Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

LIVE: Rittenhouse Trial Day 6

LIVE: Rittenhouse Trial Day 6

Prosecution imploded on Monday.

Welcome back to our ongoing live coverage of the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle is charged with a variety of felonies, including first-degree murder, for shooting three men, two fatally, as well as for alleged reckless conduct on the night of August 25, 2020, in riot-torn Kenosha WI.

You can find our commentary and analysis of yesterday’s trial proceedings here:  Rittenhouse Trial Day 5: Alleged Victim Gaige Grosskreutz Implodes, Admits Had Glock Pointed At Kyle When Shot, Lied to Police About It

As usual, you can follow our live streaming of today’s court proceedings as well as our live, real-time commenting of courtroom testimony and argument as it occurs, right here.

LIVE STREAM

LIVE COMMENT

And don’t forget to join us this evening for our usual plain English legal analysis and commentary of the day’s proceedings, along with the courtroom video of it all.

Remember

You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.

 

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Well fuck me, this thing still going then? 😉

I would have thought the Judge would have ended this by now out of sympathy for the prosecution!

Capsaicin_Addict | November 9, 2021 at 8:45 am

Let’s see if we can top yesterday for memes!

Any guesses about where the prosecution is headed with that gas canister? They’ve mentioned it twice. Once when GG testified that he conveniently decided to pick it up and once more in relation to some sort of swabbing or forensic evidence, but didn’t mention the evidence.

Do they have a KR fingerprint on it, maybe? Later argue that since he must have handled it prior to the protest it demonstrates someging nefarious on his part?

    darwin in reply to f2000. | November 9, 2021 at 10:26 am

    The ACLU asks their monitors to pick up things like rubber bullets, tear gas cannisters, etc to later be used to show the use of force by police

      JohnSmith100 in reply to darwin. | November 9, 2021 at 5:53 pm

      They are probably collecting and disposing of evidence that those on the receiving end of force, deserved it.

aramissebastian | November 9, 2021 at 9:07 am

One thought I had on yesterday’s testimony:

According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime. Vice versa, the convention also states that no medic should carry a weapon . . .

    I rather doubt that either Kenosha or Rittenhouse are signatories to the Geneva Convention.

    According to Wikipedia, the original rule was that medics were prohibited from carrying firearms of any sort. Then this was relaxed to allow them to protect themselves and those they were caring for from unlawful attack; first pistols and eventually even rifles.

      pst314 in reply to pst314. | November 9, 2021 at 10:08 am

      However, at the same time we should note that Antifa’s “medics” and “journalists” do indeed also act as combatant.

        CommoChief in reply to pst314. | November 9, 2021 at 10:25 am

        No. The Geneva Convention is not applicable here. Even if it were applicable you are conflating lawful combatant with other concepts. Medical personnel when wearing clear ‘non combatant’ marking; a red cross, are prohibited from any combat. Medical personnel when not wearing a non combatant marking are allowed to engage in both offensive and defensive combat.

        Finally those wearing a non combatant marking who then engage in combat lose the protection of the Convention because they unlawfully participate in combat using the marking to deceive; now they are an unlawful combatant.

        Be careful about trying to apply the Geneva convention where it doesn’t exist. If you want to invoke the Convention in favor of antifa ‘medics’ then be prepared for the consequences. Unlawful combatants can be executed, they are not required to be taken as a POW.

          Oh yes, I understand that the Geneva Convention is not applicable here. I was just trying to clarify the earlier comment that it prohibits medical personnel from carrying any weapons: Medics may carry sidearms for self protection only. And I certainly was not trying to cite the Geneva Convention in favor of Antifa “medics” or any Antifa barbarians.

          Beat me to it, and said it better than I would have. The only thing I would add is that, as I understand it, the Conventions are some of the agreements among signatories as to how warfare is to be conducted and don’t govern civil war or insurgencies (which tend to be unlawful anyway).

          Who knew those annual Law of Land Warfare classes would come in handy?

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | November 9, 2021 at 12:56 pm

          pst314,

          Nope. Only those wearing clearly identifiable insignia of a non combatant; red cross as an example, are non combatants. A trained medic who is a combatant; not wearing non combatant marking and claiming it’s protection, can engage in offensive acts just as much as any other combatant. Medical personnel are not limited to side arms nor a purely defensive role.

          This notion that ‘medics’ are off limits from being targeted or somehow prohibited from carrying or using a rifle based on Geneva convention is pure Hollywood mythology.

          pst314 in reply to CommoChief. | November 9, 2021 at 8:09 pm

          CommoChief, I have no disagreement with anything you wrote. Not sure why you seem to think otherwise.

    CommoChief in reply to aramissebastian. | November 9, 2021 at 10:07 am

    Do what? The Geneva Convention(s) are completely irrelevant. They apply to Nation States that are signatory. Not all Nations have signed on to all the various articles as they were added over the years. The US certainly hasn’t adopted all of them. Writ large the Conventions are a treaty obligation between signatory Nations.

