The Federalist By Eddie Scarry
The bulk of Thomas Binger’s questioning of Rittenhouse on Wednesday assumed that unless a person has physically touched you, there is no reason to protect yourself with force that may prove deadly.
If you follow the prosecution’s case against Kyle Rittenhouse, the only logical end is the assertion that self-defense is almost never an option and visiting the scene of a riot is only okay if you are there to burn property.
There are other facets to lead prosecutor Thomas Binger’s arguments — that Rittenhouse, 18, was in illegal possession of a gun, that he showed up in Kenosha, Wis., that night of violent rioting because he was pursuing danger, and that he could have easily done things differently. But the bulk of Binger’s questioning of Rittenhouse on Wednesday relied on the assumption that unless a person has physically touched you, and unless you were at the scene for reasons not in line with others present, there is no reason to protect yourself with force that may prove deadly.
