Kyle Rittenhouse Prosecution 'Scored Major Points' in Their Closing Arguments - NEWSWEEK

[mzmolly]

The prosecution strengthened their case to get a conviction against Kyle Rittenhouse following their convincing closing arguments in the trial, a legal expert has said.

...

In his closing argument, lead prosecutor Thomas Binger accused Rittenhouse of being a "chaos tourist" who traveled to Kenosha from his hometown of Antioch, Illinois, in order to initiate violence, noting how he was the only person to shoot anyone during the protests.

"You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create. If you're the one threatening others, you lose the right to claim self-defense." Binger told the jury.

"The prosecution scored major points in closing arguments by emphasizing that each of the four shots Rittenhouse fired to kill Joseph Rosenbaum had to be in self-defense," DeSimone said.

"Once Rittenhouse's shot fractured Rosenbaum's pelvis, there was no threat to Rittenhouse at all. The defense's excuse that the bullets were fired rapidly is no excuse and Rittenhouse's lawyer really lost an opportunity by barely mentioning 'reasonable doubt.'
...

Binger also suggested that after Rittenhouse repeatedly shot the unarmed Rosenbaum, others who were in Kenosha that night had the right to defend themselves from what they reasonably thought was an active shooter.

More at: NEWSWEEK

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. It sounds like the Prosecution had a good closing

Link to tweet

Speaking with CNN's John Berman on Tuesday morning, two legal experts expressed surprise at the strong closing argument presented by the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case and said the jury may not let the young man who pleaded self-defense after killing two BLM protesters off the hook.

With the jury to be winnowed down from 18 to 12 via a lottery on Tuesday, Brooklyn Law School Assistant Professor Alexis Hoag told the "New Day" host: "The prosecution really delivered."

"I think they used the weekend well to bring their narrative together," Hoag continued. "What they did was deliver a compelling story arc, that's what jurors want to hear. They want the evidence, they want the witnesses to make some sort of sense."

"Their overarching narrative was you had this person coming in from outside, not defending their own property, not defending their own family, nor their home, bringing a gun, looking for a fight," she continued. "Then they peppered it with the highlights of evidence jurors saw, reinforcing repeatedly their storyline and the story arc. We saw the drone footage. We saw it when Rittenhouse shot, initially, Mr. Rosenbaum. He was on the ground, he wasn't lunging or attacking. Of course, that was the defense's characterization, so the prosecution actually really delivered."

[mzmolly]

4. I feel they did.

Thanks for sharing!

[dchill]

2. Those ARE major points!

[LiberalFighter]

3. What I did see he did well.

[mcar]

5. I'm not a lawyer but I thought they were effective

[Hoyt]

6. Would love a conviction. Plus, gun-humping toters will have to worry about "initiating violence."

[Paladin]

15. That term needs to be a reliable part of our vocabulary.

It will find accurate usage in any number of future incidents, unfortunately.

[GoodRaisin]

8. Convinced me, FWIW.

He’s a fucking murderer.

[Cha]

9. KR TY mzmolly

[mzmolly]

14. Thanks Cha!

[Cha]

18. ..

[Walleye]

10. I've always said that if a person goes waving a gun around,they forfeit their life

He was pointing the gun at people before even shot anybody. We expect a crowd to stop an active shooter. It’s not like we don’t know about what happens. It’s not like it’s rare or uncommon. Active shooter on a spree was the most logical conclusion, looking at Rittenhouse

[xmas74]

11. They teach children in school to throw things

To confuse a gunman. Books, jackets, shoes-anything to disteact so others can get away.

[Blue Owl]

12. Oh did they now

[UTUSN]

13. K&R

[BusterMove]

17. Yeah not really. Firing 4 shots in SD?

Maybe squeeze one off then check for affect!

[crickets]

19. K&R for visibility.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

20. Newsweek is not the jury

They will be the arbiters of whose argument was strongest.

Unless the judge dismisses with prejudice- a distinct possibility.