What. The. Actual. Fuck
Binger: "You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun." pic.twitter.com/2pu7lehnBx
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 15, 2021
IANAL but I know both of these are absolutely false.
To say this violates every precept of concealed carry that had been in effect for decades.
If bringing a gun automatically nullifies your right to self defense than concealed carry automatically becomes premeditated murder because you are constantly bringing the gun into the situation.
Moreover, we know that an unarmed person can be dangerous, even lethal. This also ignored that one of Rittenhouse’s attackers was armed with a skateboard.
Lying to a jury like this should be punishable.
After this case, Rittenhouse’s lawyers need to push for malicious prosecution and have Binger disbarred.
I believe that this was Bing-o-matic’s attempt to bolster his lame “provocation” charge. If it works with the jury, the self-defense case crumbles (per Andrew Branca).
Fwiw i dont believe the provocation attempt as i dont think tje totality of the evidence supports it and they dont even have the guy he supposedly pointed the rifle at there to testify.
However, andrew branca appears to make a mistake saying it is unlikely kyle moved the rifle to his left hand and shoulder and the difficulty involved to do this with a sling. Branca has a video where the thumbnail shows kyle holding the rifle left handed, this is brancas own video. We also know that kyle was using a single point sling, so it is trivial to change hands with such a sling without needing to remove the sling.
@Matt: Agreed on the left-hand point.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to know this is nonsense. It’s like saying that you lose the right to free speech when you open your mouth. Or you lose the freedom of the press when you pick up a pen.
“Moron” is far too kind a word for this infamous piece of shit.
It comes back to that ruling that says that open-carrying a firearm cannot, by itself, be considered reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Exercising a Constitutionally-protected right cannot be suspicious — let alone implicative or damning.
The fact that THAT’s where the prosecution has to go — if they have to stoop to treating the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right as suspicious or provocative behavior — to try for conviction, means their case is so weak it should never have been brought to trial, and even if they get a conviction it will almost certainly be overturned.
The prosecutor also tried that same nonsense with the 5th amendment earlier and got yelled at for it, that it was suspicious that Kyle had remained silent prior to his trial.
This sounds increasingly like an opportunity for “mistrial with extreme prejudice” – details of “extreme prejudice” to be worked out.
If nothing else, I think a sentence of greater outlawry for the prosecutor would be in order.
He showed earlier worse contempt for the Fifth Amendment. It’s clear this guy doesn’t understand his oath of office.
Oh, he understands it well enough.
He just doesn’t care about it.
If this kind of prosecutorial horseshit and the similar horseshit of the Zimmerman court doesn’t convince people that prosecutors constantly lie in court, and do so because they know that with absolute immunity they can almost always get away with it, nothing else will.
The DA in the Zimmerman trial blew my mind a while afterward, when interviewed on a news program. They asked her, when she thinks of George Zimmerman, what does she think?
She responded with one word: “Murderer.”
Srsly, lady. You’re a f@#$ing attorney! On top of that, you’re a f@#$ing District Attorney! You of ALL people should understand that Zimmerman’s “Not Guilty” verdict, by definition, means “Not A Murderer.”
Continuing to call him a “murderer” on national television, after a jury found him to not be one, is actionable slander and defamation. It shows just how much she values the justice system she worked for. (No wonder she didn’t get re-elected, and good riddance.)
“…concealed carry automatically becomes premeditated murder because you are constantly bringing the gun into the situation.”
My commie sister actually believes this and has said to my face that she thinks I’m a murderer, despite me never having murdered anyone.
We don’t talk much anymore.
Sorry to hear, but I understand the reasoning re not talking much.
Don’t forget he also insisted Rittenhouse should have fired into the air to fend off the mob.
What.
I don’t even… I hope and pray the jurors have the intelligence and the strength of mind to acquit Rittenhouse, because this is positively sickening.
@Toastrider: ” I hope and pray the jurors have the intelligence and the strength of mind to acquit Rittenhouse, because this is positively sickening.”
A thought held by many right-thinking people.
The completely scot-free Kiminsky fired into the air. It worked for him.
That and tossing his pistol into the river. And being a leftist.
Mainly the leftist thing.
Firing into the air is dangerous in the extreme!
A bullet has to come down somewhere. It won’t go into orbit.
I am reminded of an incident years ago, when some fool shot into the air, and the bullet came down and killed a man.
Want to bet Kenosha has laws against discharging firearms within city limits?
He already tried to make this argument — that it’s never justified to use a gun in self-defense against an unarmed attacker — during pre-trial motions and again during witness testimony, and got schooled on cross.
He also tried to conflate using a gun appropriately for defense (displaying to deter, shooting to stop) and using a gun for intimidation and murder (brandishing to threaten, shooting to kill), and got schooled by the judge, who then explained the legal difference directly to the jury (who opened up his explanation with something along the lines of “What Mr. Binger is trying to conflate here…”).
And this is on top of Binger’s attempt to not only bring up Kyle’s exercise of his 5th Amendment Miranda “right to remain silent”, he attempted to use that to imply guilt — because “only guilty people remain silent”, I guess — and got TOLD OFF by the judge (after the jury had been removed).
That was grounds for a mistrial, right there. The fact that this isn’t Binger’s first rodeo — far from it, as defense counsel Richards pointed out, he’s an experienced prosecutor — makes those oversteps all the more egregious, and could well have justified granting the defense motion for a mistrial with prejudice. The judge has certainly been more patient with the ADAs than I can confidently say I would have been.
Unfortunately, he can say almost anything he wants during closing arguments as long as the judge hasn’t disallowed it. He is allowed to lie, cherry-pick facts and evidence, conflate, obfuscate, and intentionally confuse the jury. (To be fair, defense counsel is allowed the same … “privilege” … during closing arguments, but in this case they have no need.)
On the other hand, if the jury members are properly and honestly filling their role, the equivalent term for “confusion” is “reasonable doubt”. Reasonable doubt on either side means an acquittal.