I'm a little concerned that the jury didn't come to a conclusion on Rittenhouse today. It should be open and shut for an objective, reasonable jury. He's not guilty.
Yes, the judge permitted the prosecution to introduce lesser charges. The prosecution clearly asked for that because they were kicking the shit out of themselves. As a result, the jury does have to examine, I think, nine or ten separate criminal charges instead of just five. Basically, everything that started as a first degree charge has had a second degree charge added.
I think that I've seen the domino effect pretty early, though. If Rittenhouse was justified in shooting Rosenbaum, which he was, than the rest of Rittenhouse's actions are much more justifiable. If Rittenhouse wasn't justified in shooting Rosenbaum, than Rittenhouse's subsequent actions aren't justifiable.
I'm not a lawyer. I know lawyers who have said what I'm saying. If you are a lawyer and you think that I'm wrong, please say so.
Honestly though, I don't see how a person in his or her right mind doesn't see Rittenhouse's actions against Rosenbaum as self-defense given the burden of proof.
When Binger said in his closing arguments that Rittenhouse forfeited his claim to self-defense when he brought the gun, he lied.
If you're one of the dip-shits rooting for the prosecution, you may philosophically agree that Binger should be right. That would be a bad law and entirely nonsensical. The fact remains that Binger is wrong and it's inconceivable that he doesn't know that he's wrong.
How do you pass the bar and become a DA without knowing that having a gun doesn't negate your claim to self-defense anywhere in US law? I'm not a lawyer and I know that.
