loader image

Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R&R Law Group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I’m talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We’ve got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called a justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That’s why we started this show called Watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice.

And we’re grateful that you are here and with us today, it is Rittenhouse trial day eight. Kyle Rittenhouse took the stand today. My goodness, do we have a lot to talk about? So without any further ado, we’re just going to get right into it. Normally I give a little outline of the show. You know what we’re talking about? We had a couple of quick witnesses that we got to get out of the way we have Jacob Marshall, that we have the car source guy, both who were there, uh, and in court today, but not much consequential came out of them. We can clean up a little bit of some of the outlying issues in the case, like the gauge gross crews really say that he wanted to empty his entire magazine in the written house. Well, Jacob Marshall says, no, he didn’t do that. So we’re going to check in on that.

We’re going to check in on the car source fellow, and then we’re, it’s all day it’s written house because he was in front of the jury for something like six hours today, full direct examination, full cross examination, Mark Richards, and the defense team did not do any redirect. And there was no recross. One side got one shot in Kyle Rittenhouse. And many people were just shocked that it even came to this myself included. I was listening in this morning and when I heard that they were going to be calling him, my heart dropped a little bit because I didn’t think it was necessary, but we’re going to get into all of that in more. I want you to be a part of the show. This is a live stream, and it’s not fun. If we do it all ourselves, we need support. If you want to be here and be a part of the show, watchingthewatchers.locals.com is our home base.

There’s a form over there. If you’re a supporter, you can use the form and ask a question. We’re also of course, taking any super chats as they come in from our friends over on YouTube. If you submit one, they look like this, they pop up on the screen, just like that. And we’ll make sure we get to those as well. If you’re looking for clips of the show for the Rittenhouse case, we have been cutting up the individual witnesses. Sometimes we’ll batch a couple of them if they’re short, but if you’re looking for Graham Bose testimony, if you’re looking for gross cruises testimony, they’re over on our clips channel, which you can subscribe to right over there and we would appreciate it. Okay. So Rittenhouse trial, date eight, we’ve got the defense now presenting their case in chief. Let’s go back to the witness board.

As we do at the start of each segment, you can see here that the defense witness list is looking a little bit sparse, at least compared to the prosecution’s case in chief. A lot of other witnesses that the government used that the defense is not using. But today we had a couple of new additions. We have Jacob Marshall down here. You can see this fella, sort of the reddish hair with a big beard. And we have an Mo Kindree we’ve already heard from him. He was a government witness. And so he got recalled by the defense today. Kyle Rittenhouse, of course, is the big witness of the day. Many people surprised that he testified at all same usual parties, no changes with the jurors or anything like that. Uh, and we’re going to start off by talking about Jacob Marshall, Jacob Marshall, of course, this guy here, as I mentioned with the big beard, because he came into court today and he was asked about this Facebook post post, which was the subject of a lot of the gage gross crits testimony here is what the Facebook posts allegedly said, uh, posted by Jacob Marshall.

So he doesn’t dispute that he posted this, but it says, uh, uh, Ben stockless. So the kids shot gage as he drew his weapon, engaged retreated with his gun in hand, I just talked to gauge gross crew gets to his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him coward. So he posted that later, deleted it. And we know that when gauge gross Groots was called into the stand, uh, what was that yesterday? Whatever this week he said to the jury, and he looked at him directly and said, that is a lie. I did not say that. I never said that. Or something like that, almost like the did not have sexual relations with that, almost like that, but a very unequivocal. And so what [inaudible] did back then is he said, oh, is that so they’re Mr. Gage, that’s curious because we’re going to be calling Jacob Marshall into court. He’s going to be able to corroborate that and tell us whether you did say that or not. He’s going to testify about it. And he did that today. Here is what that looked like. And it didn’t go the way I thought it was going to go. Here is Jacob Marshall and Corey cheer FEC in Rittenhouse trial day eight. It appears so, yes.

Okay.

So this is the Facebook post. We’re talking

About it. Tell me if this is

Right.

He never said that to me.

You just posted something about your friend, your roommate.

That was a lie I did given the circumstances and all the threats that received on the internet. I’d never been put in a position like that. Um, addresses of ours were posted, uh, you know, my mother was getting inbox. Uh, my sister, it was insane with everything going on. At the time I made a bad remark. I was trying to stick up for my friend at the time, who, you know, he didn’t know any of this was going on. He didn’t see the post or anything. Um, you’re not sticking up for him. You’re saying what he’s said. No. Well that

This post down here should’ve killed him right then and there.

Right? That is me saying that. Yes. Okay.

This post right here is you equating something that Mr. Gross Christ said to you.

I lied. He never said that, that those words have never came out of his mouth,

Asked and answered argumentative and leading, um, overall.

So he never said that you made it all up a hundred percent, made it all up. Nothing else. Thank you.

Okay. Made it all up. So it’s like, why why’d you call that witness then maybe his story changed. Maybe there was a another interview they did. And it sounded like maybe he was going to come and tell a different story. So interesting. Now the prosecution came back out. Of course they want to do a cross examination there. And, uh, let’s see what they had to say about this. They get an immediate objection because they ask a dumb question, uh, uh, is gage gross. Kreutz the type of person that does whatever can ask that question. He’s not qualified to give you an opinion on that binger here’s Thomas today

And gauge the type of person who would take another life.

No. And that’s clearly shows of

Jack shed.

The objection is sustained.

Look at being space. Uh,

Gage is a medic. He is a medic, a paramedic and an EMT. Yes. Fair to say. He’s dedicated his life to preserving and healing.

Yes. He cares about the wellness and safeties of others.

Nothing further.

All right. Well done. Really good witness there. Glad we wasted the court’s time with that. So Jacob Marshall comes out, says, I didn’t say that about gage. He’s a very nice guy. All right. Well done. So we bring in next and mall Kindree ML, Kendrick of course, was a car source, uh, employee, somebody who was there in the vicinity. He has come out now a second time today. And again was basically useless. Didn’t help much of anything. Uh, Corey GRPC is trying to kind of impeach him, say when you were here previously, you said a bunch of stuff about not knowing this, that the other thing, but you, you did know didn’t you. And again, we get the same blank stare. Uh can’t remember, can you repeat the question here was Corey today in court.

I asked this question and you don’t know what the loss from those fires were. Your answer was I personally never calculated it. My dad does the money part. Yes. Yes.

Is that true? Yes.

That

You still don’t. You didn’t know what the time, what the loss, what?

Well, when we arrived on, um, Monday, um, seen on the destruction, all the cars, looking at the property, um, because a lot of oil, uh, has lost, uh, has gone into the asphalt. Those saw the replacement and all that. So, I mean, we were in shock.

My question to you is as you sit here today, are you still under oath stating that you don’t know and didn’t know what the loss was?

I’m sorry. I cannot remember.

You can’t remember if that’s your statement today?

Could you repeat the question?

God,

November 5th, you agree that you testified under oath. You did not know what the loss was from your business.

Restructure the question I or a system or,

Okay. So we can’t with that guy. He doesn’t really know up from down apparently, but binger comes back out and uh, uh, sir, isn’t it confused? Are you confused here? Because it’s a very scary situation having all your property destroyed. Here’s what he says.

Things like that. Very hard. Yes. Is it fair to say that six or eight hours after the incident, you didn’t have a clear picture of the full value of your cars? That is correct. I have nothing further.

Oh, okay. So yet another witness. Not much there. Now this is the big stuff that we were all waiting for. I have said this before. I’m a criminal defense attorney. Most people know that, but it is not something that is usual to have a defendant testify in a criminal case. It almost never helps. Right? There’s almost no upside only downside because you’re dealing with somebody. Who’s not a professional witness. The police officers, prosecutors crime, lab technicians, the people who work in the criminal justice system are professional people. They’re qualified to testify. And typically criminal defense clients, people like Kyle Rittenhouse are not their regular civilians. There are people that don’t have any formal training. Once they’ve been charged in the justice system. And especially somebody who’s 17 now, 18 years old, they lack a lot of the qualifications that that might make somebody good at testifying just naturally, right?

Even adults that have skills in high stress meetings and a lot of high pressure stakes situations and things like that. Just buckle under pressure in the middle of a courtroom. Because look at the stress, look at the environment that you’re looking at here. You’ve got, you know, three dozen people. You’ve got a judge up higher on a bench. You’ve got a court clerk, a stenographer, you’ve got multiple people staring at you. You’ve got a prosecutor who is directly hostile. You’ve got 12, 20 18 jurors there who are now bearing their gaze down upon you. You’ve got the little fact that if you’re convicted, you go to prison maybe for the rest of your life. And so ultra high pressure, almost an impossible situation for anybody to perform it. I mean, honestly, anybody, even a highly trained person under that pressure, you can’t train for that. You can’t ever prepare somebody to deal with the weight of what is bearing down on shoulders, collar, Rittenhouse 17 facing life in prison or, or worse.

Right? I don’t know what the consequences are, uh, in terms of death penalty or whatever. All of that is, is mostly irrelevant. The big point is a lot is happening here. There is virtually nothing that Mark Richards, Cory cheer, FEC can do to put him under practice environments. That’s going to qualify him to play the game here today. They can sit there with him. They can go through different lines of questioning. They can prepare, practice, whatever, but it is a different environment in the real time. It’s like never having played a football game. And then, and then throwing somebody into the super bowl. Good luck. It is almost impossible. And so this is why people recoiled like myself. When I heard that he was going to be taking the stand, I thought, oh my gosh, why are they doing this? They already have this case in the bag.

It’s only downside very little upside, but recall that the client in a situation like this has the ultimate right to testify. And if they want to, you can’t stop them from doing that. And Kyle Rittenhouse, regardless of what you think of the young man, he is somebody that we have seen from the evidence who believes in what he was doing. Okay. You might think it was naive. You might think it was ill-advised. You might think I would never send my 17 year old kid out there, whatever, but he believes in it. You might think it was stupid to have an assault rifle, what, you know, using their language or being on the streets of Kenosha in the first place. But he was there and he had conviction. That’s why he was there in the first place. He wanted to go do good. He wanted to provide medical care.

He believed in the cause and he doesn’t think that he’s a murderer. And so you have a young man like this, who’s willing to already sort of stick his neck out and do things that a lot of other 17, 18 year olds are not willing to do. And he is being accused of some of the most heinous crimes in the, in the whole world. This is somebody who wants to be, you know, an EMT or a doctor or a firefighter or a police officer or wherever it is. He wants to go. He wants to be a person of service. And for him to sit here and allow the entire country more or less made up of the mainstream media. And you know, all the people who write the headlines, not the real country, but sort of the facade of the media is already incriminating this guy and they’ve already convicted him.

And so in his heart of hearts, he’s got this urge, this desire, I’m going to go and tell my side of the story. And I’ve got my conviction to do it. Nobody’s going to talk me out of it. And so if you have a conversation between Kyle Rittenhouse and his defense attorneys, if they’re sitting there in his office, having a conversation about testify, testify, or not, the attorneys can be banging their hands on the table. And I’ll tell you this. They probably were, if I could be honest, but if he wants to testify, the attorneys are going to have to reorient and get behind him and say, all right, well, we’re going to have to prepare for this thing. If you want to go tell your side of the story and clear your name and be vindicated in the eyes of public opinion, you’re free to do that. It’s your constitutional right? This is America. But before war, there are a lot of risks here as we’re about to see. So the judge, that’s my little take on the whole thing. The judge is also going to give him a very stern warning here about a minute and a half of this, making sure that he knows you do not have to testify. And if you do, you’re going to be opening up a whole can of worms. Are you prepared for this judge Schrader with Kyle Rittenhouse today in court, he will.

And be able to ask you anything which is relevant to this case, Jermaine pertinent to this case. And you will have to answer those questions, even though it may ensnare you in some other criminal prosecution. Do you understand that? Yes, sir. Any question about that at all? No, your honor, you also have a right. Not to testify if you don’t wish to do so. And if you decide that you do not wish to testify, then, um, no comment will, can be made on your silence by the district attorney. And I will not comment on your side I’m in on your silence and the less I may ask by your attorney to do so. And the only comment that I would make on it, if I were asked to do so, would be to instruct the jury that the defendant in a criminal case has the absolute constitutional right.

Not to testify. And that your silence should not, must not be considered by the jury in any manner in deliberation or in reaching their verdict. Do you understand that? Yes, your honor. So that’ll be a choice that I would, uh, ask, uh, Mr. Uh, trough C or Mr. Richards at a later point, uh, as to what you wanted to do if you decided not to testify, but that won’t be an issue if you decide that you do want a testimony. Okay? Yes, your honor. Any question about this at all? No, your honor. Have you had enough time to discuss this matter with your lawyers? Yes, your honor. Have you had enough time to think about what you’re doing? Yes, your honor. Do you think what you’re doing is the best thing under all those circumstances? Yes, your honor. Has anybody threatened you or pressured you or forced you in any way with respect to this decision? No, your honor. Has anybody promised you anything in exchange for this? No, your honor. Is your mind clear today? Yes, sir. Are you feeling all right? Yes, your honor. Have you had anything alcoholic to drink today? Have you had any drugs or controlled substances of any kind within the last 24 hours? No, your honor. Any reason I should not accept his waiver is consistent with advice of counsel. Okay. Okay. All right, then anything else?

Okay. So a lot to unpack there. The reason why I wanted to play that whole thing is just so everybody can understand what a serious process that says the judge. Didn’t say, uh, Mr. Rittenhouse, are you sure you want to do this as a pretty big, serious thing? You know, you have a right to remain silent, right? Do you want to waive that? Yes or no? Yes. Okay. Come on up here. Let’s get to it. That was a solid one and a half to two minute clip of this judge and he drugs or alcohol. No. Anybody promised you anything to get you to do this. Anybody tell you anything to get you to do this, any in a list after list, you read, write English, you know, all the questions to make sure that this is absolutely the right thing that he wants to do because it’s risky.

It’s really risky. And you know, it’s almost sort of meant to put speed bumps in the way, kind of a little bit of a dissuasion to stop him from actually doing this. But you could hear what Mark Richards also said that this is consistent with the advice of counsel. Now, when I posted about this earlier on Twitter, I indicated that the same point I made previously that Rittenhouse has the ultimate decision about whether to testify or not. Mark Richard saying that what the judge just said was consistent with the advice of counsel isn’t meaning that Mark Richard says, uh, judge w we agree that this is a, an amazing idea. We’re thrilled about putting Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand. That’s not what he means. He’s meaning that, that the advisement that the judge read to Rittenhouse, which was just what that was called that big long message was an advisement.

You’re advised of your rights. You’re waiving all of these rights and you want to go forward. Okay? The judge is communicating that the defense also gave him that same advisement, which is something that attorneys have to do. So even if we do a change of plea, if we say we’re going to change our plea from innocent to guilty, we go through something very similar and the courts want to make sure that the attorneys are communicating the constitutional rights that are relevant to their clients, to their clients. So that’s what happened. Now. We then have that consistent with the advice of counsel clip,

Uh, waiver. No, your honor, this is consistent with the advice of counsel. Okay. And he quit.

Okay. So once again, just wanted to make that point consistent with the advice of counsel. He read him more or less the same advisement, Kyle Rittenhouse, regardless of what the attorney said. And we can never really know what the attorney said, because all of that is privileged, private, confidential conversations that take place behind closed doors. But Mark Richards now is calling Kyle to the stand. So how does that start?

Could you please state your name, spelling your last name for the record?

Kyle Rittenhouse, R I T T E N H O U S.

Kyle, where do you reside? Walworth county. How old are you? 18 on August 25th, 2020. Did you come to downtown Kenosha? Look for trouble. Now, would you have shot Joseph Rosenbalm if he hadn’t chased, you trying to take your firearm? Objection. Reading some spend leading would you I’ll get to it. Are you a high school graduate? Yes. What high school?

Penn foster online high school.

Are you currently enrolled in any further studies? I’m a college

Student studying nursing at Arizona state university.

Oh, shout out ASU in the house. Kyle Rittenhouse studying online there. Mark Richards. Did you come to Kenosha looking for trouble? No, I didn’t got into a little bit of trouble there with a leading question, but he works his way around it. So we spent a lot of time then sort of going back through Kyle written houses record, you know, what has he been doing? Some training, uh, cadets EMT school, a lot of the background, not absolutely necessary, but let’s take a look now at how this goes a little bit south first thing in the morning. So Kyle Rittenhouse has called up, gives us some background, starts out strong. He is communicating about what he was doing there. Mark Richards starts walking him through the rest of the narrative high school and so on. Then we get to this clip where he starts walking us through what happened surrounding the actual ordeal and he breaks down. So this is about two minutes. It’s a long clip, but I want to watch, I want you to see the progression from Kyle who goes from being calm and collected to start sort of replaying the memories in his mind as he’s describing this to Mark Richards and he breaks down so very emotional clips. So just be forewarned about that. Here’s Kyle Rittenhouse today in court, he ends up breaking down. They break for about 10 minutes. We pick back up and he’s recomposed himself. So here is the first part this morning.

When you step back from Mr. [inaudible], what’s your plan.

My plan is say, get out of that and go back north down Sheridan road to where, um, the car shore slot number two was.

And did you get back? Were you able to go, you know, northerly direction?

I wasn’t

Described what happens.

I, once I take that step back, I look over my shoulder and Mr. Rosenbalm go back north dot shirt and road to where, um, the car short slot number two was.

And did you get back? Were you able to go, you know, northerly

Direction? I wasn’t described what

Happens.

