, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Extraordinary.  Take this link to Andrew Branca, who provides video of the closing arguments, the State’s rebuttal by ADA Kraus and several other interesting issues. I’ll get to Kraus in a minute.  I’ve never seen such outright lies about the law, the evidence and reality in a courtroom, and certainly not from the prosecution. Prosecutors normally have no motive, no need, to lie, because they don’t charge cases they know they can’t easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  Lawyers, and particularly prosecutors, are not allowed to lie about evidence of any kind.  To do so perverts and denies justice.  Not so in this backward case.

I’ve explained some of the bizarre and unethical behavior by ADA Binger in Update 9—the SMM Rittenhouse archive is here—but Kraus’ offenses were worse, because he took sleazy advantage of his rebuttal.  In criminal trials, because the prosecution has the burden of proof, they give their closing argument, followed by the defense, and then have the opportunity to rebut what the defense presented.  This is reasonable, but only if the prosecution is honest and honorable, only if they don’t lie and mislead the jury.

In this case, Kraus presented a bizarre and false version of reality and the evidence, which followed Binger’s equal deceptions.  If one is to believe the Prosecution, anyone carrying a gun has no right to self-defense.  Merely carrying a gun is prima facie evidence of an intention to kill.  Not only that, in Kenosha, WI, citizens have to be willing to take whatever beating a violent thug wants to dish out, and must wait until the thug pulls a weapon before they can do the same.  Hey, it’s no big deal, people get beat up all the time!  Be a man and take your licks—punches, kicks, bullets, whatever.  In so doing, not only did Kraus ignore the law—why do we have laws against assault if this is so?—he lied about the evidence in this case.

Reginald Denny, drug out of his truck and maimed during the Rodney King riots by mostly peaceful, unarmed, protestors…

But what about the violent, anarchist, racist mob howling for Kyle’s blood?  Why, they were heroic, honest citizens trying to stop an active shooter!  No disparity of force there, no sir!

Briefly, if Kraus and Binger are right, there is no Second Amendment, founded on the unalienable, natural right to self-defense.  Government cannot grant unalienable rights, nor can it take them away, nor can sleazy, desperate prosecutors.  The Second Amendment only acknowledges a pre-existing right; it does not establish it.

By their “logic,” buying a car with air bags demonstrates intent to cause accidents.  Installing an alarm system in your home is intent to invite burglary or fire, and when either happens, you can’t recover insurance—insurance is also intent–that would be fraud, for which Binger and Kraus would be more than happy to prosecute you.

As to having to take a beating, good Lord!  Who would want to live in Binger/Kraus world where everyone had to fear being assaulted at any moment?  Police officers are taught never to strike anyone in the neck or head with a baton because such blows always constitute lethal force.  Of course, if lethal force is justified, it may be applied that way, but not otherwise.  So we have Antifa activist Huber striking Kyle in the head and neck with the functional equivalent of a 2X4 or baseball bat, and he’s supposed to somehow respond with fists or merely allow himself to be killed?

Here’s the problem, gentle readers: human beings are at once enormously resilient and terrible fragile.  I’ve seen people, after a horrendous accident, climb out of a vehicle that looks like a pound of C4 went off in the glovebox, virtually unscathed.  And I’ve seen people who took a single blow to the head and were left crippled, blind, deaf even dead.

Most Americans get their idea of fighting from TV and the Movies.  Heroes and bad guys take and give blows that could easily kill.  They end up sweaty, bloody and bruised, but unless the plot calls for it, shake it off and they’re back in action.  In reality, fighting is fast, ugly, brutal, bloody and often leaves people crippled, maimed, deaf, blind even dead.  This is why we have laws against assault.  If we can’t be reasonably assured we’ll be free of physical attack in our daily lives, civilization doesn’t exist.  If we can’t carry the means of self-defense in that nightmare world, how do we ever leave our homes?

When someone attacks you, when they do as they did to Kyle, will that first kick in the face merely jar you, leave you with a few bruises, or cost thousands in reconstructive dental surgery?  Will it cost you an eye, fracture fragile facial bones, shatter your skull?  And if a first or second blow doesn’t do that, what about the third?  How can we know what damage any blow will do before it lands?  We can’t, which is why striking others is unlawful. The law doesn’t absolutely prevent assaults, but it does deter them, and in much of America, where criminals are prosecuted, it puts predators behind bars where they can do evil to each other rather than to innocents.

