Posted on 11/15/2021 1:47:18 PM PST by Rummyfan
The prosecution (the Kenosha DA’s office is Dem, BTW) is not making such a big deal of this case because of the deaths of three slimeballs (and, yes, what we know about them does aloow such a label); rather, it is ALL about gun control and banning semi-auto “assault weapons.” That is why the prosecution always referred to the gun as an AR-15, when in fact it was a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 (small difference, in reality, but the term AR-15 gets the attention of the gun-banners).
When you divide a responsibility, then nobody has it.
If YOU were in that courtroom would you clear it first or not? Would YOU point the gun in an unsafe directions? Would YOU put your finger on the trigger?
Would you put yourself in the position of having killed an innocent person simply because you trusted some bailiff?
I would hope the answer to my questions is, "No, I would not?" Why, then, would you excuse such actions on the part of the prosecutor?
I like it!
Thanks RACPE.
It’s fine. They said “cold gun” when they handed it to him.
Compare and contrast.
Dinger at 2:47:20
Richards at 6:10:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8
They show the jurors faces in one picture. Guess no one is worried about that now. Oh well.
SS1
To be fair, they had just cleared the gun in the presence of the court. And then double cleared it. But that does not make it ok to point at anyone. Ever. Cause you never know... but also it’s bad form in a murder trial. Jmo.
Look at them chicken wigs!!
Wisconsin prosecutor Thomas Binger has set precedence that it’s now acceptable to point firearms directly at prosecutors in the State of Wisconsin.
And there goes any hope of upholding a conviction on appeal (assuming defense gets their act together): prosecutor LITERALLY THREATENED THE JURY WITH A RIFLE IN COURT. His point in doing so was, as he admitted, to instill base fear in jurors.
Were I a juror, I’d have ducked for cover and made a outburst of objection.
Were I a bailiff, I’d have tackled the guy and arrested him on the spot.
Were I a lawyer, I’d have objected at length and demanded summary judgement with prejudice.
Were I a judge, I’d have declared the case dismissed with prejudice to wit “if that’s how the prosecutor has to end his presentation to hope for conviction, there is obviously no case.”
Judge has plenty of reason to issue a directed verdict with prejudice, to wit “there is nothing here that can be construed as guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; not guilty on grounds of no supporting evidence, shall not be re-tried.” There’s a lot of charges, so ruling on those would leave practically nothing left to re-charge on. If anything, the judge is trying real hard to _not_ go there, and would be happy to given enough reason - which PROSECUTOR POINTING A RIFLE AT THE JURY should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.