    Even where a Nation has adopted the Convention in whole or in part that Nation is under no obligation to apply the protections of the Convention to any opponent who are themselves not signatories to the Convention because is a reciprocal obligation. So where the US is engaged with a non State actor opponent; a terrorist organization, the US has the option to apply the protections of the Conventions.

    katasuburi in reply to aramissebastian. | November 9, 2021 at 11:55 am

    The case of Dr Ben Solomon (DDS) is instructive. Here is his MOH citation:

    Captain Ben L. Salomon was serving at Saipan, in the Marianas Islands on July 7, 1944, as the Surgeon for the 2nd Battalion, 105th Infantry Regiment, 27th Infantry Division. The Regiment’s 1st and 2d Battalions were attacked by an overwhelming force estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 Japanese soldiers. It was one of the largest attacks attempted in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Although both units fought furiously, the enemy soon penetrated the Battalions’ combined perimeter and inflicted overwhelming casualties. In the first minutes of the attack, approximately 30 wounded soldiers walked, crawled, or were carried into Captain Salomon’s aid station, and the small tent soon filled with wounded men. As the perimeter began to be overrun, it became increasingly difficult for Captain Salomon to work on the wounded. He then saw a Japanese soldier bayoneting one of the wounded soldiers lying near the tent. Firing from a squatting position, Captain Salomon quickly killed the enemy soldier. Then, as he turned his attention back to the wounded, two more Japanese soldiers appeared in the front entrance of the tent. As these enemy soldiers were killed, four more crawled under the tent walls. Rushing them, Captain Salomon kicked the knife out of the hand of one, shot another, and bayoneted a third. Captain Salomon butted the fourth enemy soldier in the stomach and a wounded comrade then shot and killed the enemy soldier. Realizing the gravity of the situation, Captain Salomon ordered the wounded to make their way as best they could back to the regimental aid station, while he attempted to hold off the enemy until they were clear. Captain Salomon then grabbed a rifle from one of the wounded and rushed out of the tent. After four men were killed while manning a machine gun, Captain Salomon took control of it. When his body was later found, 98 dead enemy soldiers were piled in front of his position. Captain Salomon’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

    It’s not a war. It’s rioters and those who tried to protect businesses and people from rioters. Many of whom were undoubtedly armed with at least three of them attacking Rittenhouse with intent to do severe bodily harm, possibly kill him.

Only in terms of outcomes that are most likely to lead to rioting my opinion is the following from most likely to least likely:

Most likely: Directed Verdict

Next: Jury verdict of Not Guilty

Next: Prosecutor dismissal

Least likely: Jury verdict of Guilty.

    TargaGTS in reply to vfr2imc. | November 9, 2021 at 10:25 am

    If I may, I think the most likely outcome that would lead to (more) rioting is a jury verdict of guildy set aside by the judge. The usual suspects would go bananas.

    Observer in reply to vfr2imc. | November 9, 2021 at 10:43 am

    The judge is not going to direct a verdict in this case, and here’s why: the testimony yesterday by Det. Antaramian that the enhanced drone video shows Kyle raising his rifle at Ziminski, and that it also shows that Rosenbaum wasn’t that close to Rittenhouse when he shot him (i.e., that he wasn’t presenting an actual threat to Rittenhouse’s life).

    Now we know that the detective’s testimony was bullsh*t. Everybody can look at the video for themselves and see what it does or doesn’t show, and it doesn’t show what the detective claims he saw on it. Also, the stippling on Rosenbaum’s body proves he was very close to Rittenhouse when shot, and the reporter McGinnis’ eyewitness testimony proves the same.

    But the judge can grant a DV only if there is no evidence in the record that could negate Kyle’s self-defense claim. The judge can’t weigh the evidence himself. IOW, the judge can’t say “look, the testimony of Det. Antaramian is obviously biased and wrong, and no reasonable person would believe anything he said, since his testimony is flatly contradicted by other, more credible evidence.” Instead, the judge will say that since the jury could accept the testimony of Det. Antaramian and find that Kyle didn’t really have good reason to shoot Rosenbaum, he can’t direct a verdict in Rittenhouse’s favor.

      The judge does indeed weigh the evidence to determine if it is sufficient for a reasonable jury to make a finding of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge doesn’t compare the weight of the evidence of guilt to the weight of the evidence of innocence, but the judge does weight the credible evidence to determine if it is sufficien to support a finding of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.. It is plain error for the court to ask a jury to make a finding of fact beyond a reasonable doubt when there is insufficient credible evidence in the record to support such finding of fact.

      Capsaicin_Addict in reply to Observer. | November 9, 2021 at 11:27 am

      A raised rifle isn’t a murder charge, and Rosenbaum had stippling and powder burns on him. Keep trying.

      No One of Consequence in reply to Observer. | November 9, 2021 at 5:51 pm

      The judge can exclude expert testimony that isn’t supported by the materials the expert supposedly relied upon. Lots of discretion there.

Hey folks. Does this count as jury tampering?

Video of activist Cortez Rice claiming he has agents in the Kenosha courtroom taking photos of jurors and implying he will publish them if they deliver a particular verdict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNV0mXiUW0

    Layman101 in reply to Jay Schultz. | November 9, 2021 at 9:52 am

    Hi, newbie here.

    I had same thoughts yesterday watching. There was a moment all council went to the sidebar and were handed a paper that looked like a website printout. I had just seen the article on breitbart, regarding the threat, and it appeared to be similar to the page that was given to attorneys.

    Midfiaudiophile in reply to Jay Schultz. | November 9, 2021 at 12:10 pm

    One interesting thing that I noticed from the professional photographers was that they were using ridiculously long focal length lenses (seemed to usually use a 200mm lens, one of them had something that looked like a 600mm lens attached to a second camera).

