allow the riots to proceed. If that’s how it’s going to be, what’s the next step for the rest of society? Don Lemon says “I see a crime, I call the police”. Well, if the response is a shrug, does the regular citizen just have to roll over and die? Is that moral?

      It seems that for a lot of people, the answer is yes, at least if the people attacking are from a certain political perspective. If they go after you, your options are death or prison.

      • This is a rude very wakening for the majority population. But it needs to happen. People need to understand that the government is out to get them, when they step out of line. And using a gun to defend yourself, IS viewed as stepping out of line to some government overseer.

        I hope Kyle in found not guilty. And I hope everyone starts to pay attenion, as to who is running for their local DA. And question them. And demand that the state self defense laws be improved.

    • “It’s obvious Kyle sought it out.”

      I can maybe agree with the “poor judgement”, up to a point. But, I can’t see that Kyle sought out the trouble. There were violent criminals in the street, Kyle and his friends put some boundaries on what those criminals could get away with.

      I don’t agree with Wisconsin law, or any other law that prohibits the use of deadly force in preventing property loss. Setting a city on fire is more than just property loss. This violent mob beat a 70 year old man, and left him for dead, just the night before. It is only fitting that rioters died.

    • Adults in this kid’s life failed him miserably. His mother; the owner of the AR15 which Rittenhouse could neither buy nor own; and the adult(?) who solicited security services from a minor child should all explain their actions to a jury. Thirty years ago, I raised two boys. Taught them how to handle firearms responsibly. Taught them to honor the US Constitution. Taught them to respect the law. Taught them to respect individual rights and liberties. But I would have nailed their bare feet to the kitchen floor if I suspected either one, as my minor child, intended to serve as armed “security” during a volatile political protest (aka riot).

    • Gadsden Flag:
      I think you’re right. Only the judgement-deficient show up for riots. The smart money stays home and lets the cops handle it. If the riot comes to you, then, maybe, you can claim self defense. And, yes, an emotional 17 year old kid might not be able to figure all of that out.
      That being said, I’m inclined to hope that the kid has learned his lesson and gets exonerated.

  17. This guy’s closing was loaded with contradictions. Only a few sentences apart he claims Kyle is a cold blooded murderer because other people with AR-15’s didn’t shoot anyone then claims Kyle provoked the attacks because if his gun yet those others with AR-15’s didn’t get attacked.

    He must be trying to dazzle the jury with stupidity, lies and doublethink.

  18. “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun…”

    Does that standard also apply to the marxist ‘tard who brought the glock & got his girly-arm blown off?

  19. Yeah let’s brake a few basic gun handling rules to make a point!
    Kyle had a right to open carry a rifle. ALL STOP
    Kyle fired upon three people, one after he grabbed at his rifle, one after being hit in the upper body with a skate board, and one after he pointed a gun at his head. ALL STOP
    Self Defense ALL STOP
    Anything else is not the point or not up for debate.
    If I was on that jury I would have asked the judge to not let the prosecutor wave the firearm around in such a dangerous manner.

  20. This youngster was a naïve idiot for going to that riot at all. However, the right of self defense is not negated by a person being naïve, ignorant, stupid, much too young or all sorts of other arguments. The only way he could be considered an instigator is if he were rioting himself.

    Which most clearly was not doing.

  21. When he shouldered the rifle and pointed it towards the jurors with his finger on the trigger, he should have been tackled by the bailiff who was just stopping a potential mass shooting in the courtroom.

  22. “When he shouldered the rifle and pointed it towards the jurors with his finger on the trigger, he should have been tackled by the bailiff…”

    Is it possible the rifle is checked everyday before the jury or gallery arrives, checked and accepted as unloaded by all the major characters?

    If we treat every firearm as loaded, all the time, anywhere, how can we ever safely clean it? Shouldn’t we be saying, “Treat every firearm as loaded, until proven it isn’t.” ?

