object, because their definition is the one they want to control the jury. sara, do you think that the state in the closing arguments delivered what they needed to do to make this final argument? but what do you think of the rebuttal from the prosecution we watched this morning? i think it was very effective, kate. i think it was directly responsive to the defense closing arguments. the idea that, you know, there was a boogeyman in the neighborhood, you know, that ahmaud arbery was dangerous, that he committed a crime. she methodically showed that these men had no knowledge of him having committed a crime. there was no citizens arrest. she went further to reel back in roddy bryan, because i think his attorney did a fantastic job of distancing him from these other two men, showing that he didn t even know there was a gun there until the first shot was fired.
obtains a motor vehicle from an individual without his or her consent. now, the defendants have raised affirmative defenses claiming that even if the acts described in the dimtd were committed, there are circumstances that justify them. once an affirmative defense is raised, the state must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.on raised, the state must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. the fact that a person s conduct is justified is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. the defense of justification can be claimed as self-defense and as citizens arrest. sometimes a defendant s threat or use of force is legally justified so is not a crime. let me read that again. sometimes a defendant s threat or use of force is legally justified and so is not a crime. a defendant is justified in threatening or using force against another when, one, he reasonably believes that the threat or use of force is necessary, two, to defend
victim shaming, not just victim shaming but also destroying the character of ahmaud arbery. this had nothing to do with what happened on february 23rd of 2020. she sunk low in trying to appeal to probably the racial undertones that she believes this jury may have. in terms of how the prosecution handled it, the prosecution didn t really delve deep in. however, the prosecutor did call her out and said that the defense wanted to result and victim blaming. but victim blaming does not get you to an akucquittal. what is it that you saw that caused them to chase, hunt, detain, and you wouldly kill ahmaud arbery? and once you get to those facts and apply them to the law, then you will find that these defendants are guilty. so let s forget the victim blaming and the victim naming and the name-calling. so this is now in the hands of this jury.
sex offender named joseph rosenbaum who lunged for rittenhouse s rifle. rittenhouse then shot and killed rosenbaum.ed than another man hit rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to take his gun. rittenhouse shot and killed him, as well. rittenhouse also shot a third man, who was armed with a weapon, and this case has now gone to trial.ot the prosecution s case, by the way, is totally collapsing. yesterday, the prosecution s own witness, daily caller reporter, dealt a major blow to the prosecution s case. he testified that he saw a rosenbaum try to takes rittenhouse s rifle. you have no idea what mr. rosenbaum was ever thinkinga at any point in his life. you have never been inside his head and never met him before. i never exchanged words with him, if that is what your question is. so your interpretation is complete guesswork. well, he said [bleep] you and reached for the weapon.
see is there s saturation throughout. gardner says contrary to the prosecution s theory that judy died within five minutes at her home, the evidence in the jeep proved that was impossible. if she s actively bleeding, her heart is beating. she is technically alive. in the jeep? in the jeep. after she left the house? after leaving the house. literally this tells us that she was bleeding while in the jeep. the defense also pointed to several experts, including the prosecution s, who all agreed judy s injuries could have been accidental. having three medical experts, who can t say, hey, this is definitely not an accident, in my mind, there s reasonable doubt. we only had to convince one person. after seven days of testimony, the case went to the jury. the prosecutor felt there was a good chance jamie could walk, so she turned to the family for support and judy herself.