    Then I started thinking about it and realized that using such lenses was the best way to avoid incidentally grabbing the jurors when aiming a lens at the exhibits immediately adjacent to where the jury box seems to be, even from immediately behind the bar and thus not even needing to angle the camera much to see the exhibits.

    The bailiffs probably should have taken that as a hint that as a hint that it’d be very easy to look like you were innocently recording while ‘incidentally’ catching jurors at the side of the field of view.

Prediction….Marsh will lie and say he made up the post. 10 million bucks are at stake.

I find Rittenhouse guilty of being a badass and of performing the first successful Kenosha Hat Trick.

The Pedant-General | November 9, 2021 at 10:04 am

Double posting in live comments again Andrew 🙁
(Also – keep up the good work – I’m completely glued…)

Any chance that Grosskreutz attack on KR was based on KR claiming to be a medic and Grosskreutz was pissed about that instead of an active shooter. Was it Grosskreutz taking issue with KR that is recorded? I would flip this back at Grosskreutz motive if this was what is said.

Not that KR is an EMT, but Grosskreutz jealous because he is not the only medic there.

    pst314 in reply to MarkSmith. | November 9, 2021 at 10:10 am

    Grosskreutz is has now admitted in court that he has appeared with Antifa people and chanted something to the effect of “long live the revolution” so I think that is a good enough explanation of his motives.

      RabidMongoose in reply to pst314. | November 9, 2021 at 11:38 am

      In one of his earlier videos, he also proclaimed that Rittenhouse and the other armed folks were “boogaloo boys” or “proud boys”. Would it be beneficial to the defense to bring in a witness to testify as to the animosity between “revolutionaries” and those other 2 groups of which he suspected Rittenhouse to be a part of?

        I doubt that would be beneficial at all. The jury will not hear “G mistakenly thought K was a member of the Proud Boys,” They will hear “K, Proud Boys.” Best to keep any connection (valid or not) between K and any militia group out of the mind of the jurors. JMHO.

          pst314 in reply to JRaeL. | November 9, 2021 at 8:12 pm

          I think you’re probably right about that. But one witness did testify that Grosskreutz threatened to kill various people if he got them alone.

Seems like the videoing of the jury was poorly handled. How do they know that the video was neither recoverable nor sent to a remote drive as it was shot? This is straight up jury intimidation – grounds for appeal if needed.

disappointing that the motion to dismiss the gun count was refused.

How do you watch that video at half speed and still advocate for the claim that JR wasn’t right upon and an immediate threat to KR? Other than dishonesty?

    BlueOx in reply to f2000. | November 9, 2021 at 10:45 am

    I’m seeing this for the first time. Haven’t seen any other footage of this moment. My immediate reaction is KR was being chased, reached a point where he was forced to slow/stop, Rosenbaum kept closing as an aggressor, at which point KR shot. Most noteworthy for me was KR’s immediate reaction. He didn’t go after anyone else, he circled back to Rosenbaum. DID NOT CONFRONT the person next to Rosenbaum’s body, and then got on his cell phone. This video makes me more inclined to see self defense here and does absolutely nothing to demonstrate an “active shooter on the loose”.

      fogflyer in reply to BlueOx. | November 9, 2021 at 12:09 pm

      In addition, Kyle didn’t stop and turn around until Rosenbaum’s buddy shot his gun… that was likely perceived as a game changer to Kyle. Time to stop running and address the threat.

        There is a point where you have to stop running from an attacker who is gaining ground.
        You have to turn and defend yourself or you will you will be attacked from the rear and knocked flat on your face and unable to defend yourself. No referee there to blow the whistle and stop the play when your are tackeled from behind. Your assailant just has his way with you.

Unicorn video might come in handy. Shows the decedent spinning after being shot, explains the bullet in the back so the jury can understand it.

I got a kickout of the Grosskruetz questioning about his $10M lawsuit. Frankly, sending a 18yo to jail for life will not allow him to collect much, if anything, if Kyle goes to jail. If he walks, he will earn more money in his life, but that impairs Grosskruetz’s case.

    He’s not suing rittenhouse, he’s suing the city or county or something like that. He wants taxpayer money, not rittenhouses…

      BlueOx in reply to Smooth23. | November 9, 2021 at 11:23 am

      Ironically, Someone has a good case against the city in claiming that they should have accepted KR’s surrender, and instead shooed him away after threatening him with mace, which resulted in further injury and death. That person is Kyle Rittenhouse.

        fogflyer in reply to BlueOx. | November 9, 2021 at 12:11 pm

        The shootings all occurred before the incident with the police.

          Layman101 in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 7:36 pm

          I think he is referring to the time Kyle was trying to get back to the car source he was stationed at. He told the police he was working there but they had the line there and turned him back south right before he left he Jr shooting.

      Pointermom in reply to Smooth23. | November 9, 2021 at 4:30 pm

      Are you sure he’s not suing Rittenhouse as well? I would if I was GG – no downside. Rittenhouse’s parents have homeowner’s insurance that might pay something – not much but something. They may also have umbrella or excess coverage plus their house and who knows what other assets. Certainly they aren’t wealthy but a slime like GG would take their last penny.

TaxPayingPatriot | November 9, 2021 at 10:58 am

toxicology of huber? hopped up on drugs?