    • To me, the proper course of action if the rifle is to be handled in court is for one of the bailiff’s to pull the bolt to the rear and show clear to everyone in court room. If it leaves the presence of the court, same thing upon reentering. Why the weapon is not zip tied is probably due to the racking testimony.
      If I was the Judge I would not let weasel touch the weapon after his display of violating the Rules of safe gun handling.

    • Do you think Binger is knowledgeable enough to clear the weapon properly? He is exhibiting a lack of weapon discipline in the photo.

      Once a weapon is cleared and disassembled it is safe to clean.

      Sam, I like the way you think.

      • “Do you think Binger is knowledgeable enough to clear the weapon properly? ”

        Not actually; more like bailiffs, or evidence custodians might be doing a safety check prior to allowing the rifle into the court room (and every time the rifle goes into and out of a secure room/container).

        “Sam, I like the way you think.”

        Be careful there; that is an admission against interest.

  23. Interestingly, the AR-15 has no front and rear sights. LoL. Hopefully, the defense saw that and said something about it during the closing arguments. I will have to go back and check the videos to see if the sights were taken off by the police or if they were ever on the AR-15.

  24. Well.. riot or not, in practically every city where Antifa & BLM went berserk, THE POLICE literally stood down and refused to protect anyone or anything. Normally I’d say somebody who went to a riot willingly put themselves in a bad situation, but the federal, state, and local governments weren’t overly concerned about the welfare of any law abiding citizens in this case and may have actually invited criminals to riot, so somebody needed to stand up and try to protect the world.

  25. Looks like it was a cheap holographic red dot sight on the AR-15 from the video with no front and rear sights that night. The police removed the optic. Does this constitute tampering with evidence when the police removed the optic from the AR-15?

  26. Defense Counsel says” “Kyle shot Joseph Rosenbaum to stop a threat to his person, and I’m glad he shot him — because if Joseph Rosenbaum had got that gun, I don’t for a minute believe he wouldn’t have used it against somebody else,” Mark Richards said during closing arguments on Monday. “He was irrational and crazy.”
    He also accused Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger of being a “liar” who misrepresented evidence and “changed his strategy” to fit evolving narratives after his original case “blew up in his face.”

    He also took Binger to task for labeling Rittenhouse “an active shooter,” claiming it was a “buzzword that the state wants to latch on to because it excuses the actions of that mob” that chased Rittenhouse after he opened fire.

  27. I’ve watched much of the trial live. I’ve watched the closing arguments and at the moment I’m watching LIVE the prosecutions rebuttal to the defense closing argument. Now comes the defense rebuttal to the prosecutions rebuttal.

    Having listened to the evidence, the problem the prosecution has as I see it, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT There’s always two sides and they simply have not proved their case.

    Kyle will be acquitted.

    • In any sane, rational world, yes, Kyle Rittenhouse would be acquitted after about five minutes of deliberation.

      Unfortunately, we live in this world, and I’m very worried for him.

      • This.

        The fact they are debating a man’s life over self defense simply because he showed up to this event is troubling. They aim to punish us all for trying to be free. The hypocrisy is real. If these people beet someone to death for not allowing them to vandalize, it’s justified. But if someone, literally anyone, comes from anywhere in an attempt to prevent it, they are wrong for showing up. They didn’t want the police, now they only want them? Do these morons even know what they are fighting for?

        Shoulda just let us boog. Not only would they be better off, so would the rest of America. But nope… Now u got more government oversight, higher cost in goods, and the same bullshit you had before you started punishing innocents for the actions of tyrants. Lunacy.

  28. I watched the entire trial. This prosecutor was just making up lies and supposition as the trial went on. This was a clear cut case of self defense. The prosecutor should be charged for malicious prosecuton.

  29. I watched the entire trial. This prosecutor was just making up lies and supposition as the trial went on. This was a clear cut case of self defense. The prosecutor should be charged for malicious prosecution.

  30. The prosecutor must be mentally challenged. Using that rationale the police should have felt free to shoot all the BLM and Antifa rioters on video carrying firearms. I personally saw a number of them. Also I assume that the rioters who attacked this young man using either hands and feet or a skateboard or the guy pulling the Glock also relinquished their right to self defense and that’s why they got shot. One of the most ridiculous statements I have heard recently and they certainly are building in number. I have to imagine the number of people in this Country who are just about to burst listening to all these irrational Leftist fools spouting the most illogical, lack of common sense, hypocritical arguments.

