loader image

Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney.  Today we’re talking about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. It is day 11. It’s the end of arguments. We had closing arguments today from both the government and the defense Kyle Rittenhouse, his defense team, and we’ve got a lot of clips. And so we’re going to get right into it. We’ve got clips from Thomas binger who gave the closing argument for the government. We’ve got clips from Mark Richards who gave the closing argument from the, for the defense. And then we’ve got James Crouse, Jim, as he likes to be called, also gave the state’s rebuttal close. And so we’ve got a ton of clips of all of that. And if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com.

That’s our home base. There is a form that looks just like this. And if you want to ask a question, as we go throughout the clips of the day, feel free to use that form. Also, if you’re looking for different segments of the show, we clip these up into different clips. We have a clips channel, be sure to subscribe over there, Robert ruler, Esq clips, and of course, shout out to everybody our home base at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. Okay. And so trial Rittenhouse, it is day 11. Now let’s take a quick look at the board, make sure we know who is playing ball today. Thomas binger gave the closing arguments for the government, James Crouse over here. Prosecutor gave the closing the rebuttal close for the government. And then we only heard today from Mark Richard. So Corey chiro FEC didn’t come out at all today. Uh, the rest of the board, it didn’t change at all.

Quick reminder. This is the government’s case in chief. Here we have, uh, Thomas binger who sort of ha ha led the case for the government. And you saw a big smattering of a number of different witnesses. All of these, uh, individuals we heard from save for Brandon Kramen, didn’t hear his testimony today because that was done under closed doors. This was the defense case. So this is everybody that the defense called. We’ve got Lucas in, in, uh, Joanne Fiedler, Graham bow in the house and many others. And so we start off the day with closing arguments and that’s all that we had today. We had closing arguments from Thomas binger. We had closing arguments from Mark Richards. So we’re going to get into it quick reminder, what our closing arguments for. This is the close. This is the sale. This is the big. This is the third date.

This is where you go for it all. And you want to leave it all out there. You want to make sure that you send the jury away with something that they can do an action item, something that they can latch on to go and achieve justice, go and fix the wrongs with society. And so we’re going to sort of measure these closing arguments against those standards. How well did they do urging the jury to go out there and fix a wrong cause justice to happen? Well, we’ll take a look and see. So we have the first clip that we’re starting off with is from judge Schrader, who is kicking it off here is Thomas binger who was going to be guiding us through the state’s closing argument. Here’s what that sounded like today,

But that Mr. Binger, it’s yours. Thank you, judge. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I want to assure you that everything that the judge just read to you you’ll get a copy out. So you’ll have a chance to look it over yourself. You don’t have to memorize everything. He just told you what a nice guy. I think it’s no surprise that this is a case that there’s a lot of noise and a lot of static surrounding it. So what I’d like to do at the beginning is crystallize it in a nutshell for you and keep it as simple as possible. This is a case in which a 17 year old teenager killed two unarmed men and severely wounded, a third person with an AR 15 that did not belong. This isn’t a situation where he was protecting his home or his family. He killed people after traveling here from Antioch, Illinois, and staying out after a citywide curfew, your honor,

Objection comes from defense. If you’re charged

Anymore, there’s no gun charge, although he claimed.

Um, and, and, and there, there has been some discussion about the lawfulness of the curve United in this case, but elsewhere. So it’s there, but there had been a curfew announced. And that does not mean that, um, it was technically lovely legal curfew, but there had been an analysis carpet. So I’ll leave it at that.

And it was a curfew that all the rest of us here in Kenosha were aware of. And I think most people, most reasonable people obeyed. Oh, although the defendant.

Okay. So Tom is being hers out there. Yeah. In addition to what the judge said, we all knew about the curfew. We were all going to adhere to it. Uh, you all good people of the jury, you probably knew about the curfew as well. I’m sure you were at home safe and sound with your loved ones as well. Unfortunately, Kyle Rittenhouse was not, if he would have been, we wouldn’t have to be here today, but you heard from binger, you sort of heard what he was introducing for us here. The idea that Kyle Rittenhouse was a murderer and that he killed these people out of cold blood, that he was a reckless individual. And he talked a lot about the idea that there was a lot of noise, a lot of static out there. And he’s going to try to cut through the cheese for us all just so we can see clearly because Thomas binger is so intelligent and he’s going to guide us to the end zone.

And so he starts to go through that. Boom, what happens? He gets an objection from mark. Richard’s good call. It was right in the middle of his, his closing arguments. And so it kind of threw him off a little bit, brings the judge into the plate. Judge starts to communicate to the jurors, says, okay, we kind of talked about this, but you know, disregard the curfew thing. And, uh, just clarifies it a little bit. And technically it’s not a curfew violation that charge was dismissed. He’s not being charged with that crime. So the judges just kind of, you know, putting a bow around this, it’s not objectionable or sustainable or, or, uh, overruled or any of that. He’s just going to kind of explain the jury and hurry these two along. So that happens with Thomas binger and he starts to explain how bad the curfew was.

Everybody else was lawful, but Kyle Rittenhouse was not. And this is the same theme that we’ve been talking about. I posted this on Twitter earlier today, talking about the idea that this is an attempt by the prosecution to cause death by a thousand cuts, just razorblades everywhere. You turn trying to show that Kyle Rittenhouse did a series of bad things. And then all of those in and of themselves are kind of trivial. They kind of don’t really matter a whole lot, but when you add them all up and they lead to murder, then they all become a giant problem. And so the only real person that I can tell who is really causing a bunch of noise in this case is the government. I mean, they’ve been trying to extrapolate this thing out, cause the conversation to be less about the four minutes that, that this entire incident was about and everything about Antioch and Racine, all these different places and all these different people and all these different things that aren’t really relevant to August 25th, except the government made them.

So, so he, he’s doing a very interesting thing. He sort of, uh, he’s criticizing the context of the case. There’s all this noise out there, but he caused the noise. So it’s very, it’s very interesting tactic there. Now he used a bunch of PowerPoints in order to spare us more Thomas binger. I’m not going to go through all of them. I’ll just give you a quick summation of them. Now I’ll explain this in about 30 seconds. He’ll take about 30 minutes, but it says, what were the defendant’s true motivations? So he takes this us back. Does he really care about car source? No, he’s never heard of it. Even the owners weren’t there to protect it. Was he genuinely interested in helping people. He ran around with an AR 15 and then lied about being an AMT. So they’re sort of ascribing written houses, motivations to him, not there to support BLM or Jacob Blake, which is uh, okay.

Uh, arguable, are you making the allegation here that Joseph Rosenbaum who’s dropping the N word. Every other sentence is supporting BLM or Jacob Blake. What’s the point there? So why was he there? The implication being he wanted to kill people. He was there to provoke an incident so that he could shoot them. He plays call of duty, by the way. Did you hear that last week? Yep. So he’s just jonesing to get out there and start executing people according to the government. They also talk about common ground. They say putting aside politics, you know, this isn’t a case about politics. We all agree. Life is more important than property. No, one’s life is more valuable than another’s 17 year old should not run around the streets. He says there have been many heroes who stopped an active shooter or gave up their lives. Many Americans have their CCW permits for this purpose.

Do you see what he’s doing here? It’s very clever. He’s conflating a lot of these other issues that a lot of people considered to be, you know, fundamental beliefs about having the CCW about the right to self-defense about stopping active shooters. Some people played out those fantasies in their mind. What if I was a hero? What if something like that happened to me? Maybe I could go out and save people. So he’s sort of telling the jurors, you have a seven, you have 17 year olds, don’t you jurors. Do you think a 17 year old should run around the streets where they are fifteens? Of course you don’t. You’re a good parent, but Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t do that. What you would have demanded as a good parent, and that’s why he’s reckless. That’s why he’s not quite a criminal, but he’s kind of outside the bounds of normal societal operation.

That’s where the government is going with this other Americans wanted to shoot stop active shooters. And this has nothing to do with politics anyways, except this all came about right in the middle of a lot of political fervor. Didn’t it. One more slide here. Before we get back into some clips, he says, look for the truth, too many people only see what they want to see, consider whether it’s heroic or honorable to provoke and then shoot on our people. It’s an interesting framing consider whether it is heroic or honorable to lie about being an EMT. We all know someone like the defendant. He says enjoys the thrill of telling people what to do without the courage or the honor to back it up, which is basically the spitting image of a prosecution. In my opinion, contrast this with Huber who gave his life to save others.

What a hero, just a sweeping on in there, cracking people with their, uh, with the skateboard. A couple of times heroic, according to Thomas binger, he gives us an outline of the entire closing argument. We’ll jump into some clips here, but I wanted to fast forward this puppy a little bit. So he talks about a couple of things, the different murders that were committed by Rittenhouse. He addresses the background issues and tries to get rid of some of the irrelevant arguments. And then he goes over to the jury instructions. Now I actually liked this. I liked that he did this, uh, Mark Richards did not do this in his closing argument. And it felt a little bit like it was meandering to some degree. So we talk a lot about the threes, right? Use the triad you go in in patterns of threes. People like to hear, you know, threes.

That’s why you say, uh, I’m going to count to three before I throw you out the window. 1, 2, 3 up, and you’re already running over there. It’s it’s got a cadence to it. So he gives us an outline, a beginning, a middle and an end, a B and C. And that’s very easy. It’s very easy to follow. It’s very good. It’s useful. And we were able to follow along with this. And I spent a big portion of the day on Nick ricotta’s channel talking with a lot of brilliant lawyers over there. And we were following along with binger as he got to number two. Okay, he’s talking about an argument here. So that must be in section number two. And then he finally gets to the jury instructions, which is what you’re telling the jury. You have to, these are the rules of the game. I just gave you all of the pieces.

Here’s how you have to make it go together. And it flowed nicely and flowed well. So he says, Jim and I have presented you with all the evidence that we can possibly give you. Now it’s up to you. And so here is another clip of Thomas binger. Here. He is playing the drone video and he’s getting very demonstrative. He’s actually walking around the courtroom. He gets the gun. I believe it’s in this one, drops his a water bottle. And it is sort of reenacting this whole scene saying that Kyle Rittenhouse dropped the gun and then picked up the gun and then pointed it at somebody. So here’s what that sounded like in court today.