“Exhibits 83 and 84 show Rosenbaum pursuing Kyle relentlessly, until Rosenbaum lunges at Kyle, shot.”

Rosenbaum is shown wearing his shirt as a shirt at the gas station. Ex. 83 and 84 videos show Rosenbaum (not wearing a shirt) has converted his shirt to a head and face covering to conceal his identity before attacking Kyle. This is evidence of a premeditated attack by Rosenbaum on Kyle.

I perceive the only issue going to the jury will be the endangerment issue.

The underage rifle charge is void because of vagueness.

The others should be not guilty directed verdict.

    The unlawful possession statute is not void for vagueness because it is perfectly clear. The statute does not apply to persons under 18 unless the rifle or shotgun is a short barreled rifle or shotgun, or unless the person is also under 16 years of age.

      fogflyer in reply to bigo. | November 9, 2021 at 12:13 pm

      That is certainly the way I read it, but I feel we must be missing something or why didn’t the judge throw it out already?

Day Six. When will the Prosecution begin? It was nice of them to apparently let the Defense present their case first.

I don’t understand why, in a case where the defense is asserting an affirmative defense, all the ME testimony couldn’t be stipulated. IOW, the defense isn’t contesting the time or manner of death. They’re only contesting the state’s allegation that it wasn’t justifiable homicide. What can the ME offer on that question? Absolutely nothing.

    You can’t stipulate to testimony that hasn’t been given. I’m sure the defense would be willing to stipulate to the fact that the homicide victims are dead though.

    James B. Shearer in reply to TargaGTS. | November 9, 2021 at 2:10 pm

    “… What can the ME offer on that question? ..”

    What distance the shots were fired from for one thing.

medical examiner seems like yet another defense witness.

Matthew Carberry | November 9, 2021 at 11:16 am

Astonishingly, if I lean my torso forward, as if reaching for a rifle, my hand is about 4′ away from my abdomen.

Anacleto Mitraglia | November 9, 2021 at 11:25 am

So the jury was actually filmed at the bus stop, we’re informed. But judge says it won’t happen again.
Which is good, but once is one too many.
There must be consequences for anyone involved in the doxxing.

    Yeah this, accompanying the threats from Floyds nephew or whatever… definite jury intimidation.

    I believe this is already well-settled law. If they’re being photographed/videoed in a public place, there’s nothing the state can do. In fact, whoever was doing the filming was under no obligation to delete the footage when asked by the police. The only way the state can pursue charges against those who were filming is if they use the footage to intimidate the jury members. IOW, the filming itself isn’t per se intimidation (even though it very likely is, in reality).

    At the end of the day, it’s incumbent upon the state to ensure there isn’t an opportunity to film the jury in public which is why they’re often bused into the court using buses with black-out windows (in high profile cases, like this).

      Think38 in reply to TargaGTS. | November 9, 2021 at 4:10 pm

      Not entirely true. Filming in a public place is generally a legal thing to do. Filming for purposes of attempted jury intimidation is not. Moreover, the filming may be part of a conspiracy to intimidate the jury.

      Police officer should have taken possession of the phone. Then asked for a search warrant to review its contents and see if there really was a conspiracy.

Matthew Carberry | November 9, 2021 at 11:34 am

Prosecution is trying to insinuate the order the shots happened to make it an exrcution of a helpless Rosenbaum.

I saw a comment on YT that was pretty interesting. Rosebaum was shot in the back while reaching for the gun. Wow, that is amazing. Ha, face plant again?

“The hand was in close proximity o contact with the barrell”

!!!

Defense will destroy Krouse again on cross. In relation to the body the fatal wound is from above not behind. Consistant with lunging for the gun and the hand wound with grabbing at the barrel. Yjere goes that ridiculous Binger fantasy.
They got the tox on one perp but not on the other….why? I think tox reports have to be asked for but not sure.

Reading AFB’s comments have proven to be the highlight of this trial as seen through then lens a real professional. The State is so screwed. I really love the sarcasm included by Andrew.

Anyone catch the judge mentioning that police caught someone recording the jury while they were getting on the bus to go to the courthouse? They were confronted and made to delete the video. I’d want ID, name, etc. as we know why these misfits would want a recording of who’s on the jury. Evil dumb people. Narrative over justice. Pathetic!

Why is this trial still happening. Reasonable doubt aplenty has been established. States expert witness established he was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse. The judge should have ended this.

AFB: The embedded livestream isn’t live anymore.

So they are going to make the claim that KR should have stopped shooting because that last shoot was the kill shot to the back????

I think they knew this was coming and why the number of round that an AR could shoot was discussed earlier Weak.

    OnePingOnly in reply to MarkSmith. | November 9, 2021 at 1:20 pm

    I said this a few days ago in the comments section of the live blogging;

    “I’m pretty sure I know where this prosecutor is going with all this. He’s going to argue that after the shot to Rosenbaum’s groin and him falling toward the ground because of it, he (Rosenbaum) was no longer a threat. He was out of the fight at that point with a fractured pelvis, so any subsequent rounds were unnecessary. The prosecutor will probably eventually call the medical examiner who will testify that it was the subsequent shot to Rosenbaum’s back that was the kill shot.”