I, once I take that step back, I look over my shoulder and Mr. Rosenbalm, Mr. Rosenbaum was now running from my right side. Um, and I was cornered from, in front of me with Mr. Sieminski and there were

Anyway, you can just relax for a minute, sir. Uh, we’re going to take a break about 10 minutes and please don’t talk about the case during the break. What read, watch, and listen to any contract.

So the audio cuts out. We’ve got mom over there, crying away, obviously just watched her son break down on the stand. And that was the pressure that I was talking about. He’s facing an impossible situation. And so he starts to relive that. And that’s the type of stuff that you can’t prepare for. You know, you can sit down in a office room with somebody do that line of questioning 35, 4500 times. But the pressure in the courtroom when it really matters. And when all of those images are sort of, you know, coming back to you, he broke down. He, he lost it. And so, you know, that’s a big reason why this is risky. Now I know a lot of people I’ve been watching the chat as it’s been going by some people out there saying those were fake tears. Those were, he was, he was faking this whole thing if he did.

And he deserved an Oscar for that, because that was, you know, he was actually hyperventilating. You could see he had a panic attack. Look pretty genuine to me. But the point here is that when you put your client on the stand like that, you at least trigger that question. If he’s not on the stand, you don’t ask yourself, are those real tears? Are those fake tears? You don’t even ask because you don’t have the opportunity to ask that. But if you put him on the stand, you get to ask yourselves a whole lot of questions. Don’t you, you get to ask yourself if you like, how he looks, if you like, how he’s sitting, if you like how his voice sounds, if you like how he ends his S’s at the end of certain sentences, you know, it all matters. And if you don’t put them on the stand, the jury doesn’t have those check boxes.

It’s like, if you offer a juror, a sandwich, what are they going to say? Well, I don’t really like tomato on my sandwich, but if you don’t offer them a sandwich, then they don’t get to make an opinion about tomatoes on sandwiches. So you are taking that away from them here. They get to fill in the gaps. If they were already like a 50 50 position, they’re like, you know, I could just could go either way. And then Kyle Rittenhouse gets on here and somebody goes, oh, I don’t believe those tears actually. Now I don’t believe it. So you give them a fake because you give them a reason to latch on to, to change their opinion. That wouldn’t be available if he doesn’t take the stand. And so you’ve got to prepare for that. You got to prepare for him breaking down as best you can, knowing that it might, might be nothing you can do about it. It’s absolutely inevitable because the pressure is going to be too much to bear even for a skilled person. Not to mention somebody who’s 18 years old now facing multiple decades in prison. So ultra high pressure, he breaks down. We go to break. We come back. He’s got it back together again. Mark Richards picks it back up, says we were talking about the scene again. Kyle, can you bring it back around for us here? It is.

You were testifying about coming into contact with Mr. Rosenbaum. Yes. And you saw Mr. Rosa mom. What happened

Once I got to that car and I stepped forward to put that flyer in the Duramax out and Mr. Kaminsky steps towards me, I went to go run south back, south down Sheridan. And Mr. Rosa mom was right there at the corner of the Duramax cha starting to chase me. And that’s when I realized the only place I can run with the people around me is straight towards the building of the car shore slot. Number three,

You saw Mr. Roseman. That’s where you said friendly, friendly.

Uh, what I heard burned inside. I don’t know exactly where I was at. And the time for that

Rosenbaum say anything to you?

Um, no. Mr. Kaminsky instructed Mr. Rosenbaum to get him and kill him to what I heard.

And you go running, what’s been referred to the south west corner of car source. Yes. And as you’re running in that direction, describe being chased. What was happening

As I’m running in that Southwest direction? Mr. Rosenbaum throws I at the time, I know it’s a bag now, but when he threw it at me, um, with the light, it looked silver and it looked like the chain when he threw it at me. And then I continued, I turned around for, for about a second while continuing to run. And I point my gun at Mr.

Rosenbaum that stopped them from chasing you.

It does not.

They, after you turn around and you had your hands up kind of in a low ready position and you see Mr. Rosenbaum coming at you? Yes. And what do you do then?

Um, after he throws the bag and he continues to run, he’s gaining speed on me. A gunshot is fired from behind me directly behind me. And I take a few steps and that’s when I turn around. And as I’m turning around, Mr. Rosenbaum is, I would say from me to where the judge is coming at me with his arms out in front of him. He, I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun hand

On the barrel.

Why didn’t you just keep wanting

What I think we have that clip next. Yeah. So he says Rosenbaum is approaching him hand on the barrel of the gun, which of course is a, a point of contention that we have had here for quite some time on this. We remember that the government had a DNA expert person came out and they actually swapped the barrel guard of the firearm itself. And they came back and they said, oh, you know, they read from their report and said, there was no DNA on the barrel of the gun. But then we heard from Tiara, FEC got her to say, well, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t on there. And so we’ve had a lot of conversations about this. We have sort of heard from the government that Rosenbaum was never going to be reaching for the gun. He was tripping over a shoelace or something.

And so it, this was far out of the, you know, out of a left field, Rittenhouse comes and clarifies that. Now we’re going to see a lot of these things. Rittenhouse comes back and clarifies a lot of stuff for us, which is nice. It’s nice to know that Rosenbalm, according to Kyle did touch the gun. We got some clarification on that, but would the jury have not acquitted Kyle? Because of that, the fact that we now know that according to Rittenhouse, if you look at everything in the light, most favorable to him, if you say we’re going to give him all the benefits of the doubt, just like we did with the government engaged, gross Kreutz if everything is true and Rosenbaum did touch it, does that automatically mean that Kyle Kyle Rittenhouse is now not guilty? And if Rosenbaum didn’t in fact touch it, would they have automatically found him guilty?

No, it’s, it’s, it’s nice. It’s nice to know, but it’s not ultimately consequential. So you have to weigh these things out. What’s the benefit of getting Kyle Rittenhouse to say that, that we get that little fact, we get that little nugget that maybe there was contact versus him. Testifying does that outweigh all the risks? Is there more upside from that little nugget than there is downside from testifying in the first place we’re going to see? Cause there’s a lot of these little nuggets that are great. And a lot of people are saying, well, why wasn’t the defense harsher during the direct exam? Why didn’t they dig in on these things and figure out and beat up the government witnesses about, you know, that random bullet about recharging the gun about the physical contact on the gun, anywhere else by Huber or gross Kreutz well, maybe they knew that that Rittenhouse was just going to testify.

So they’re going to clean all that up in his testimony. They don’t need to go after the government’s witnesses because Rittenhouse is going to come out and rebut each thing line by line. We have another clip here from Mark Richards asks Rittenhouse, why didn’t you just keep running? Remember when he was running sort of into the dark shadows from the angle that we had, where McGinnis was and he stops almost turns around that’s when Rosenbaum closes the distance gunshots go off and that’s when Rosenbaum falls to the ground, then Kyle sort of runs back around. We saw previously that there was drone footage from a different angle that was released on Sunday. I guess that made it over to the defense and showed that different angle. We heard from, uh, the guy with the stepdaughter yesterday, who was also showing us video footage that showed a big crowd back in that area where Rittenhouse was running towards. So Mark Richard says, why don’t you just keep running? Kyle explains all that here.

Just keep wanting.

When I was over there, there were about a hundred people surrounding that, that those cards. And there was no space for me to continue to run to.

And so you turned around. Yes. And as you see him lunging at you, what do you do? I showed up and many

Times. Did you shoot? I believe for and

Okay. So four times they go into that a little bit further. And so we’re going to take a quick pause, take a look at what’s going on for some questions and some super chats over with our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And so there was a question. Somebody said that the form’s not working, it looks like it is working. Just use the last question. I forgot to update it. So just use the last one. I forgot to update this. We’re going to call this. Um, well, we’re going to leave it like that for now. So just use the, the, the last one. Uh, we have Sean LVNV says I was 100% against Rittenhouse testifying for all the obvious reasons that said now that he has, do you think it helped or hurt the case or hindered it? My opinion before the start of the day was that he would be acquitted.

Now I’m at a hung jury. Why in God’s name? Was there? No. Redirect your thoughts. Good. One from Sean, Sean, we’re going to play a clip of Mark Richards. I think there was no redirect because he had to go pee. And I’m not even joking about that. I mean, I don’t really understand why there was no redirect. I thought that that was a borderline, uh, incompetent, but we’ll see, we’re going to, we’re going to get into all of that. And more tos forever says Kyle’s testimony gives a president the legitimacy of the second amendment, the reality of the defense. At what point also, how’s your mom. Thanks for showing up on ricotta yesterday. I really enjoy your perspective. Says what? At one point does human does a human protect one’s own life when an obvious eminent danger of another whom seems threatening. Also my mom’s doing great. Thanks tos forever. I think that we’re talking about that. I think if you take mark, I’m sorry, Thomas bingers position on this. You can’t use self-defense until the knife is already in you. I think you actually have to be shot before you can then use self-defense under Thomas being our standard. Cause it’s ridiculous. Okay. So let’s, let’s keep on with some of the, the direct exam testimony here today. Why didn’t you keep running?

When I was over there, there were about a hundred people surrounding that, that those cards, and there was no space for me to continue to run to. Right. And so you turned around. Yes. And as you see him lunging at you, what do you do? I showed him. And how many times did you shoot? I believe four.

Okay. So we already got that clip. So, uh, here we have now after the shots, right? The shots happen. And what does Kyle do after that says, I ju I just, I just shot somebody. I need to get to the police. And you know, we spend a lot of time on this part of the entire ordeal where Kyle, you know, the shots go off, he sort of loops back around the vehicles runs back upon. Rosenbalm sees he’s down on the ground. McGinnis runs over and starts a rendering aid, Rittenhouse pulls out his phone and then sort of looks around and then takes off again. And Tom is being her in the prosecution has been making a big deal about this. Oh, you didn’t help him. And you didn’t support him. You’re somebody who has claimed that you’ve got medical training and you didn’t support him at all, what gives. And so we’re going to get to that during the cross examination. But this is already, we’ve talked about it, drawing the sting, right? You’ve got to get some of the bad stuff out during your direct exam because you know, the prosecution’s going to beat them up on this stuff because it came out in other testimony. So you know why, what happened after that? He’s going to say, I had to get to the police. Here is Kyle Rittenhouse.

As you head down shirt and describe what’s going on

As I’m running at first, I’m in the sidewalk and Mr. Lee Koski, um, Jason Lee Koski is in the sidewalk and I stopped to talk to Mr. Lukowski for a brief second. I remember telling him that I just shot somebody and I need help to get to the police because the crowd, there was not a crowd. A mob was chasing me.

And did Mr. Lacoss did he offer you any help?

Just shot. Somebody need to get to the police. He continues on. Here’s what he says.

And did Mr. Lukowski offer you any help?

I don’t

Remember. Hey, what do you do then?

I continued to run. After hearing people say the people were saying cranium him and get him, kill him. People were screaming. And I just was trying to get to the police running down Sheridan road.

And you say, I’m trying to get to the police. Why were you trying to get to the police?

Didn’t do anything wrong. I defended myself.

There you go. You feel as though there was safety where the police were? Yes. And as you head down Sheridan road, what’s the next thing you remember?

Um, the next thing I remember is Anthony Huber striking me in the head with a skateboard. Right?

As you sit here today, do you remember talking to gage girls woods?

Yeah. Uh, sorta a little bit. I didn’t know. It was gauged gross. Groots when he came up to me, but sorta,

Okay. So Anthony Huber hits him on the head with a skateboard. And so we’re seeing things from his perspective. Now he’s slowly walking us through each one of these turn by turn. And then we have another clip here. I think

When this individual runs up to you and gets caught close,

Um, I would say within a foot, did you shoot him? I did not

Point your gun at him. I did

Not. Why not? I didn’t see him.

Yeah. So we got that clip. Now this is the person who is jumping over him. So, uh, this is where he talks about not re racking his weapon. So let’s preface this clip. Remember when we were hearing from gage gross, Kreutz gage said that he thought that the only reason why he had to maneuver his gun, why he had to point his gun towards Rittenhouse was because he thought that Kyle Rittenhouse had already tried to kill him, said that he saw him rewrapped to use his language, but recharge the AR. And that was because he tried to fire and something went wrong. So Kyle had to eject a spent cartridge. We spent a lot of time previously heard from a lot of people with a lot more expertise than I to explain about, you know, maybe what some of the possibilities could be about why he would need to recharge it.

Right. There may be no bullet in the chamber. One might be dislodged, but he could just recharge it and receipt it and then actually fire it. Or he’d have to eject one and receipt a new, you know, a brand new casing, a new, a new, uh, shell. So a lot of different permutations about this, but they asked him about it specifically because gauge gross. Crude says that he sucked. Kyle, just go, ah, chit-chatting and reload that thing. That’s what caused him to maneuver the gun. Because if he didn’t now he’s thinking Kyle is reloading. He’s going to pull the trigger again. It’s too late. I have to act right now. I better shoot him before he shoots me. Guess what? Kyle was faster. So Mark Richards asks him about that today in court.

Describe what happened.

The last person. Um, I don’t know his name. I don’t think he was ever identified, um, jumps at me with his, he was wearing boots, I believe. And as he’s running at me and jumping as his boot is making contact with my face. I fired two shots at

Him in the face.

I thought if he, if I would to be knocked out or he would have stopped by facing, if I didn’t have fire

As a result of being kicked in the face. What happens

Mr. Huber immediately after I’m kicked in the face, runs up as I’m sitting up to try to get up and get to the police. I’m on my back. And Mr. Huber runs up. He, as I’m getting up, he strikes me in the neck with his skateboard a second time. He grabs my gun and I can feel it pulling away from me and I can feel the strap starting to come off my body.

And what do you do then?

I fire one shot.

And after your fire striking, we domino Mr. Huber, what do you do?

I lower my weapon and I see Mr. Gross crits with his hands up. And as a lawyer in my weapon, I looked down and then Mr. Gross skirts, he lunges at me with his pistol pointed directly at my head. No,

You heard Mr. Gross quits testimony about rebranding? Yes. Did you,

Rerock your weapon? I did not.

Could I have the exhibit please make sure to see.

So Mark Richards is going to actually get the gun right now and he’s going to bring this gun around and have an actually show this to Kyle. And so again, gross crude said that Rittenhouse, you know, he saw that, which is, it was necessary for his testimony in order he needed a trigger as to why he had to shoot Rittenhouse right then and there, he needed justification for that action of pointing the gun at Rittenhouse. He knew he did it. He admitted that he did it during the cross-examination by Corey [inaudible] and he needed something on which to latch. So that’s why he came up with the charge. Conversation goes back to Rittenhouse. He says it didn’t happen at all. So Mark Richards pulls out the gun and shows us it’s actually a pretty big movement. It’s not like you just sort of, you know, flip a switch on a go. There we go. We’re ready to go. It’s a big weapon. And so it’s a, four-inch pull pup, pup, pup, Ching, and it needs to be shown to the jury. So Mark Richards does that.

Yes. You call it rebranding. I call it charging, charging, putting a light rod into the chamber and to recharge. You have to pull this all the way back. Yes. So four inches, no. Let me ask you, if you agree with that, Mr. Rittenhouse, how far do you think that is? Three, four inches.

Okay. So did you see that? So that’s a little bit of a, of a nuance there, but a lot of fun. So if you’re an attorney, you got to see that Mark Richard, Mark Richards just took their kind of their big objection, garbage sandwich and just shoved it right back in their faces. So sometimes what happens is people want attorneys to be very litigious, you know, objecting to everything. Objection, objection, objection. Objection. Because it sounds cool. It sort of looks like it should be in a movie or in Hollywood, and that’s what you see on a regular basis. And so you sort of expect that, but it’s also really annoying, especially when it’s not effective. When an attorney that you object to can just change the form of a question and half of a second and get the exact same answer. You just kind of look like a jerk for, for objecting all the time.

Now there is a rhyme and a reason to this. You know, if, if, if somebody has really good momentum, like if a prosecution is just, you know, beating up your witness, then you just, yeah, objection, objection. Every chance you get only for the sake of not necessarily winning the objection, but just to, just to trip them up. I just to slow them up a little bit. It’s like, uh, you know, in a sports game, when you, you know, you give somebody the, the old shoulder, the old elbow a little bit, you know, you’re not supposed to do that, but if they’re running by you, you just, you know, you tee them up a little bit, give them that little nudge, slow them down a little bit. And so the same thing can happen with objections. But when you do it, like the prosecution just did right here where Mark Richards goes up to Kyle and says, uh, he out the, uh, the, the mechanism on the firearm and says, does this look like it’s about four inches to you?

Objection, leading. Because it is, it is, he’s asking for a yes or a no question. He’s going to be responding. Yes, it is. Right. He’s saying the facts and waiting for a confirmatory answer. That’s a leading question. So he turns over to the pro or you’re objecting over that question. Okay. Well, I’m just trying to explain the, the distance. Okay. Judge sustains it. So he says, okay, they’re uh, dummy prosecutors. He pulls it out again and says, Hey, how far is this? Kyle says about three to four inches. So you get the exact same answer, but it takes, you know, a little bit of a roundabout way to get there. And it didn’t trip up Mark Richards at all. It was just a prosecutor just objecting because it’s like, oh, I know that I can object to that. That’s a leading question. It’s like, bingo, I got, I got one bingo.

And so that’s really all that is. And we saw a lot of that today. And some of it wasn’t in fact effective. Some of it, you know, Mark Richards got a little bit irritated about, and so we pick this back up. Now this is Kyle Rittenhouse. He’s going to be deserved for us. The, the mechanism by which gross Kreutz hands maneuvered. So the gun sort of being pointed, redirected towards Kyle Rittenhouse. And he gets very, just stickler. Is that, is that a word? He just, just states a lot. No, that’s not the right word. Gesticulate. Maybe that’s the word. Anyway. Here’s Kyle Rittenhouse

There already a round in the chamber. When you re rack the rifle alive round would come out. Chambering a new round and into the chamber.