So let’s begin with the provocation and the murder of Joseph Rosenbach because it’s all captured on video

As the defendant and Mr. Rosenbaum arrive at the 63rd street car source. Mr. Rosenbaum is ahead of the defendant. And as you see in the FBI video, when Mr Rosen mom starts to run, the defendant starts to run as well at the same time as if he’s pursuing him, Mr. Rosenbaum could not have possibly have known the defendant is behind him. There’s no indication in this record that he knew the defendant was there. It’s not an ambush. It’s not a situation where he goes there and lays in, wait for the defendant. The defendant rise at that location. And you hear him yell, friendly, friendly, friendly, because he’s aware of the fact that the people that he’s about to confront are hostile to him. And I’m going to show you in a moment, the video in which the first thing he does when he arrives at that location is drops. The fire extinguisher that he’s holding in his left hand. So he can raise the gun with his right and left hands and pointed.

All right? So he’s going to give us a walkthrough of this, but he’s sort of, you know, fleshing out. First thing that he did set down the fire extinguisher, which you would use to save people. If you really wanted to save people, if you weren’t a liar, EMT faker than, and you really wanted to save people, you’d just use that fire extinguisher to put the fires out, but not Rittenhouse that little murderer. He sat down the fire extinguisher just so that he could pick up his AR 15 and then start playing call of duty out there on the streets of Kenosha. And Thomas binger is going to walk us through exactly what that sounds like here. He is. Now talking about that

Under Wisconsin law, you’re not allowed to run around and point your gun at people. This is the provocation. This is what starts this incident. The defendant rushes in and immediately points the gun. And as you’ll see in a little bit, Mr. Rosenbaum, doesn’t take kindly to people pointing guns. I don’t think anyone does. That’s not unusual. No one wants to have the gun pointed at them. And no one wants to watch anyone else do this to someone else. We have the gun. It is in evidence as exhibit number 28. I’m having the detectives check it to make sure that it is safe.


The defendant comes running in and drops the fire extinguisher on the ground, like, and then raises his left hand to the gun and points. This is what we see in the video, him putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then raising the gun. Your honor, I’m going to object. He’s facing the wrong direction. That’s an argument.

All right. So Mark Richards objects and says, okay, judge, I’m going to check he’s facing the wrong direction. And because you could see bigger, it was holding it right-handed. And we’re going to, when we get to the closing argument from Mark Richards, you’re going to see that he sort of does it correctly and shows why it’s not accurate. So this is all about that image that they sort of, uh, overly pixelated, that they enlarged. They had a lot of these arguments about whether the adjustments of the pixels or the enlarging of the photograph, whether it actually altered the underlying image. Was it the real thing, or has it been changed now? Since it went through an algorithm? And so they were talking about that image being written house, pointing a gun at somebody else that is the pro vocation, which breaks self-defense it sort of pops that bubble.

If you are somebody who is provoking violence, well, you don’t get to use self-defense after you’ve provoked. It. It’s the same analogy that we’ve used many times here. If you’re out at a bar and you go out and somebody is sitting at their, a bar table with their lovely date, and you smack them in the back of the head, they turn around and punch you, and then you shoot them. That’s not self-defense, but that’s what Thomas binger saying, uh, essentially happened here. That w that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun at somebody else. That’s provocation that triggered literally people to chase after him. And then he was no longer inclined to use self-defense. So that’s the argument that he makes pulls out. The gun wants to do this big demonstrative show. You can see the photograph, a photographers in the back, snapping away. Ooh, he’s got a gun, he’s pointing it at something.

And so everybody, you know, very exciting lot of drama. And he’ll probably put that, you know, on the, uh, jacket of a book one day. So that’s what Thomas binger had to say. Now, you, you heard him talk a lot about this provocation provocation provocations, kind of the new buzz word of the day was always the legal theory that I thought that they were going to latch their head onto because it pops that self-defense bubble. And they were going to say, I’ve been saying it here, it’s the domino effect. The snowball effect that if they can show, there’s been a series of little minor law breakers or law breaking that’s that Kyle Rittenhouse has done, whether it’s illegally obtaining a gun or improperly being on car source, even though he wasn’t charged with trespass, he really kind of, wasn’t supposed to be there. Wasn’t supposed to be there according to binger, after curfew, wasn’t even supposed to be in Kenosha, according to binger, right?

All of these different little, little slices, neither, none of those by itself would be enough to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of anything. But when you add them all up together and you sort of push the first domino, or you push that snowball down the mountain, it’s going to get bigger. And then that’s exactly what they’re doing here. They’re just saying another domino, another domino snowball is getting bigger. It’s getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And then by the time it lands in the juries jurors lapse, what binger is hoping is that they’ll say, man, this is a lot. This is a big problem. You know, I can’t really be clear about what happened there in that last two minutes with Rittenhouse and Rosenbalm or Rittenhouse and gross grits. But I can tell you this, I don’t like a bunch of 17 year olds running around driving without licenses, possessing firearms, coming into these dangerous streets. All of those things are hoping for that, which is why they’re just cutting little slices one right after another, Tom is being her picks right back up and says, this is what provokes the entire incident right here. And he’s telling the jurors, you got to pay attention to this. He’s pointing a gun right here. This is his closing argument.

That is what provokes this entire incident. And one of the things to keep in mind is that when the defendant provokes the incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger. You create that’s critical right here. If you’re the one who is threatening others, you lose the right to claim self-defense,

Which you know, is yes. If you’re threatening them, you lose the right to self defense. But that’s why they’re trying to get this blurry photo in and make that argument that it that’s, that was the provocation. And it’s even going to go further than that is. We’re going to see, actually, I don’t think I clipped it all today, but the binger, the binger closing argument sort of was broken up into two segments. I think we’re going to get to the break here in a quick second. The first half of his argument was quite good this morning. I thought it was pretty, pretty compelling. And uh well-crafted but then it kind of fell apart at the end of the argument because they kept playing all these videos that show the entire scene on the streets of Kenosha looking like an actual war zone, which always was not a good idea in my opinion for the government, because it’s going to show that Rittenhouse was in the middle of a bad situation and that he needed to defend himself.

He was justified. In other words, pet Moretti, even a police officer that the government put on in their case in chief said the same thing. This was a war zone. He said. And so if you sort of are putting Kyle in the middle of that position, kind of justifies his use of self-defense because you’d have to have an AR 15 in the middle of a war zone to protect yourself so that you don’t get killed in that war zone. But Thomas binger has been trying to, I think, kind of layer on layers of unreasonableness. So starting with the fact that he never should have been there showing the scenes of the war zone footage was sort of showing that maybe Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn’t have even left that corner, shouldn’t have even left that property because all of the people around him were sort of warning him.

And so what binger is going to be arguing is that a reasonable person wouldn’t have been even leaving the property that he was on that day at that gas station or at that corner, Rittenhouse was sort of running all over the place. Putting fires out re binger is saying not appropriate. That’s not, that’s not something that should have been allowed or he should not have done that. That was unreasonable. And so he was provoking the assaults from binger, from I’m sorry, from Rosenbalm, from Huber, from gross crits, trying to get them to come after him to some degree cause he was instigating it. Here’s what he says. In another slide. He says the defendant admitted that he knew that Rosenbaum was unarmed, never threatened to kill him. Did not want the AR 15. Of course, you know, it’s all argument. All this is total speculation.

You could take each one of these bullet points piece by piece and just have fun with it. Rosenbaum never threatened to kill him. Uh, Rosenbaum was incapacitated by the first shot already falling with when Rittenhouse shot him three more times on the way down to the ground, Rosenbaum was not reaching for the gun and could not have taken it. Even if he was Rosenbaum died from a shot to the back. Okay. And you could go through each one of those bullet points and just break those down one by one. And you know, the, the, the defense kind of did, but we’ll get there in a minute, but you can see what he’s saying. Rosenbaum died from a shot to the back. Is that accurate? I mean, really? Is that accurate? Like if you’re a prosecutor, do you, do you sit there and you go, he was, yeah, he was, he was actually turning around and he was shot right in the back, like right through here.

Cause that’s not what happened. I mean, he was shot shot. And then, uh, he say, they’re saying he died from a shot to the back and the bullets were, you know, sort of bouncing around. I think it went in, hit his hip and sort of bounced around and he died, but he was shot in a number of different written how the guy wasn’t sitting on the toilet and he just got shot up and got shot in the back. When Rittenhouse walked up upon him, that’s not how this happened, but that’s how they make it sound like this happened. He died from a shot to the back. Cause he’s a cold-blooded murderer. That’s not, that’s not accurate. I mean, it’s okay. You can see where I’m going with this. Okay. So then we get a, uh, a screenshot with Patrick Swayze says the defendant brought a gun to a fistfight. And so, uh, I’ve never seen that movie. Apparently it’s Roadhouse, apparently I’ve should have seen it, but I haven’t seen it. And so they, they played that little clip here and they say the only way that this is justified, if you actually believe that Rosenbalm was actually reaching for the defendant’s gun, which you know, again, I that’s sort of a legal misstatement.

You, you, you don’t actually have to be stabbing somebody in order for self-defense to be applicable. You don’t have to actually have the blade in your body or have somebody actually reaching for the gun. That’s not in the statute anywhere about justifiable homicide or self-defense actually reaching. You only get to shoot somebody. If you can prove that the person was actually reaching for the gun. That’s not, that’s not, you know, it’s not at all a reasonable person. He says in the defendant’s position with an AR 15 strapped to his chest would think the Rosenbaum could succeed in taking that gun away. After being shot once in the right pelvis and Rosenbaum was somehow going to gain possession and then kill the defendant. It, if you don’t believe all those things, the defendant has no defense. So you see what they’re doing here. They’re making all of this, uh, conjunctive they’re saying, uh, you need number one.

So you have to think that Rosenbaum actually reached for the gun. Plus you need number two, that a reasonable person would also think that he could actually take that gun away. And then if you believe those two things like a psycho person, and then you also have to believe number three, that he was actually going to gain possession of the gun and then use it to kill him. So my goodness, that’s a lot. That’s a lot. And so if you’re a juror and you’re sitting there and you say, wow, that prosecutor over there, he works for the government. He’s very official. He has a, fohawk on a number of different pins that he puts on his lapel. So we have to trust him obviously. And he just gave us these three rules. I have to believe this. I have to believe all this stuff. And if I don’t, what, what then if I don’t believe points one, two, and three, again, the triad, what do I have to do?