    And I’m not breaking my arm patting myself on the back, either, as it was pretty apparent from the testimony being elicited by Binger at the time that that is where he was heading eventually. We all know it’s BS but that is pretty much all he has to hang his hat on.

      randian in reply to OnePingOnly. | November 9, 2021 at 3:57 pm

      Even if Rosenbaum was in fact out of the fight with a fractured pelvis it can’t seriously be argued that KR should have stopped because of that. KR isn’t a medical doctor, and even if he was he doesn’t have x-ray vision or the benefit of a leisurely examination of Rosenbaum’s body.

        No One of Consequence in reply to randian. | November 9, 2021 at 6:03 pm

        Not to mention the fact that it all happened in less than a second. It’s not like he had time to stop and think.

        OnePingOnly in reply to randian. | November 9, 2021 at 6:47 pm

        Yes, I know. I stated that we all here know it’s BS, but that’s all Binger has to hang his hat on with respect to Rosenbaum.

          CommoChief in reply to OnePingOnly. | November 9, 2021 at 7:46 pm

          The prosecution can try but it’s going to be tough.
          Defense questions to ME on this line:
          DR you are a trained forensic pathologist?
          How much specific training for that?
          And you graduated from medical school prior to that specialized training in forensic pathology?
          You list your conclusions in a report of x many pages long. How much time did it take to draft that report? That report is based upon your autopsy correct? How much time to complete the autopsy? And no one was attempting to harm, injure or kill you while you spent x many hours conducted the autopsy? You didn’t have any imminent threat of violence to distract you while you spent x many hours on the autopsy? Young Kyle didn’t have as long as you did to form his conclusions in the heat of the moment did he? And so on.

The cross of the ME is devastating the state case (as if it could be going even worse for the state). The defense did an excellent job of putting the ME’s statements into visual context for the jury.

Is the prosecutor planning on presenting any evidence to support the actual prosecution?

At this rate, could the judge grant a motion to dismiss when the prosecution rests?

Matthew Carberry | November 9, 2021 at 12:30 pm

Average human reaction time is something like a quarter second. I’m impressed Kyle stopped firing so quickly on all the attacks.

A 50 mph pitch takes about .79 sec to travel mound to plate. We are talking very quick reaction to threats havooh ng been stopped.

Re: to Krouse….paraphrasing Rachel in the Zimmerman trial….thats retarded sir.

It seems like that would reduce the demostrative value, since the upper and lower would no longer show the length of the rifle.
A blue gun might be a good option, though.

Somebody call Joe Pesci and get his tape measure.

Off the rails. Somebody please put a stop to The Dead Horse Whipping. Call PETA!

I know its easy to be an armchair quarterback, and I think the defense is doing an excellent job so far. But….
The biggest elephant in the room is that Kyle was not attacked by individuals, one-at-a-time, in which it is fair to judge his reasonable fear for his safety in terms of the sequence of events in each encounter.
The point is that when being chased by a violent MOB which has already engaged in violence, death threats and is armed, anyone running at you, even threatening to impede your ability to GET AWAY is a deadly threat.

As such, I wish the defense would include in its cross examination reminders of all the OTHERS present and around, and pursuing Kyle in this brief period of time that he had to (quite luckily, and also with admirable skill) defend his own life.

I’ve been dipping in and out of this. But am I wrong? Are they doing this enough?

    zero_speed in reply to xnycp. | November 9, 2021 at 1:27 pm

    The trial is if KR was in reasonable fear of his life.

      Indeed, and my point. That is, his reasonableness can only be judged in light of being attacked by a mob. And one cannot fairly break down his reasonable fear of being imminently harmed by the mob by trying (as the prosecution has) to artificially “assess” (wholly out of real time) the seqence of events with each, individual attacker.

Binger rests his mess I mean case. Defense moves to dismiss curfew violation charge only.

Did I hear that the judge has made a decision on the possession charge in favor of the state?

They asked about dismissing the curfew charge, judge did not decide one or the other. Richards mentions something about Count 6 and that the judge has made a decision in which the defense objects.

This guy is clearly nervous, but seems credible

Jonathan Cohen | November 9, 2021 at 2:05 pm

The real villains in this case are the state and federal authorities who have chosen to allow a great deal of violence rather than risk violent confrontations between rioters and law enforcement. This is a pattern that we have seen before in Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Portland among others. After two nights of burning and looting, it is not surprising that citizens would feel compelled to step in the breech.

This prosecution is part of a more general pattern of essentially enabling lawlessness in woke cities and states. No bail, redefining felonies as misdemeanors, letting violent felons out due to Covid exposure, refusal to prosecute rioters, raising money to bail out violent offenders and the election of prosecutors who side with criminals rather than victims.

This prosecution is just part of the mob that was allowed to run wild in Kenosha until the National guard was called. Perhaps it was the presence of citizen substitutes for law enforcement that pressured the governor to call in forces sufficient to restore order.

    I would add in the media, which has openly cheered on the murder and mayhem, while constantly lying about its causes or the terrible suffering it has caused.

      aramissebastian in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | November 9, 2021 at 3:51 pm

      Well, I’ll say this with regards to the charges of media distortion.

      There was a definite civic value to streaming this trial so people could see for themselves.

      I think the young man has a strong self-defense case, even if I’m not sympathetic to him as an individual or a cause.

      Having watched much of the trial, I would not regard an acquittal as a miscarriage of justice, or as an event which moves the needle of the justice system in any particular direction.

