For obvious reasons, the Rittenhouse trial was brought up a lot in my recent carry and self-defense course.
One sentiment that was echoed regularly was that the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case performed so badly because he knew that he didn't have a case and didn't believe in what he was doing.
I believe that to likely be true; but, which is worse?
No matter how you put it, Binger was trying to fuck the kid over. He wouldn't have introduced the manipulated drone footage and the invented provocation argument at the eleventh hour if he weren't trying to get Rittenhouse sent away for life. He wouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse on the stand for exercising his 5th Amendment rights prior to trial if he weren't trying to get a conviction or force a mistrial so he could get another shot.
So, the guy either has a warped understanding of the law and a perverse moral philosophy that he really believes in; or, he knew what every reasonable person knew -- that Rittenhouse was innocent -- and lied to save his job at the potential sacrifice of a young man's life.
So, which is worse? Either choice makes the man garbage.