Oh, I guess I have to convict him. Then. According to Thomas binger talks about this as he did not have to shoot, he chose where to run. He ran between the parked cars. He slows down as he gets there and the crowd is already scattering. There’s a huge open space to run if he wants to. And he has to, he says exhaust all reasonable means of an escape before the killing. We’ve got another couple of clips here. Let me just get through all these PowerPoints. Cause he just drones on and on and on and on it says the crowd attempts to stop an active shooter. And we got, you know, we get this word introduced into the lexicon, a new active shooter situation all night. He says people heard gunshots and firecrackers, but for the first time a person has actually been shot. The crowd sees the defendant running with the gun. Here’s his lies knows he was the shooter. This is provocation. Do you see that here? So this is where they’re trying to pop that bubble. If you provoke a response, you don’t get to suddenly use self-defense. Kyle Rittenhouse are saying, was running with the gun, not being attacked, but just running with a gun. And if you see somebody running with a gun, Ooh, that’s a problem. Maybe they are an active shooter. According to binger. Here’s his lies.

Did the whole crowd hear his lies? Was it a handful of people did every single part they’d Rosenbalm hear his lies. Gross grits here it’s lies. Did Huber hear his lies and that, and does that justify attacking somebody reasonable for them to believe he’s still a threat to kill again? He says, and the defendant would have called nine 11. One yelled at fire could have called 9 11 1 yelled out. Okay. So you saw what the scene looked like was nine 11 going to show up and take care of this at all. Yelling out was a, something also pretty much happening all night long fired warning shots, apparently drop the gun, raised his hands in surrender, which I’m sure is exactly what Thomas binger would do. Probably just dropped to his knees. Herbie probably would do that. Same with Jim’s Crouse. He does nothing to demonstrate the crowd that he isn’t a threat to kill again of he’s actually does kill again because he’s being attacked again.

So he is literally running to the police with his hands up. It’s it’s just, it’s just amazing. But uh, this is prosecutor’s inaction. Okay. I I’ve been saying this. I don’t think it’s too overbroad. This is, this is not an aberration. All right. I was on a ricotta stream with a bunch of other lawyers. Several of them are former prosecutors. I like to be a polite person, but this is not an aberration. Okay. These are, this is, this is prosecutor’s offices all over this country. There’s 180 courts in the state of Arizona. I’ve been in a lot of them. Most of them I’ve been in courts all over the place in this state. I’ve been to courts in California. I’m licensed in California, prosecutors, my friends, there are good ones, just like there are good police officers and good politicians. But by and large, my friends, what you see here, these two people are the caricature.

They are the stereotype of their office, of the prosecutorial office. There. They put them up there because they’re proud of these two people. These are our shining glowy objects. They’re going to go out there and bring this big case on for us. We’re going to put Thomas binger, Mr. Fohawk out there and just turn them loose and go get another conviction. They’re top dogs and this prosecutor’s office. I’m sure of it. And that is a cookie cutter example of just how this it’s the same stinking office, the injustices that you’re seeing here, the mischaracterizations that I just read through in that PowerPoint. This is not an anomaly. You’re not looking at Thomas binger and saying, wow, that guy’s a piece of work. He’s a prosecutor. And there are a 10,000 more just like him and like Jim Crouse. And so when I get to see this on full display and I get to see 80,000 people on ricotta stream watching this and going, whoa, are you serious?

That’s the real, that’s real life. That’s real life. It happens all over the place. And so when I come on here and I talk about helping good people charged with crimes, I mean it, I mean it, it’s fighting against garbage like this on a regular basis, fighting against Ms. Characterizations, listening to prosecutors twist and manipulate the truth in order to score political points and gain a conviction. And it is disgusting and reprehensible. And I’m so glad and thankful that we had literally tens of thousands of people all over this country and the world paying close attention to what’s going on here because this is shining the big, beautiful spotlight right on this disgusting behavior. And we just read through multiple slides mischaracterizations and he is supposed to do justice. He’s not supposed to get convictions, but they are not interested in justice. They’re interested in their careers and their political prosecutions.

And it’s happening all over the country. He’s probably got a bright future for him over at MSNBC when this is all done. So then he’s going to change gears and talk about the hypocrisy of the defense because he’s so agitated with the defense and their hypocrisy is that he forgets about his own. Here is Thomas binger. Once again in court saying that everyone has the right to defend themselves. If Kyle Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself, well, why didn’t gauge gross crew? It’s why didn’t Anthony Huber. And so it’s a double standard, says Tom is being that the defense is indulging in. Here’s what he said. Stop here

For a moment and highlight the hypocrisy of the defense. Because according to the defense, if someone has a gun, they’re a threat. If someone points a gun, they’re a threat. There’s only one exception to that. The defendant by their logic, he gets to run around with a gun all night, but oh, we’re not supposed to take him as a threat. He gets to point the gun at everyone, but oh, we’re not supposed to take him as a threat. No, it doesn’t work that way. The same set of rules applied to the defendant as everybody else. There’s no exception in the law for Kyle Rittenhouse. There’s no exception that says, if anyone else has a gun, you’re a danger. Except for Kyle Rittenhouse. Watch no exception in the law that says, if you point your gun at people, oh, that makes you a threaten. I can kill you. Except for Kyle Rittenhouse, I can do it all night long. The same rules apply to him as everyone else. And everyone else has a right to defend themselves. Also not just the defense.

It w you, you wouldn’t even argue with that. I don’t, I don’t even argue with that. If Kyle Rittenhouse was chasing one of these other individuals around threatening them and they shot him, well, then they would be entitled to self-defense also. But that was not the case that happened here. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away from them. They, every single one of them were chasing him. And every single one of them was being aggressive towards him in multiple, various ways. Rosenbalm had allegedly, according to the testimony that we heard and the defense doesn’t have to prove anything or disprove anything, the government has to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. And we have good testimony from several people. Rosenbaum was a lunatic out there, lighting stuff on fire all night, threatening everybody, every which way under the sun and got caught in a bad situation, physically chasing Rittenhouse.

We saw testimony of it, her testimony and saw video footage of it like 30 different times from multiple different angles, lying in, wait, hiding behind the car, comes back around and is chasing Kyle. If Kyle did that to Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum shot Kyle, well, then we’d be having the same argument here, but it’d be in reverse same situation. Gage gross crew, which chase Kyle Rittenhouse. He didn’t chase gage. That’s why Kyle gets, self-defense not gauge. So don’t act like it’s, it’s this massive double standard. He knows how this works. He knows better. He knows how, you know, look it. If he thought that that gauge gross Gruet was entitled to self-defense or something like that, then he should have charged him with a crime and let him invoked self-defense. But he didn’t. All right. So that’s Thomas being here. Now we have more slides from this fellow.

Here’s what he says. A reasonable person would know that Rosenbaum was provoked by the defendant pointing his gun. Now, Mark Richards is going to deal with that here in a little bit, which put another person at risk of dying. He said the crowd knew that the defendant had just shot someone. They reasonably felt their lives were in danger from the defendant engaged, gross grits knew the defendant. Josh just shot someone and lied about it. Saw him shoot at someone at close range, and then finally saw him kill Huber gage. Reasonably believed that his life was in danger. He was proven correct when the defendant shot him too, but it was only after he pointed the gun at him, which he testified to gage gross. Quits testified that to that. And he had to concoct this whole story about the racking of the gun in order to justify his change of decisions.

Because remember his hand was up at a quick moment, Kyle didn’t shoot him. It wasn’t Intel engaged. Grocer wits admitted this during his cross-examination by Corey cheer. FEC says I was only shot when I actually reached down for the gun and started to maneuver it. And it’s all accurate. And it was the government’s own witness who testified to that effect. So he gauged gross quits. Doesn’t get self-defense when he is the assaulter. Oh my gosh. All right. Binger continues says that the defendant provokes Rittenhouse provoked everybody here caused the whole situation. And therefore he’s got an obligation to withdraw, to run away, to take a break from the whole ordeal and then not actually have to shoot anybody. Now, this was where this technical break happens. And so you can see, we have a new character that entered the field. Uh, this guy over here, Mr. Maskey back here, uh, is looking over here at, uh, James Crouse’s computer. And we’re going to run into a technical glitch here in a minute, and they’re going to come back after lunch. And so let’s listen in how this happened.

One of the things the judge has instructed you is that when the defendant provokes this situation, he has to exhaust all reasonable means to avoid killing someone. Did he, he didn’t have to shoot. He’s the one who chose where to run. He chose to run in between those parked cars. He slows down as he gets there. The crowd’s already running away. You know, the defense wants to make a point. There’s a whole bunch of people over there who are doing stuff to cars and the defendant had no escape route. The crowd’s actually already running away. At this point. They’ve heard the first gunshot from Joshua’s and Minsky, and they’re already starting to scatter. But if you look on the video, there’s a huge open space in that lot where the defendant could have circled back around. And he actually does circle back around after killing Rosenbaum, where he could have gotten away. He has to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before killing Mr. Rosenbaum, your honor. Um, I do have some more video. I want to play. I’m having a little bit of technical problems that I’d like to work on. So I think this would be a good time to pause if that’s okay. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So we get some technical problems and I don’t really know what those were because we had already played a bunch of videos. We already saw that they were playing videos, but we get a technical break. And then we come on back after the fact, but he’s saying that Kyle Rittenhouse, you know, he could have run somewhere else or, uh, he could have done something differently. He didn’t have to shoot. He kind of wanted to shoot. He provoked the entire ordeal and then led them into sort of this death trap, where he had a, uh, legally justifiable reason to shoot. And then he’s going to blame the whole thing on them. You know, they were attacking me. I had to kill them, even though I wanted to kill him in the first place. Okay. So that’s Thomas fingers, a big theory here. And the whole thing is provocation by Kyle Rittenhouse.

Then we come back after the break. Okay. So we have a technical problem. We come back and now here is Thomas binger talking about, uh, kind of, you know, putting your, putting yourself in the same position. Kyle Rittenhouse is position. And this is the same thing that I was talking about at the start of the show, this big snowball that’s rolling down the mountain. He just wants it to get a little bit bigger and a little bit bigger and a little bit bigger telling the jurors. Now we’re there. Now we’re at the scene. You’ve already heard about this lawless reckless 17 year old kid. Now we’re there. Now put yourself in his shoes. What would a reasonable person do in his position? He was aiming his gun at people. He started the whole thing and no reasonable person would have done any of that stuff. Right?