    This, 100%. The local and state government abdicated its primary purpose of its existence: To maintain law & order. That abdication created the environment – a vacuum – that led civilians to try to restore and maintain order themselves.

    aramissebastian in reply to Jonathan Cohen. | November 9, 2021 at 3:42 pm

    I don’t know about the other situations you cited, but I was deeply shocked to hear the detective testify that the Kenosha PD wasn’t going to respond to property damage calls/complaints.

    That’s a recipe for anarchy.

    I’m old enough to recall the LA riots following the Rodney King acquittals, with Koreans protecting their small family-run business with automatic weapons.

    I live in a major North-Eastern metropolis, and lawless and violent as our ‘town’ is, the Police Department here would not permit rioters and looters to run amok despoiling businesses.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Jonathan Cohen. | November 9, 2021 at 3:53 pm

    Honestly, some of the people suing have a legitimate lawsuit but not for the reasons they brought (their twisted minds don’t allow them to see the very reasonable lawsuits they could make…plus they don’t want to sue in a way that would lose them clout with their law enforcement and justice-hating friends)

    The government has allowed these confrontations to happen by refusing to enforce their own codes…and I don’t mean the boots on the ground cops, I mean their elected bosses who stand around and let it burn. That’s where the lawsuits need to go. None of these things happen if mobs aren’t allowed to take to the streets.

    The fact that we are even seeing a criminal trial in the midst of lawlessness that the government allowed to happen is a farce and a mockery of law and order in the first place. Governments shouldn’t be allowed to be derelict in duty then prosecute selectively after the carnage they potentiated has run its course. Every single one of those anarchist fuckheads should be overcrowding a jail cell drinking toilet wine right now.

Midfiaudiophile | November 9, 2021 at 2:19 pm

Is there actually a judge that would let the seven year old expunged adjudications be described in detail for the court?

Binger seems to be throwing anything on a wall to see if it sticks –changing theories as he goes. So now it’s: you were inflaming a violent situation, sort of, generally (while he highlights the viciousness of the mob)

It would be comical if not for the serious ethical breach of prosecuting a young man with overwhelming evidence of a complete justification defense!

What is probative in this witness testimony

OOOh body armor bad.

Real American | November 9, 2021 at 2:29 pm

if they did not have guns, then they would have been in more danger from the rioters. Merely having the guns present and visible deterred violence.

If the gun charge was not dismissed, the judge won’t be dismissing any of the others. He’s going to let this play out.

Russ from Winterset | November 9, 2021 at 2:37 pm

“When do you believe it would be appropriate to use a gun?”

“I dunno. Maybe if someone acting like an unhinged mental patient, who had previously said ‘If I get you alone, I will kill you.’ popped out from a hiding spot behind a car and chased me into a corner and shouted “F+&$ YOU” while lunging for my weapon? That might be a good time to shoot.”

An American? Binger will hate her.

Get the Bunko Brothers!!

Midfiaudiophile | November 9, 2021 at 2:53 pm

We heard it here first, Rittenhouse’s buddy Dominick is “on the far, far right. ”

(Stupid, but the prosecution’s case is guilt-by-association, militia looking for trouble stuff. Chirafisi could probably have come up with a better way of clarifying questions about the photograph.)

Eeeeek a gun! Binger might jump up on the table!!!

Russ from Winterset | November 9, 2021 at 3:18 pm

When Binger was asking Ms. Fiedler about different calibers and their relative power, I’m pretty sure she caught herself before stating “Size doesn’t matter.”. Really wish she had blurted it out, because I kind of get the feeling that DA Binger hears that a lot in his personal life.

    Cool gal. Bibger is such a Soy Boy. Metrosexual prolly carries a purse and loves Starbucks. Virtue signaler of the first magnitude.

    aramissebastian in reply to Russ from Winterset. | November 9, 2021 at 3:45 pm

    Well, of course, she was correct in the sense that a well placed round will kill, no matter its size.

    But cross-examination is about drawing lines, and he was trying to frame her as unreasonable and unreliable, as a witness.

    However, I think, he may have hurt himself more — once again, depending on who is on this jury.

I would think that giving an opposing witness many opportunities to say “that’s not true” to the prosecutor is a bad cross examination tactic.

    Midfiaudiophile in reply to f2000. | November 9, 2021 at 3:31 pm

    Funny, my perspective is sort of the opposite. The various times when she doesn’t contest his account make her seem reasonable and add weight to the times when she says “That’s not true”. If Binger really wanted to harm her testimony, he might be better served to argue with her more.

Both defense witness testimonies are in direct conflict with Sal & Sam’s assertions that they never asked for anyone to guard their property.

Binger didn’t challenge either of them on this. Is that normal – to ignore the topic and just leave it to the jury to decide who to believe?

    healthguyfsu in reply to BlueOx. | November 9, 2021 at 3:48 pm

    I think it’s worth rebutting the state’s worthless assertions with multiple witnesses to the contrary but it’s not ultimately very important to the question of self defense since Kyle didn’t shoot anyone to defend property. He shot people who were attacking to defend his own life and body.

      Agreed, but if I’m in the jury and I see two witnesses essentially say that two state witnesses were lying – and then see the DA not challenge them – I think I’m left feeling that the DA isn’t all that confidant in the truthfulness of his witnesses. Whether that’s fair or not IDK. But I would definitely make a mental note of it.

      fast182 in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 9, 2021 at 5:01 pm

      The prosecution must disprove at least one of the five elements of self-defense. The two separate attacks on KR were clearly imminent and unavoidable, and his actions were clearly reasonable and proportional (he only shot at people who were directly attacking him), so their only chance of a conviction seems to be on the element of innocence. They have to show that he was in unlawful possession of the rifle, breaking the curfew (has that now been dismissed?), or otherwise behaving illegally, i.e. trespassing.

