Closing arguments are scheduled to begin Monday morning in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the now 18-year-old Illinois gunman who traveled across state lines and killed two men and injured another during racial injustice protests in Wisconsin in the summer of 2020.
The defense and the prosecution will each have two-plus hours to make their closing arguments. Things are scheduled to get underway at 10 a.m. ET.
Watch the closing arguments live here:
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin Monday morning in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the now 18-year-old Illinois gunman who traveled across state lines and killed two men and injured another during racial injustice protests in Wisconsin in the summer of 2020.
The defense and the prosecution will each have two-plus hours to make their closing arguments. Things are scheduled to get underway at 10 a.m. ET.
While the biased judge won’t let the victims be referred to as such, I sincerely hope that the prosecutor makes great use of the following phrases:
The applicable law (emphasis added):
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
. . . . .
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c ) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
I hope (against hope) that this little dweeb is convicted. He had no business being in the middle of this mess and was not legally armed. Throw the book at him. Meanwhile, in the real world, he’s probably going to walk and become a new hero of the Reich wing.
This seems like the kind of case where the jury is likely to end up compromising by convicting on one or more of the lesser charges.
And so it turns out that like virtually every other ‘right’ wing argument, projection is a significant part of their “slippery slope” talk about gun safety laws. Self defense, along with stand your ground, becomes the ‘justification’ for murdering anyone who acts to minimize the threat represented by your prancing around with your penis compensation device.