The standard when you make this decision is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant’s position. Under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense, the reasonableness of the defendant’s beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant’s acts and not from the viewpoint of the jury. Now. So put yourself in the defendant’s position. Would you have done the same thing? Would a reasonable person have done the same thing? Would you have engaged in the reckless conduct that led to this course of events? Would you have gone out after curfew with an AR 15, same for trouble. C would you have aimed at other people? Would you have tried to use the gun to protect an empty car? Lot? C no reasonable person would have done these things. The court has also instructed you on provocation. You cannot hide behind self-defense. If you provoked the incident, if you created the danger, you forfeit the right to self-defense by bringing that gun, aiming it at people, threatening people’s lives, the defendant provoked everything. And if he does that, he has to exhaust all reasonable ne means to avoid a confrontation. All reasonable means.

All right, did you see what he just did there? Kyle Rittenhouse provoke the entire ordeal. And he gave us a couple of things that, that, that was the cause of the provocation says that he brought a gun. And that was sort of a thought that was a complete thought. He provoked the whole thing by bringing a gun. He was young and he was there and he brought a gun that in it of itself, Thomas binger is arguing his provocation, just that fact alone. Then he starts to layer a couple of things on top of that. He brought it and then he pointed it at people, which is not in evidence, right? It’s arguable. They’re saying that he did, based on that blurry photo that was taken off a drone, that was super image enhanced by the pixel magic fairy dust that suddenly gave us a very clear image from video that showed up on the prosecution’s doorstep Sunday in the middle of trial.

Okay. So they’ve got that evidence now saying that it’s pointing, he’s pointing it. So he brought a gun, which is according to Thomas binger, reckless and unreasonable, no reasonable person would do that. Then he also says he pointed it at somebody where that’s debatable and then threatening to kill people with it, and then actually killing people with it. No reasonable person would have done all of those things. And so a lot of that is not criminal behavior. I mean, you’re pointing a gun at people and threatening to kill them with it is, but they, they, they haven’t proven that. I mean, that’s what they’re trying to prove here. That’s the argument that they’re trying to make and he’s, and he’s justifying, eliminating the province, the self-defense doctrine on the back of provocation with facts that have not have not been proven yet. Okay. So let me keep going. We have another clip here. Now, here is, uh, Thomas banger talking about Joseph. Rosenbalm running at him, but not being a direct threat on his life. So it’s hard to actually, uh, have conversations about these arguments because they are so convoluted, but here it is.

So if Joseph Rosenbaum’s running at him, Joseph Rosenbaum is no threat to his life, how he’s running at him. And not only is the defendant expected to run, he’s expected to yell, push shove that ragdoll around, run back for help. Call nine one, one call for help do all sorts of other things. Besides just turn and fire. Four shots has Joseph Rosenbaum falls helpless to the ground. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt in this case that the defendant committed these crimes. He committed a first degree, reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum. He put Richard McGinnis, his life in jeopardy. He put jump, kick man’s life in jeopardy. He intended to kill Anthony Huber and he attempted to kill gage gross crates. All of those elements are true. The question is whether or not you believe that his actions were legally justified and I submit to you that no reasonable person would have done what the defendant did. And that makes your decision easy. He is guilty of all counts. Thank you.

All right. So that’s the closing argument, Frank Thomas binger. And did you see what he said there in that last slide, it was the idea that nobody would do anything that Kyle Rittenhouse did because he was sort of in totality unreasonable. It wasn’t about unreasonableness in that split second, that Rosenbalm was chasing him or about unreasonableness at that split. Second, the gauge gross. Co-eds pointed his gun back towards Kyle wasn’t about that at all. It was a much bigger picture. Everything that Kyle did was a series of unreasonable behaviors that ultimately led up to the final, tragic incident. He set the sequence in motion and therefore he should be held criminally responsible for it. That’s the crux of the argument. Now we get Mark Richards. Mark Richards comes back out defense attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse and delivers closing arguments. Here is what that sounds like today in court.

It please the court ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Good afternoon showing you sniff the state’s exhibit 18, which Mr. Binger just spent three or four minutes showing that Mr. Rosenwald wasn’t around my client couldn’t know that he wraps his head horn chain bag, orange ladies and gentlemen. We had this video almost as long as they’ve had this video, but Mr. Bayer will use this video to lie to your faces and tell you that Kyle Rittenhouse was taking advantage of the situation it’s in the picture. Um, its argument, ladies and gentlemen, this case is not a game. It is my client’s life. We don’t play fast and loose with the facts. Pretending that Mr. Rosenbaum was citizen a number one guy. He was a bad man. He was there. He was causing trouble. He was a rioter and my client had to deal with him that night alone.

Yeah. And something that Thomas binger has been doing has been calling him a ragdoll and sort of, kind of like poo-pooing this whole thing, which I think was very ineffective actually during his clothes. We didn’t have any clips of it here tonight, but he did a lot of this kind of mocking tone. He was saying, oh, it’s, you know yeah. Dumpster fires in Kenosha. Yeah. So they’re out there putting out dumpster fires and they’re out there protecting used cars on a used car lot where the owners didn’t even show up to play and they’re trying to stop, uh, you know, a gas station from burning down a gas station versus human life, you know, like, okay. A gas station. And you know, a lot of people are looking around and saying, uh, maybe you shouldn’t be so careless with those, those thoughts. Yes. We know that life is sort of more important than property, but there are a lot of people who’ve put their entire lives into their property.

And so if you’re going to be taking that away from them, that’s a pretty big problem. We talk a lot, a lot about this in terms of, you know, sort of the fundamental problems that I have with taxation. We, we, we mix our life with our labor and create a product out of something. And if somebody is going to just destroy that from burn your, your, your used car lot down or burn your house down or your business down, or take 30, 40, 50% of your income, if you’re the federal government, all of that, right. It’s just, it’s, it’s almost taking a part of your life. You’re taking your life, mixing it with your labor, creating something of value, whether that’s money or a product. And if somebody destroys that or takes that, they’re kind of taken away a portion of your life to some degree.

So it isn’t just a flippant little, oh yeah. It’s just property crimes. And, and nobody cares about property crimes binger. Everybody does. And you can’t be so flippant with these concepts. And Mark Richards came out like a freight train is like this. These are the facts of this case matter. And we’re not going to be jokey and jovial about all these concepts here. Property is important. These are people’s businesses, their livelihoods, and he’s, he makes a strong connection with that. Now we’re going to go through each of the different, um, you know, alleged victims in the case. I want to make a quick point. I forgot to mention on the last slide now he also goes, and he tells this really nice story. Mark Richards did a nice job of this. Today. Talks about his close proximity to Kenosha. I might have, I might have a clip of this, but uh, basically saying that I’m, you know, I’m somebody who is from here, I’ve lived here.

I’ve, I’ve grown up here 30 years ago when I was a brand new lawyer. I came into this courtroom right here and I had a bench conference right behind that door, right back there. I care about this place. Kyle Rittenhouse cares about this place. We all care about it. And you know, and then he goes into the, to the theme of the story. Kyle Rittenhouse was coming to help come in to help people and met some very bad own brains who did some bad things. And he had to deal with that. So we’re going to go and walk through each of the different victims that, uh, Mark Richards talks about here today, starting off with Rosenbaum. Here’s what he said.

[inaudible] one reckless homicide. My client’s shot. Joseph Rosenbalm. These are gentlemen. Make no mistake. There was nothing reckless about my client’s conduct that day. In regards to Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Rosenbaum was coming at him. My client ran from him retreated, which is not needed, continues to run. The plastic bag is thrown the metallic plastic bag. Kyle doesn’t know what it is at that time. It causes him to turn and look over his pointing the gun in that direction. Mr. Rosenbaum, is he dissuaded by that? No, he is not. He continues running and advancing I my client the whole time, the state doesn’t say anything about Mr. Zabinski firing the shop. Mr. Sieminski having his gun out. Think of the circumstances as they existed at 1150 on August 20th, excuse me, August 25th, 2020, narrowing it down through that parking lot. He continues running on. He turns as he comes into that box canyon with the cars, the van, and I believe it’s a Pepsi machine and he turns cause he has no place else to go.

Okay. So flips that whole conversation around. Remember what I said earlier about Thomas binger, wanting to sort of extrapolate this whole thing, expand the whole incident. We’re really only talking about four minutes. I think four minutes of time between the entire, the entire ordeal happened at that amount of time. But binger is expanding that to talk about, uh, where, where he’s from, where he got the gun, what he was doing there after curfew talking about, you know, all of these other things that are sort of outside of those four minutes, a lot of them, and what Mark Richards is doing is taking everybody right back to that says, think about this at 1150 on August 25th, right then and there, right at that minute, put yourself in those shoes. Don’t put yourself in Kyle Rittenhouse, his shoes driving, you know, back home in Illinois without a license.

That’s not what we’re talking about. He’s not on trial for that. He’s on trial for intentional homicide. And that happened within those four minutes right there at 1150. So Mark Richard says come, you know, he asked you to go back and put yourself in Kyle shoes, but what about his shoes at 1150 on August 25th? Put your place there, put yourself in that, in those positions and think about the box canyon. I think he said it was so you’re sort of, you know, it’s like the movie 300 when they’re trying to stop all of the invaders from coming into and you know, and, and seizing Sparta. I think they put everybody in this wedge where the soldiers, the 300 can stop the hordes from coming through. They’re sort of wedging them into this blast zone where they can take them out. So he’s kind of using that same analogy saying that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse got caught in this sort of this, this, this boxed in area with cars and it had no choice, but to actually respond. So we talk about Rosenbalm you saw the slide justified. It was reasonable. Rosenbaum was attacking him. Rosenbalm was going to try to take his weapon and it was entirely justified. Then we changed gears. We now talk about Huber and Huber is, uh, of course the second person who was shot and killed. And that is the individual who was striking Rittenhouse multiple times in the head with a skateboard, which apparently is a, an act of love. Now, according to Thomas binger, doesn’t justify self-defense there yet either. So here is Mark Richards in court today talking about that one.