        Think38 in reply to fast182. | November 9, 2021 at 6:21 pm

        Merely proving those types of charges does not take away innocence in WI. To take away innocence: “A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack…” See 939.48(2). Even then, it can be regained by withdrawing and announcing to the other person of such.

        Alternatively, the prosecution needs to provide Rittenhouse was engaged in actions designed to provoke a deadly response.

        Colonel Travis in reply to fast182. | November 9, 2021 at 9:09 pm

        That’s not what innocence means in a self-defense case.

    Sanddog in reply to BlueOx. | November 9, 2021 at 6:34 pm

    Would you want to put Sal and Sam back on the stand? They probably figure it’s safer to let the jury make up their own minds rather than dig a deeper hole.

    henrybowman in reply to BlueOx. | November 9, 2021 at 8:27 pm

    Not sure where to go with this. It’s not as if Kyle spoke to Sal and Sam directly. He was told by a buddy that the owners had asked for protection, and that a bunch of them were going to go. Maybe that wasn’t true. Kyle had no way of knowing that. What happened afterward has little relevance to whether it was true or not.

aramissebastian | November 9, 2021 at 3:32 pm

So, I’ll bite: both Fiedler and Balch testified they work in ‘manufacturing.’

Is that code for something?

Anybody?

Thank God for people like based Grandma.
ADA Binger should have quit while he had some dignity left.

Grambo!

CuriousJustice | November 9, 2021 at 4:06 pm

The gun charge should’ve been dropped. I noticed in the pretrial hearing the judge kept mentioning that it doesn’t make sense if the “exception swallows the rule”, and that there must be some alternative intent of the statute. But the exception for 16 year olds doesn’t in fact swallow the rule as pistols are still illegal for them to possess.

The defense calls an autistic photographer to bludgeon the prosecution with excruciatingly credible and detailed testimony about the events of the night.

Q did a juror ask if they should go upstairs and judge say u can if u want?

Wow does that attempt to make him “ID” someone he didn’t know make the prosecution look sleazy.
I hope they introduce this in Binger’s disciplinary trial.

Large boy should stop digging. This guy is super credible and the more he asks the sleazier the prosecution looks.

Binger should be a witness.

I am no lawyer, so my comment comes from no experience, but I’m amazed at what a shoddy case this is. The only way Rittenhouse gets convicted is by jury tampering.

Going back to the demonstrations with the rifle, why aren’t they using a blue gun, a plastic inert gun that looks like a real AR but it’s bright blue, to avoid any chance of pulling a Baldwin.

    RabidMongoose in reply to fast182. | November 9, 2021 at 4:59 pm

    I think using the big black super scary rifle is half the point. I also believe that’s why Binger is making such a dramatic production of “securing” the rifle that was just secured 15 minutes ago. The subtle effect is to present it as scary and intimidating, even when it’s just sitting there minding it’s business.

Bunko Brothers going down!!!

Do Kraus and Binger understand the full extent to which they look like douchebags getting their ass kicked?

Judge Norton has returned to the bench.

Kraus is coming off like a total a** on this cross.

Krouse digging hole deeper.

    59Apache in reply to Elzorro. | November 9, 2021 at 5:11 pm

    Making it sound like the police and ADA did a terrible job of conducting the interview and getting his statement.

Russ from Winterset | November 9, 2021 at 5:13 pm

I don’t know about what is taught in law school, but I have always considered it rude to try and jam words into someone else’s mouth without washing your hands pretty damn thoroughly.

Of course, since Kraus is the one doing it, those unwashed fingers probably taste like gravy and Little Debbie Snack Cakes. Could be worse.

Midfiaudiophile | November 9, 2021 at 5:17 pm

“I didn’t sign anything at the top of the page, it’s at the bottom of the page.”

Are they really trying to impeach this guy’s memory?

The state has found a talking blimp to press the issue.

Matthew Carberry | November 9, 2021 at 5:23 pm

Woulda been nice to hit the ADA with the fact that memories are more distinct when they have strong multiple sensory inputs, like seeing, hearing, and smelling a porta potty go over.

I like this kids style.

I really have no idea where Kraus is going with this line of questioning but its nowhere good, very laborious, and a waste of time.

Where can I buy some of his photographs? He deserves it after that testimony.

aramissebastian | November 9, 2021 at 5:31 pm

The prosecution’s cross of Mr. DeBruin was a catastrophe. The assistant makes a lousy impression to begin with; then, he’s bullying the witness, a hometown kid, too? That’s going to turn off the jury bigly!

BTW, in my jurisdiction, attorneys do not meet with non-party witnesses, precisely so that they can’t be accused of suborning perjury. It’s all done thru investigators.

My first question to every witness at trial is, “BTW, Sir, we’ve never met before, have we? Nor have we spoken before?”

    “The prosecution’s [fill in the blank] was a catastrophe….”