  31. Looks like Binger took gun safety lessons from Diane Feinstein.
    This is why all leftists should not be allowed to even touch a gun!

  32. Jury deliberations began shortly after 9 a.m.

    Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi placed 18 slips of paper into a tumbler like that used for bingo numbers. On each slip of paper was a juror’s designated number.

    Kyle Rittenhouse pulled out six of the paper slips. These will be alternates. This leaves a jury of 12 composed of five men and seven women, 11 of which are white and one is black. The six alternates are three white males and three white females and will remain at the court house in case they are needed.

    The attorneys for prosecution and defense were instructed to stay within 10 minutes of the court house in case are questions from the jury.

    Its in the hands of the jury now.

    • Rittenhouse remaining charges with the jury are counts of intentional, reckless and attempted homicide and reckless endangerment. The Judge is allowing the jury to decide for lesser charge(s).

      A misdemeanor charge of possessing a firearm as a minor was dismissed Monday, and a curfew violation charge was dismissed last week.

      The judge continues to receive death threats.

      • “The Judge is allowing the jury to decide for lesser charge(s).”

        clarification: they will be allowed to consider lesser included offenses for two of the five counts.

  33. Well the PROSECUTOR has no business PROSECUTING a case that involves fire arms as he does not know rule #1 of handling fire arms ! How can this fool determine SELF DEFENSE OR NOT? FIRST RULE OF SAFE HANDLING OF FIRE ARMS IS KEEP YOUR BOOGER PICKER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL READY TO SHOOT !! The PROSECUTOR needs taken out behind the court house and put knots on his head until he learns how to safely handle fire arms

  34. @SAFEupstateFML
    “…the idea of killing of the moral authority and replacing it with something inherently dysfunctional but able to be used to control the masses is inherent in pretty much every totalitarian regime (almost like there is a blueprint) for over a century.”

    Totalitarian regimes are made up of people/humans. In all of recorded (or even unrecorded) human history, the first cause has yet to be tamed. Nor can it ever likely be tamed.; suppressed for a season, maybe, but never tamed.

    • Always more to be learned, if nothing else strych just gave me a few things to read concurrently to my working my way through the old testament. I fear the winter may give me quite some time to catch up on reading.

      • “Always more to be learned.”

        Yep. Nine always poses interesting thoughts and approaches to thoughts.

  35. He would lose the right of owning and carrying a gun if prosecuted and convicted for the straw purchase of a firearm. That is a Federal offense, not for the state court system to decide.

    The right of self defense is lost only by the aggressor.

    Kyle was an incompetent immature fool, not an aggressor.

  36. @strych9
    “Nietzsche’s personal religious views are irrelevant to the fact that he accurately predicted where post-modern thought would lead and the cognitive dissonance it would produce in the bulk of people. ”

    Personal religion is entirely relevant. An atheist (who posits a theory that puts the atheist in place of God) is godless, thus evil. Nothing good can come from evil (not even the correct time of day).

    As for Nietzsche, and anyone else, explaining an idea or concept is de facto approval, endorsement, evangelism. So, even though Nietzsche was/is correct his lack of a declared religion disqualifies him from speaking about religion in any way…and marks him as evil. Thus sayeth me, the Guardian of the Universe.

    (Can anyone help me find my silver-plated cocktail stirrer?)

  37. @tsbhoa.p.jr
    “an admission against interest is what they say of your checking account.”

    multiple possible applications here; nicely done.

  38. Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, holding a weapon, pointing it at the Jury and has his finger on the trigger should have been called out for unsafe handling of a weapon. I do not care if the weapon had previously been cleared by the police there should have been a bolt block – normally orange inserted into the chamber indicating that the weapon was clear and unloaded.

  39. He did what 99% of us would do in that situation! He tried to retreat but was attacked! It was him or them.

Comments are closed.