Okay. Opening statement, Mr. Binger was he takes a swing at him now it’s he blocked because we took the video tape and lightened it up. Huber strikes him in the head and arm. The first time jump kick man comes in, kicks him in the face, spins his body 180 degrees. And Anthony Huber comes in for the second lick to the shoulder, neck area, trying to take his head off

Kill zone. Yeah. Kate moons, Kate moon said the kill zone. That’s exactly the word I was thinking of kill zone and Rittenhouse had no choice, but to actually turn around Huber, coming to try to take his head off. Then we get finally to gauge gross crew its greatest gage, gross grits, of course, a major witness for the government. We spent a lot of time on his testimony, I think almost a full day with him. And, uh, he gave us a lot of troubling testimony. If you are somebody who wants to see Kyle exonerated here, he said that Kyle Rittenhouse was rerunning the gun and he thought he was an active shooter and he is an actual EMT. Kyle Rittenhouse is just a big faker. And so, you know, pretty persuasive testimony in terms of, um, the other witnesses that the government presented. So relative to everybody else more powerful, I mean, at least more powerful than like the car source guys, for example. But again, some stuff that I think was, was rebutted pretty well by Kyle and by some of the government’s own witnesses themselves. So, uh, here now we get to gauge gross grits. This is Mark Richards talking about this, uh, in court today saying that as soon as gage grows, Coates has been incapacitated. Kyle stopped shooting. He’s not trying to kill people. He’s trying to stop them. Here’s what he said.

Deeds [inaudible] the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what Kyle did under those facts and circumstances was unreasonable that he was not entitled to self-defense consider all the events that occurred that evening, him being attacked, kicked in the head, hitting the head with a skateboard, other individuals running up on them. And now Mr. Gross squits runs up on him and the first action of Mr. Gross, quits, and I’ll go through the video later is really he’s running in the hand is coming up and the gunshot with humor goes off and the natural reaction is the flinch he covers up. And then he pulls his hands up. And is he standing with his hands up? Look, he’s not gripping the gun anymore in a pistol grip, hands apart, hands up. And as he comes in to finish the job, the hand is on the gun going for Mr. Rittenhouse. And he says, it’s an involuntary movement. The shot comes before it gets directly to his head, but that motion is coming the shot. And it continues on with that momentum and enough momentum to go through the bullet and point directly at Kyle’s hat. Does Kyle fire again? No, he doesn’t.

Doesn’t fire again. As I said, doesn’t want to kill anybody. Just wants to stop them. Gage grows quits. Wasn’t going to get shot until he started to reach for his firearm. He even admitted that during his cross-examination, as soon as he pulled it out, Kyle shot him, shot him in the bicep, incapacitated that arm didn’t shoot him again. He was stopped at that moment. And so Rittenhouse ended it there. Now that was all three of them. We have Huber, we have gross grits and then we had Rosenbalm but here is part two of gross quits he’s talking about. And you can take a look here, right? We’re seeing some interesting little insertions gross grits is an affiliate of the people’s revolution. Are they communists or what’s what’s their deal? Rittenhouse told gross grits. I’m going to the police. I had to shoot in self-defense is what he’s saying.

He stops with his hands up, has a gun in his right hand, uh, gross grits, and then advances while pointing his gun at Rittenhouse, his head, then he shoots and they, the defense here is saying the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was wrong in protecting himself. Okay. So this and this is accurate. The gun it’s the government’s burden. There was a lot of that that took place here today. It’s called burden shifting. When the government says, we don’t really have to prove that, but you have to disprove that, you know, you have to show that it was reasonable that you shot these people know they’re showing that, that he is invoking self-defense and then they have to prove it’s beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t have self-defense that he was wrong in using that privilege. But sometimes they’ll try to shift that burden over to the, to the defense and make them do it. But it’s not the defense’s burden. Okay. Here is another clip from Mark Richards on gauge gross grits.


Only thing I know here, this is, I think we got that one here. Yeah. This one is, uh, this was the, the tagline of the day. No question about this. Mark Richards is talking about that image. That’s a little bit blurry that was submitted to the jurors. This was the image that was blown up from the drone. That was all pixelated. We had a lot of arguments with Armstrong and Dr. Black about what the algorithms do. And the judge got up and went down and looked at the screen and said, okay, I guess we’re going to admit it. And then sort of, kind of walk that back a little bit, but the jurors are still going to look at it. And so what do you do with this photograph? That is a sort of computer generated. I mean, they, they enlarge it and they process it through algorithms. It changes the color of the pixels. It fills in some stuff like content aware, and then it just comes up with an image. So what do you do with that? Mark Richards called it something kind of characterize it a certain way. Here’s what he said.

The only thing I can say about James Armstrong is okay. That’s interesting. But what I’d like to say about his photographs, his knowledge of what he did, and some of the statements that the state has made regarding it is what he did for those 20 hours is Hocus Pocus. And he makes an exhibit that is out of focus. And that’s what the state is relying. The picture does not make sense. As I showed earlier, it has Kyle shouldering the gun in the left shoulder. If he has it in the left shoulder, his back would be to the drone. The drone is moving around and that changes the focal point. He’s right-handed, that’s where it goes. You’d see the crosses across his chest, but no, they need him to have somehow pointed a gun at the [inaudible].

They need that. They need him to do that because that’s the provocation. And then that breaks the entire bubble of self-defense. And so Hocus Pocus out of focus. I like it. I like it. You know, it’s like, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit. It’s kind of one of those things, Hocus Pocus out of focus, the jurors are going to remember that. I like that. So pretty nicely done there from, uh, Mark Richards. We also have another rebuttal here is where he’s talking about pointing a gun. He was pointing a gun at somebody. He says, uh, and this, he gives us a little bit of a firearm example. Did I already play this one? I think I did. Yeah. I already played that one. So now we have one final clip here from Mark Richards who says that he’s glad that Kyle did what he did. This kind of custom eyebrows today on Twitter sphere. Here’s what Mark Richards said in court

Wants to keep pointing at the militia, the militia, the militia. He knows Kyle’s not a member of the militia. He has no evidence that he is. They went to the websites. They went to tic-tac. They want all of that. All they can do is put up a little thing of a 17 year old kid from his tic-tac trying to be famous. Kyle shot, Joseph Rosenbalm to stop a threat to his person. And I’m glad he shot him because if Joseph Rosenbaum had got that gun, I don’t for a minute, believe he wouldn’t have used it against somebody else. He was irrational and crazy. Talked about active shooter,

Crazy Rosenbalm so, uh, I’m glad that he shot him. Cause if he didn’t, he would’ve caused some other ruckus out there, including even potentially taking Kyle’s gun and shooting other people with it. So this is the final clip here from Mark Richards. Uh, we’re going to close it out with him, and then we’re going to jump back into the re close or the, uh, rebuttal close by the prosecution. But Mark Richards here is sort of walking us through every single person who was attacking Kyle. Every single person that Kyle Rittenhouse shot was attacking him. One was chasing him running after him throwing a bag over the air. One person was trying to sort of get his gun, was assaulting him with his hands, uh, talking about Huber. And then the third person was gross. Quits actually had a gun that wasn’t pointing at Kyle and then was maneuver to point at Kyle.

All right in front of Kyle, three different people, three different aggressive maneuvers at minimum towards Kyle. And now he’s asking the jurors to do something about it. And he says very specifically here and can contrast this with what, what Thomas binger said. Thomas binger says, uh, go out there. He’s guilty. Mark. Richard says, come out here, do justice, okay. Do justice out there, jurors, you are empowered to go out there and deliver a righteous verdict. In this case, you have two things in your hand right now, you’ve got, uh, a bunch of people like Rosenbalm and Huber people with, you know, unsavory criminal records that the jury doesn’t know about unsavory activities that night, that the jury certainly knows about. We saw a lot of video and testimony, footage of buildings being burned to the ground, fires all over the place. So that’s on one side of the coin.

On the other side, you’ve got Rittenhouse and you’ve got somebody according to his testimony, according to Mark Richards, his argument here is helping he’s out there trying to do good, trying to go out there, put out fires, trying to help people with his medical skills and trying to be an all around useful citizen, trying to stop the destruction and the chaos that’s happening. And so he’s telling the jurors, do justice get out there and, and make this right? Because you’re going to have to sleep at night. If you send Kyle Rittenhouse, he doesn’t say this to prison. Well, then you’re going to have to live with that. And he doesn’t go into all of that. But that’s kind of what he’s saying is he’s giving the jury the key do justice. It’s a call to action. Here’s how it sounds, Kyle.

And how shop Mr. Rosenbaum? Because he was attacking Kyle, every person who was shot was attacking Kyle one with a skateboard, one with his hands, one with his feet, one with a gun hands and feet can cause great bodily harm. The state’s going to get up and say, well, he didn’t have great bodily harm. So it doesn’t matter. That’s not the standard. The standard is could cause great bodily harm. My client does not have to take a beating from the hands of this mob or the hands of Mr. Rosenbaum. And Mr. Rosenbaum might be little, but he was a pretty muscular guy. And some 30, some year old guy can take a 17 year old kid, nine times till Tuesday, ladies and gentlemen, it’s a tough choice, but the evidence only leads to one conclusion that is that Kyle Rittenhouse conduct on August 25th was based upon the actions of Mr. Rosenbaum and others. There are no winners in this case, but putting Kyle Rittenhouse down for something he was privileged to do will serve no legitimate purpose. I ask you to do this, do justice here under the law of the state of Wisconsin. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. So he says, do justice, right? Don’t make, don’t punish Kyle for this. It’s kind of a good versus evil arguments. And I think it’s probably going to matter what the jurors, I think that they’re going to see that and agree with him. So that was the cross exam. I’m sorry. The closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense and many of the online streams, like I think PBS and many others, they actually cut the clip right here. They thought, oh, we’re done. It’s going over to the jurors now. But there were a couple of additional streams that remember that you get a rebuttal close. If you’re the prosecution, the prosecution, of course, they’ve got the burden of proof to their case. They’ve got to prove the defendant here, Kyle Rittenhouse guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And when I, when I explained this to people, I say, if there’s any doubt at all, that is based in reason.

If you have, if it’s, if it’s reasonable and it’s doubt not guilty, they got to get it beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you have any doubt, that’s based in reason about what the government says happen here, not guilty. Now the government’s going to come back over and they’re going to say the opposite of that. They’re going to say, well, you know, you know, if you have doubts about it and you know, it’s, it’s, it’s sort of, uh, unreasonable, it’s it’s enough convicted. So they’re, they, they try to manipulate this. Both sides, make arguments about a reasonable doubt. Uh, you know, every which way, but because the government has the ultimate burden, they’re going to let the government come back out and get another crack at it. So, you know, they get to two shots at it. The defense of course, that most people already presume are guilty because they’re in handcuffs.