Well, we got to the point where Mr. Gross, squids, you staying in front of you as his hands up. Correct. And are you aware that these are

At that point? I do see a pistol in his hand.

Is that the same or different from your first encounter with Mr. Grossman’s? That is different. And he is standing. You said, how close to you?

What I remember is our feet were touching what it seems like,

And you do what

My rifle is down. His hands are up. His pistol is in his hand. And then Mr. Gross, Cruz looks at me and that’s when Mr. Gross Gruits brings his arm down like this. Like his arm is like that with me on the ground. And his pistol is pointed at me. And that’s when I shoot him.

How many times did you shoot him once and

Okay. And by the way, that matches his testimony. That mean gage gross cruises testimony. We’ve already heard that from, because Tori, Corey [inaudible] beat him up about that. Your hands were up. Remember what binger said that his hands were up the whole time and Rittenhouse just shot him because he’s a murdering a monster. Turns out that’s not the case at all. Gage gross. Kreutz admitted it. Kyle Rittenhouse confirmed it as well. So we have now a little bit more about the aftermath of the shooting. So he walked us through all of them. We heard from Rosenbalm. We heard about Huber. We also heard about gauge gross Kreutz. And so now the conversation is what happened next, Kyle? So you just shot multiple people. And now we’ve got a situation where you’re trying to turn yourself in. And as I mentioned, previously, Thomas binger and the prosecution has had a lot here invested in the idea that Rittenhouse just sort of fled, right? He read, he ran back to Illinois and he was trying to leave the scene. He’s not even from Kenosha. He came in there to cause trouble and then he just fled. So he was this person who was sort of just dipping in, causing a bunch of ruckus and then bailing back out. It turns out that’s not really what happened. Here’s how it went down.

I get there. And I see, I think the first person I see is Joanne Fiedler. I don’t remember exactly, but I believe that Sue’s outside at the door. Um, they let me inside. Um, the door was locked, so somebody had to get the key to unlock it. And then we go inside and, um, I’m, I’m in shock. I don’t really remember what was happening in there. I was, I was freaking out. I, I was just attacked. My head was spinning.

Did you go and turn yourself into the

Kenosha police department? I did not went out. Um, there, the Kenosha police department was barricaded off with a fence and they, I don’t think they were accepting anybody to come to the police department at that time. What did you do then? I went to the nearest police department that I knew of, which was any police department in Illinois by my house, my mother.

How did you get to any art from downtown

Kanosha? Uh, Dominic black drove me

And then Dominick black drives you

Where he drives me to my house in Antioch, Illinois, where I meet with my mother and sisters. And I tell them what happened. I sorta tell them what happened. I was still in shock. Um, my head was still spinning. And then we go to the Antioch police department where I turned myself in my mother.

All right. So we fill in some of the details there, you know, and some of this is helpful. Certainly if you’re a juror, you’re probably asking yourself those questions, you know, you’ve got these holes of information. You think about yourself in those shoes, you put yourself in that position and you say, okay, well I just shot somebody. I heard that he didn’t go right to the police that he fled the state. What really happened there was he trying to escape criminal liability? Was he trying to escape for this and for what he’s done? Well, no. I mean, you saw what he said. Kenosha was a war zone. Everything was barricaded. He went and called his mother who was sitting right here. And they drove to the police department. He turned himself in almost immediately, but it was not in the way that the prosecution wants it framed.

And so they’re going to use this as yet. Another one of those dominoes I’ve been using this analogy a lot here, that the first domino of, of taking the gun while 17, not being lawfully, entitled to be in possession of it, all of those claims domino into the next one, which is that he’s not even from Kenosha, that turns into the next one. He shouldn’t even be on the property in the first place. Shouldn’t have even been on the car sources to begin with, which turns into the next one, right? Domino effect one. After the other, including after he just murdered people, he didn’t even stay in the state. He actually flood. He’s like a fleeing felon. Rittenhouse says that’s not the case at all. Here’s my perspective. So yes, it’s useful. Yes. It fills in the equation. It’s going to fill in the holes for a lot of juror’s minds, but is it overly beneficial because we’re going to get to the cross here in a minute. And the jury is going to hear an alternative side of Kyle Rittenhouse. So we also now see what the mom has to say. Kyle is talking about the experience back over at the police department. And we can’t, we’re not going to hear the mom has to say, obviously she’s not in the trial, but you can see it on her face. Now, Kyle is telling us about some of the panic attacks and what he was feeling when he actually landed in the police department back in Antioch, Illinois.

Did anybody else go there with you? Not, not at first. And you get to the Antioch police department, approximately what time I would say about an hour after the shooting. And when you get there, are they looking for, you know, did you have to explain to somebody I had to tell them that I was just involved in a shooting in Kenosha and I needed Kenosha detectives. They take you into custody immediately. Now, what did they do? They had me sit in the lobby of the police department where you’re handcuffed to a chair. I was not, you just stay there for about, I couldn’t give you the exact time, but until detective Howard and detective and Terranea showed up. And were you having any physical discomfort as you waited there? I was vomiting and having panic attacks and my head was spinning. And I couldn’t think clearly at that point,

Yeah, he’s an absolute mess. So he’s vomiting and he’s having panic attacks and he’s a disaster and he’s sitting there with his mom and he’s had the worst experience of his life. So the caricature of Kyle Rittenhouse running back to go party, what is insane? You know, that he was just sort of fleeing. The state is nonsense. Thomas binger knew that and they tried to run with that anyways. And so we’re going to keep going. Now we’ve got, we’re going to get to a lot of the super chats. We’re going to get to a lot of the questions over from watchingthewatchers.com, but let’s finish up with written houses testimony, because a lot of the questions are about what’d you think of the testimony. And so we have to make sure that we have a full symmetrical view of this before we can really dive into it. We have the cross-examination now taking place. Thomas binger comes out. And, uh, what we have here is a kind of a jumping off into some questions, uh, with Kyle.

Good morning, Mr. Miss learning, everybody that you shot at that night, you intended to kill, correct?

I didn’t intend to kill them. I attended to, I intended to stop the people who were attacking me

By killing them.

I did what I had to do to stop the person who was attacking me

By killing them.

Two of them passed away, but I stopped the threat from attacking me

By using deadly force. I used

Deadly force

That you knew was going to kill them.

I didn’t know if it was going to kill them, but I, I use the F I use deadly force to stop the threat that was attacking me.

You intentionally used deadly force against Joseph Rosenbaum, correct? Yes. You intentionally use deadly force against the man who came and tried to kick you in the face. Yes. You intentionally use deadly force against Anthony Huber, correct. You intentionally use deadly force against gauge gross courts, correct? Yes. With regard to Joseph Rosenbaum, you fired four shots at him, correct? Yes. You intended to kill them,

Correct? I didn’t intend to kill him. I intended to stop the person who was attacking me and trying to steal my gun. Stop,

See that didn’t intend to kill him just intended to stop him. And so, uh, must’ve had some sort of language, you know, coaching there, not coaching, but you know, details being ironed out there stopped him. I wanted to stop him, but I didn’t want to kill him. Very, very careful language there. And that’s, you know, good, good, uh, preparation, I think, just to make sure that the language fits appropriately, you can see what Thomas binger wants to do. You killed them, didn’t you? You little killer. Well, I know I actually stopped them. I was self defender who was trying to stop them from hurting me. So, uh, that’s how it starts. Aggressive. Thomas binger comes out. Hey, you meant to kill those people. Didn’t you Kyle. So you can see how this is going to go. Now here’s another one from binger, putter, all of that.

Now you are telling us your side of the story, correct? Correct.

Asking folks to go in the library for just a second, please. Don’t talk about the case.

Okay. So the judge just heard a question you

Need to account for this,

Your honor. I don’t want to, I don’t want to jury here. He’s commenting on my client’s right to remain silent. No, your honor. I am making the point that after hearing everything in the case, now he’s tailoring his story to what is already been introduced.

The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence. And that is, and you’re right. You’re right on. You’re right on the borderline. And you may, you may be over, but, uh, it better stop understood. This is, I can’t think of the case, the initial case time, but it’s a, this is not permitted. All right. Um, yeah, since you already come in, please.

Okay. So Tom is being starts to go down a line of questioning where he’s kind of kind of hinting at Kyle Rittenhouse could have clarified a bunch of this stuff. You know, uh, your story changed a little bit, but you could have clarified this and you didn’t. And so boom, Mark Richards, Corey cheer, FEC. They say that’s, that’s a commenting on a defendant’s right to remain silent, big constitutional no-no. It’s sort of a sacred ground that you don’t talk about that. Right? If the prosecution said, uh, well, uh, we don’t know where the murder weapon came from, but the defendant is sitting right there and he could tell us where it came from. If only he would take the stand, but because he’s not going to tell us why that knife was in his trunk, we just have to presume it was him. Because if he was innocent, he take the stand and he’d tell us differently.

Whoa, no, you have a constitutional right to remain silent, not going to be used against you. You have a presumption of innocence. One of the things that we really prohibit is compelled speech in this country in, especially against yourself in a criminal trial. And so a prosecution can not cross that line and he started to get there. He started to go down there. And so prior, when you, you could have clarified this back then type of a question, big no-no and the judge gives him a scolding, a little talking to, and you have to ask yourself at this point, if you’re a practicing criminal prosecutor, you’re somebody who’s been doing this for a long time. And you know about this rule, you know, about the fifth amendment. You’re pretty well versed in this. You’ve had a lot of trial experience, you know, that you can’t comment on that stuff.

Why did you do it? Huh? Hmm. Could there be a reason why the prosecution might be okay if they botch this trial? Might he be okay if there was a mistrial and he got to do this whole thing over again? Could that be a nice strategy? So maybe he knows that the fifth amendment is a sacred protection, but he just kind of wants to get close anyways, because if there is a mistrial, he’s about to find himself with an acquittal because his case has been garbage. Maybe he gets another crack at it, but that might be a conspiracy. And besides, he’s only gotten scolded at one time today. So, uh, well, let’s see if it happens again, here is Rittenhouse now who is, uh, being asked that question from the prosecutor. Once again,

For all of that. Now you are telling us your side of the story, correct? Correct.

Okay. So they object on that. It better

Stop understood.

Okay. So we got that clip now. So they stopped that line of questioning. He doesn’t dive into that any more about any of the clarifying questions, but then they jump into this. And we’ve talked about this previously on this channel, Kyle written houses, Tik TOK. Oh, four doors, more horrors and says, bro, I’m just trying to be famous. We saw this come out previously and the prosecution got admitted. And so Kyle is going to be asked about it. Four doors, more whores Kyle with his AR 15 or whatever he’s holding there says, bro, I’m just trying to be famous. Well he’s he definitely got that done, but the government asks him about this and here he is confirming that. Yeah, that’s mine. It’s all mine.

I have put exhibit number seven up on the screen. Do you recognize that? Yes. That’s my old Tik TOK account. That was a Tik TOK account that you had during the summer of 2020, correct? Yes. And it says your name on there, Kyle? Yes. Your username on Tik TOK was four doors. More horse. Yes. And that’s a picture of you there with your AR 15, correct? Yes. And underneath that you have put on your profile, the phrase brah B R U H. I’m just trying T R Y N a be famous. Is that correct? Yes. You’re the one who wrote that? Yes.

You feel better about yourself there? Binger. Does that make you feel good? So, uh, congratulations, big win. You’ve got a 16, 17 year old kid probably by when he made that, who is making inappropriate, you know, Tik TOK profiles, which kind of makes you like Kyle A. Little bit more doesn’t it four-door is more whores, bruh. I’m just trying to be famous. I mean, can’t you relate to that? I think maybe many people on the juries kid guns, four doors fund women. I don’t know. So that’s Kyle Rittenhouse. And so being her comes out, look at this jury, look at this guy. He’s talking about women as horse. Can you believe this guy? And he has guns too. I don’t know how Tom Thomas binger, you know, takes himself seriously, but he apparently he does. So, uh, the cross-examination continues and Thomas binger asks him this next.

Now I was on school the night of August 25th year here in Kenosha, Wisconsin saying you’re an EMT, correct? Yes. That was a lie. Yes. You were also telling people you were 18 or 19 years old. That was a lie too, right? No, I didn’t tell anybody my age, that night, you

Never volunteered at all. Did you identify because you knew as a 17 year old, you shouldn’t have been there, right? No. I just didn’t find it relevant to give my name. Well, I gave my name, but my age to anybody, it just not, it wasn’t something that came up in conversation. Okay. So kind of the same line of questioning, you know, age didn’t come up, but it’s another domino. Kyle Rittenhouse is a liar. He’s not an EMT and he’s not even 18. So you’re a liar. Aren’t you, Kyle? No, I’m not a liar. Nobody ever asked me what my age was. If they asked me, I probably would have told them, but he’s trying to make this implication that there was this grand strategy that Kyle Rittenhouse is orchestrating, moving all these pieces around to go into Kenosha, to cause ruckus and to cause multiple deaths and chaos. Apparently. So Thomas bigger continues. Let’s see what else we have

Did that because you felt that your life was in danger from those four people, correct? Yes. And you are telling this jury that it was in your mind justified to use deadly force to protect your own life, correct? Yes. You agree with me that you were not allowed to use deadly force to protect that car source building? Correct? I wasn’t using deadly force to protect the property. I used deadly force to protect myself. So I please listen to my question and answer my question. If you capital you’d agree with me that you were not allowed to use deadly force to protect that car source building, correct? Yes. You’d agree with me that you were not allowed to use deadly force to stop someone from smashing the windows of an unoccupied parked car. Right? I think you just have a question that you’d agree with me that you can’t use deadly force.

It’s not someone from my dumpster on fire, correct? Correct. You agree with me that you can’t use deadly force to stop someone from sending a report, correct? Correct. You agreed with me that you can’t use that before, so it’s not someone from waiting eight flatbed on fire, correct? You’d agree with me that you can’t use deadly force to stop someone who is about to start an unoccupied car on fire, correct? Correct. You’d agree with me that you can’t use deadly force to stop someone from lighting, some traffic cones in the middle of the street on fire, correct? Correct. So you understand that there’s a difference between using deadly force to protect yourself and using it to protect the property. Okay. Wait, watch this. And you’d agree with me that you’re not allowed to use deadly force to protect property, correct? Yes. But yet you have previously indicated that you wished you had your AR 15 to

Protect someone’s property. Uh, I’m going to ask you to go into the library again for a moment, please, please. Don’t talk about the case.

Okay. So what just happened there? You heard this line of questioning. Now they throw in the jury back out of the room. So this line of questioning that we sped up a little bit because prosecutor binger has this pattern that he likes to do where he’s likes to just sort of label everything in the room. Uh, isn’t it true that you have a red bull on your desk? Yeah. It’s true. You also have a can of Altoids on your desk. Yes you do. You also have a keyboard. Yes you do. You also have a mouse. Yes you do. So what you saying is you have things on your desk. Yes. That’s what I’m saying. Can you just ask me the, do I have things on my desk question? Cause I’ll tell you. Yes I do. And he just goes through this. It’s very repetitive and very annoying and I’m sure the jury gets irritated about it, but it’s all to make this big, long point.

Can’t use your gun to protect property, right? Kyle? Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Okay. Why does he want to do that? He’s laying down a foundation. Cause he’s trying to impeach Kyle Rittenhouse with his own statements. Kyle Rittenhouse in court just said, oh, you can’t use lethal force to protect property. So then Thomas binger says, well then why Kyle? Oh, why did you say previously on a prior date in August, that’s not related at all to this trial that you wanted your gun to protect prep. Objection, because they’ve already talked about this. Binger is not supposed to be bringing in that prior incident. Not supposed to be talking about that has nothing to do with the trial. It’s another day in August of 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse was doing something kind of similar to this. Allegedly was out there protecting property apparently said something like it would be very nice if I had my AR with me right now.

So I could protect this property in a different date in August. Totally unrelated to this. So what Tom is binger is trying to do is to try to sort of use that and say that the defendant has opened the door to that prior testimony. The court has said that August testimony cannot come in. It’s not relevant. It’s not related. It’s overly prejudicial. It’s not probative enough. It doesn’t tell us anything about what happened with the shootings with Rosenbalm Huber or gross quits. It’s all about an entirely separate ordeal. So we’re going to keep it siloed. We’re not going to talk about the fight that Kyle Rittenhouse got in. We’re not going to talk about his statements earlier in August, it’s all irrelevant. But Thomas binger then wanted to go into that. You could see that the attorneys were just geared up, ready to rock and roll. If he gets to that line of questioning, they’re going to object and they did it. And the judge was not happy about it. Here’s what he said,

Your honor, Mr. Baker, you see either forgetting court’s rulings or attempting to provoke in this trial. On this matter. He knows he can’t go into this and he’s asking the questions. I, the court to strongly admonish him. And the next time it happens, I’ll be asking for a mistrial with prejudice. He’s an experienced attorney

And he knows better. Mr. Finger. First of all, your honor, this was the subject of emotion. I’m well aware of that. And the court left the door open for me, not for you. My understanding of your should have come and asked for, for reconsideration. You did on the one motion. And in fact, I granted your motion for reconsideration. I, uh, no, uh, excuse me. I, uh, I did. I granted we did not. That was there a motion. We have not filed any motions to reconsider this case. That was there a motion for reconsideration, which I did not. But uh, I said I denied it or I indicated a bias towards denial is what I did. I held it open with a bias towards denial. Why would you think that that made it okay for you without any advanced notice to bring this matter before the jury you are already, you were, I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendants post arrest silence. That’s basic lie. It’s been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that. And it gives, uh, uh, well, I’ll, I’ll leave it at that. So I don’t know what you’re up to. There’s fun.