Binger also claimed because Kyle wasn’t injured, he couldn’t claim self-defense!  This too is an egregious lie.  The law does not require one to suffer any injury before employing self-defense, so long as the lawful criteria are met.  Of course, if the first blow kills you, you don’t have to worry about self-defense, and presumably, Binger and Kraus would only congratulate your attacker for keeping a maniac like you from harming a heroic child rapist like Rosenbaum.

I’ve previously explained the criteria for self-defense.  In every instance, Kyle correctly applied them.  He was no active shooter, wildly firing at the mob.  As I’ve previously written, even while still on the ground and surrounded by hostile aggressors, some armed, he did not perceive them as an imminent threat of seriously bodily injury or death, so he held his fire.

His gun handling was correct.  He fired only at four people, each of whom clearly represented an imminent—the attacks were in progress when he fired; he didn’t have to divine their intentions; they were acting them out—threat of serious bodily injury or death.  When one is under attack by a mob, that must always be factored in.  Binger and Kraus would have us ignore it.

It’s one thing to have an opinion about an unresolved issue.  It’s quite another for an officer of the court, particularly a prosecutor, whose first duty is always to see justice done and to hell with winning, to lie about the facts and the law, particularly during rebuttal, when the Defense will not have the opportunity to correct those lies.

If Posobiec’s information is accurate, it would seem to suggest the jury wants to acquit, but jurors reasonably fear for their safety, families, jobs, and lives.  They have reason.  Not only has the media egregiously lied about every aspect of this case, the Judge and pretty much everyone involved have been receiving death threats.  A few samples:  

Charming.  The Post Millennial explains:

Over the past few weeks leading up to and including the ongoing high-profile Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Kenosha Judge Bruce Schroeder has received ‘thousands’ of vile communications viciously criticizing his actions, even going as far as threatening violence against him, his family, and Rittenhouse if acquitted.

According to the Daily Mail, Schroeder referenced the emails last week, saying he has received ‘thousands of communications,’ and promised that he would ‘deal with’ the senders. ‘I wouldn’t want to be those people,’ he stated.

One can only hope the Judge carries through.  If he does, he might want to find some other prosecutor’s office to handle the cases, however.

Schroeder is being guarded by police 24/7 as the trial continues…

For an additional view, take this link to an article by Victoria Taft at PJ Media.

Also take this link, where Jack Posobiec predicts post-verdict rioting in Kenosha.

I’m sure the kinds of heroic people so appreciated by Binger will express their views on the injustice of it all by helping themselves to expensive consumer goods and engaging in restorative, anti-racist arson in many American cities.


And we can always count on race-hustling Rep. Cori Bush to make things worse.  Her claim regarding the Brown case—the SMM Brown case archive is here—is demonstrably false.  There were several instances of people sniping at the police, but none remotely like those described by Bush.  As regular readers know, there is no racial aspect to the Rittenhouse case.  None.

I also recommend taking this link to Tucker Carlson’s commentary about the media’s despicable, evil role in this case.  It’s absolutely brutal, and absolutely accurate.  There’s video and text.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz has been, which is no surprise, sharing my opinion about this case:

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz claimed that Kyle Rittenhouse should be acquitted in his murder trial this week, then sue media organizations for smearing him.

Dershowitz appeared on Newsmax on Saturday and said that Rittenhouse, who is on trial for killing two men and wounding a third during riots in Wisconsin last year, should walk free under the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard that he acted in self-defense. The Harvard professor then added that Rittenhouse should take various media organizations to court for spreading ‘deliberate and willful lies’ about him and his trial.

Dershowitz is absolutely correct.  Regardless of what happens, I would hope there is an enterprising attorney out there willing to sue each and every media outlet that so viciously defamed and slandered Rittenhouse.  Nick Sandman has had substantial success in that endeavor, and he suffered not a fraction of the harms inflicted on Kyle.  Hopefully, they’ll also sue Joe Biden—get some of that Chinese, Russian and other foreign money—when he leaves office.

In the meantime, we’ll see what happens. If several jurors won’t do what they should out of fear for their safety, Judge Schroeder has several options: he can replace them with alternates, in which case deliberations begin again, and what’s to say they won’t come down with a case of the same fear?  The most likely outcome would be a hung jury and a mistrial.

Were that to occur, the Defense would surely demand a directed verdict, or failing that, a mistrial with prejudice.  Would the Judge refuse go for that and risk almost certain reversal on appeal, or would he do the right thing?

I’ve just learned the jury has gone home for the night.  There’s no verdict yet.  So we’ll see you tomorrow, gentle readers, with Update 11.  And as always, thanks for stopping by this scruffy little blog.