That’s it; it’s all over. The Rittenhouse murder trial can officially be chalked up to another liberal performance where the leading “actors” indubitably reveal their left wing bias.
Such is the case for the lead prosecutor in the trial, a man who claimed Rittenhouse didn’t act in self-defense, but actually murdered two men in a “crowd full of heroes.”
You can’t make this up.
The “crowd full of heroes” referred to by the prosecutor are what more sane and level-headed people call domestic terrorists. The radical left wingers were in the process of burning down the entire city of Kenosha, Wisconsin and Rittenhouse was there to defend private property.
Not only has the leading prosecutor confirmed his left-wing bias, but he’s also a complete idiot proven by his demonstration with the Rittenhouse’s AR-15.
Defying all gun safety protocols, the attorney can be seen putting his finger on the trigger of the AR-15 in open court.
when they start playing Christmas music before Thanksgiving pic.twitter.com/wE5HRaUuA7
— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) November 15, 2021
The men fatally shot by Rittenhouse could be seen by in a wealth of video footage aggressively approaching the armed teenager. The prosecution’s own witness, a man who survived Rittenhouse’s self defense tactics, admitted that Kyle did in fact act within his legal rights to protect himself and his property.
Binger describes the mob in Kenosha that was burning the city as a "crowd full of heroes" who tried to stop an "active shooter" in Kyle Rittenhouse.
Absolute insanity pic.twitter.com/w3VvusUaRP
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 15, 2021
Now the prosecution is scrambling, trying to convince the jury otherwise any way they can.
The attorneys know if they can appeal to the “Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist” trope, they are sure to convince someone on the jury. Prosecution is fully aware of the current anti-white social climate, and their exploiting it to throw an innocent teenager behind bars.
Binger also claimed during closing arguments that Rittenhouse lost “the right to self-defense” when he shot Rosenbaum, because he was “the one who brought the gun.” He also claimed Rittenhouse provoked the situation.
At what point in all legal precedence did any judge in any ruling claim that at any time one loses the right to self defense?
What about in open carry states where law abiding citizens are legally permitted to carry a weapon? Do they lose their right to self defense because they’re have a gun on them? Are they provoking the situation merely because of the presence of their weapon?
It’s a non-argument made purely out of desperation.
Meanwhile, left-wing domestic terror groups have vowed to riot again if Rittenhouse is acquitted or murder charges.
Author: Asa McCue