Ooh. That’s a scolding folks. That is a tongue lashing. If you’ve ever seen one, I spent a lot of time in courts. Okay. I’ve seen defense attorneys get scolded. I’ve seen prosecutors get scolded. I might have been scolded once or twice. Never anything like that though. I’ll tell you that. That was um, well maybe one time, something like that. But uh, but this was, you know, this one, this was something that was like rudimentary level law, like basic 1 0 1 law don’t comment on the defense’s right to remain silent or the decision to remain silence like first grade law school. And then number two, we have him diving into this issue that hasn’t been settled yet. Talking about that prior incident with Kyle Rittenhouse, when w when, apparently he wanted his AR 15 or his gun. So being is as sleazy as hell. It’s super snaky.

What he’s doing here. If you recall, I’ve been a little bit critical of the court for playing loose with the rules. We talked about this during the pretrial proceedings, we talked about this at the start of the trial, where there was a lot of ambiguity about what the court was ruling, you know, what do they, what are they going to be allowing in? Is this video coming in? Is this militia word coming in? What evidence is admissible and not? We really don’t know. And a lot of this, the judges just said, well, we’ll see when we get there, you know, uh, sort of it’s, it’s open subject to maybe denial. But when we get there in the trial, I’ll make a decision at that time. And so binger listened to that ruling and just thought the door was wide open it’s permission to come on in, which is not quite what the judge said.

The judge says, when you get to my house, knock on the door and I’ll let you know if I want you coming in or not. Okay. But don’t knock on the door until you get there, because I don’t know what I’m going to be doing or what you know, who else is there? We don’t know if we want you in there yet. So typically you’d say, yeah, the invitation is open. Just come on in, you know, you settle this stuff out during the pre-trial process. So you don’t have to have these fights in the middle of a trial, but they didn’t do it that way. And the judge runs his court differently. And the judge is implying, saying here to binger, before you even started down that line of questioning, you should’ve asked me about it. I said, the door was open subject to my approval. You just walked right in. I didn’t, I didn’t give you the invitation. You should have knocked on the door, rang the doorbell. I just said, yeah, come on in or don’t. But by you being presumptuous now you’ve crossed the line. The judge continues. This is a long segment. So we’re going to play through it. It’s about six, I think maybe eight minutes in this entire piece. But it’s very important. Here is what the judge said. Continuing on.

Yes.

We filed another motion on this exact issue because in my mind, and I argued this. It is identical to what was going on on the night of August 25th, in the sense that the defendant was using this exact same weapon, he was using it in a manner to try and protect property. Nobody wasn’t there’s your honor, with all due respect,

I’m not going to rehash the motion. That’s absolutely untrue. And there’s no, no, no. Your arguments of record. My comments are of record. And why I ruled, as I did is of record. There’s nothing that I heard in this trial to suggest that anything has changed, even if you’re correct in your assumption that you know, more than I did at the time, uh, you should have come to the court and say, I want to go into this. Uh, why you would think that you could go into it without any advanced notice to the court. I don’t understand that. And as the defense is pointing out, you’re an experienced trial lawyer, and this should not have been going into

Your honor. There have been things in this case, the testimony in this case that I believe opens the door to this. For example, the defense has introduced evidence that the defendant pointed a gun at a man wearing yellow pants, because that person was on a car on the car source slot. Now there’s no justification that I can think of why the defendant would point that gun at someone. The defendant has just testified this morning that he agreed with that person in the yellow pants that he pointed the gun at him. He said, I was joking when I said that to the guy in the yellow pants. But he said, he’s acknowledged that he told the person in the old pants. Yeah, you’re right. I did point a gun at you when you were sitting on a car, Corey. He

Said,

Exactly. So he’s agreeing, may I finish, please? I’d like to have a chance to make a record if I could, without being interrupted. If that’s okay. He is mentioned that he has, he’s acknowledged that he’s used this gun to protect property. He’s also just acknowledged that he knows he can’t do that. I am attempting to impeach him now with the prior August 10th incident, 15 days prior involving,

Okay. So August 15th, 15 days prior, same situation didn’t have a gun wanted to go and they spend another, you know, six minutes talking about that. And then we get, I think Mark Richards who actually responds here, then the judge settles it. So, uh, Thomas being her makes his record. This is what we’re trying to prove. Mark Richards now responds. Here’s what he says,

Title to impeach the defendant on his beliefs and on his statements.

I’m going to interrupt you now because you’re talking about his beliefs. I think that’s what they call

His statements. Do your job, because he just said, can’t use deadly force. Can’t threaten to use deadly force to protect property. So now I’m impeaching him on that.

Your honor, what’s the court has see no reason to change its ruling. And just so this record is clear in spite of the lengthy statement by Mr. Binger, before we started today, the court specifically stated in Mr. Bangor’s presence. There’s been nothing to have me change any of my rulings. There’ve been numerous occasions during this trial where they’ve opened the door. The one time when they’re going into Mr. Rosen bombs, prior reason, he doesn’t like guns. And I said, something I whispered in Mr. Cross is here. It’s because of the prior convictions, please stop. And he did. He knows if you’re going to go into something that’s been excluded in a pretrial order, you better ask the court. You better get permission. This is ridiculous.

Yep. Well, it wasn’t excluded, you know why it was excluded in the first place because it’s w it was propensity evidence. That is exactly what 904 0 4 is designed to prevent. You’re talking about his attitudes. His attitude is he wants to shoot people. Now I’ve admitted that kind of evidence in other trials, what it’s been appropriate. It didn’t admit it in this case, because to me what I’ve heard in this trial, and by the way, Mr. Richards absolutely correctly points out that just hours ago. I said, I had heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings. So why testimony, your

Honor, pardon me? That

Was before the brazen with me. Uh, uh, you knew very well, you know, very well that an attorney can’t go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So won’t give me that that’s number one, number two, this is propensity evidence. I said at the time that I made bad rolling. And I’ll repeat again now for you, I assume no similarity between talking about wishing you head your AR gun, which you don’t have so that you could take raw shot fire rounds at these thought to be shoplifters and the incidents in these cases, which are in that, there’s nothing in your case that suggests the defendant was lying in, wait to shoot at somebody or reflecting upon the shooting for a vast amount of time. Every one of the incidents involves, uh, matters that involve seconds in time. Yup. So I don’t, I commented at the time, I don’t see the similarity and I don’t see the similarity. Now, if it’s not similar to that’s, that’s the whole rule. Those are all the exceptions to 9 0 4 0 4. Check the authorities. We’ve more on evidence. Judge Weinstein, role

More on evidence. It’s

The CRA the hire act has to bear the signature of the accused, or it has to be so similar as to suggest it’s a common plan or something like that. You have an incident where he’s making comments about some alleged shoplifters versus crimes that involve instantaneous actions, whether premeditated murder or whether self-defense that’s for the jury to decide. But I don’t see the similarity. I said it couldn’t come in and it isn’t coming in.

Yeah. So good stuff on that. Now there’s a lot to unpack there and I wanted to play the whole thing because it’s important. There’s a couple, couple of things that we want to key in, on number one, being what the judge sort of was doing. Scolding binger. You are an attorney. You’ve got a lot of experience here. You should know better. You don’t go into a line of questioning unless you get permission from the court. When we’ve already talked about this, okay, this was not like, this was an issue that was random, that he’s just trying to squeeze in there that nobody talked about. This had been discussed. This had been flagged. They said, this is a problem. This August 18th or whatever the date was, Mike come up. And the defense wanted to make sure that we, you know, this, this is a spicy meatball.

We want to make sure that this doesn’t end up on the wrong person’s plate. So they want to keep that out. They had a discussion about it during the pretrial proceedings. So even if there was a little bit of confusion about this, you ask don’t you. If, if your mom says, uh, check with your father before you, you know, you go out on an activity and you consider that to be full permission, you don’t actually ask your father. You get in trouble for that. It’s a flag. Come and check with me before you actually do the thing. And Thomas being here just went ahead and did the thing, and the judge scolded him for it. The other thing that’s very important here is what he’s talking about. This propensity evidence. What does that mean? Let’s say that somebody is going, uh, somebody is on trial for shoplifting and, uh, they’ve got, uh, another shoplifting incident and another shoplifting incident at another store.

Maybe not convictions even, but there were police reports that were filed and they’re on a, uh, on trial for a third shoplifting charge or for a first shoplifting charge with two prior incidents. And the prosecution says, well, they’ve got these two prior incidents. So this person is just a shoplifter. And therefore you can convict them in this third case. Well, the rules say that because that is such a powerful thing and human persuasion. If you say, ah, that guy might have stoled once before and maybe stole the second time so that you can just kind of presume that he did it a third time. You can’t do that. It’s it’s called propensity. You can’t use somebody’s prior acts to show that they have a propensity to commit another crime. You got to view this thing in isolation only in very limited, certain circumstances. Can you say these other acts can come in and be relevant?

And the judge laid out what those are, right? It’s got to be so stinking similar. It’s not this. So the fact that he’s trying to sneak this one in the fact that he’s got a lot of experience here, practicing law is really irking the judge. And it should in Arizona, when attorneys get in trouble with the bar, there is an, a magazine called the Arizona attorney magazine and they send it out. It’s sort of a private magazine that comes out. And there’s only one section in there that anybody reads it’s full of ads. But everybody turns to the discipline section where attorneys get bar complaints filed against them and they get in trouble.

Oftentimes you’ll see when a lawyer gets in trouble. One of the things that the bar will note in there, this attorney has substantial experience in the practice of law. In other words, they knew better. They’ve been doing this for a number of years. It’s not a first year, second year lawyer who forgot about the fifth amendment, because they were so nervous with trial nerves. This is an experienced lawyer, probably one of the more experienced litigators in the entire county attorney’s office, which is why he got the case. So that begs the question. If he’s making these boneheaded mistakes down here at the base level about self-incrimination and about diving into lines of questioning that have not been approved, is that intentional? Is he trying to cause a mistrial, knowing that he’s about to be facing an acquittal? So he’d rather do it again than lose. Hmm.

I’m entitled to impeach the defendant on his beliefs and on his statements. I’m going to interrupt you now.

Okay. So we come back over to Kyle. Now cross-examination continues from being her. We just heard the judge not allowing him to ask about that prior August date. So they pick this back up, and this is where things get really dicey when with putting your client on the stand, because you’re going to hear stuff like this, and it’s not really consequential to the underlying case. I don’t think it, you know, it, it damages Kyle’s case beyond repair, but it’s also something that you have to put into that balancing equation are the pros of testifying outweighed by the negatives, the pros outweighed by the cons. If they are then you testify, but this is a clear con, this is a reason why you don’t want to put somebody on the stand because they dig stuff out like this,

The rest of the time, it seems like you’re being driven around in Mr. Black’s car. Is that fair to say? Yeah. Why did you guys use his instead of yours? If you know, um,

Um, at the time I didn’t have a driver’s license and I would drive just to get to work and sometimes to go to Dominic’s house.

So even though you didn’t have a driver’s license, you drove from your home in Aniak to the rec Plex to work that day.

Um, yes. To be able to get to work.

And then after work, uh, you drove without a driver’s license to Dominick Black’s house. Yes. So I assume then on the week prior to that, when you drive yourself to work, that was also without a driver’s license.

Now watch binger. Oh, I’ll move on.

So I’ll move on. Right? So you, you, the domino analogy, Kyle Rittenhouse, he’s such a lawless reckless young man that he even drives himself to work without a driver’s license. Can you believe that Mark Richards objects? What is this relevant to Thomas banger says, I don’t I’ll move on. I don’t even care. I got what I needed out of that. I got the jury to hear that this pattern of lawlessness, this recklessness, somebody who doesn’t even have a license driving himself to work, adding the dominoes up. And they’re going to crush that in their closing. That’s going to be the whole theme yet again, here, lawlessness, recklessness. There was even a curfew violation out there that Kyle Rittenhouse broke, even though that charge got dismissed, here’s being closed off to

Keep people out of the area, right? Yes. And you knew there was a curfew that night, right?

Um, I believe I got, I got an emergency alert text at around 8:00 PM.

Um, just like everybody else saying, stay off the streets. I’m sorry. Objection. There’s no curfew charge. It’s still relevant to his decision-making just like everybody else. You got a message saying get off the streets at eight o’clock at night, right? Yes. And despite that message, you came down, correct.

I was already in Kenosha downtown. When I got that message.

Once he got that message, you didn’t decide I’m going to leave and go home. Like I’m supposed to correct.

I stayed at the car source.

And you knew that there was this curfew in place that meant you shouldn’t be there anymore. Correct?

There are

Right. I’d say hundreds, if not thousands of other people there that night, that also got the same message.

So if they’re all breaking the law, you can too.

I was, I don’t think the curfew was really being enforced.

So if a law is not being enforced, you can disregard it, your honor.

So again, nothing really consequential there, but a lot of uncomfortable questions. Oh. So you think if you can, uh, if everybody else is breaking the law that you can do, if everybody else jumps off a bridge, are you going to jump off a bridge to there now looks like we had a break for lunch. The prosecution of course had a couple of those constitutional gray areas that they might’ve crossed diving into illegal testimony, testimony that has never been approved for questioning and also commenting on written houses, right? To remain silent, a couple of big no-nos there. So after lunch, Cory chiro FEC calls back to his office and says, Hey, that man here need answers. They start doing their research and they come back. Corey cheer FEC says, I’ve got the case. We’re filing a motion for a mistrial with prejudice. We want this case dismissed. We think that the prosecution intentionally tried to cause a mistrial here because they know they’re getting their butts kicked and they would rather do it over than lose. And so he lays this out. This is what it sounds like

At the lunch break. I had done some research. And at this point, um, the defense is going to be making a motion for a mistrial. However, that motion is going to be requested with prejudice. Um, I’m, I’m aware that the court’s aware that normally, uh, a defense motion for a mistrial does not preclude a retrial. I understand that there are exceptions to that. However, and, um, the case that I am drawing this from is Dave versus state it’s 76 with second 5, 8, 8. And what it says is an exception to this rule exists where a defendant’s motion is necessitated by prosecutorial impropriety, designed to avoid an acquittal. There you go. Now, what has happened in, uh, in this this morning was two times, uh, the state had commented on Mr. Rittenhouse, his right to remain silent. The first time he was admonished by the court. The second time the court had the jury leave and readmitted to mountain that prior to Mr.

Rittenhouse testifying, this court addressed various things with not only Mr. Rittenhouse, but with the lawyers, you had cited various statutes. And then you had asked if they had anything had, would be coming up by. And for example, I think nine or 6 0 8, 1 of the other things you addressed was 9 0 4 0 4. And you had said that based on the information that had come out at the trial, nothing had changed as it relates to your ruling shortly thereafter, Mr. Binger stated, and we looked it up previously, he said to Mr. Rittenhouse previously indicated that you wished to have your AR 15 to protect someone’s property clearly in violation, not only only of the prior ruling that you had made, but the ruling that very day, that very morning, um, it appears to be, uh, that there are two really elements. The court must consider when making a determination.

Okay? So they go into some of the details, but basically need to make to two determinations. Number one, that this was intentional by the prosecution. You know, that they didn’t make a mistake. They made, uh, an affirmative active, intentional effort to do these things, which they did. And number two, that the court finds that the judge finds the judge says, you know what? I saw what went down here. I think that they tried to invoke a mistrial. If they do that, then the judge can actually dismiss the case. You know, a motion to dismiss granted and granted with prejudice, meaning that this can’t come back again. There’s a mistrial. The government can move to recharge Kyle and do this whole thing again. But if it’s a motion to dismissed with prejudice, not coming back, that’s the end of the case. And that’s the sanction, that’s the penalty for the prosecutors for trying to invoke them, his trial, knowing they’re about to get acquitted.

And if it’s a, it’s an acquittal, they can’t do it again. So if they’re going to now that Kyle Rittenhouse is on the stand, sort of try to cross some of these constitutional boundaries, try to break some of the rules, knowing that, oh, darn it going to have to do this all again, but that’s better than a loss. It’s kind of like a tight judge is not happy about it. And he says that they are going to be taking it under advisement. But before we get there, here is binger explaining why he did that. He’s saying, judge, I don’t have to honor Kyle written houses, right. To remain silent. He talked to the media. And when you talk to the media, you waive your rights to remain silent or some sort of bizarre argument like that. Here’s Thomas binger in court today,

Since this, the defendant has spoken to the media, he has talked about his life circumstances related to this case. He just hasn’t given his exact version of events that night. So his voluntary discussion just states in the media, it has nothing to do with fifth

Amendment. That is his own decision. And if he’s going to pick and choose what he wants to talk about in those voluntary interviews with the media, but I think that’s fair game. It doesn’t implicate his grand arrives. He doesn’t have a fifth amendment. He’s making his own voluntary chunks. Okay.

Well, wait a minute. You don’t think he could give an interview about his, his, uh, awards you won in high school or his dearest that he got or his, uh, and, and, and about his sports activities and his swimming and, and that, and that, and declined to answer any questions about the incident in question and that somehow a waiver of his right of silence.

I, I think he’s doing more than that, your honor, in these interviews.