And because everybody believes police and everybody believes the courts and they w he wouldn’t be sitting there if you didn’t do anything wrong. So you get that, that narrative. But the system is so stacked and rigged against every defendant that the government gets two cracks at it, in addition to everything else on limited funding, unlit, unlimited public propaganda about every, every person in handcuffs is a piece of garbage. And then they get to closing arguments on top of everything. So how does that sound? Uh, not good, not fair, but anyways, here is, uh, James Kraus who is out here today, um, uh, going at it now, this was just a train wreck in slow motion. And, uh, because the stream picked up late, we’re going to pick this up late. And we started jumped right off into an objection. So this is the second time that Jim’s, uh, James Crouse got objected to, he’s trying to talk about the Zinski’s.

And he’s trying to talk about, uh, the, the, the right to the right against self-incrimination and the fifth amendment and all these very important privileges. And he sort of steps in it. He already stepped in at one time and the judge excused the jurors, but, uh, but this wasn’t on the stream that I was watching. So I picked it up right here where the jurors just come back into the courtroom, because he’s talking about [inaudible] and his fifth amendment, right. To, to, to, to not testify. And Mark Richards objected jurors, get excused. They come back in and he’s going to do it again. He steps in it again. And you’re going to see what, uh, what judge Schrader had to say about it. Here is Jim James, Jim Crouse in court today in the Rittenhouse trial,

Charged and convicted by my office. Mr. [inaudible] still has pending charges. Attorney Richards knows that he has a fifth amendment, right? To not testify.

Richard doesn’t pass.

I may ask you to step in the library again, please.

They just got back. They got back like five minutes ago. All right. So we’re going to fast. It actually turns out not to be that interesting of an argument.

You want to know who kin. And if they’re going to say that I should have a syrup bottle to explain it to those 12 people, they hold the keys to Mr. Zinsky testifying or not testifying.

We just heard two hours of how terrible Joshua’s Minsky was. And the defense wants us to offer him immunity. That’s completely our


He still has a fifth amendment. Right? What I’m saying is that,

You know, the questioning the question you’re asking, there’s Minsky cases, Benny, on a number of occasions. And it has been either, uh, it’s been a mutual request to adjourn the case. Who’s his lawyer, Mr. Park. Okay. It’s been repeatedly requested that it be adjourned and I assumed or was told, I’m not sure which there would be a journ pending the outcome of this case. Yeah, no, that’s not true. No, well, it’s not true. It is. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That I assumed it.

Yeah. I’m sure whether I was told that or not. I don’t know. It’s not the same as

It’s a different situation. Let’s just Minsky’s case. We’ll go to trial on

January 31st

After. Well,

That’s the plan, but why was it being adjourned?

I think there was some, uh, we had a witness who was not available for us, so we needed more time,

More time for a missing witness. Isn’t that convenient? Look at the judge’s face. Look at the judge’s face. I didn’t even plan for that, but that’s just what the judges look, look at that he doesn’t buy it for a second. He should’ve said, I don’t believe you just like he did, uh, previously, but what’s happening here is they’re debating over. This is a Minsky guy saying, if you recall that during the closing argument from Mark Richards, he said, we didn’t play it here on the show. But Mark Richards said something to the effect of, you know, Minsky was sort of a key figure in this whole case. And, uh, the government didn’t call him, why didn’t they call him? They could have called him. He could have come in and explained a bunch of this stuff, but they didn’t widen day. And so what happened was back on the rebuttal, uh, close Kraus comes back out and starts to talk about that the fifth amendment stuff and you know, the right to remain silent and against self-incrimination boom, objection.

So that now comes back up and Mark Richards is saying, well, listen, you know, Zinsky government, if you wanted him to come testify, you could have offered him immunity. And then he could have come in and testified and saying from the tree tops about whatever it is he saw, if you wanted that testimony and you didn’t, which is why you did not offer him immunity. So then the judge says, well, what’s going on with that case anyways? And they say, well, uh, the case has been adjourned, which means it’s sort of been continued. It’s been postponed a number of different times. And the judge says, well, why was it postponed? Oh, well, uh, my, his attorney and the government. So his defense lawyer and the government have just agreed to just continue it out, push it out past this trial. As the judge knows you going to push it out after this is closed.

And then we’re going to revisit that that’s going to be very convenient. You’re going to get this one out of the way. When you could have had a witness that could come into this trial, but you’re not going to be able to bring them in because he’s got a pending criminal case and his lawyer and your lawyer have agreed to continue the case out so that he doesn’t have to testify. If he does get a subpoena, if he is called as a witness by the defense, he’s going to invoke, it’s going to, you know, he’s going to, he’s going to be put on the stand and just say, I invoke my fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and not testify. So that’s why he has not been called. So it’s a bunch of finger pointing back and forth. It’s the prosecution now saying, well, the defense should have called him and they should have done something about this.

And the Mark Richards is saying, no, it’s it’s, you have immunity. The defense can’t offer Zinsky immunity to come in and testify. So if he comes in and speaks, you can charge him with a crime unless you give him immunity. So the, the prosecution is trying to sort of have a number of different ways. And when the defense called him out on it, now he’s trying to shove it back towards them. And the judge, uh, is really kind of not having it. So they have a long conversation about this. It, it, it, it kind of, you know, is, is an irrelevant point. He ends up getting to ask a little bit more about Zemlinsky. The judge ultimately explained something to the jury saying, look, you know, Mrs. Kaminski could have been here. Both parties could have called her and neither party did. And so they kind of just paper over it.

It turns out that it was much ado about nothing, but it is important to point it out to, because I think that even though the final result of the argument is not, not ultimately consequential. It’s the fact that Krauss got scolded by the judge twice in front of the jury twice. And Mark Richards during his clothes, just got done telling you what a bunch of losers in liars and pieces of garbage the prosecution is for trying to hide the ball from you from trying to manipulate the facts from trying to concoct evidence and sort of drop it on our laps. At the last minute, he’s saying they have been dishonest with you. They’ve turned this into a political prosecution that has no bearing, and I’m calling them out right now. Then he sits down and within the first 10 minutes, the judge is scolding Jim James Cross about this twice.

He starts down a line of questioning and the judge says, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down there, buddy. Boy, you can’t get into that. And during the first clip, which, which is, I couldn’t find the full stream of it after I got off her cadence channel, but they, you know, the judges is stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, like yelling at him to stop talking because it’s going to come in front of the jury. Jury gets excused. They talk about it for 10 minutes. He comes back. He does it again. Jury, you got to go out of the room again. So the judge heard that twice. Sorry. The jurors heard that twice. The judge scolded Krauss twice. And so just think about how agitated you are. If you have to stand up and go into a different room and sit there for, for 10 minutes and then stand up and go back and sit back down and then do it all again, because some prosecutor couldn’t get his line of questioning, right? Not ideal if you’re closing arguments. All right. And so then we may need a, another clip here from Kraus. Let’s see what this one is saying that these people were all provoked. Everybody in this whole case was provoked. Everybody’s provoked except, uh, Rittenhouse, I guess. So, uh, here is, uh, Mr. Kraus

Threat, not oh, and five minutes after we get beat up, then I might be the threat imminent threat. You’ve heard all the videos. I’m not going to go into it any more great length. But when you listen to the crowd, as Mr. Rittenhouse is running, they start running. They start yelling after, as he’s running, when they’re screaming, get him also, as people are approaching him at the end, they’re asking, why did you shoot him? Why did you shoot him? These are people that were provoked because they witnessed an attack, bird shots, or heard he was attacking when they took action. As Mr. Briggs heard

Shots heard he was attacking. So they took action. Well, there was a lot of people hearing things all night long. It doesn’t give you justification to go crack somebody over the head with a skateboarder to attempt to shoot them. So strange arguments. Now he, you know, by, by about this point, he’s doing this thing where he’s just checking stuff up off of his notepad, and that’s not unusual, you know, to, to have a list of things that you want to hit and make sure you hit everything. And he’s scribbling down a bunch of notes. You can see that he, uh, presumably was writing all this stuff down while Mark Richards was, um, closing. And then is just going down the list, checking one off right after another. But they’re using this language now called the chaos tourist. So they’re trying to brand this to some degree. We got Mark Richard saying Hocus focus out of Pocus. Pretty dang. Good. What about a chaos tourist? What do we think about that one effective or so here is what Krauss had with that phrase today in court,

He’s a chaos tourist. He was there to see what was going on, act important, be a big deal. And then the moment, a little bit of that chaos comes, chaos comes back at him. He colorfully shoots a man. Instead of fighting back, you put yourself in this situation, you know, it’s going to be out of hand. It gets a little out of hand. Someone is chasing me and you have to shoot him. That is not privileged. That is not reasonable. And that is not what any reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have done.

All right. So chaos, tourists, cowardly shoots another man. Doesn’t fight back. That’s not privileged at all. So that’s from, uh, James Kraus and he apparently is like a boxer or something like that. A mixed martial artist knows how to throw his weight around. Talks about getting minor injuries and getting scraped up. Here’s what he says.

These minor injuries. We’ve heard the defendant have again, Mr. Richards misstated the standard. It is not could have caused great bodily harm or death. It is not likely to have caused great bodily harm or death is imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Where is that? When you get a couple of scrapes, everybody takes a beating sometimes, right? Sometimes you get an, a, a scuffle and maybe you do get hurt a little bit. That doesn’t mean you can just start plugging people with your full metal jacket, AR 15 rounds and no bullets are not bullets. And we heard testimony about that.

Check it, check it off there. Big boy. So minor injuries, we all get roughed up from time to time. So, you know, I don’t know what a, what that guy, where he’s from or whatever, you know, what his perspective is on that. But if you’re, if you’re sort of in a fight with your roommates or your, you know, rolling around at a, at a sporting event, if you’re a wrestler or a mixed martial artists, maybe you’ve been roughed up before. But if you’re in the middle of a street fight and somebody is trying to injure you or kill you well, that’s, that’s different. That’s not a, that’s not a low, like a school yard, rough housing such session. Okay. This is Kyle Rittenhouse in the middle of a war zone that Pepito Moretti pepper Moretti, one of your own police officers called a war zone and said that that law enforcement was getting just basically steamrolled.

