Look at the beginning of this video where the prosecutor questions Rittenhouse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_zwTfTNK2E
The prosecutor asks Rittenhouse if he believes it is ok to use deadly force to protect property and Rittenhouse says "no".
Then the prosecutor tries to say that Rittenhouse doesn't actually believe this, because he said he "needed a gun" to protect some property.
Everyone knows the difference between these two, but not everyone can articulate it. And if you can't articulate it in time, then you look guilty to the jury. Anyway, the distinction between the two is: You can use a gun to protect property without using deadly force. If you are unarmed it is too unsafe to intervene with the troublemakers, but if you are armed then you can defend yourself if they happen to attack you.
If you can't solve the stupid riddle in time, then the jury thinks you are guilty.
Fortunately for Rittenhouse, the judge seemed to be on his side, so the judge defended him from this line of questioning. But think of all the other defendants of other court cases who are not as lucky and do not have a judge who is on their side.
[–]blackpoop321 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]trident765[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–]Brewdabier 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)