Um, I don’t know. I knew nothing about them. I never, I, you know, I, I, haven’t seen all, all of, I, haven’t seen probably 1% of all the evidence, which is pretty typical as you know, so I have no way of knowing it. And you have some interview, some interviews that he gave to a media or to

Whatever, there’s an interview that I’m, we’re looking at her computer right now from, um, the Washington post where he talks to them. Um, I know there’s one. Um, I think it’s either the new Yorker or the GQ magazine where he speaks to the reporters also. Um, and he doesn’t go into specific details about what happened at night, but it’s not like it’s talking about school or swimming or things like that.

No, no, no, no, no, just don’t leave it there. He doesn’t go into specific details. I mean, it’s, uh, it’s certainly there could be a waiver, but a very modest discussion about the activities of that night. And if you’re suggesting that occurred, that could make a big difference. Um, but um, even even a small discussion on his part of the night in question might be a full waiver. I don’t know, but I, and I won’t know until I see it, but, uh, why don’t you, uh, make copies of it? And, uh,

We have a few minutes

To, well, we won’t do it right now. I do agree with you that,

Okay. So we’re getting closer to the end of the day. And the judge ultimately says,

I do want

To be clear here on the sidelines just to,

Well,

Yeah, I had made a ruling that the evidence wasn’t coming in and you decided that it was

I, if I could just respond to that briefly, your honor, I was about to say, I did not interpret your ruling as an absolute, we’ve had three state motions in there. There was one in which we asked the court to introduce evidence that the defendant was at pogies bar with prop boys. And you were clear that is not coming in.

I don’t get into other subjects, get it, come on. What you’re telling me, you’re an experienced trial attorney. And you’re telling me that when the judge says, I’m excluding this, you just to take it upon yourself to put it in. Cause you would think that you have found a way around it. Come on,

Hey, if I may finish your honor, I was up to say, Hey, your, your ruling on are three motions. And uh, other ex was, there were some gradations there that you were clear that some things were absolutely out. And then you left the door open, um, other things. So I, I saw that distinction and I thought to myself, clearly, I know this is out, but you left the door, open another thing. So I didn’t interpret your ruling as this is absolutely never coming in. And I have practiced before you, your honor, I have filed it around social emotions before you, your practice oftentimes is to reserve ruling on those until you see the evidence. And I think you even said something to that effect. I’m totally dead. So yeah, this guy, this is my good faith, no relation to, you know, if you want to yell at me, you can’t my good faith feeling this morning. After watching that testimony was you had left the door open a little bit. Now we had something new and I was going to probate. I don’t believe you there better not be another incident. I’ll take the motion under advisement. Um, and you can respond. Um,

Yeah, it goes on after that says, I don’t believe you again. And nor should he, because the prosecutor is full of garbage there. Oh judge. I’m just confused. I didn’t know any better. So what I tried to do rather than getting any clarity from you before I tried to cram this sucker right in front of the jury, I could have asked you, but I didn’t. I tried to squeeze it in and get it out. And there was an objection and you called me on it. The guy is, is snaky as hell. You know? And it just irritates me. It, it, it, it’s a bummer when, uh, when you see, see people sort of prove you right? To some degree, you know, you get that really gross feeling from binger. And then today you see this activity and he is somebody who is playing under the table.

It’s not appropriate. Judge called him out on it three or four times as he should have. So Kyle Rittenhouse comes back and this is where Thomas binger, who apparently doesn’t know anything about guns or why you would ever need a gun is I think personally offended by guns for some reason. I mean, the guy has just no understanding about what they do or how they work because he keeps asking questions like this. Why do you even need a gun? If you’re in a war zone says Thomas binger, all right, let me reopen this one. For some reason that video’s not playing. So we’re going to reopen this one, get this relaunched because it’s a good one. We got to get this play in here.

Say, I didn’t think they were hostile. I didn’t think they were hostile towards us.

Okay. So they’re not hostile to you and you’re going to go help them. Why do you need the gun when you go out there?

Um, I need the gun because if I had to protect myself because somebody attacked me.

Why would you think anybody would do that? I don’t know. But you clearly planned on it. You were prepared for it. You thought it was going to happen? No,

I didn’t.

That’s the whole reason you brought the gun, isn’t it? I brought

The gun to protect myself.

Exactly. Because you thought you personally were going to be in danger,

Right? Not necessarily.

I don’t understand dummy. You said you’re going to bring the gun to protect yourself. So you thought you were going to be in danger, right?

I didn’t think I would be put into a situation to where I would have to defend myself.

It’s called a precaution there. Thomas binger, same reason you wear a seatbelt before you get in the car and start driving because you don’t intend to get in an accident. But if you do, you’re going to be nice and safe. So it is kind of a dumb analogy, but you can see what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to get Kyle Rittenhouse this 17 year old kid, 18 year old now who has been actually testifying, I think at this point for like four or five, maybe six hours at this point in time to get him to slip. No, I, yes. I was going to go there and shoot Rosenbaum is what he was trying to get him to say, but we had some fireworks in the court. And from my watch of this, when I was initially watching this at the outset, I had a lot of anxiety for Kyle Rittenhouse.

Okay. I’m a defense lawyer. Anytime that any defendant takes a stance, my blood pressure goes up by about 20 points. There’s no doubt because it’s always risky. You’re always waiting for them to say something that wrecks the whole case. It’s like when Joe Biden goes out there and gives a speech, everybody’s sort of holding their breath, everybody on both sides of the aisle, because you really don’t know what he’s going to say. And it might be a same thing with Trump to be fair, right? You have a lot of possibilities where somebody can really screw something up. And so it, it causes defense attorneys to just be really on edge. And that was the feeling that I had. And I think a lot of the other attorneys that were out there commenting on this, uh, Nick ricotta’s channel and elsewhere, we’re all watching this going, oh, what’s happening here?

Are we going to see this whole thing unravel before our very eyes? And it was a little bit Rocky there for a moment emotionally for us as viewers now, what does it feel like for the jurors who were in the courtroom? Probably like that times 10, right? The emotions, the energy in the room. You ever walk into a courtroom. They have energy because there’s been a lot of things going on in there. And so the jurors are feeling this now that was in the morning. But eventually that energy sort of evaporates the room, sort of calms down a little bit. Just like with anything else you do, right? You go to a job interview. What happens? It’s very nerve wracking at first by, but by about the first 10 minutes or 15 minutes in everything has settled down, the volume has been turned down a little bit.

So after Thomas binger gets blasted by judge Schrader, multiple times after Kyle Rittenhouse sort of gets his testimony legs under his belt. After we have that morning breakdown, he comes back, he’s fortified. He’s ready to go. The rest of this testimony is just what we heard from Thomas binger. It’s a lot of the same redundant nonsense. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Over and over again. Uh, uh, so you know, Rosenbaum never had a gun, a knife, a weapon, a bazooka and Apache, none of those things. No again, no we’ve heard it binger many, many times. And so Giovanni Lee edgy is somebody who was actually over in the court building and he posted this on Twitter today, says quick jury update in the Rittenhouse trial. We can’t see the jury obviously, but it says there’s a few that seem to be unattentive no longer focused on the testimony. Several are leaned back. Their legs, arms are crossed. Almost everyone has stopped taking notes. So the juries are checked out now. And again, this is at 1:24 PM, November 10th. This is in the afternoon testimony. So this is all going to be the Kyle Rittenhouse. Cross-examination all Thomas binger. Just kind of digging into them a little bit here is where they’re talking yet again about Joseph Rosenbalm here’s Kyle today being cross-examined by binger.

You could characterize Mr. Rosenbaum is as advancing on you, speeding up towards you, but you actually slowed down didn’t you?

Because of the people around the cars. Yes.

But after the shooting, you run around those cars and head back towards the direction you originally wanted to go to, right? Yes. So those people didn’t stop that. Did they?

You weren’t there after I shot Mr. Roosevelt,

They scattered after you fired your gun four times, didn’t they?

Yes, they weren’t there anymore.

And you’ve heard Dr. Kelly’s testimony that the first gunshot from you to Mr. Rosenbaum caused Mr. Rosenbaum to start falling to the ground. Did you hear that testimony?

I, I

Did. And then you continued to fire three more shots into him after that, didn’t you?

I continued to fire until he was no longer a threat

To me when he’s falling to the ground in front of you, he’s no longer a threat to you. His pelvis is broken, right? I don’t know, but he’s fallen to the ground, his name

He’s I saw him lunging towards my gun and he, I remember his hand on the barrel, like,

Because he was trying to push it out of the way. So you wouldn’t shoot him.

Objection,

Sustained.

Okay. So, so at this moment, right in the trial, I am starting to get a little bit irritated with the defense team, not objecting to some of these questions they did right there, obviously. But remember one of the other things that the defense has to do, they are the shield for their witnesses. So in particular, their defendant, if they’re going to be testifying, they’ve got to go out there and protect their witnesses. So it doesn’t matter who it is. If it’s Joanne Fiedler, if it’s Graham Bo out there who is testifying, the defense really should be thinking about protecting her. If binger is going hard. And man, one of the reasons you object, like I mentioned at the start of the show is to wreck their cadence. It’s the stop, the rhythm of the questioning, just to stop them from being able to connect one right after other, in a sequence that is powerful.

Just trip them up a little bit. And so you do that just to defend your witness, especially the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse, he’s been testifying for multiple hours now. And so the prosecution just kind of keeps doing the same lines of questioning, almost asking him the same things multiple times. So Rosenbaum was falling. He was falling. He was falling to the ground. He wasn’t standing. He was already momentum leaning towards the ground falling. Okay. Yes. Object asked and answered. You don’t have to keep letting your own witness get badgered to some degree. So here’s another clip from being her.

What was the risk to you of death or great bodily harm at the moment you killed Joseph Rosenbaum?

What kind of a question?

Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me. He would have used it and killed me with 10 and probably killed more people. If I would’ve let him get my gun.

Mr. Rosenbaum never said anything to you about taking your gun. Did he?

He didn’t say anything, but he tried to take my gun

And whoever’s got that gun is a threat to everyone else. Okay.

If he would’ve taken my gun, he would’ve used it against me.

Let’s break that down. First of all, you had already prevented him from taking your gun by running away and doing that little dip and Dodge that Mr. [inaudible]

Right? He was still coming after my God.

But you could have kept running. You could turn back around like you did couldn’t you know like that or no. You have the gun strapped to your body at this moment, correct? Yes. The strap is designed to keep that on your body so it doesn’t come off correct.

To help retain it? Yes.

And you have both hands on the gun, correct? Yes. And Mr or Mr. Rosenbaum has never said anything at all about wanting your gun. You never heard him say anything about that, correct? I haven’t. You never said anything. He never said anything to you.

Okay. So he just kind of keeps going on and on and on. Never said anything to using

That gun at all. Correct?

I don’t know what Mr. Roosevelt was thinking. When he tried to grab my gun,

You just assumed that he was going to use it, that he was going to try and take it from you. First of all. And then you assumed he was going to try and use it on you.

That’s a compound question. I would have loved Mr. Rosenbaum kept my gun. He would have killed me.

But you had already pointed your gun at him? Yes,

Because he was chasing me.

Did you want him to think that you were going to shoot him?

No. I never wanted to shoot Mr. Rosenbaum.

Why’d you point it at him? If you didn’t have any intention of shooting?

He was chasing me. I was alone. He threatened to kill me earlier in that night. I didn’t want to have to shoot him,

But you understand how dangerous it is to point a gun at someone don’t you? I pointed it at him because he kept running at me and I didn’t want him to chase me. But you understand how dangerous that is. Don’t you pointed at him because he was chasing me. I’ll ask the question a third time. You understand comment? Just ask your question. You understand how dangerous it is to point a gun at someone, correct? Yes. You understand that? That puts someone else in.

Okay. So what

We had him because he was chasing me.

All right. So that what’s going on over here. All right. So, uh, Thomas binger being kind of just a jerk, there is, it was really all it is, uh, digging in. You can see Kyle Rittenhouse is getting a little bit emotional. Binger is not getting anything useful out of this. And so he’s just kind of twisting that knife in there, uh, at the end, uh, you know, what is he trying to glean from this, that Kyle Rittenhouse had to shoot Rosenbalm and that’s what he keeps saying over and over and over again. So he’s trying to sort of squeeze some, what do they say? Squeeze, sweat out of a turnip or something like that. There’s nothing in there. He’s trying to ring anything left and he’s not doing a good job of it. So they eventually move on on that. And here they’re talking about Rittenhouse, running past somebody and saying, I didn’t shoot somebody. So this was yet another thing where, you know, Rittenhouse made a statement saying something that was not accurate at the time. Here’s what that sounded like post

Or people in the crowd that are asking you why you just shot someone, right? Yes. I knew you told him he had a gun. I, the time I was a little dazed and I was thinking of MREs and Minsky with the pistol he had at the Duramax. So you shot Mr. Rosenbaum. Cause Josh was a Minsky at a pistol. No, you don’t get to shoot someone else. You don’t get to shoot someone else because someone else has gone right now. But you told the crowd, he had a gun, didn’t you? That’s what I said. And that wasn’t true. Mr. Rosenbaum never had a gun, right? He didn’t have a gun now, can we please play exhibit number three at the one hour, 17 minute and ten second mark.

All right. So they just keep playing more and more videos and being hers, just walking him through one after the other and thank you to the chat blood from a turnip. And then somebody else says buy turnip coin, like Bitcoin. So, uh, so thank you for that out of a turnip. Love that. Okay. And so now folks that was basically the end of Kyle written house’s testimony. And so, you know, we’ve seen a lot of other witnesses testify in this trial. We’ve seen a lot of different characters, some good, some not so good, but you’ve always seen sort of this pattern that happens where the side that calls the witness. In this case, the defense, they start, they do a direct exam. Then when they’re done, the prosecution goes, Thomas binger. We just heard, he went, he did a cross exam, and then you’ll notice with a lot of other witnesses.

What do we get? Another round of questioning? We get a what’s called a redirect and oftentimes a recross. So that means that the defense attorney is supposed to come back out here and clean up anything that got damaged during the cross. Mark Richards comes out as Kyle Rittenhouse, a bunch of positive questions. Kyle Rittenhouse, they’re working on the same team. Very nice testimony. I was acting out of self-defense. Everything was beautiful. This case is closed. Thomas Baker comes out and sort of shakes that whole house that they just built and just says, we’re going to wreck all of this up and we’re going to throw the pillows off the bed and we’re going to leave the empty cans out on the couch, on the kitchen sink. And we’re just going to cause a bunch of madness. So ordinarily Mark Richards comes back out and fixes everything back up again.

Companies coming over the jury needs to see things in good order. And then the defense, the prosecution gets a recross, but here that didn’t happen. We just had a direct exam across Mark Richards, had the opportunity to get up and fix that house back up again. After Thomas binger came around and threw garbage all over the place. And so you would absolutely take that opportunity. Wouldn’t you you’d be 100% certain that you did whatever you possibly could. On day eight of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. When your key witness, when the defendant himself is going to take the stand and finally sit to Iowa to jurors, you’d make sure that you went up and clean that house after Thomas binger just left wouldn’t you you’d think so, but guess what happened? Not that. And pay close attention to what comes out of mark Richard’s mouth. Soon as Kyle gets up off the stand, why didn’t he redirect? It’s because he had somewhere else. He needed to be. Here’s what? That sounded like.

I have no further questions, your honor. You may step down, sir. Before that call that witness. I need to use the men’s room. How about a five to 10 minute break, please? Don’t talk about the case during the break. You may either use the jury room or you may have remained down here.

Okay. Now also look at Kyle. They haven’t even acknowledged him yet. Okay. Now watch Kyle just got done testifying for six hours. Nobody shook his hand. Nobody gave him a pat on the back. Nobody gave him a hug and said, nice job there, brother. You just went through the most traumatic thing that you’ll ever go through in your life. Aside from the night in Kenosha, right? That’s obviously worse. Maybe the second, most traumatic thing that you’ll ever go through. It’s called bedside manner. It’s called showing that you care about another person. It’s about actually being empathetic and meaning it. But it’s also useful in trial to show that to the jurors, to humanize your client, doesn’t matter what they’ve done. They could be a multiple, you know, multiple allegations of sexual assault for all. I care your client, shake his hand, get close to him, put your arm around him. Nice job. You did very good. I know it’s hard. We’re going to get through this thing together. You want the jury to see that you want the jurors to see that you liked your client and that you think that they’re a good person. Look at this. Look at his body language. They didn’t even look at him. Let’s see if we can replay this again. So we’ll just scroll back on this real briefly. You can hear Mark Richards say I got to go to the bathroom and then nobody even looks at Kyle.

I have no further questions. You may step down, sir. But before that call that witness, I need to use the Metro. How about a 10 minute break? Say hi, to

Talk about the case.

Hello break. You may either use the jury room or you may have remained down here in the library.

Hello? Look at him. Hello? Can you, can you say nice job, Kyle? Ridiculous. So, you know, some of that stuff actually does, I think matter it matters. And if you know, if that’s in [inaudible] or in indication about how they handled the rest of the trial, you know, it doesn’t make me a real happy about it, but anyways, okay. So that was exactly what happened today in court. We are going to be back in court tomorrow because they are going to be hearing testimony from the use of force expert actually was this guy, uh, you can see him here. I think this is Dr. John Black who’s coming in tomorrow. He was sitting in there today. Wasn’t sure if we were going to get to him, but they’re going to pick up testimony tomorrow. Of course is veteran’s day. So court’s going to be open. They’re going to be open today, tomorrow.