They were overwhelmed. And, uh, Kyle Rittenhouse is being chased by people with guns and skateboards in a war zone. So it’s not roughed up. You know, this is a rough housing with your younger brother. This is a different ordeal and he’s trying to mischaracterize it. So, uh, very strange that we all just get roughed up time to time. And you just should take it, I guess, in this new America, is that the standard that this prosecution wants to set is that the standard that the jurors should be taking home and sleeping late at night with saying, Hmm, if I were in Kyle Rittenhouse, his position, even though I wouldn’t be there, I’m a reasonable person. And I wouldn’t be out there in the middle of a situation like that. But if I were, if this situation maybe came to my house or my neighborhood, or came to my street right down the road, Hmm.

Well, I might be put in that position and would I be the person who just wanted to lay there and let my get beat time and time again? No, you wouldn’t. You’d want to fight back. And so it’s sort of that golden rule treat others how you’d want to be treated. And here, do you think the jurors agree with Krause’s characterization that they should just allow themselves to get beaten to death? Anytime they’re caught in the middle of a domestic war zone, do you think that’s a winning argument? I don’t think so. I don’t think that any jury is going to say, yeah, you’re right. He probably should have taken a few elbows to the jaw before he decided to use reasonable force. Don’t think that’s going to stick. We all get roughed up. Even binger made that face. He’s like, it’s kind of a, not a good line there. And so here is Kraus. Once again, talking about the verdict, it should be all about the facts. Go and decide you’re the fact finders jurors, but

This verdict should be about what the facts are and what Mr. Rittenhouse did. That’s what the 12 of you who go to deliberate will go and decide you are the fact finders. You decide what is beyond reasonable doubt. You decide what he is guilty or not guilty of from this menu of options that, you know, have an imminent threat. The only imminent threat that night was Mr. Rittenhouse. He was not acting in legal justified. Self-defense he’s guilty. Thank you.

Uh, Mr. Crouse covers the jury. The time has now come when the great,

All right. So that was the entire closing. So that’s the end of, uh, Krause’s closing arguments as well. So we had the main, the defense and then the rebuttal. And now we get the judge to wrap it all up.

That was the jury at the time has now come when the great burden of reaching, reaching a just fair and conscientious decision in this case will be placed totally with you. Jurors selected for this most important duty. If you will not be swayed by sympathy, passion, prejudice, or political beliefs, you will disregard any impression which you may have regarding what you believe to be my opinions on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. You will disregard the claims or opinions of any other person or news media or social networking site. You will pay no heed to the opinions of anyone, even the president of the United States or the president before him and


The founders of our country gave you and you alone the power and the duty to decide this case based solely on the evidence presented in this court, you will fearlessly keep faith with those who have been trusted to you, the fair rendition of justice and the protection of our freedom. You will be very careful and deliberate in weighing the evidence. I charge you to keep your duties steadfastly in mind and its upright citizens to return just and true verdicts.

All right. So that is it for the trial. Now it’s going to be up to the jurors to make a decision deliberation starts tomorrow morning. I’m not sure exactly what time the judge took a vote, said it could be at 8, 8 30 or nine. I think most people pick nine. Obviously. Why would you want to be there? Eight? What kind of a psycho person is that? So nine o’clock is when I think they’re going to get started, we didn’t get the final decision, but they are home and gone done for the evening. They’ll be back tomorrow. It sounds like the full panel is going to be there until we get a decision. And so we’re going to have to take a look and see when the verdict is. Well, of course we’ll be probably jumping onto the NICAR Cadas stream for the big reveal. Although I think he’s got a limit of only 10 people who can be on there at a time.

So we’ll figure it out. We’re going to play it by ear tomorrow, but we want to make sure that we get to your questions and your thoughts over from our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And I see we’ve got a bunch of super chats. And so that is it for the content. Let’s jump into the questions and see what we have going on over here from our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And it’s going to take me a quick minute, forgot about the form. So I’ve got to pull that up. I wasn’t sure how late we were going to go on the stream tonight, uh, over on nix. And so I wasn’t even sure if we were going to do a show tonight, but uh, we wrapped up relatively early in, so we’re going to be able to do it. All right. So let me get this cued up, cause I’m sure you’ve got a lot of thoughts here.

Okay. All right. I have to sorry about this, everybody. Okay. So we’ve got Briggs says my bet. The jury convenes 9:00 AM, jury announces. They have a verdict before lunch or immediately after either way. Schroeder brings them in right after lunch verdict of not guilty on all charges between 1230 and 2:00 PM, local, Wisconsin time. Love that little, love the specificity on that one. That’s amazing. Okay. And uh, I like it. We’ve got, I’ve watched all of the closing arguments today. This is from would say, I gotta say prosecution’s case complete garbage. They say Kyle wasn’t using self-defense and that Kyle’s an active shooter, which active shooter is happening left and right. He only fired eight rounds spent shell found at the scene. Kyle uses his rifle in SD. After being swung kicked at gage said he would have dumped an entire clip clip in him from Facebook open and close cases.

Self-defense got to say that the prosecutor needs to be tried on witness tampering and falsifying and lying to the court. Also not mentioning pointing the AR 15 to the jury. Hmm. Point mate. That’s from woods oh eight. Good to see woods de Del SPE says no one wants to have a gun pointed at them being or decided to point the gun at the direction of the jury. I’m sure they love that as evidenced by his previous statement from de Del SPE. If he antique, he says, I like the Hocus Pocus, lack of focus on the pickle. Pixel picks pistol, pickle picks, pickle pixel pistol. My goodness. That is a mess right there. Thank you. [inaudible] for that pili while he says, Hey Rob, hope your weekend was great. My heart aches for Kyle, the young man was yawning all day today. The worry for him must be insane.

Richards did a great job and about time, some off topic news from Austria, unvaccinated people now on total lockdown, if you’re vaccinated and go your days as normal Scotland, looking to extend passports, the madness continues. Yeah. Look as soon as, as soon as Rittenhouse is over a lot of other news that we got to get to. No doubt about that. A robot says, I don’t know about you, but my favorite part of this trial was seeing kraut with the face Palm really in front of the jury, is this, his first trial might be, I don’t know, uh, three girls. He says, can someone explained to me and perhaps a binger, how can a two hour plus closing argument? And just as long a rebuttal equals in a nutshell. Yeah. The rebuttal, uh, close on that did feel like it was basically going on forever. I feel like they went over their time. For sure. Speech says, I still can’t believe the prosecutor used a screenshot from the movie. Roadhouse makes his closing argument look like a meme. Also bingers false coziness attitude with the jury was disgusting. Did you see how he started that whole, that whole round? I can assure you ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You’re not going to have to remember all those jury instructions. Oh gosh. I’m such a folksy old lovable guy.

The jurors knew that they’re dumb, dumb. John Haugen says, uh, I’m taking the L on the over-under donation made. This will be debated six plus hours. Go donate. Now, you know, you lost two. We’re going to see I’m I’m I’m, I’m hopeful that we’re going to get a quick verdict to look two hours and 45 minutes might be a little more. It might be a little short, but it’s a fun one. No doubt. David Orloff says ADA Krause says everyone just has to take a beating. Sometimes I really don’t know what to make of this comment. According to the state of some whack job is chasing after you. You have to let them beat you. Somehow. A beating is an imminent threat. Seems like Kyle could have only used self-defense if Rosenbalm had already started to beat his head into the ground. I don’t know that that would be enough because remember gross grits had a gun pointed at him and it was probably going to shoot him.

And even that wasn’t enough because if you logically extend grocer, which is theory that Kyle was wracking, then gross grits was going to shoot Kyle. Right? That was inevitable. So even that wouldn’t have justified written houses shooting, according to binger, which is just nuts. LA medic says it was cool to see you on Makeda again. Another crazy day of the trial. I was yelling at the stream. My kids thought there was something wrong with me. It was just crazy. It was a crazy day. Yeah. There’s no doubt. Sasha Sasha says Mark Richards woke up and he chose violence. He turned it on a little bit. You know, he was drinking. Um, he was drinking some Gatorade. So it must’ve been those electrolytes. Sasha Sasha says love that you hopped on ricotta stream. Rob binger got banged. It was fun. It was a good time to hang out with everybody over there.

Uh, sir, Darren says, did you see Richard’s nursery rhyme, hands, shoulders, feet, and guns, feet and guns, hands, shoulders, feet, and guns, feeding guns, um, eyes and ears and bazookas and Apache helicopters, hands, guns, bazookas, and machetes. Apparently the defense did file a motion for mistrial. When will it be considering, do you, what do you think the chances of them succeeding are? Uh, zero at this point, it’s going to go to the jury. Briggs says I tried to watch finger’s closing argument. As I predicted this past Thursday night, only five minutes before I had to turn it off, fire up the belt sander and then shaved my man parts. I had to stop anyways. Now that the government has dropped the illegal possession charge, does that mean that Dominic black didn’t commit a crime by letting KR borrow the gun? So I don’t know what exactly what he was charged with.

I have not taken a look at his indictment or what that allegation was, but, um, just because Kyle is not guilty of being in possession, doesn’t mean that Dominic is not guilty of a transfer or something like that. So before I gave you a solid on that, I’d want to, I’d want to double check that. All right. We’ve got some super chats that came in wandering Mariner with a nice, super chat, but no question. Thanks for that donation there. Wandering Mariner, Michael Smith says a wrong defense attorney doing the closing. Don’t you think? I think that Corey cheer, if he could have done a very good close also he’s, he’s very, um, he’s very aggressive. So he’s a little bit more, I would say, um, prickly than Mark Richards, Mark Richards is going to have a homier field, you know, uh, Corey cheer feces, a little bit more of a, of a brawler.

So they have their strengths and weaknesses. No doubt about that, but I didn’t think it was a bad play. The way it went down. The denial is says it’s been most of the day, but I’m still. The binger pointed a gun at the jury, a violation of the first rule of gun safety. And did you see that he actually wasn’t exercising, trigger discipline either. He actually had his, uh, finger on the trigger, which it’s perfectly, uh, understandable because he knows nothing about guns. He’s scared to death of him. He thinks that if you have one, you are a murdering monster. For some reason, no justification to even have one. In fact, if you bring one, you might be provoking other people because if they see it, it might cause their fees to be hurt a little bit, Liberty or death says, Hey, I’ve always considered you a more neutral source.

