So if Kyle Rittenhouse “Provoked” the attacks by threatening people with an AR-15 (and I wonder what kind of delusional thinking could lead to that conclusion) then why did the second and third “victim” (and I am using that term as loosely as the prosecution only in order to ask this question) not retreat rather than attack him in order to (supposedly) disarm him….aren’t THEIR actions also “Provocative”?
If young Mr. Rittenhouse was perceived as a threat then why attack him rather than retreat? Why didn’t the other people in the area retreat rather than ignore him rather than run away if he was perceived as a danger?
I guess that a prosecutor must have to try and twist reality ion order to make a case like this one.
Did Binger threaten the courtroom with his handling of the gun in his closing arguments?
a good point
Since it seems clear that the entire Rittenhouse prosecution was designed as a threat to any who might resist the next riots (demonstrations), they had to get their propaganda and threats out in the open. Resistance (or preparation) is a “provocation” to the Democratic BLM/Antifa Storm Troopers. Apparently that threat didn’t work so the Democratic Governor called out the National Guard to protect his rioters and their hired rides from the people of Kenosha. “Provocations” seem to work both ways.