I’m sorry, Thursday, Friday. And then the judge is expecting them to finish up Monday or Tuesday. So, uh, maybe Monday if they can get there, but they had a vote at the end of the day about whether they wanted to come back on Monday or they wanted to come back on Saturday. It sounds like they’re coming back on Monday. So we’ll have another full day of trial tomorrow expert witness, Dr. John Black is going to be in the house. And so we’re going to cover that all again. I know that many people who are here late night, can’t make the trial during the day. And so we’re trying to squeeze in all the highlights and make sure you can get a full recap and then also participate in the live chat, which is what we’re going to do now. So let’s take a look at the questions that came in on Kyle Rittenhouse testifying today day eight of the trial, over from our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com.

We’ve got a ton of questions here in a lot of super chats. So I am going to fly through some of this. I apologize if I do not get to you. All right, we have a one thing somebody like to ask about ADA. Bingers constant shifting standards with Rosenbalm. The question were, uh, he never touched you. How has your use of force justified with jump kick, man? It was quote, he was only kicked you in the face. Why did you shoot with Huber? It was, he only hit you in the head with a blunt object and tried to wrestle the gun away. Why did you shoot with Mr. Gross quits? It’s he only pointed a gun at you. He didn’t shoot you. You did why these standards seem to not only contradict my knowledge of use of force, they appear to contradict one another thoughts that’s from Corona’s a dare, which is a great comment.

And I sort of made that comment yesterday that there really isn’t a standard that Thomas binger knows what the standard is, but the facts don’t match the law in this. So what he’s trying to do is make it emotional. You know, if you don’t, I’ve said it many times, if you don’t have good facts, I’m sorry. If you have good facts, pound the facts. If you have good law pound the law, if you have neither pound the table, that’s exactly what Thomas binger is doing. It’s a bunch of filler. He comes out and says, didn’t have a machete. He didn’t have a bazooka. Didn’t have these things. So why did you shoot him? I mean that really, if you sort of normalize all those different standards, what they’re really saying is that Kyle Rittenhouse should have had a knife going into his body. And then I think at that moment, he’s justified to use a self-defense.

If you’re Thomas binger, Todd trout says the binger guy is the kind of guy that is just asking to get punched so he can run around crying and screaming to his mommy that you punched him. Uh, peacefully of course, LA medic says another insane day in the trial, been a crazy week of insane testimony. Can there be one day that there is not craziness? I don’t think so. I think man we’re in for it. Soul Viking says Marshall was not asked whether he had any contact calls or texts with gross groups or anyone isn’t this bad practice, even though Marshall could lie, et cetera. So I think soul’s asking about laying a stronger foundation for Jacob Marshall. I don’t even know why he was called, to be honest, if they knew that he was going to reverse his testimony, that I’m not sure why it was even all that necessary details.

He says all three witnesses. The defense brought today seem to be bad for the defense. In my opinion, only potential positive is how bad binger was with Kyle curious, what it would mean to have a mistrial with prejudice compared to a mistrial without prejudice. And so sort of talked about that earlier. DDL speed with prejudice means it can not come back without prejudice. They can refile it again and charge them again. Brig says, if binger is still practicing law next year, he might be doing so while parking his used Kia outside of the ER, looking for clients, that’s from Briggs 57 and free Appalachian over on rumble actually said, we want binger to keep his law license because you don’t want anything more than you want a grossly and competent prosecutor out there, prosecuting crimes. All right, let’s see what we’ve got over on YouTube.

We got a ton of super chat. So I’m going to be splitting time between both sites, just because we got a ton of people here today. Thank you for that. Make sure that you are subscribing my friends. All right. And so we are going to be pulling some of these up. I’m making some adjustments on my screen here. All right. What did I do? Okay. So let’s go over here. We’re going to look at some of these super chats. I apologize. All right. CBD x.com says, binger looks like he collects Funko pops. We have John O’Brien says, can we start a go fund me to get Kyle a law degree? First time here am a lawyer. But Kyle was by far his best advocate looking at you. Richards. Yeah. Look, if Kyle gets acquitted on this, I think he’s got a bright future ahead of him in whatever he wants to do.

He’s somebody with a lot of ambition. Good to see you here. John. Another lawyer in the house. Yeah. Kyle was a good advocate, but today I don’t think in general was a good day for, for the defense. I think a lot of these witnesses were just not necessary. Uh, Michael Smith says, notice how binger finally stated that Rosenbalm touched Kyle’s gun. Yeah, because he probably did. But even based on a lot of the evidence that we heard here today, uh, ju Paul says being a risk, such a slimy prosecutor, he’s clearly not interested in the facts, just pushing his own narrative and CBD x.com says binger is a demon KB and says, Rob, no one seemed to bring up the fact that Kyle was deafened by gunfire and kicked hit with a rock and skateboarded in the head. And he described it KB. And in his own testimony today said that he had a boot to the face, remember that a full boot to the face. So he was in tumultuous times. No question about that. And he seemed to, uh, handle himself pretty decently. Lauren says, Rob, I’m cracking up with your analogies tonight. Don’t knock before you get here. That kind of doesn’t make that much sense. Logically does it.

But you know what I mean? Don’t don’t bother me until I let you in. Don’t knock and tell you get here. Don’t you forget that KB. Oh, who is that? Lauren S dragon Slayer says, I remember seeing some attorney suggesting the defense was sabotaging the case. Thoughts on this also happy Wednesday, right back over to you, dragon Slayer. I don’t think that the defense is actively sabotaging the case. That doesn’t seem right to me. I haven’t seen anything that looks like active malicious intentions here. I think that the more likely explanation about why Kyle Rittenhouse testified is he’s a gung-ho kid. He thinks that he was doing justice in society and he wants to clear his name. I think it’s basically as simple as that and the defense, even though they might’ve tried to talk him out of it, maybe they couldn’t. We have another one from Daniel.

David says, Thomas being sure looks inexperienced to me. He kind of Telegraph that. Right. He was communicating that, but also, maybe it was intentionally trying to make a mistake so that he could earn that mistrial and get the whole case thrown out so he could do it again. Not applicable says bingers ideology winning makes you an oppressor. Yeah. So that’s another good analogy, I guess, I guess Rittenhouse should have just gotten to the ground and tussled with Rosenbalm and maybe even been killed. That would have been a more reasonable thing. I doubt it. I think he still would have charged him with something. My cuffs says it all matters when his life is on the line. That’s true. It does all matter. Zach Anderson says it felt like binger was trying to put the right to self-defense itself on trial. I think it was just a lot of filler.

He just didn’t really know what he was doing. Uh, the anti kiss over on local says, I’m not sure how, what I said yesterday about girls tossing themselves at Kyle is going to hold up. Now, after everyone seeing him cry on the stand, oh, VNT kiss. You silly goose you women like emotional men. Uh, we’ve got some other ones coming in break says watching Schrader shove, copious, heats of jurisprudence into the three body sphincters he gave binger was way better than reading about it. It was very satisfying. Wasn’t wasn’t it. As somebody who has been, um, overly critical, uh, hyper hypercritical of binger, it was a satisfying day. Former Leo says I still can’t believe he let Rittenhouse testify. The defense didn’t make any attempt to protect him on cross. No objections. When they were demanded by the questioning. When this is reviewed, it comes close to ineffective defense or legal malpractice pity that’s from former Leo.

I don’t know that I’d go that far. I just think it was, it felt kind of lazy to me today. Actually, David Orndorff says, would like to add that from the sounds of it. Richards wanted Kyle to testify. That was always part of the plan Barton set on ricotta stream today. That was one of his biggest disagreements with Richards. Yeah. I don’t know. You know, I don’t know about that. I find it hard to believe that any defense attorney anywhere would have wanted Kyle Rittenhouse to take the stand. I mean, it was pretty much uniform that, um, everybody was shocked about it. Details. He says, I think for the circumstances of Kyle actually testifying did an admirable job. I think there was a lot of poorly worded questions without objection, which leads to Kyle having to get potentially questionable testimony from binger specifically. I think Kyle needed to say things like I can’t tell from the photo.

I can’t tell from the video. My recollection of that night is rather than answering, answering some of those super subjective questions from binger people who didn’t like Rittenhouse weren’t swayed by his crying. If you don’t agree, check Twitter. I don’t think it helped his case against middle of the road people, but that’s just based on my observation. It’s probably true details me probably a very good way to split this. The people who like Rittenhouse, probably going to continue to like him, the people who probably going to continue to like him, not sure if it’s going to change anybody, but you certainly risk moving people who are in the middle category into one side or the other. And again, it could be something as simple as his voice, his demeanor, his crying, any of those things. The fact that he admitted that he was driving without a license, you know, you never know what it is.

What kind of sanctions can the prosecutor look forward to? Well, one sanction would be a dismissal of the case. That’s a huge sanction, or it could be certain evidence or something like that. But I don’t know that we’re going to get there. The AI guy says the prosecutor made a big deal about Kyle not being an actual, fully trained medic. They made a big deal about him, not rendering aid to people who were shot. However gross Gretz was an actual paramedic. Didn’t render aid to Huber, but he’s a hero of the prosecution. That’s from the AI guide. That’s a good comment there. A lot of double standards that are flying around all over the place and says, Rob, are we going to hear from Zinsky? I don’t think so. I don’t think the defense is calling him. I think we, excuse me. I think we heard that it’s going to be two other additional three additional witnesses, the use of force guy.

And I don’t think that we’re going to hear from Zelinsky, but I could be wrong about that. So I might’ve missed that. My cuff says we love the second amendment. We are all with you. Kyle Love that. Mike Zacchaeus with a nice donation. Thank you. Zach Anderson says it felt like binger was trying to put the right to self-defense itself on trial. And we got that one and the had different one from Zacchaeus with no question, but a nice donation. Appreciate that. There’s Zacchaeus. All right. Let’s see what else we have over on locals. We’ve got Dr. Sammy D is here, says while it may not be legal advisable for Rittenhouse to testify seems that it’s worthwhile to help rebuild, rehabilitate his life after the trial, by putting him on the stand. There’s a lot for him to win by doing so. And given how poor the prosecution is.

I think the benefits outweigh the risk. I’d expect lawyers to be more myopic on the legal downsides though. Yeah. And that’s true. I mean, we are, and remember there is no life after the trial, if you don’t win. So it’s yeah. It’s nice to think about all those things after the fact. And you know, I’ve had this conversation with clients. People want to do things a certain way because it makes even look folks, even from like a moral or religious perspective, right there, I’ve had experiences with clients that just, I have to, I have to go tell it because this is what I believe in my soul, my heart, my religion. And if I don’t do that, I am not a good person. You know, I’m somebody who is immoral. And how do you argue with that? It’s difficult. That was from Dr. Sami D let’s see what else we’ve got here.

We’ve got Briggs says Richards did state that Kyle testifying was, was within the advice of counsel. So I think he said consistent with the advice of counsel and he was really about the admonition that the judge gave, but it’s sort of like, turn your keys. Everybody’s got to turn your key. Judge turning his key. Kyle, you know what you’re doing here? Right? Defensive team. Did you turn your key on this testimony stuff? Yes we did. So that’s kind of what Richards was confirming that he did. Let’s see rational gay says, has there been any official explanation for why the police opted to not intervene in the rioting while they were just basically overwhelmed? They, they couldn’t, they all testified. It was a war zone. Was there an official order to stand down? They just decided they couldn’t deal with it. They literally set up barricades.

People were trapped inside. Yeah. Officer PED Moretti said, I mean, it was a war zone. They were just basically overwhelmed, which is why people like Kyle Rittenhouse were there. Thunder says really enjoying your analysis. Want to say how shocked I was to see Kyle. When I clicked on the stream amaze, he was on the stand, actually wiped the floor with binger. At one point being it was so aggressive. It looked as if poor Kyle was going to burst into tears. I’m sure the jury saw the pain, but he kept going never once lost his temper with the deranged binger who repeated the same questions over and over and over and over again. The Antica says, I see people with the argument that Kyle’s guilty because he shouldn’t have been there. Remember where that woman was assaulted on the subway just took out their phones and recorded it. Kyle Rittenhouse was protecting people in Kenosha. I wonder how many people will also say that no one should have stopped that subway assault.

Good to see you began to kiss Sasha SEASHA is here, says hello, Rob. I cannot believe that Kyle testified. I was not expecting that at all. I wonder if he was adamant about it and his lawyers advised him against that. It was difficult to watch him relive that moment. I hate Thomas binger with a hard art, crybaby beer, Thomas binger, the worst SASA she set up. I know, I agree with you on that. He’s a prosecutor. That’s what prosecutors do. The last villain says, say what you want about Rittenhouse. Testifying made me emotional and I’m mostly dead inside. He’s just a kid. That’s from the last villain. Yeah. So you know that harden corroded heart that we all have, Kyle Rittenhouse is able to crack that open with a Ray of sunshine and a beautiful flower blossoming through. That’s nice. The last bill and I like that.

Let’s see what else we’ve got. Good deed says was, uh, Kyle was asked if he wanted to waive his right. If a question is asked to him, could he still plead the fifth? Probably a stupid question, but no, he can’t. He’s waving it. That’s why they went through and said, turn your key, turn your key. And so he’s now on the stand and it’s all, you know, you don’t get to say, oops, don’t want to answer that one. You’ve waived it. Kincaid says good evening. Hope things are well, everyone after today, I decided to lend support to those rare individuals that are compassionate and even keeled. I do not think I can tolerate a prosecutor like Binky. Hopefully the judge and Kyle saved the day. Hopefully more than the defense, they seem so slow to react. Kyle was a rock. I only noticed a couple of times he started to crack and the time his defense should have rescued him in some I’m impressed by those that weighed into the fray among those talented folks.

I’ve seen Viva yourself and mind a uniquely principled. Well, that’s nice. I ended up being rather upset, thinking about how so many others have to deal with such a mean spirited. Axman Kyle’s tears, evoked shore, not fate. That’s from Kinkaid Kinkaid. You are a very beautiful writer. I appreciate your comments. I mean, that is a well-crafted paragraph right there. All right. Let’s see what came in over on YouTube. Not applicable says probably going to be let go Monday over mandates, by the way. That’s from not applicable. Well, our, our thoughts go out to you. They’re not applicable, you know, hang in there. I there’s a lot of activity going on there so that ship might turn around at some point. Uh, my Mike Hartman says being a reminds me of the Chatzky guy in the flick office space. I could see it. Good to see you.

Mike Joseph’s sassy says a percent chance that the judge is going to grant a mistrial motion. Uh, low Heights. I don’t know, 10%, maybe 15%. Maybe, maybe that’s probably high, low. I don’t think the judge is going to do it. This is a big trial. The judge is going to do anything to prevent taking it away from the jury. Not going to go this whole route and uh, suddenly just toss it. So I don’t, I wouldn’t get your hopes up on that. Uh, Ron Mexico says the judge dismissed the jury multiple times after something said or done by the prosecution. What effect could that have on the jury? Well, the jury is just like you are anytime somebody tells you to get up out of your seat and go into a different room, standing there for 10 minutes and then come back and sit down in your seat.

They’re getting agitated by it. And they’re getting irritated by every single line of questioning, sounding the exact same with the same cadence and the same almost exact questions. So I think that they’re all getting irritated, Dave, with a nice donation. Thank you, Dave, for that. No question on that one. Dapper, Dave says, binger kept asking Kyle about the other guy he was with guy was not certified as an expert in security and safety. He’s not obligated to stay with him. Yeah. Yeah. And so this is another very important dapper, Dave. I think that a lot of the time people just want more information. You know, they want to hear more about everything, but why didn’t we ask about that and why didn’t we ask about Rosen’s mom’s mental health and why don’t we get into this and this and this and this. And yes, more information is useful.

More information might help you wrap your head around the entire equation here, but we gotta be very careful as a criminal defense attorney that we are not allowing too many issues to come into play. That confuse the issues for the jurors. We want the jurors to think about one thing self-defense, that’s it Rosenbaum’s mental health. Anything else that’s going on? It’s nice. It’s icing on the cake, but if self-defense is not something that sticks, none of that other crap matters at all. And so you want to make sure that you’re staying hyper-focused remember people’s attention is going to get scattered over the place. In a case like this binger is going to be trying to get everybody to think differently about all of the other criminal allegations about the no driver’s license, about not having permission from the, for the gun, about being on the property without permission about breaking curfew dot, dot, dot that every single one of those things, all red herrings, all aside the point, which is why Thomas binger is beating them to death because he can’t talk about objective reasonableness.

And self-defense because if you do, he loses as we have seen. So you need these red herrings, these shiny objects to get everybody distracted. And if as a defense, you allow that to happen. You might be damaging your own case cause you want to keep everything ultra focused, stop that ADHD, you know, sort of the w w what’s happening on Facebook mentality. Self-defense self-defense self-defense he was going to get killed. He was going to get hurt and you just keep beating that drum indefinitely. All right. Good question. Over from watchingthewatchers.locals.com. We have another one here.

Let’s see what else chairman of the board says, I watched some of the ricotta stream today during cross the panel was going crazy because the defense wasn’t objecting. My question is if the verdict doesn’t go Kyle’s way and they want to appeal, can they appeal on the grounds of something they didn’t object to during the trial? I hope that question makes sense. Yeah, it does. Yeah, it does make sense. And so it depends on what the appeal is. You know, it sort of is if you’re objecting to evidence, I’m sorry, if you’re, if you’re appealing that evidence that was admitted, shouldn’t have been admitted and you didn’t object in the underlying trial, you sort of lose your basis for saying that it shouldn’t have come in. In other words, chairman, you don’t get a do-over in any of this. Okay. You don’t get to say, I wish I would have objected if I would have this would have changed the outcome of the trial.

No, but if there’s another basis about why it shouldn’t have come in, or if the judge made an error in a ruling or something like that, if there was a clearly erroneous error that the judge made or that there was an error of law or something, that might be a reason why that would not come out, but just because you don’t like it and you, you didn’t object, you sort of lose the right to then contest it. Moving forward. Good question though. So yes, you, you should be objecting just to make a record of that. Even if it’s not going to, even if you’re not going to win it, you still want to make a record. I object to that coming in. So noted. It’s coming in anyways. You’re making your record for the appeal. Bama lick. It says I’m glad that Rittenhouse took the stand.

I have seen and heard him. And while he was testifying, he brought me to a rollercoaster of emotions in the end, without a doubt, I can say he was truly defending himself because I can picture myself doing the same in that situation. Speak the truth, no matter what may sound dumb to others, but it will set you free. But I’m so disappointed in the prosecutor. Girl, I’m just holding my language here because I’m wanting to throw all kinds of nasty forward letters on him. That is from [inaudible] who over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. Let’s see what else we’ve got over here.

Zach has says, try trying this again. I watched the entire trial being, or reminds me of little finger Petrus bailiff in likeness and mannerism. That’s what I’ve called him. So I think, yeah, I think you’re right about that. Somebody was calling him little binger, right? So like little finger, but little binger because he sort of resembles that guy. I’m not sure where that was started. I think I heard that from Barnes. Uh, good to see you. Zacchaeus. We have G G Thies touch says binger Saturday night, live frozen caveman lawyer. Rest in peace, Phil Hartman.

I don’t know what being her, his career holds for him. But Valentino G says, I looked up the interview. Binger reference. Kyle makes statements about his actions leading up to going to Kenosha only does that count as a waiver. So probably not. Right. I haven’t seen it. I haven’t seen, I don’t think the judge is going to let that in. Okay. It hasn’t come in. I don’t think it’s coming in. So I think that the judge is finding it to be not probative enough. It’s overly prejudicial. It doesn’t go to it. Doesn’t it doesn’t add anything it’s overly harmful. And so we’re going to keep it out. Hello world says, what grade would you give Kyle’s testimony today? I mean, you know, uh, being probably if I had to score it, I really don’t think he should have testified. I don’t think anything was gained from it.

I think that the, the defense didn’t help him as much as they could have. If the defense would have helped him and helped him, it could have been, you know, more, more a, but for us, uh, an 18 year old kid, who’s never testified before who sort of has, you know, lacks a days, local attorneys out there. I think he did very well. You know, all things considered. So maybe it’d be if I had to guess, and we have another one red rag Jr says when binger brought up, the reason Kyle pointed his gun at yellow pants, could Graham Bose testimony of him pointing a gun while on a car while Kyle pointed his gun at him, uh, could Graham Bose testimony of him pointing a gun? So I don’t know if there’s a question there, but yes, multiple people were pointing guns. Binger was very upset about that.

Apparently Kyle Rittenhouse, his gun went towards Rosenbaum and he spent a lot of time on that. Joseph sadly says, can a judge, can a judge not accept a guilty verdict? So, uh, technically yeah, technically a judge could issue a verdict, not withstanding, uh, the jury. The judge could basically issue a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, which I don’t think is going to happen. But technically there could be, you know, some maneuvers and mechanisms for that. I’m not familiar with Wisconsin law. So, you know, I’m not sure exactly how that would go, but I really think the judge is not inclined to, to not let the jury figure this case out. Beth Cottington in the house says, just want to say hello to everyone and say, thank you to all veterans for your service. Cheers on that one. Beth Coddington, uh, veterans day tomorrow, we are going to be covering the trial, covering the show. And so I hope you can join us for that. She says it’s still the best place to live in all of its flaws. God bless America and love to all what a very, very nice statement there from Beth Cottington. And my camera was on the wrong screen over there. All right, let’s go back to locals and see what else we’ve got.

Okay. So I think I read that one can keep moving on. Okay. Brig says during one of the exchanges over an objection being, or actually admitted, Kyle isn’t being prosecuted for murder, but being prosecuted for being in downtown, that alone should be grounds for a mistrial with prejudice. I didn’t hear that one Briggs, but when surprise me monster one says the prosecution made it abundantly clear that the AR 15 is on trial. Not Kyle entire focus is on the gun and not what actually happened. That’s for monster one, Lord Nelson says the Rittenhouse trial brings back such memories. We had our own son-in-law who shot three attackers and put two of them in the morgue was on trial for his life. Unfortunately, he served a few years. He saved my daughter’s life. Oh my goodness. Lord Nelson. That is a story that your family went through.

I hope you guys are pulling through that. Okay. That’s a traumatic thing for anybody to go through. Uh, it’s Jake from Oxford says Rob had some jokes lined up today. I work overnights as Leo and you’ve tainted another one of us as I was going to bed this morning, I was watching Crowder. Highly suggest you watch his rant. He went on, I can not stay on if the defense made a good or bad call, but my God watching Kyle breakdown was heartbreaking. Anyone saying this was an act is completely removed from humanity. This hopefully it was the nail in the coffin for this exp pathetic excuse of a trial. I ended up staying awake until they broke for lunch. I’m unaware how the prosecution followed. Thanks for your hard work. Everyone go right now like, and share this video. I’ll know, Rob, won’t ask us to do that.

Thanks again, Rob. God help us. If they do not free this poor kid, that was Jake from Oxford. Very nice comment, Jake, glad that you are here, John Dolores says, how would they ever find him guilty? The prosecution getting his bucket. Kyle’s a great crier. Uh, no positives for the prosecution. I think Kyle did a phenomenal job on the stand love. GWAS CA is here. It says regarding the moment when Kyle testifies that Rosenbalm reached for his gun and his hand was on the barrel in earlier DNA testimony, it was stated that the barrel guard was swiped and that the barrel guard or the handguard only covers a small portion of the barrel was the remainder exposed. Was it swiped, tested for DNA? It is possible that Rosenbalm made contact with the end of the barrel, not just the hand guard. That’s true. Yeah. And, and so I think even during cross examination of that expert witness, they got her to admit that it’s not dispositive.

The fact that she didn’t find DNA evidence doesn’t mean we know it just means she didn’t find it. It doesn’t, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that Rosenbalm touched that. So I think she even admitted that we didn’t find it, but doesn’t mean that he didn’t touch it just that we didn’t find it. Uh, Sasha Sasha says, you think Kyle did okay today joined ricotta stream today. Most of the lawyers kept saying his lawyer should be protecting them and they weren’t. Yeah. So that was my opinion on it. Also, I think that they, uh, they felt like they just got a little bit haphazard there at the end. Just kind of a little bit lazy to some degree, just kind of letting things go and you gotta be ultra hypervigilant there. John Dillard is the prosecution trying to get a mistrial. Maybe that’s what the defense argued.

Corey chiro FEC made that argument. King. Kate said I’m sick of mentions about how gage was a trained medic. Where was his bag? All I know is he brought his big f-ing mouth, the standards and the expectations being applied to Kyle being reasonable are insane. That’s from Kinkaid. Thomas binger says, uh, did he have a baseball bat? No. Do you have a knife? No. Uh, did he have a gun pointed at you and it was seconds away from killing you? Yes. Oh, well anyway, did he have a rocket launcher? Did he have a nuclear weapon? That’s from Thomas binger. His line of questioning. Uh, John Halligan says I had, I had the over-under for jury deliberation at three hours. I’m bumping that down to 2 45. I’ll take the under for 20, any takers to be clear, two hours, 45 minutes to the announcement that the jury has a verdict.

I’ll take you on that one, John. Yeah, no problem on that. I’ll take you on that. That’s fun, man. I’ll take you up on that 2 45. So we’ll say from the moment that the jury, we can even give them five minutes, right? Get out of the room, go start your deliberations. So about two hours and 45 minutes from there, we’ll see as a good over-under, which means if it’s over, I win. If it’s under two hours and 45 minutes, John wins and whoever, whoever loses 20 bucks goes over to Eric’s house.org, a nonprofit that I’m a part of. Thank you for the great idea, John. And, uh, I like that. That sounds fun. All right. Another one from love. YCA says, if Kyle is acquitted of all charges, does he get his gun back? He should. He should. Absolutely. It’s his property. LA medic says, LA medic says question Kyle retreats.

In all instances, my understanding is that Wisconsin has no duty to retreat, but Kyle does it at every instance, was his defense not hit this harder? Why not? Prosecution says Rosenbaum has no weapons, Jai Jumpcut guy, even though he had no weapon, but kicking him even after being hit twice in the head of the skateboard and a gun pointed at him, all, not a threat of death or bodily harm, what the WTF she says. And I think that the jury is going to agree with that. We have news now says, let’s pretend Kyle should have taken the stand and stop talking about how effing stupid that was. Do you think it would have been better for him to be the last defense witness instead of having three more after him? I don’t think so. I think that the reason they did it this way is a couple of things.

Number one, you want to minimize the risk of ending with something very bad. So you don’t leave that at the very end, we also have a necessity to have Kyle Rittenhouse explained what was going on in his mind and explain the situation from his perspective before we hear from the use of force expert. So we now know what Kyle says happen. Now we get the interpretation. So facts, interpretation, the expert witness is going to come tomorrow. Dr. Black, I think can give us his interpretation, miles breed and says, can gauge BNP. Now that the re racking testimony by Kyle plus his incentive from a lawsuit and the uncertainty of what he told his roommate about wishing he had killed Kyle also, what is a mistrial with prejudice? That means that they can’t bring the charges back again. It’s over. Kyle is not going to be convicted because these charges can’t come back.

If it’s dismissed with prejudice, they can’t impeach gage with Kyle’s testimony. They could’ve impeached gauge with his own testimony and they, they can’t even use his roommate’s testimony because he agreed with him. He says that I lied gage. Didn’t say that. So, all right. A couple other questions here and then let’s see what else we’ve got. Objection, submitted a Superchat. They wanted to know if somebody could give a Mark Richards, their phone number. Ghost gunner says if I had to guess, I don’t think binger knows what four inches even looks like. Binger just got a zinger here on watchingthewatchers.locals.com. See row says binger is a genius. If you think about it, if you’re being chased by a person with a gun, not a bat, not a knife, not a chain, but they didn’t hold the gun with two hands and shoot you from a distance and you shoot them. You’re guilty of attempted first degree homicide. Everyone knows that’s the only way to shoot someone being hers. Admonishment was hilarious. His day long cross was brutally boring. The defense seemed to leave Kyle to bingers mercy. Have you ever put a defendant on the stand without violating attorney client? Uh, yeah, I have. And it’s when the client absolutely wants to testify. Like I had multiple conversations with them, told them typically we don’t need your testimony. Don’t want it.

Sometimes they want to, there are situations where you need it, but most of the time you don’t major says, oh my gosh, that prosecutor really angers me. He got his answer. Still wants to ask the question. Please help me understand who gave the crowd authority to protect the streets? How can somebody advancing with a gun is not attempt to cause deadly harm? How are people that attack authorized to detain Kyle after he shot someone? What happened with the defense declaration of a mistrial early today? I don’t understand why it isn’t a mistrial based on prosecutor misconduct. So the judge is going to take all of that into advisement. And we’re going to get, you know, more information about that later down the line. Couple other questions, chances of a mistrial from news. Now I answered that low five, 10%. Maybe. At what point is it badgering?

When it becomes overly argumentative that you saw a couple of lines of those questions, where there was a being a Saint, but that’s not why you did it. Isn’t it that’s argumentative. Jack solely AA says my only regret is that I didn’t have any popcorn while being here was being ripped by the judge. But he did offend me by bringing video games into the mix as a gamer myself. I hated it when they try to make that a factor on self-defense cases, not going to help the prosecution’s case at all, in my opinion. Yeah. I think they brought up, what is it? Call of duty. Oh, Kyle Rittenhouse, you shoot people in video games. So that means that you must shoot people in the streets of Kenosha. Doesn’t it not really judge. Uh, let’s see here. So we’ve got the Antica says I understand that binger was trying to pick apart Kyle statements. That just seems like good lawyering in my opinion. But it was clear that binger went too far. I really just want to see the case end up with binger saying this. Let’s see if we can play this year on the show.

Uh, all right, we’re going to play this [inaudible] cause I’ve never seen this. What is this,

Your honor, I move that. I be disbarred for introducing this evidence against my own class.

All right. Well, there you go. So asking that he be disbarred. If he is disbarred though, then we don’t have a terrible prosecutor out there. So, uh, thank you for that VNT kiss. Kincaid says, sorry for all the messages, Rob I’m pest seeing the prosecution talk to Kyle like he was in over his head and irresponsible while the defense did not bring gage, the professional to task has made a loss. I think you were right. Rob prosecution might need time to fortify his case. RA needs to leave the lexicon, bruh. Totally. I agree with that. Uh, another one John [inaudible] says, how do Ms. Trials work? Are there any mistrials that stopped the defendant from being tried again? Yes. If it’s with prejudice, if they attach prejudice, it means it can not come back. And that’s a sanction that’s because the government already had their chance.

They can’t do it again. Jeremy [inaudible] says, Rob, if no one else already commented on Kyle’s recounting of horrific traffic events, I began sobbing. I believe this was a powerful moment in recent history that expresses the current state of our country being ripped apart to me, Kyle’s incredible courage and perseverance to defend himself will inspire Americans to step up and stand together and say enough is enough. Yes, it has been sort of a lightening rod to that effect. People are seeing this and they’re seeing the government say one thing happened and the facts saying the opposite and they’re sort of grossed out that this could be happening to an 18 year old kid in America. Chip on shoulder says, Hey, Rob, I enjoyed the Saturday night at night meetup. And just like we discussed then about all these trials going on at the same time, I swear.

I thought the same thing today that binger was trying to throw his own pathetic case. Looking forward to the next meetup. Thank you for making this watchable. Yeah. Chip Vaughn, shoulders talking about our community out, watchingthewatchers.locals.com where once a month we have a zoom meetup where you can see people. It’s a little bit more, it’s a little bit more intimate than these live streams. And so if you want to join in on those, check us out at our community, okay, we are going to pick up the pace here a little bit. Brig says on potential motives for the state to induce a mistrial rather than an acquittal, an acquittal would likely destroy any chance for a federal civil rights case. I don’t believe a mistrial with prejudice. Would I sincerely believe this prosecution is not being directed by Wisconsin? I believe it’s being directed by the feds.

Maybe. Yeah. Maybe binger gets a promotion over there. Uh, being her has that frozen Biden look like he just pooped himself every time the judge calls them out. That’s from Kinkaid. Zaida says I shall forever start using the term. Don’t pull a binger in my office. Whenever someone starts to do something overtly stupid Lorenzo greasy bottoms. Long time. No. See my friend says, man, oh man, oh man. While watching the trial today, I thought binger was going to poop a chicken out. When that judge yelled at him, I think everyone in the courtroom could feel the heat from that. Yeah. The room just deflated the air just evaporated right out of there. We’ve got a Hitler. The artists from Austria. Wow. Says, well, Kyle, get his gun back. How much will that auction for higher than hunters? Stupid paintings. I hope a Hitler. The artist is very unhappy with Thomas binger.

Rob, what did you get scolded for? Ha ha jokes. You don’t have to answer. I don’t know. I probably deserved it. You know, look, judges get mad about little things sometimes. Like if you miss a court date, if you’re late for something, you know, stuff happens and judges just have bad days and they get scolded, but I probably deserved it. I don’t remember what it was, but I think I probably did. I think bingo almost talked themselves into content, had the bail of take him into custody and have a fat, uh, and have carried that a good deed says during that scolding, the judge sounds live it. Yeah. His voice got that, that little a rumble in it. That is only available when, uh, when it’s not, when he’s not happy, LA medics says I wanted to see your face during being her argument with the judge.

He was so very disrespectful during the whole thing. And he sort of threw it back at the judge while the court left the door open. You don’t say that stuff. No one, you know, says, is it normal for an attorney to be as a contentious with the judge as being her is? No, it is not. It seems that on multiple occasions, he is talking back to the judge. He just trying to make a point with exclamation or is he more of an a-hole or both? Uh, both. Yeah. I mean, it’s not, it’s not usual to get into this with judges. You don’t see this in most trials, he’s pushing the line. I think he’s doing things that are unethical and he probably knows it. He’s probably trying to trigger a mistrial. The judge is right to be mad about it, but is anything going to happen?

I just don’t. I don’t see it. Uh, miss lucky says, Rob, great to hear the judge scold binger made me feel a lot better. I started to listen to the jury session later on and didn’t know of the scolding. I was feeling a little down, but I can see now the judge is keeping things in line still don’t like binger. He was just badgering Kyle all afternoon. There was a lot of that going on. Roy bought says if gage pulled the trigger, do you think gauge would be heralded as a hero with a few conspiracy theories saying Rittenhouse was murdered or would gage be in court right now? I don’t think so. I think that he probably would have been seen as a hero who stopped an active shooter because that’s what the media would have said. LA medic says, the defense said that they’ll be filing a motion for dismissal with what happened today.

Do you think it’s likely? No, again, I think it’s probably very low percentage that that happens. Larry light says concerning propensity. The business of the court is to try the case, not the man and a very bad man have, may have a very righteous case. That’s from Liberty now. That’s from mutual life insurance. That’s from Larry light. Thank you for that case citation there. Yeah. It’s about this case right here. And now if that guy was a, you know, a criminal three times in the past. Okay. But what did he do this time? It’s a good rule for a reason. The Antica says binger seems to have a condescending attitude, even towards the judge. Think this is something indicative of the psychological effects of prosecutorial immunity. I think you’re right about that. Jeremy says, I think the prosecutor’s tactic, I can demonstrate what he is hoping to get from a person on the stand.

What does a cow says? Moo, what does a cow eat? Grass? What does a female cow make milk? What does a cow drink? Prosecutor is using behavioral conditioning to get the defendant, to say what he hopes. They will say. It’s a very good point there, Jeremy. And it’s something that you see in sales, a lot, a lot of the sales literature, they want you to be getting your sales prospects saying yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. And if you can get them in that pattern, when you say, would you like to sign this contract? They’re going to be preconditioned to say yes, isn’t it interesting how that works? Uh, Kincaid says last comment, but that shady sob straight up lying about the pinch to zoom functionality on the devices. Thank you very much. Nadar says poor kid, screw Richards and Baldy for letting Kyle sit up there all day while being pestered.

Not doing anything about it. That makes me just as mad as when the state makes me, but at least you expect it from the state. I could have done the bare minimum they did with zero experience egregious. It did seem like they were a little bit too. Hands-off there. Uh, sir, Darren says dinger dinger, I guess is it’s an offensive word. After all hashtag Rockies, a few more from Watching the Watchers, then we’ll jump over to YouTube and wrap it up for the day. DDL SPI says binger believes that everyone abides by Mustafa from Austin Powers, rule of three questions apparently. Yeah. 1, 2, 3. It actually is a good effective tool. You know, you’ll notice I do that a lot. I say things in threes, Larry light says the prosecution, the prosecutors barrage of questions seems out of line. Some states require a person to flee to the smallest corner of their own house before they call a shooting as a robber, as a self-defense.

Is this one of those states? I don’t think so. And I’m not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, but I don’t think that it is otherwise binger would have been a little bit more. Um, I think on point with his lines of question, he would refer to something concrete in the law hand of nod says checking in late, my jaw was on the desk. When Rittenhouse took the stand. I feared lot tube was right about the high risks. The cross examine examination was tortuous and painful. I think binger was doing several emotive. Conflations on the go to salvage his case, whether or not it was ideal for Rittenhouse to be in Kenosha. That night is immaterial to his right for self-defense the technical ignorance demonstrated by the da is astounding. Please send a weapons expert. Oh wait, that guy was visible over binger shoulder was today a net positive for the defense.

It depends on the jury composition Karen’s or Chad’s excellent comment there from hand of nod. Yeah. And that’s part of the problem. It’s sort of, you don’t know, you don’t know if this moved the needle in the right direction or not, and there’s a lot more opportunities for it to go. The other way in the negative law medic says you did not cover being. You’re trying to admit the video evidence three times today. He was slimy. That’s right. Yeah. I didn’t the pinching. So they, they were trying to enhance the drone footage and the judge got into it again with him over that news now says I have just as many bad things to say about the defense team. As I do about binger being as crap today was worse and worthy of sanctions. But I can’t say anything good about the defense they’re going to win.

Not because they were good because the prosecution’s case was so horrible. That was from news now, Wyoming, and a few more sweet potatoes says, can binger get in trouble for those compound questions? I mean, not in trouble, but you know, you’re supposed to break them up so that the witness can actually answer the questions you can’t say, you know, isn’t it true that you stabbed him and murdered him and then, and then also called his mama. You know what? Well, it’s hard to answer that unless you say yes to all three it’s you stabbed him, didn’t you? Yes, I did. Then, then you stole his phone, didn’t you? Yes. And then you called his mom out something. Yes. You break those up just for good record. Keeping Lord Nelson says they landed a ringer on little bingers dinger. It’s like Dr. Seuss is in the house and maybe I shouldn’t have read that one, but it happened.

That’s all I can say. Leafy buck says, Hey Rob, if the judge declared a mistrial with prejudice, could this be appealed by the prosecution? Absolutely it could. They probably would. Let’s see what else we have here. A grouchy old cat lady says, do you think the judge is going to file a bar complaint against binger? No. Can the judge overruled the jury if they find him not guilty? Uh, I mean maybe technically, but he’s not going to do that. He’s he’s really not going to take it away from the jury. I don’t, I don’t think leafy buck says there are almost an endless number of snarky responses to being are stupid malicious questions to expose his stupidity and malice. I realize it’s a bad idea for a witness to come across to the jury as an even bigger jerk than binger. But how much leeway do you think a witness to make look like an were appropriate? Or do you think the witness should be a play a completely straight bat? Hope this makes sense. That’s from leafy bug.

You get, you get kind of aggressive with your witnesses when they get aggressive back with you. What we saw yesterday with James Krauss going after DeBruin Nathan DeBruin was not the appropriate example of that. James Crouse was getting really crappy with him. And there was no reason to do that because he was just this nice guy who was being sympathetic and fair. We really haven’t seen a witness where somebody has had to dunk on them too badly, other than maybe grudge Kreutz and cheer FEC. But you can, you can, you can win and score points without being a jerk. And Krauss is not somebody who did a good job with that. Okay. Groucho cat lady says if it’s a hung jury, can the judge issue a verdict? Uh, no, I don’t think it doesn’t work like that. Like it’s not an either or situation. The judge would have to sort of take it from the jury and then issue a verdict.

But again, don’t quote me on that. A lot of this is procedural technical stuff that you got to go through the rules in Wisconsin before you’re clear on it and I’m not licensed there. Loyal sweet potato says, whoa, I almost spent like $2 to send a Superchat to tell you you were on the wrong screen. I got you in case your other screen was sketch. Also I hate discord that I have discord open. Thank you for looking out loyal, sweet potato. You know, sometimes I just get ahead of myself. I don’t even know what screen I’m on. All right. A few more Tallix says when binger was questioning Kyle and kept saying you wanted to kill, do you think the jury understands how quickly this all happened? Kyle was basically acting on an instinct as fast as the second and third shootings happen. Do you think the jury gets that?

I do. I know when black testifies he might get into it, but everything in the second third shootings took time, less took, took place in less time than it took you to read this, which is absolutely true. I think they get it. I think that any attempts to sort of extend this out are going to be met with deaf ears. DuPont says, Hey, Robin Cabi called back again tomorrow. If so, do you think they’re going to try again with him? Uh, I mean, they, they, they could technically recall somebody. Uh, uh, I think, I don’t think that they’re going to do again. I think he’s done. I don’t think they’re going to try again with him. Richards didn’t have any redirect Kyle Rittenhouse, his testimony is done and we’re going to just continue to move on with the case. Brig says, if Kyle is acquitted and gets his gun back, should he carve three notches in the grip or two and a half?

Oh, that’s just, that’s a spicy one, Jay. He says, Hey Rob, if you were the defense attorney on this case, would you have put Kyle on the stand? No, no, I would not have, but I don’t think that I would’ve had the choice. I think Kyle Rittenhouse would have done it, but no, the case was, you know, this actually I think opens the case up to more analysis. I think it was an open and shut case, but now it’s open again, which is a still, I think not going to change the outcome, but it’s, there’s a lot more to consider now than there was this morning. A lot more, uh, crime junkie JECA says I was confused when the trial ended, is the defense going to do a rebuttal? No, he said no. As far as I could hear that we played that clip any redirect.

He said, no, I don’t think someone is being a child is a good reason to feel bad for them as we’ve seen many dangerous and evil children before. But man, you can tell Kyle’s face how genuine he was. Uh, being at his age was definitely a factor in being, or getting away with his nonsense. His age makes it more difficult to stand up for himself. We all know binger was taking advantage of that. Can you discuss what you think will be happening on the upcoming days? How do you think today affected Kyle? Want to hear more of your opinion? Thanks for all you do. Crime junkie Jacob. Oh yeah. It’s a good question. So I think that the rest of the testimony is going to be, you know, more or less what you’d expect tomorrow. We’ve got Dr. John Black, I think is his name. We heard from him during the pretrial proceedings.

He was somebody who, uh, has a lot of experience as a, as a use of force expert. And so he’s going to be testifying tomorrow. And then I think they had two additional witnesses, but I didn’t catch who they were. So it’s hard for me to speculate on that. You know, all that being said, I think that today Kyle is, is going to be a wreck. You know, he’s going to be a mess. He’s going to be exhausted and tired and, and physically drained and probably mentally exhausted. He’s been, you know, sort of, uh, holding back the yarns as you’ve been watching him, they’re kind of doing, you know, yawning, but not, not showing it. And it’s, it’s a natural consequence of being a human being. This is exhausting. The attorneys are exhausted. The prosecutors are exhausted. The jurors are exhausted. People don’t know that doing a trial is like running a marathon almost every day, every single day.

So everybody in that courtroom is exhausted. And I think that you’re starting to see some of that, right? It’s it, you know, the, the, the defense is starting to kind of lose some energy, lose some steam. Hopefully they come back refreshed and ready to go tomorrow because it’s not over yet. I don’t think that they did it today. You know, set the, set the defense back, but it introduced a bunch of unnecessary elements that I don’t think brought any real upside. Okay. Greg Moran says tiny points, but isn’t it a good thing that Kyle showed up to work even without a license shows commitment. Some adults don’t show up to work, even with a license. That’s a good point, Greg and somebody else made the comment. I saw that maybe people in Kenosha listen to that. And they say, what a, what a, you know what?

A very forward-thinking young man he’s out there trying to get a job crime junkie. JECA says one more thing. I keep people saying the defense should have done more, but what can they do? How can they defend him more apart from objecting, mine sharing your thoughts. Yeah. So that’s really it objections or at a pre-trial process. They could have done more, you know, even during jury selection, but before, before jury selection started, they could have filed motions and eliminate that would have narrowly crafted more of these rules. They knew that the word militia was in the video. They knew that the prosecution was going to be trying to admit that. And they didn’t try to keep that out in emotion and eliminate prior to it happening in trial. And so the juror heard the word militia. Now they ended up bringing that guy back who recorded that video so that might’ve gone in any ways, even if they tried to file a motion to eliminate malicious part of the government’s theme of the case.

And so they could have done, you know, they could have done that. They could have been objecting more, all that is true, but you got, you know, how far does that go? Different defense attorneys are going to judge defense attorneys differently. Kincaid says, okay, thanks for that, Rob. I’m also a speller. So there’s that? I like how everyone writes with true intent. Oh, okay. Now, no more. That’s from Kincaid. Brick says, thanks, Rob. I’m happy to bring spice to people’s lives. And you certainly did that tonight. News now says the defense never had any steam during this trial. Those were all from watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And let’s see what else came in over from our friends at YouTube before we wrap it up for the day, Glen Shelton came in and said, couldn’t binger had been held in contempt of court. When he sassed the judge, he could have man.

And he was probably getting pretty close to that. And he was kind of accusatory to the judge while the court left the door open. That’s your fault judge? And he said, for me, it was open for me. You don’t get to decide what comes in as evidence. I do. You ask me, you don’t just start in a line of questioning right? In the middle of a cross examination. Lauren says I got 1999 on it. And so Lauren S is joining the over and the under. Ooh. Okay. So we’ve got some people who are putting some money where their mouth is. So I, so Lauren asked the real question though, is, do you have the over or the under, you said I’ve got 19.99 on it, but is it over 2 45 or under 2 45? Let’s see, we’ve got, let’s go. Brandon says, uh, what gives you the right to defend yourself against mobs known for kicking unconscious people in the streets?

That’s a quote from a loserville prosecutor named Thomas binger. John Allen says, Rob, why do they keep saying gage is a paramedic when he’s not a licensed paramedic, because that’s the theme of their case. They have a whole narrative here. Rittenhouse was this reckless unlicensed lawless 17 year old kid gage gross Kreutz American hero all around good guy, just trying to stop an active shooter and an unlicensed medic. And with an unlicensed concealed carry weapon. Very fun. Billy Sherman says is a boot, not a weapon. It’s certainly an object used in assault. And Kyle talked about getting smashed in the face on it. Ben Tomlinson says you missed the prosecution wanting to pinch and zoom drone footage. I know I cut that out of the show today. I mean, there was so much to talk about. I just sort of deprioritize that one, but it was a good exchange.

Mitchell Kirkland says if gage was there as a paramedic, a paramedic, where was his bag? Was he going to use his phone to or gun? To treat somebody? Yeah, he’s going to give stitches with bullets. Oh, here. I know we’re going to use this muzzle blast to seal the wound. Dave L sass says his little finger, voice deer now on firearms. What a doofus can his prior cases involving a firearm be recalled now? Probably not worst prosecutor ever. Yeah. He’s just ineffective. Not actually, uh, you know, thus far, at least unethical or something that would be malicious prosecution, but uh, you’re seeing the defense make those arguments tiger woods. If he says is the guns, Kyle finger kept saying your AR 15, if it’s Kyle’s why does he have a gun charge? Yeah, he does have a gun charge. I think it is Kyle’s or being in possession.

Maybe it’s not actually his cause Dominic had it. Uh, Eddie Oliver says, Rob, just to make you say it on air, a child molester, a domestic abuser and a BLM ride or walk into a bar. And Kyle Rittenhouse says, come in, boys shots around me. It’s for METI Oliver. That’s a Kyle Rittenhouse joke, a child molester, a domestic abuser and a BLM writer. They all walk into a bar, Kyle Rittenhouse, he’s behind the bar stool there. And he says, come on in boys shots are on me. It’s for Eddie Oliver. We have a K w New York upstate says not murder. If you shoot people who are chasing and assaulting you. Yeah. When I say murder, I’m being facetious, I’m using the language of the prosecutor. Obviously I don’t believe that Eddie Oliver says Rob, I lived in Michigan for a while and driving without a license.

Just not a big deal like it is in Arizona and other states too happens all the time in rural Texas too. So maybe people just do that a little bit more frequently. Greg mark has says, note to prosecutor, Thomas binger, a two to three rifle round is a smaller caliber than most handgun rounds. 5.7 millimeter versus nine millimeter. That’s from Greg Marquez. Thanks, Greg and Brody Z says, love you, Rob. Always enjoy the content. Love you back there. Brody Z. Thanks for the donation there. And the support Lauren says, congratulations, just cows on that wrench. You know this, that, yeah. I signed a couple of people, the wrench tool. And, uh, I know that there are a few other people in the queue who, uh, are probably going to get wrench privileges here soon. Also at some point, but I just picked a few names that I recognize that I saw in the chat today.

So we’re going to get this house in order, right? We’re going to get this house in order. Thankfully, we’ve got Jess cows, who’s rising to the occasion. We’ve got Henry Dickson. Who’s rising to the occasion. And I know that we had some people who voted, I think lean, uh, maybe it was in the, I know Zulu was in the running. I know geo Mancy is out there. I know speech gave me a shout out and a lot of people are happy to help. And I really appreciate that. And I’m probably going to take a lot of you up on this. So thank you for all of that. And then shoot the moon says, are you sure about those five minutes? What five minutes did I say that? I promised something in five minutes? Maybe I did. I can’t remember. It’s getting late. Melanie Schwartz says free Kyle, and that was our last super chat over there.

Now my friends, I, uh, I think I missed some super chats from earlier because I accidentally refreshed my screen and I think I lost some of them from earlier. So if I missed your super chat, I mega apologize, but I have a sort of multiple screens going and I press the wrong button. So if I missed it, I apologize. But the answer to your question, whatever it was is yes, you can have that. You’re welcome permission granted. So hopefully it wasn’t illegal if it was illegal permission denied, but you know, if you wanted that candy bar, go get it. Get yourself two scoops, scoops of ice cream tonight, my friends that was the coverage for Kyle Rittenhouse trial, date eight, we covered a lot. My goodness. We’ve got a few more days left tomorrow. Of course, it’s Thursday, Friday is back in court. We have a break over the weekend.

Then on Monday and Tuesday, we might be done, uh, expecting a verdict at the early start of next week. And so we’re going to continue to cover Rittenhouse. We’ve been waiting for this case to resolve itself and we’re all pulling for a good outcome. Hopefully you can join us in this continued journey. If you’re watching on YouTube, we’d love a subscribe following us on Twitter or on rumble would love a follow there as well. And I want to welcome some new people to our community over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. The next unicorn official glitch, the bef custodies, we got Robert Emery chip Vaughn shoulder. We got para law, crime junkie JECA future freedom. Now Briggs gecko, man, PWS, MKZ, CPO for ever details, be all in the house. And I’m going to get this updated tomorrow. We’ve had a lot of new people who have been joining our community.

And so I’m going to update that screen, uh, give big welcomes to everybody because it’s an amazing thing. We had a monthly locals meetup on November six that took place over zoom. And it’s a lot of fun. We could put names to faces, get to meet each other. And so we’d love it. If you joined us over there at watchingthewatchers.locals.com, all the questions from the show came from over there. All of the slides are available for your download over there. We have an amazing community of people who are chatting away in the locals. Chat. You have a free copy of my book. You can download the PDF beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. We have additional live streams that we do sort of in the morning scattered throughout the week. And so it’s a great place to be.

We’re building. We need your help to do it every single time that we have a little bit of insulation from a lot of these other big platforms. It’s good. It allows the show to continue on. And of course, I appreciate your support. I genuinely mean that. So check us out, watchingthewatchers.locals.com. Otherwise my friends, that is it for me, for the date. I want to thank you all so much for being a part of the show. We are going to be back here tomorrow to do it again. It’s probably going to be at 5:00 PM Arizona time, which is mountain. So 4:00 PM Pacific 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM. No, no, no. That’s not right. That, that I think that’s right. So you know what the times are. So we’re going to be back here tomorrow. 5:00 PM, Arizona, 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the east coast, come and join us. My friends have a tremendous evening sleep very well. So you right back here tomorrow for Rittenhouse trial day eight day nine. Whew. Be, well, my friends have a tremendous evening. I’ll see you right back here tomorrow.

Loading...