      Tom Servo in reply to xnycp. | November 9, 2021 at 6:07 pm

      I didn’t think anything could be worse for the Prosecution than Monday was. And then Kraus said “here, hold my beer!” and proceeded to try to intimidate, bully, and browbeat a quiet and polite young man with a speech impediment – all while getting his head handed to him on the facts. I think everyone in that courtroom hated Kraus and Binger after he was done.

    I would love to know what’s going on in the minds of the jurors. I used to think jurors generally don’t get enough credit for ‘getting it.’ But, after listening to some of the interviews of the Chauvin jurors, it was clear than many of them made up their minds LONG before the trial began.

    I only hope that dynamic isn’t at play here. If it’s not, Rittenhouse should be fine because the state has bupkis much less anything remotely approaching proving he didn’t act in self-defense beyond any reasonable doubt.

    I think it makes him a witness. Call binger to the stand and grill his ass.

Midfiaudiophile | November 9, 2021 at 5:39 pm

Binger getting pissy. “That was on October 28, 2020?” “OBJECTION LEADING!!!”

good grief Kraus seems like he sucks

The Pro Riot, Pro Looting, Pro Mayhem, Persecution teams Viva Revolucion!

At no point in your long and rambling prosecution, did you produce anything that amounted to anything that could be considered a logical argument, much less proof of guilt or disproof of a complete self defense justification. We find the Defendant completely innocent, and may God have mercy on the prosecution and the State of Wisconsin that hired you. [The verdict that should be rendered]

AnAdultInDiapers | November 9, 2021 at 6:04 pm

I didn’t think yesterday’s testimony would be bettered.

I was wrong.

Yikes. Skip the video testimony, skip the direct on the medical examiner and.. evidence entirely supports the claim (made by a prosecution witness) that Rosenbaum was charging down Rittenhouse and trying to grab his rifle. Except the prosecution didn’t accept that and re-directed, resulting in even more evidence from the medical examiner that the prosecution claims aren’t supported by the wounds.

All by itself that would’ve been the day for the defence but then.. they opened quietly, a witness whose role was to provide evidence that the owners of the properties being defended were aware of the defenders and had offered payment for protection. The prosecution didn’t even try and challenge that, even though it contradicts two of their own witnesses (neither of whom offered much credibility).

Which made what happened next nothing short of astonishing. An elderly lady, calming answering defence questions about her reasons for being in proximity to events, that countered the ‘militia provocation’ claim. All very straightforward, if you ignore the quote that’s already spawned a thousand memes. The cross-examination tried to impugn her and instead gave her the opportunity to further damage their case.

So a day of complete domination for the defence. Except they had another witness lined up. He’s been described here as having a speech impediment, elsewhere as being autistic. What he did was speak confidently about what he’d seen, brought his own photographs to support his testimony and provided a small amount of context for the defence case, provided a description of Rosenbaum committing criminal acts and being armed (with a melee weapon).

The defence don’t appear to have brought him into court for that. They waited for their very last question: Did the prosecution try and make you change your statement? Yes.

Whether that’s legal is something I’ll let the legal experts here tell me but as a lay person it doesn’t feel at all right. How bad it was became immediately apparent when it was the first thing asked in cross-examination. And the second thing, the third thing, a continual barrage of increasingly desperate attempts to get the witness to change his claim.

They all failed. Not only did this feel like a textbook case of witness bullying and intimidation, not only will it have gone over with the jury like a lead balloon, not only did it fail to discredit any of the witness testimony, it made the prosecution team look and sound corrupt, and left their own credibility in complete tatters, with their case highly unlikely to survive in their wake.

That one witness is going to be the subject of a hundred law school papers and this trial is going to become a film people will watch in 40 years and refuse to believe was real. Truly amazing.

    love your summary! And yes, you are exactly right, law schools will be talking about his testimony for decades to come. Whether or not it’s technically illegal or not doesn’t really matter; what was important is that by pressuring that witness into changing his written statement, they created a time bomb that blew up in their faces with the jury watching. Now they’re standing their looking like Yosemite Sam just after Bugs Bunny has handed him one of those black bombs with the fuse burning down. BOOM!

Binger: Objection, your honor.

Judge: Grounds?

Binger: The witness is badgering my colleague, Mr. Kraus.

Judge: I’ll allow it.

The worst is the local Real Estate Agent. They badgered him because he was doing the job Binger and the local cops would not do. Trying to get evidence on the looters and rioters burning down his City.

    Layman101 in reply to Elzorro. | November 9, 2021 at 8:05 pm

    I agree. It would be a nice thing if defence could find a couple of witnesses that were glad someone stepped up when the police stepped back. eg. “If it were not for one of those young men with the rifles I would have lost my business or my life”

ugottabekiddinme | November 9, 2021 at 7:29 pm

Seems to me the prosecution’s case has been extremely thin, and that impression was reinforced, when the prosecution wound up its case in chief with two rather weak witnesses. Pathetic.
When I was a newbie attorney, I was taught to try to have something impactful and memorable to serve up as the opening blast of your case, and then again as the last part of the case. Maybe they are holding back some zingers for rebuttal after the defense rests, but given the clown show the prosecutors have put on thus far, I won’t hold my breath.

I think the prosecution perceived the young man with the speech impediment as mentally slow, and believed that they could manipulate him to further their own ends.

Kraus’ bullying seems indicative of some anger that his plan didn’t work out.
He’ll be OK.
A little emotional eating, a little carb-binging, and he’ll be fine.

Or maybe he’ll burn in hell. Works for me.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend