Image 01 Image 03

Rittenhouse Trial Day 5: Alleged Victim Gaige Grosskreutz Implodes, Admits Had Glock Pointed At Kyle When Shot, Lied to Police About It

Rittenhouse Trial Day 5: Alleged Victim Gaige Grosskreutz Implodes, Admits Had Glock Pointed At Kyle When Shot, Lied to Police About It

It would be hard to fully express what a catastrophe this day was for Prosecutor Binger. State laughably responds with suddenly-discovered drone footage.

Welcome to today’s Law of Self Defense ongoing coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I am, of course, Attorney Andrew Branca, for Law of Self Defense.

Today was the fifth day of the trial by which ADA Thomas Binger’s is seeking to have Kyle Rittenhouse convicted and sentenced to life in prison for having shot three men (two fatally) the night of August 25, 2020 in Kenosha WI, when the city was suffering a tsunami of rioting, looting, and arson following the lawful shooting of a knife-wielding Jacob Blake by Kenosha police officers.

And it would be hard to fully express what a catastrophe this day was for Prosecutor Binger.

The prosecution’s demise came into the courtroom in the form of its star witness, Gaige Grosskreutz, famously struck in the right bicep as he closed on the fallen 17-year-old with a Glock pistol in his hand.

Grosskreutz is the only survivor from among the three men who were struck by Kyle’s desperately fired rounds, and the only one of Kyle’s attackers available to testify for the State in this prosecution (the fourth primary attacker, “jump kick man,” had the unbelievably good fortune to be missed twice by the 17-year-old, and has since disappeared off the face of the Earth).

Grosskreutz is fortunate that modern American courtrooms don’t do trial by combat, because otherwise he’d have been carried out of the courtroom mortality wounded by his own testimony.

Perhaps guessing how poorly today’s Grosskreutz testimony would go for him today, ADA Binger did come to court with a trick up his purple sleeve—the sudden discovery, just this past Friday, of “high-definition” drone footage that he and his crack investigative team present as putting the final nail in the coffin of Kyle’s claims of self-defense in his shooting of Rosenbaum.

To that my lawyer’s Magic 8-Ball says “Yeah, not so much”—and I’ve seen this purported video.  You will, too, as it’s embedded in today’s content.

In fact, today’s content will be light on written legal analysis, and heavy on short, focused embedded video, because that’s where the gold is today.

Without further ado, let’s dive right in.

The Implosive Testimony of Gauge Grosskreutz

First, in the interests of time, I’m going to focus here just on the testimony provided by Grosskreutz on cross-examination, because that’s where the meat is.  Indeed, much of the cloying direct questioning by ADA Binger sounded more like the kind of conversation one might overhear of two people on their first date, rather than the direct examination of a prosecutor seeking to prove a homicide case beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I stepped through the cross-examination of Grosskreutz today, I identified no fewer than 19 substantive portions, nearly 50% of the total time spent on cross by Attorney Chirafisi, that were substantively destructive to the State’s narrative of guilt, and helpful to the defense narrative of self-defense.   It was harder to identify the parts to leave out of today’s end-of-day post than it was to select the parts to keep in.

It was, in short, a veritable legal bloodbath.

Grosskreutz Only Shot When His Gun Aimed at Rittenhouse

By far the most destructive of Grosskreutz testimony to the State narrative of guilt was when he recounted before the jury that at the moment that he was shot in the bicep by Kyle—the moment that his bicep was “vaporized,” to use his own language—his Glock 27 .40-caliber pistol with a round in the chamber was pointed directly at Kyle from a distance of perhaps 3 feet.

All this while he insisted on direct examination that he would never be able to shoot another human being, because “that’s not the kind of person I am.”

Here’s that clip of cross-examination:

Kyle Only Ever Shot People Actually Attacking Him

Almost as compelling was Gaige Grosskreutz—I remind you, the STATE’s star witness—testifying repeatedly how Rittenhouse only ever shot at people who were actually attacking him, and never fired a shot at anybody who was not, or even anybody who appeared to have begun and attack but then backed of.

Here’s Grosskreutz recounting how Kyle had the opportunity to shoot him as he rushed up, gun in hand, but did not fire when Grosskreutz put the brakes on his rush and put his hands up in the universal gesture of “unthreatening.”

Here’s Grosskreutz testifying that it was not just himself who Kyle declined to shoot when he appeared to stop an rushing attack—there were other people who also rushed at Kyle, then put on the brakes, and had Kyle pass on the easy opportunity to shoot them:

Grosskreutz Was Concerned Attacks Might Cause Kyle Senior Injury

Perhaps as sweet as Grosskreutz’ testimony about how disciplined Kyle was in his judicious use of deadly defensive force only against people apparently attempting to kill or maim him, was Grosskreutz’ testimony about his own tender concerns for Kyle’s well-being while being attacked by multiple deadly force aggressors.

Here’s Grosskreutz testifying that in his opinion Kyle was in genuine physical danger, a danger about which he himself was concerned:

Here’s Grosskreutz testifying that he was particularly concerned that Kyle might suffer serious head trauma under the tender mercies of Anthony Huber’s skateboard—in the same day that ADA Binger sought to ridicule the notion that a skateboard could present a deadly force threat.

In fact, Grosskreutz was on record as having told police that he was particularly concerned about the manner in which Anthony Huber was swinging the skateboard with a grip on the “trucks,” the metal fixtures that attach the wheels to the board, and which provides for the board to be struck with exception force.:

Grosskreutz Shouted at Huber to Stop Striking Kyle with Skateboard

Indeed, so concerned was Grosskreutz by the danger of Huber’s skateboard attack, that he repeatedly shouted at Huber to stop hitting Kyle with the board—yes, that’s his own testimony under cross-examination today:

Grosskreutz Concedes “Jump Kick Man” Kicking Kyle in the Face with Boots

And it wasn’t just Huber whom Grosskreutz described as attacking Kyle with deadly force—meaning, legally, force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.  Although Grosskreutz burned much of what little credibility he might have had by pretending that “jump kick man” was not kicking work boots into Kyle’s face, he was ultimately compelled to conceded the truth of that attack:

At Every Grosskreutz Had with Kyle, the 17-year-old Was Non-Confrontational

Perhaps as helpful to the defense, Grosskreutz was compelled under cross-examination to concede that in every one of his own interactions with Rittenhouse—until, of course, his attack on the fallen 17-year-old with the Glock pistol—that Kyle was far from volatile or provocative, but was instead non-confrontational, and simply seeking to help people.  And this was true even when it was Grosskreutz himself acting in a provocative manner towards Kyle:

So Much for the “They Were Saving Kenosha From an Active Shooter” Narrative

As for the notion pushed by ADA Binger that the men attacking 17-year-old did so in the belief that he was a purported “active shooter,” Grosskreutz put a stake in the heart of that nonsensical narrative when he conceded that even he—the only identified of the attackers on Kyle who could have been so motivated—lacked any reasonable basis on which to come to such a conclusion.

As I noted in my most recent post examining the issues of provocation in this case, an “active shooter” belief that Kyle was an “active shooter” in the absence of evidence consistent with such a perception can only be an irrational, speculative, and imaginative belief .  And an irrational, speculative, and imaginative belief of an attacker cannot in any way diminish a defender’s privilege of self-defense.

To allow this to be would be to make every claim of self-defense contingent on the irrational, speculative, and imaginative beliefs of the attacker—and that’s not how self-defense law in general, nor the law in particular, works.

In the context of an “active shooter” perception, for that perception to be reasonable, and not merely speculative, at a minimum there must be evidence of the core characteristic of an “active shooter,” as an aggressor who has or is attempting to shoot multiple people. And Gaige Grosskreutz, naturally, had zero evidence that Kyle had engaged in any such activity.

Surprise! Grosskreutz Himself was UNLAWFULLY Armed with a Firearm

On particularly ironic aspect of Grosskreutz’ cross-examination was when it was revealed that while Kyle is looking at a life sentence in prison, plus 5 years, if he’s convicted on his own unlawful gun possession charge, it turns out that Grosskreutz himself was unlawfully in possession of the Glock pistol with which he attempted to kill Kyle.

While Kyle was carrying his AR rifle openly, and open carry requires no license from the state of Wisconsin, Grosskreutz was carrying his pistol concealed—and concealed carry does require a license from the state of Wisconsin.

And Grosskreutz did not have a valid concealed carry permit.  True, he had an invalid permit—but there’s a reason the law distinguishes between valid and invalid permits.  The former has legal effect, and the latter does not.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

For much of the rest of his testimony under cross-examination, Grosskreutz simply presented as a bald-faced liar.

For example, despite the voluminous video evidence of Grosskreutz chasing down a fleeing Kyle Rittenhouse, video that was repeatedly shown to the jury during cross-examination, Grosskreutz repeated lied and said he was not chasing Kyle.

I mean, who are we supposed to believe, the felon who tried to gun down a fallen 17-year-old in the street, or our own lying eyes?

Here’s the first instance of the “I wasn’t chasing nobody, Officer!” lie:

And again:

And again:

Grosskreutz’ blatant lying, at least by omission in this instance, also came up when Corafisi repeatedly exposed his failure to disclose to anyone at the time—or even in his currently pending lawsuits in state and Federal court—that he was armed when he was shot by Kyle.

Instead he either completely forgets to mention that he was pointing a gun at Kyle when he was shot in the bicep, or he completely fabricates a fairytale about his gun having fallen out of his holster while he was “not chasing” Kyle down Sheridan Street.

As here:

And here:

A Revolutionary? Who, Me? I Just Speak At Their Rallies!

Grosskreutz was also rather awkwardly caught lying about his relationship with his favorite “Revolution!” political group, claiming he didn’t have any association with them—except for having spoken at their rally, having shouted “Long live the revolution!” with a fist salute, and having members actually occupying several of the hard-to-get seats in the courtroom during his testimony.

Grosskreutz Tweets About His Testimony—Last Friday

Another sign of Grosskreutz remarkable lack of prudence was exposed when Chirafisi pulled up a tweet by the witness making in anticipation of his upcoming testimony, in which he’d festooned the tweet with a “winky emoji face.”

A tweet he sent just this past Friday, knowing that he would be testifying on Monday.  Good show to the defense for catching it.

The State’s Suddenly Discovered “Unicorn” Evidence

As entertaining as the Grosskreutz cross-examination was to watch, another highlight of the day was ADA Binger’s “triumphant” presentation of his suddenly discovered “Unicorn” evidence that I supposed is intended to put the final nail in the coffin of Kyle’s self-defense narrative.

This “unicorn” evidence comes in the form of drone footage—not the FBI aerial footage we’ve already seen, but footage from a consumer-level drone, like a DJI Mavic 2 Pro.  This amazing video footage purportedly appeared on the prosecutor’s doorstep just this past Friday morning, left I suppose by the evidence fairy.

Footage from the drone was show in Binger’s direct examination of Detective Antaramian, who has been sitting at the prosecution table for much of this trial, and who was a purportedly “independent” lead investigator in this case.  Another lead detective on this case who had less than two years in that position when assigned.

Although Binger introduced the footage in his direct of Antaramian, he didn’t ask anything substantive about it until he had the detective on re-direct.  At that point, he asked the detective to share with the court his perception of what the video showed.

A more hesitant and ambiguous testimony is hard to imagine.  The detective cautioned that he’d only looked at the video “a little,” over the weekend, and he’d only had his relatively “low resolution” smart phone to view the video on.

If he simply had to share an opinion on what the video showed however, he believed it showed Kyle Rittenhouse raising his rifle “in the direction” of the Ziminski’s.  Further, at the moment that Kyle shot the charging Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum was no closer than three feet, and certainly not sufficiently close to touch Kyle’s rifle.

On re-cross examination, Chirafisi expressed some incredulity that the detective could make out such detail in the drone video, from what he himself had seen of it.  The detective explained on that on his phone he had the ability to zoom in, and that’s what yielded the necessary detail.

Well, folks, I also have the ability to zoom in, and I do it not on a smart phone but on a giant 4k iMac computer monitor.  And when I zoom in to the scene that captures Kyle going past the Ziminiski’s I see nothing whatever that looks like anyone pointing a rifle in the direction of anyone else.  What I see is a bunch of pixel soup.

Further, on re-cross Chirafisi had the detective concede that there was evidence of powder stippling on Rosenbaum’s body at autopsy—such stippling is essentially gun powder flakes embedded in the skin, and occurs when the person exposed to the shot is quite close to the muzzle.

Of course, Rosenbaum was not standing still, out of arms’ reach, he was charging at Kyle at full speed. If he happened to not quite be in arms reach at the moment, he certainly would have been in the next tenth of a second.

Further, given that the prosecution had supposedly never possessed this evidence until this past Friday, it could not have been part of their theory of the case, or the basis for any criminal charges. Lucky, lucky? Or Fakey, fakey?

Here’s a mash up of Binger first showing the drone video on direct, and then asking for Detective Antaramian’s interpretation of the video on re-direct:

Again, to me, I don’t see anything of what ADA Binger claims the video to show, and when the video is examined substantively, I don’t expect the jury to see anything contrary to self-defense, either.

And all from “unicorn” evidence left one business day ago on the prosecutor’s doorstep. Amazing.

OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.

Until next time:


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

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!


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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Thank you Andrew.

The Antaramian testimony had a couple unresolved concerns. 1. Only when they suddenly needed some new accusations did the HD video turn up. 2. The detective claimed to discern some very small details from watching on a very small phone screen.

I do imagery work for the army (24 yrs) including drone feed. That’s an absurd and reckless claim to make.

Is the defense not objecting at this point just so th prosecution has more stuff to lie about?

Andrew, have you seen Grosskreutz’s criminal record? This was posted in the comments on another thread. According to this, he has a felony conviction from 2012 and was cited for DUI and Felon in possession of a firearm in 2015.

If so, how could he possibly have an expired CCW?

The link to his criminal record…

    Colonel Travis in reply to fogflyer. | November 8, 2021 at 11:39 pm

    Where is his felony conviction? It’s not in that link. The 2015 incident says it’s on his record, but he was not charged in 2015 with felon in possession of a firearm. In 2015 the report says he should have been charged as a felon. He was not. He was charged with having a firearm while intoxicated, which was a class A misdemeanor. Not sure how that happens if you are, in fact, a felon.

    Either he is not a felon, or he was and lied on his background check and got through. Dylann Roof was a felon and passed a background check. If we’re talking about a 2012 felony for Grosskreutz, he would have been 19 or 20 back then. You must be 21 to get a CCW in Wisconsin. He couldn’t have gotten a CCW in 2012 even if he had a clean record. So did he lie on his background check? He’s also apparently had that Glock for a while, and the serial number didn’t come back as being reported as stolen in past arrests. So either he bought that through a FFL, and had to go through another background check, or he bought it through a non-dealer.

    Maybe he was a felon, maybe I’m not clear on all the details but I’m skeptical.

      So, I wasn’t exactly clear on this either, but it appears he was charged with felony burglary in 2012. I didn’t see a thing saying he was convicted, but in the 2015 DUI case one of the officers reported that during his investigation he discovered Grosskreutz was a felon and recommended adding the Felon in Possession of a Firearm charge. I don’t see anything except the 2012 case that could have produced that felony conviction, so I was assuming that must be the case.

      Maybe the officer got it wrong in his investigation? Seems unlikely, but who knows. Nothing is very clear to me regarding this. One thing that is clear after reading all those criminal cases is that this guy is a real POS!

        Colonel Travis in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 12:02 am

        Again, I don’t know, I’m curious like you.

        Grade A POS, indeed. His long record shows how not-bright he is. But holy crap, what level of dumb do you have to be to pull out your handgun at someone with an AR pointed at you? He said today that “taking the life of another is not something that I’m capable of”. What the hell? He has a gun and points it in Rittenhouse’s direction??? I can’t even…

        If he truly is not capable of firing that weapon, he shouldn’t be carrying. He is beyond irresponsible. No one like him should have a firearm. He’s damn lucky he’s not dead.

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 5:30 am

        In any event, his record tells me he is not the one to bring home to meet mom and dad.

      henrybowman in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 9, 2021 at 12:11 am

      “Not sure how that happens if you are, in fact, a felon.”

      Not sure how you get to be the only guy in a capital case whose phone warrant mysteriously doesn’t get served, either, but that happened.

      I think I found the Felony. Not much info though.

      From page 77 of the above criminal record: Felony happened on 8/08/2013. Statute Number: 943.10(1M)(A) – Burglary and Statute Number: 939.05 – Party to burglary

      Comments: Court case has been expunged from official court record.

    Q: What do you call a lying ex-con in unlawful possession of a gun missing a bicept?

    A: A unic-ept.

    Guns don’t kill people. Alec Baldwin kills people.

After today’s debacle, I am seeing more and more discussion about the possibility of a directed verdict from the judge. What is your analysis and opinion of that occurring?

    Not a chance. It just never happens in high-profile cases. I think it is exceedingly rare in low-profile cases too. I am betting Mr. Branca agrees.

      foospro86 in reply to fogflyer. | November 8, 2021 at 11:47 pm

      I agree. However, this judge is VERY different and seems much more fair-minded and traditional. I give him a higher chance of doing something unlikely than any other judge. Though he likely believes the jury to be as reasonable as he is. He might be in for a shock if they return a guilty verdict. Then he’ll be in the more difficult position of whether to throw out a jury verdict, which looks even worse than a directed verdict.

        fogflyer in reply to foospro86. | November 9, 2021 at 12:00 am

        After seeing the Zimmerman case go to jury, I have given up all hope of a judge doing the “right” thing and issuing a directed verdict.

        Christopher B in reply to foospro86. | November 9, 2021 at 9:55 am

        I think a judgement notwithstanding that acquits Rittenhouse if the jury finds him guilty is probably more supportable than a directed verdict. The defense will be in the books at that point, and the judge can explain where the jury misapplied the law to the facts presented. A directed verdict of not guilty feels an awful lot like the judge mind-reading that the jury is so biased as to be unable to see how awful the prosecution’s case is. From reading Andrew’s commentary it’s apparent that self-defense law is complicated but juries are asked to apply complicated laws to complicated cases all the time.

      JPL17 in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 12:03 am

      How quickly some people forget this famous directed verdict of “not guilty”:

      “Common Pleas Court Judge Stanley L. Kubacki today issued a directed verdict of acquittal for three police officers accused of beating a member of the radical group Move after a shootout with the police in August 1978.

      “Officers Charles Geist, Terrence Mulvihill and Joseph Zagame were on trial for aggravated assault, simple assault and official oppression in the alleged beating of Delbert Orr.

      “Television news films showed Mr. Orr, who, like all members of Move, had adopted the surname Africa, being hit and kicked as he was led from the Move headquarters. The shootout, in which a police officer, James Ramp, was killed, occurred after the police had tried to evict the group from the building.

      “Nine Move members, including Mr. Orr, were convicted last year of third-degree murder in Mr. Ramp’s death. The jury was prepared to hear closing arguments today in the case against the three officers, but Judge Kubacki announced his decision after a lunch break and dismissed the jurors.

      “Judge Kubacki said Philadelphia was ”bleeding to death” because of the drawn-out controversy surrounding the back-to-nature group and that nothing would be gained by furthering the prosecution of the three officers.”

      MattMusson in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 4:02 pm

      I disagree on the grounds that the Judge may issue a directed verdict to keep the Jurors from being murdered. The Jurors have already been threatened with DOXing and the sure to follow violent attacks.

    aramissebastian in reply to africkkeeling. | November 9, 2021 at 9:00 am

    I think the prosecution’s case is in big trouble.

    As a lifelong registered Dem. and big-city dweller, I’m not a Second Amendment guy, nor one who thinks that the traditional laws of self-defense needs to be tampered with.

    But . . .

    A couple of things are crystal clear from the evidence . . .

    1. The defendant sought to flee on each occasion preceding the use of deadly force;

    2. In each instance in which the defendant used deadly force, he had an objectively reasonable belief, as the statute requires, “that such force [was] necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.”

    A lot is going to hinge on who’s on the jury. Personally, I suspect that the one selected juror who was discharged is the tip of the iceberg, and, all it takes is one juror for a hung jury.

    I do think there is a strong likelihood that the defendant goes down for illegally possessing a firearm while under-aged, but do not discount the possibility of juror nullification, particularly as Mr. Grosskreutz was not charged for his illegal possession.

    Finally, I am unaware, specifically, as to how Wisconsin law works, but am curious as to how sub-section (2) of the self-defense statute — the ‘provocation’ provision — would operate here,

    In relevant part it provides “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 is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack . . . ”

    Query: Is illegally possessing a fire-arm a ‘provocation’ as contemplated in Wisconsin law?

    I think not, but it remains to be seen.

      The change of illegal weapon possession is not cut and dry at all. If you read the actual statute, Kyle is not in violation. That is why the defense asked that question about whether Kyle’s gun was a short barreled rifle. Even the judge has expressed doubt that this charge should be allowed, but hasn’t ruled on it yet.

      Christopher B in reply to aramissebastian. | November 9, 2021 at 10:04 am

      I highly doubt that any of the rioters knew or even would have suspected that Rittenhouse could have been in violation of a very complicated and probably unconstitutionally vague WI statute so it seems to be a stretch to think that it would be ‘conduct of a type likely to provoke.’ You’re basically left arguing that openly carrying a rifle was ‘conduct intended to provoke’, and that isn’t unlawful.

      Yes, WI law on age restrictions is a mashup of confusing parts. HOWEVER< it clearly exceot from the 'under 18 in possession" sectioins those age 16 and 17 who are in possession of other than'"dangerous weapons". this is a small class of weapons like mchine guns, short brrelled rifle,s etc, and Kyle's AR pattern semiautomatic firle dies NOT fall into the "dngerous weapon category as defined by Wisconsin law, the key. Thus Kyle is was NOT in unlawful possession of the rifle he had that day.

      FIrhter, as he was milling about in public, dressed for weather, and at night, how many also milling about could possibley have determined he was 17 and only a few weeks short of his 18th birthday? For that meme to hold water, the majoirty of the milling crowd out and about that night must have had the ability todiscern Kyle's age wihtin a few weeks to have comprehended that he might have been in "unlawfully possessioin" as a minor. Not gonna happen. s even the underage in possessin scharge falls flat. And thus a directed judgement IS an opeioin, and I believe the best one at this time

      Just read this morning tht some clown in the area is braging about taking pictures of the jury members with the stated intent of "dixxxing" them in publicaly available media, a crime in itself. The jury if thy learn of this, may well be in fear for their lives but bing doxxed and returning "the wrong' verdict. The judge can now act to prevent this happening. If the judge makes this call he exonerates the jury from any responsibily for the verdict, thus pops the ballon of "payback" for returning the "wrong" vredict. This happened in the Derek Chaovin case… some of the jurors even admitted afterard they were pressured by public opinion and their on perceived danger if they acquiited Chaivin Tht is most likey what WIL happen here if the jury cquits.
      All it takes in one juror to vote to cquit… but that does not let the rest off the hook in the court of public opinion.

      Judge SHOULD declare a preemtive not guilty on all charges verdict, immediately taking thejury out of danger. The evidence certainly supports this outcome.

      DaveGinOly in reply to aramissebastian. | November 9, 2021 at 2:58 pm

      See Mr. Branca’s previous report on the trial, in which he goes over “provocation” six ways to Sunday.

Also vaporized: Grosskreutz’ civil suits.

Colonel Travis | November 8, 2021 at 11:07 pm

At this point the defense must be thinking: Good Lord, the state is doing our job, too. Why are we even here?

TY Mr. Branca… I still cannot wrap my brain around the lawsuit this ejit has filed,,, 10 Million. Kenosha cops let people run around with *gasp guns!

All legal issues aside,, It is hard to believe that Kyle escaped with his life.

    fogflyer in reply to amwick. | November 8, 2021 at 11:23 pm

    The main thing I learned from watching all of this was to put a sling on my AR!

      UserP in reply to fogflyer. | November 8, 2021 at 11:53 pm

      I learned not to attend protests in Wisconsin.

      UserP in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 12:02 am

      The main thing Binger learned was that he was not cut out to be a lawyer!

        Colonel Travis in reply to UserP. | November 9, 2021 at 12:24 am

        I found out today that two years ago he was at his girlfriend’s place and they got in a fight. She bit him and wouldn’t let him leave. Someone called police. I’m assuming he did. He was allowed to leave after police got there.

        The guy is at least 50, has hair like a 12-year-old and seems like a pushover in every way there is.

          I’ll be honest, that sounds like the premise for a Saturday Night Live skit.

          “Yeah, she won’t let me leave.”

          phone murble

          “Well, she’s currently chewing on my left arm. It sort of hurts.”

          phone murble

          “No I haven’t tried holy water or garlic. She threatened to get a restraining order.”

          phone murble

          “Yes with he mouth full. Look, can you just send someone? I really need to get home tonight.”

          Blinger had a girlfriend??? My goodness! He acts so….so….gay…

        Dennis in reply to UserP. | November 9, 2021 at 7:39 am

        I actually think Binger is a pretty good lawyer. He’s getting ass kicked, but that’s because of the evidence, not his presentation of it.

        Obviously, Rittenhouse never should have been charged, but who knows how much Binger had to do with that decision.

          Tom Servo in reply to Dennis. | November 9, 2021 at 10:23 am

          Binger is the most incompetent courtroom lawyer since the Court Appointed Attorney in “My Cousin Vinnie”.

I wonder if Littlebinger will find boxes of extra jurors in the back room of his brothel at 3am…

“I was chasing him because I thought he was an active shooter.”
“I was chasing him to help him not get hit on the head by a skateboard.”

Well which one was it Gage?!?!

I just wanted to add that I am calling total BS on the claim that Kyle had a misfire and recharged the weapon. If that happened, there would be an unfired round on the ground. Anybody find that round? I didn’t think so.

    Think38 in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 1:24 am

    The motion in the video makes it unlikely he pulled the charging handle to clear the chamber and load another round. It takes a pretty good pull to do so, and is awkward to do with the left hand from that angle.

    JorgB in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 3:43 am

    If KR cleared a malfunction in that melee… Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. That’s basically instant God-Like tactical status given all the rest. From a guy that supposedly shot some (lets be real) POS AR on a single occasion less than 200 times!?!… Well, then this whole episode makes me a believer in Russian child-assassin spy academies.

    AuricGold in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 5:08 am

    Well, not necessarily. There are at least two ways he could have pulled the charging handle and not put an unfired round on the ground: He could have experienced a failure to eject which was fixed when he pulled the charger. That would have resulted in a fired cartridge case on the ground. Or, he could have experienced a failure to feed, and had an empty chamber that he fed upon pulling the charger. But I too am not convinced that he pulled the charging handle at any point in the fight.

      fogflyer in reply to AuricGold. | November 9, 2021 at 7:46 am

      Yes, but both of those situations usually results in a jam that requires dropping the mag and then cycling the bolt. It’s possible, but not likely. And, even if he was able to clear a FTF or a FTE simply by reracking, it would typically leave a bent up brass on the ground that would still be distinct.

        f2000 in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 7:59 am

        And that would alter the round count. 22 led in the mag + 8 fired + 1? … Possible if he chambered then refilled the mag, but that’s not a habit I’ve seen outside of those that carry smaller capacity pistols.

        AuricGold in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 11:51 am

        Another possibility is a bolt locking to the rear, which could be remedied by the operation of the charging handle– something which required less fine motor skills than using the bolt release lever.

    Philip in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 11:11 am

    Recharged? Why are we ingoring the proper term which is reload?

      AuricGold in reply to Philip. | November 9, 2021 at 11:54 am

      Because I don’t think anyone is talking about reloading here. We’re talking about operation of the charging handle.

I honestly don’t understand why they tried to charge him with this particular shooting.

OK the first 2 if you squint real hard with the right jury a prosecutor might believe that they could squeeze a conviction.

But this idiot? How in the name of hell did they believe for one second that putting this idiot on the stand was going to help them??? This is so catastrophically bad it turns jurors off to the entire rest of the case.

I really don’t understand why they didn’t just charge him with the first 2 and try and avoid this entirely.

    Tom Servo in reply to Olinser. | November 8, 2021 at 11:41 pm

    Prosecutors love to overcharge a defendant and then drop the useless charges during a plea bargain. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what Binger originally thought would happen. When Rittenhouse forced him to take it to trial, Binger went YOLO on it.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Tom Servo. | November 9, 2021 at 12:47 am

      What is YOLO?

      TargaGTS in reply to Tom Servo. | November 9, 2021 at 8:06 am

      While I agree that happens all the time. I think in this particular instance, the strings on this case were being pulled from WAY above the local prosecutor’s head. This was a national story from the very moment it happened. It wouldn’t surprise me that it wasn’t only Tony Evers’ and Josh Kauls’ respective offices making decisions, but the White House itself. Someone, anyone particularly including a white kid like Rittenhouse who was defending themselves from the Antifa mob during those protests simply didn’t stand a chance.

        Target, I think you overestimate the direct coordination of things like this. There are no people in high office who actually say “Make sure this kid is prosecuted and thrown into jail.” At that level, it’s all Thomas Becket. Somebody may say “Bob, keep an eye on that case in Kenosha where the kid murdered two people.” Bob isn’t going to respond “It wasn’t murder, it was self-defense.” Or at least if Bob wants to keep his job. He’s going to say “Yes, sir” and pass the same instructions on to a subordinate of his, and so on until some third aide at the bottom of the food chain has lunch with the prosecutor’s legal aide and passes on the ‘advice’ in something like “The people in Washington are really watching this murder case” and thus is the order received.

        The Deep State is quite deep indeed, and protects its own while ensuring enemies are punished.

    henrybowman in reply to Olinser. | November 9, 2021 at 12:07 am

    “But this idiot? How in the name of hell did they believe for one second that putting this idiot on the stand was going to help them???”

    It’s not like they could put the other two idiots on the stand.
    From reading their life histories, had they survived to testify, they might have been even more incohesive than Grosskreutz.

    Dennis in reply to Olinser. | November 9, 2021 at 7:47 am

    I expect they prosecuted the case so that lefties would like them. I expect they will succeed in that. Here’s the MSNBC version of Grosskreutz’s testimony . . .

    DaveGinOly in reply to Olinser. | November 9, 2021 at 3:37 pm

    Not charging KR for shooting GG would have raised a red flag. Jurors would wonder about it. No telling how that might influence them. But even if KR wasn’t charged for that shooting, that wouldn’t have prevented the defense from putting GG on the stand.

Thanks for the great reporting, Andrew.

Is there a reason the defense didn’t even ask Grosskreutz about his conviction? The State brought it up at the VERY beginning of direct, clearly trying to sneak it in early and hope everyone forgot about it. And it appears everyone did forget about it!

    fogflyer in reply to foospro86. | November 9, 2021 at 12:04 am

    I think that was the agreement reached by both parties. Only mention a single conviction and no details. Usually past crimes are not allowed as evidence, but the prosecution must have been afraid that something they wanted to ask would open the door to bringing it in, so instead they made this agreement.

Grosskreutz makes me think of what would happen when an Antifa supporter is forced to take off his mask and try to pass off his condescending judgmental bs in a court of law.

    henrybowman in reply to schafph. | November 9, 2021 at 12:09 am

    Plus, the man has a singular panache… to be able to rock an Armani suit and a pro haircut, and still pull off “douchebag.”

Russ from Winterset | November 9, 2021 at 12:11 am

I think it’s fair to say that Gaige’s testimony left the prosecution feeling a little………….disarmed.

It all looked pretty obvious to me during the Chauvin trial as well.

The jury matters.

    fogflyer in reply to Andy. | November 9, 2021 at 12:34 am

    You got that right!
    I felt the evidence presented at the Zimmerman trial actually proved Zimmerman innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Far beyond the actual requirement of just not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, even though he was acquitted, several jury members said it was a very difficult decision and some of the initial votes were guilty.

      Elzorro in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 2:54 am

      Kies, Social Justice, and the Unamerican Way. Yes, I agree 30 percent of the jury pool is tainted. It is like having 8 honest Americans long with Joy Reid, Jonathan Capeheart, Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow on the panel.

      amwick in reply to fogflyer. | November 9, 2021 at 5:36 am

      Zimmerman and Kyle have been presumed guilty, and forced to prove innocence. The whole trial thing is now bass ackwards at least for some people.

    Elzorro in reply to Andy. | November 9, 2021 at 2:46 am

    Should of gone for a bench trial. It would be over.

      The Packetman in reply to Elzorro. | November 9, 2021 at 7:42 am

      I’ve heard reporting that the prosecution has to agree to a bench trial in WI.

        If so what a state. They need to rewrite their laws or become a no go zone. Whole states and DC are already no go zones due to their woke justice systems and US Circuit Courts.

    hail2skins in reply to Andy. | November 9, 2021 at 8:58 am

    Not applicable. Chauvin had more than two minutes he knew, because he was told by those around him, the man beneath him was dead and he did not adjust. No pulse, bowels evacuated. And he did not adjust. EMT arrives and he did not adjust

    He was overcharged and some will be overturned. But his facts always had to overcome those final couple minutes he stayed on a dead man’s body. Hard to overcome that.

      DaveGinOly in reply to hail2skins. | November 9, 2021 at 3:42 pm

      Why do you think staying on a dead man’s body had anything to do with convicting Chauvin of killing Floyd? The only actions that mattered were those Chauvin took that led to GF’s death, not those he continued after GF was already dead. Nobody denied that GF died while Chauvin was on him. The controversy was over Chauvin’s responsibility for GF’s death.


“Single white male, age 50, m,issing right bicept, looking for sensitive left-wing woman. Must have extra bicept.”

The verdict is not guilty due to the evidence presented by the state. However there may be and probably are a few brain dead liberals who watch and believe MSNBC and the fellow travers who are hosts and guests on there. These leftists will pay no attention to the truth and will never ever vote to acquitt. Binger appears to be playing to this choir. This may end up with a mistrial or a jury bargain on a charge. If the defense had gone for a bench trial I believe he would be found not guilty on all counts. With a modern political jury there are bound to be a few communists/democrats on it who will never vote not guilty no matter what. This would be a political defeat and to these people that is the most important thing.

Speaking of the FBI and the missing jump-kick man.
Does anyone know what odds the bookmakers give that the impossible-to-find jump-kick man is an FBI undercover agent?

    Pat Lee in reply to felixrigidus. | November 9, 2021 at 5:38 am

    Exactly what I was thinking! How can he be MIA? Seems like the prosecution knows everyone by first name. But not the jump kick man. Anyway, is that why the FBI “lost” the HD version of the drone footage? LOL.

Does anyone know why the defense did not choose a bench trial? I know it’s hindsight now, but it seems like it would have been a no-brainer, particularly when they saw who the judge was going to be. I’m assuming all of these attorneys know this judge, and knew that he wasn’t some radical leftist activist, but rather, it seems, one who is concerned to actually follow the law. Instead, you choose a jury trial in this kind of highly charged, political case? That doesn’t seem to make much sense. What am I missing?

    fast182 in reply to aslannn. | November 9, 2021 at 8:35 am

    I believe that Mr. Branca covered this earlier, that in WI the prosecution must agree to a bench trial, which they obviously won’t do because a woke jury is their only hope of a conviction.

      aslannn in reply to fast182. | November 9, 2021 at 10:38 am

      Thanks. That seems like a terrible system.

      civisamericanus in reply to fast182. | November 9, 2021 at 10:41 am

      I think the judge can still trash-can the case on his own volition if he thinks it is a junk case, but I don’t know.

        DaveGinOly in reply to civisamericanus. | November 9, 2021 at 3:48 pm

        I’m thinking the jurors will not find KR guilty of the greater crimes, or may possibly hang on them. They will find him guilty of the gun crime and possibly the reckless endangerment charge. The judge will then void those guilty verdicts, and, if there are undecided charges, will then enter “not guilty” verdicts on those charges. (If the latter is possible.)

    rbeypw in reply to aslannn. | November 9, 2021 at 8:38 am

    My understanding (IANAL) is that both sides have to agree to a bench trial. SInce the prosecution’s strategy has been to taint the jury pool and secure a guilty verdict based on the jury’s preconceptions rather than the actual evidence, obviously they would not accept a bench trial.

    For more information on this specific topic listen to Viva and Barnes – Barnes did a ton of work on jury selection for Rittenhouse only to be excluded from the defense team at the last minute. The actual defense team failed Rittenhouse terribly in jury selection, which is the most important part of any trial. Something like 2/3rds of the Kenosha area population thought Rittenhouse was guilty pre-trial based on the media coverage. Basically the thought is that Kyle went there looking for trouble, and thus should not be allowed to claim self-defense (not legally, just as a public opinion thing). It is thus highly likely that jury contains a number of members who went into the trial believing Kyle guilty, possibly even a majority. The prosecution is not trying to build a case to convince an unbiased jury – they are trying to provide enough of a story to confirm the preconceptions of a biased jury, and hope that any unbiased jury members can be swayed by the rest of the jury.

    The defense team clearly does not understand this, or they would be objecting much more strongly to what the prosecution has been doing (such as repeatedly pausing the video replay with the word “Militia” on the screen to create the impression that Kyle was a member of one, even though they have not presented any actual evidence that he was (hard to do given that he was not)). The goal is not to invalidate Kyle’s self-defense claim as a matter of law, but to give the jury a reason to ignore it. Part of this will be to bring up Wisconsin law on incitement, but again the purpose is not to convince the jury of the legal merits of the position, but to give jury members who went into the trial believing Kyle “went looking for trouble” something that will allow them to hold onto that opinion in the jury room, even if it is nothing more than the prosecutors asserting that in final arguments without ever presenting any actual evidence. In effect, they are going for a sort of reserve jury nullification, that is a nullification of the self-defense provisions of Wisconsin law.

    As a legal strategy, this is deeply unethical conduct on the part of the prosecution, who have an obligation to pursue justice that a defense attorney does not.

You put the “My gun was illegal” video in the “ At Every Grosskreutz Had with Kyle, the 17-year-old Was Non-Confrontational” section.

Just my impression as a non-lawyer. Two lead investigators with less than 3 years experience presenting the flimsiest of flimsy evidence to prosecutors employing tortured logic… it just looks like the prosecution knew they had no case going in and couldn’t find capable attorneys willing to handle the case. What would even the best attorneys have done with this case to have a chance to win? Why would anyone agree to handle the prosecution?

So, pressured by the politicians and others to have a trial anyway, the state forced their worst staff attorneys to throw what they little evidence they had hoping against hope for a crazy verdict by an intimidated jury (there have been threats). Why? Riots and another lie to add to the “racist” “white supremacist” narrative.

Do you have any video of when Antamarian testified on cross that the defendant never shot at anyone who wasn’t attacking him?

TaxPayingPatriot | November 9, 2021 at 7:59 am

With so much drone footage, including that of the FBI, and so many people interviewed, it seems rather implausible that they can’t piece together where the so-called jump kick guy was prior to the kick, to the point where a known associate can ID him/her. He didn’t come out of the vapor, should be assumed to be wearing the same clothes, etc. And since he was trying to stomp KR, he should be liable for inciting and creating a sense of danger (along with the skateboard, others jumping him, etc.) sufficient to lead Kyle that he should be in fear for his life and respond with force until the attack is over.

    Felixrigidus nailed it. Jump kick guy was a FBI, most likely, plant. “Law enforcement” of some variety.

      civisamericanus in reply to lichau. | November 9, 2021 at 10:40 am

      Let’s drop the conspiracy theories. I think drop kick guy disappeared because he (allegedly unless proven) committed attempted assault and could be charged (although it looks like Binger & Co would give him a pass) if he came forward.

        henrybowman in reply to civisamericanus. | November 9, 2021 at 2:17 pm

        As we’ve seen over the past few years, “conspiracy theories” is simply shorthand for “facts that the government hasn’t yet been forced to admit but eventually will.”

        But there are other reasons he may have disappeared, like he broke his parole coming to the riot from out of state.

        I don’t “get” your tossing out the “conspiracy theory” flame. The fact is that “jump man” apparently committed assault. Why haven’t they found him? Is it because they can’t? Possible, but I doubt they tried very hard. They might have, I concede. Is there any evidence (posters, appeals to the public, etc.) that they did? Maybe, but I haven’t seen them.
        Is it because they know who he is and there are reasons not to arrest and charge him? I think that a reasonable question. Given recent history with law enforcement’s infiltration of these groups, the supposition that he was a plant is a reasonable one.
        My opinion, and it is just that. This is entirely a political trial.

    Pepsi_Freak in reply to TaxPayingPatriot. | November 9, 2021 at 10:41 am

    If he hasn’t been found by now, it could mean the authorities don’t want to “find” him. Do they already know his identity? And maybe his employer?

I can’t escape the feeling that this trial will not hinge on witnesses or evidence, but one single thing: fear.

Leave aside any left-wing bozos who might happen to be on the jury and who will vote to lynch the “white supremacist gun nut” Rittenhouse no matter what. If the jury is afraid they will be ostracized as racists (or even killed) by Antifa/BLM brownshirts for delivering the “wrong” verdict, then they will vote to convict.

    If the jury returns a guilty verdict pm Kyle and pays of the Hero of the State GG it will signal a new paradyne. Cities will have to evacuate whole riot zones when the communist revolutionaries come to town to loot, burn, and pillage. No self defense will be permitted because the state will arrest the citizen and put them away for life if they attempt to stand against the leftist mobs. It would be the end of the criminal justice system as well with woke politics replacing constitutional rights. A lot is at stake here. The trial by jury will be ruled by ideology not law.

John Sullivan | November 9, 2021 at 8:57 am

For someone who claims to have no sense of touch in his right hand and little use of his arm, he seems to have no problem handling photos and documents with his right hand.

Maybe he should have stuck to the Arbery case instead. This is so entertaining that it is boring!

    civisamericanus in reply to broomhandle. | November 9, 2021 at 10:38 am

    Binger would make an ideal defense attorney for the men who shot Arbery. He seems to think it is OK to chase after somebody because “you thought he did something wrong” and attack him with deadly weapons. I think he is in the wrong courtroom, he ought to be in Georgia right about now.

      broomhandle in reply to civisamericanus. | November 9, 2021 at 1:34 pm

      Is that what happened? I thought Arbery attacked and then got shot in the process, and the case hinges on whether the citizen arrest was lawful. I don’t know the answers but I don’t think the defendants there just chased him down and shot him.

This guy, Grosskreutz is utter slime — his prevarications are obvious.

How about when the defense attorney (the bald one; I don’t know his name) elicited an admission from Grosskreutz, that, even though he had told police and media that he had dropped his gun, he had, in fact, drawn it with his hand, and, that Grosskreutz didn’t consider this contradiction to constitute a lie? How brazen and dishonest can a fabulist get?

    henrybowman in reply to guyjones. | November 9, 2021 at 2:20 pm

    From the video I saw, he drew his gun, pointed it, then dropped it (because he got shot). so maybe he didn’t think it was a contradiction to say he dropped it after he drew it.

Re-watching that clip, Lefty doesn’t testify that he yelled at Huber to stop hitting Kyle. He testifies that he told cops he did that, but that “in hindsight” it was all a lie.

civisamericanus | November 9, 2021 at 10:47 am

I can’t give legal advice but I don’t think Grosskreutz even had to point the gun at Rittenhouse to put him in reasonable fear for his life. An assailant with a drawn gun can aim and fire in a fraction of a second, and perhaps even more quickly than you can even realize what he is doing. A quick-draw expert can draw from a holster and kill you even if you have pointed a gun at him because you require roughly a quarter of a second to realize you should squeeze your trigger.

This doesn’t make everybody with a holstered gun a threat to you. A threat requires that he not only have the means of killing you but that he also express his intention to do that. Had Grosskreutz been carrying a holstered gun (open carry), nobody would have been justified in shooting him just as nobody was justified in attacking Rittenhouse for carrying a rifle without menacing anybody with it. The instant Grosskreutz pulled the gun and chased Rittenhouse, though, he had expressed his intention to harm him and had the immediate means of carrying out his threat.

And, even in states without stand your ground laws, you cannot retreat in complete safety from a bullet. This should be a no-brainer but maybe the prosecution assumes the jurors have no brains.

    Yup. Gosskeruts deminstrated all threee requriements to trigger a lethal response to HIS conduct. He plinly displayed means, opportunity and intent. Anyone chaing ME who has a pistol in his hand, and closing the gap (KYle really needs to practice running wiht that rifle) Kyle woud have been fully justified in firing much earlier than he did. His waiting tilll the last critical second is remarkeble. It would seem that had he waited half a second more to fire, DIrtbag G would have had the drop on him, and it wuld have beenKyle shot and killed. Three feet away, handgun aimed at his head? That’s waiting too long.

    Overl Kyle demosntrated amaizng skill with that weapon, which he had not had much time to get acquaitned with. The earlier dead guy, it is reported that he fired three aimed shots, all of which hit, within three quarters of a sceond. Under duress. Most can’t even do that shooting square at the range, all calm and relaxed ad suchlike.

Gaige Grosskreutz appears to not be burdened by decent ethics or morals.
Therefore, I expect Mr. Gaige Grosskreutz to change his career choice to a democrat politician in the near future.
He will get many votes.

    Philip in reply to Philip. | November 9, 2021 at 10:55 am

    The $10 million that he will likely receive from the Kenosha liability insurance policy will help him buy yard signs for his future political campaign.

How did the Antaramian testimony get in?

1) How can video get in based on the testimony that “someone” recorded it? Don’t you need testimony of the videographer to authenticate it?

2) How did the defense or judge possibly let Antaramian testify about what he saw in the video? He’s not an expert on watching videos – either the jury can see it or they can’t.

idiot testimony about the charging attacker being three feet away from Rittenhouse, too far away to have grabbed the gun. Anybody with any legitimate gun training, including LEOs, are taught that if the attacker is within 21 feet of you, shoot.

migratingcoconut | November 9, 2021 at 12:47 pm

How is it possible for the prosecution to introduce this “unicorn” drone footage as evidence? How is it possibly admissible in criminal proceedings? There would clearly be no provenance, no chain of custody, and presumably the defense was not offered the opportunity to review it prior to its introduction.
Am I missing something?

So far , every prosecution witness has established the elements of self-defense. While a judge would not dismiss such a flimsily constructed case, there is plenty of evidence for a jury to acquit in this case

Will the defense have to do anything after the prosecution completes its case, since the prosecution has essentially proven that KR acted in self-defense?

“The defense rests, your honor. The prosecutor has provided all the evidence and proof my client acted in self defense.”

This case is as absurd as the Zimmerman persecution.

all of these mistakes, yet I fear that none of them will make any difference, and they will win something in this case. shameful, but I’m very cynical these days.

“mortality wounded”

I assume you meant “mortally wounded”.

The left loves their deux ex machina moments don’t they: trials, elections.

carolinaandbaby | November 10, 2021 at 4:13 pm