And my leftist friend called you biased and a Nazi. Hmm. Can win them all. I guess. So I, I, I think you meant can win them all. I consider that a big one. Yeah. I mean, if one of your lefty friends thinks that I’m a Nazi, obviously they’re a crazy person because not actually a Nazi, but I don’t need to be in good graces with, uh, lunatics. So by, by lefty friend, and you can tell him, I said that, good to see you, Liberty or death, hope you’re doing well. Vince Miralis says, Hey Robin, following your channels since you first covered Rittenhouse, love your breakdowns and explanation on the trial so that a dumb submarine cook can understand. Thank you for all. You do hope all as well. You umm, well thank you Vince. That’s an awesome, that’s an awesome that’s from Vince Morales. Thank you for that.

And shout out. I’m sure you’re not dumb. I’m sure that your cooking is very good, especially deep under the sea. I’m sure you can make a mean whatever and it probably really hits the spot. So I appreciate you being here. Art. Vandelay the importer exporter. He’s here being her finger on the assault rifle machine gun trigger pointed at the jury from art Vandelay art. Vandelay, he’s an importer exporter. You know, he imports, uh, chips and he exports straws, uh, art Vandelay in the house with some astute conversations we’ve got Brody, Z says Kyle’s defense missed opportunities to objecting the closing arguments by Kraus. A lot of speculative statements, not in evidence were brought up. Yeah, I agree with that completely. I think that they could have, could have, and maybe should have objected more, but we talked about this on Makeda’s channel and you know, if you, if you pay close attention over to Mark Richards, what he was doing, there was being very, very needling towards the prosecution.

He was sorta saying things like, um, what did he say? Uh, uh, I’m from, you know, the foreign land of Ray scene, you know, that’s like four miles away or however far away it is, you know, I’m from that foreign land called Antioch, Illinois. That’s a 13 minutes away, 30 minutes away, 13 miles or whatever. You know, it sort of being a sarcastic and jovial and needling them every which way, calling them liars. I mean at the very early set, he said they are lying to, they are liars over here. And you got to remember that the prosecution is not used to being in this position. Okay. Look around the country. Most people are acknowledging that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent, has always been innocent and hopefully will always be innocent. And the public persona, the public narrative has shifted towards defending him. Even people like, uh, the young Turks are saying w my bad about that.

Even Joe Scarborough, it got called out today by Mark Richards in court. And he posted on Twitter while I kind of corrected the record when I was speaking out of my rear end yet, uh, last year, everybody’s sort of coming to the realization that what the government did here was gross. It was disgusting behavior. It should have never been charged. And the prosecution is feeling the weight of that a little bit. They’re used to being the heroes. They’re used to being the Derek Shovan prosecutors that are putting the bad guys behind bar their bar. There used to everybody going, oh, Mr. Prosecutor, thank you for doing justice and locking up the bad guys. They have little badges that they walk around with. And they’re like, look how powerful and important I am. I’m a prosecutor. I’ve got a badge. Good for you guys. Well done. And so, you know, they’re used to being the heroes.

They’re being held up on the chairs and bandied around the parties. That’s not happening here. They’re being called losers and liars and manipulators because they are, they have done nothing but a bunch of unethical manipulations throughout this entire trial. And it’s all coming out in front of the public eye, which as I’ve said, I’ve been so excited about that. So many people are paying attention to it. Cause you’re getting to see what really happens and being you’re in crowds. They don’t like being on that backend. They want the accolades. They want to be the Derrick Shovan prosecutors who get a book deal in 10 years, not the prosecutors who blew a case that maybe they should have won. And so they’re acting out, they are getting aggressive. We saw it from James Crouse. He was getting very, very agitated throughout the entirety of the trial.

So Mark Richards then triggered the hell out of them during his clothes. And you saw a lot of that, I think, which is why Krauss was so rattled on that second rebuttal close, good question. There from Brody Z, uh, rag junior says binger flagged everybody with a gun, even though it’s cleared by his logic, a crime flagged everybody with a gun. Binger is scared to death of guns, I think is ultimately what it comes down to. Another one from rag says that whole incapacitated after his right pelvis was shattered as BS. I personally know someone where their pelvis fractured on both sides and was slowly breaking further and they were still walking, running, jumping, et cetera. I think that was just splitting hairs. You know, honestly, if they wanted to get that narrative, that language shooting them, he shot him in the back. As long as they could get a witness to come in and talk about that to some degree they were going to do it.

All right. And let’s see what else we have over from locals. And I am, uh, bouncing around cause I screwed up the forum. Okay. Let’s see here. Three girl. He says, Sergeant Bob is right. Takes feds to be that stupid street. Cops would never have let him sit on his phone. Wait. No, that’s where are we at here? That is on an old show. All right. So we’re getting back into the new questions. Uh, David or doff says, do you think binger and Kraus actually believe in their argument? Do they actually believe that video shows Kyle raising his weapon at the Zinski’s? Are they just trying to argue it because they really need to win the case? It’s the latter I’m sure they probably actually do believe it. I mean, there’s sort of, I think kind of diluting themselves into this entire, into justifying this entire prosecution.

So, you know, people have been saying, maybe these guys are trying to throw this. Maybe they really don’t believe in it. And they’re trying to sort of, you know, throw the case, which is why all their witnesses have been terrible. And why Tom is binger is actually impeaching some of his own witnesses putting up who was it, Richard McGuinness. And then basically calling him a liar, the outset of it. And that is not, uh, not an ideal way to approach a case. All right. And so my, uh, my Google Chrome just crashed. And so we’re rebooting everything up. I think we’re still back in business. Patriot minute says, have been watching your breakdown of this entire trial. Really enjoyed the feedback you provided. Thank you for all. You’ve shared with us. Keep up the great work and the great content that’s from Patriot minute. Thank you Patriot.

I appreciate you being here. We also have jumped kick person, also known as Radice. He says, please let someone at Eric’s house know they’re going to be getting $20 donations. That’s the charity of, of, uh, my choosing of course, I appreciate any donations going over there, but if you have another charity, certainly donate to them as well. John Delores says the media already blaming the judge for being biased for the not guilty that’s destined to come. Do you think the judge is biased at all? Um, yeah. I mean I do. I think that the judges, uh, yeah, I do. I think the judge has, uh, has a, an opinion on this case. I think he thinks it’s trash and we’re seeing that sort of play out in real time. But, uh, nothing that I think is overly problematic. I mean, I think he’s calling it as he sees it.

And I think that most of the calls have been pretty, pretty reasonable. Former Elio says I was surprised that the boy was allowed to testify without numerous objections. We’ve got LA medic says Krauss was awful. He was talking to the jury in an insulting way. He just could not let go of his ego. Uh, I say this knowing that I would never disrespect a person’s appearance, I’m just so angry at the prosecution. Yeah. So I’m sort of skipping over some of the weight comments, of course, you know, I make them too, but it it’s out of frustration. You know, the guy I could, I could go down that whole, uh, that whole rabbit hole about, I actually feel bad for Kraus. If I can be perfectly honest about this, I feel like he is just a broken person who is getting all of his life’s validation out of his job as a prosecutor.

This means everything to him. I think he’s probably got a lot of, uh, you know, a lot, a lot of, a lot of emotional bandwidth in this career. And so when you see him get so frustrated like that, and you almost take it out on the jury, I mean, he’s just frustrated. He’s just upset. And it’s just coming through, it’s coming right through his pores. And you know, there may be something else going on there. You know, that that leads to an, uh, a weight problem. Other things that are twisted up going on in his head. I don’t, I don’t know. I don’t get it. Uh, you know, I feel bad. I feel bad for people who seem like they are broken and he seems sort of broken to me. Vegas, Patriot hockey mom says hi again, Rob, if Kyle’s convicted, does the questionable FBI drone, Hocus locus video open a door for an appeal?

Uh, certainly I think that there’s going to be many appealable issues in this case, if he is convicted because the judge sort of ran things very loosey goosey to some degree, uh, Jeremy says, Jeremy, my treatise here says, Rob, I heard Barnes say that Kyle’s defense deliberately set off the prosecution so they could get mad. And it worked. Klaus went nuts, became a bumbling fool. Basically told the jury, sometimes you have to sit there and take a beating. Yeah, he did. He did that. So if there was a strategic decision to go after them in order to trigger them, it absolutely worked. Speech unleash says, love how binger kept telling the jury in this video, you see, you can see here, et cetera. If it still has to be pointed out to the jury, what a video is showing, then it is fair to say the video doesn’t actually show what he says it does.

If it does. Why constantly explain what it actually shows? It’s a good point there from speech. Just play it if they can, if it, if it shows what you say, it shows, enable show it and the jurors will just see it don’t need an explanation for it. Michael Smith says Swayze ripped out a man’s throat with his bare hands and Roadhouse bad choice. John Paul, with a nice donation. Thank you, John Paul, Dave with another donation. Thank you, Dave. Chris Wally says, Hey Rob, what do you think the chances are that the prosecution has been as committed Brady violations in this case? Uh, probably high, you know, given what we’ve seen from these two fellows. So a Brady violation is, is sort of it’s, it’s the idea that the government has exculpatory information. It has information that might help a criminal defendant’s case and they don’t give it to the defense.

Okay. Remember when you’re charged with a crime, you don’t really have any evidence. The government has it all. They have the police, they have the crime labs. They have all the detectives and investigators. They have all the money, they have the case file. They have the nine 11 calls. They have all the body cam, they have everything. So if you are a defendant, you need to make sure that you get access to all that stuff, including the information that the government has about their own problems. The fact that the officer who worked your case is a liar and got in trouble for falsifying something sometime ago, five years ago, right? It’s if it’s in his personnel record and we might think that this cop is a liar and they don’t tell us about that. That’s a big problem. That’s a Brady violation. It’s evidence that the government has that they are not disclosing to you. And in this case, I mean, you can make an argument that even, even that drone footage that came in there’s good argument that that should have been excluded. I would, I would have argued maybe that it was late disclosure and I don’t know how that drone footage showed up on the prosecutor’s magic doorstep and how that video got in. But, but it did.

All right. Let’s see here. What else do we have? Let’s go back over to YouTube. We have assess stark as love. You thought you did a great job on the stream today. Well, thank you, Seth. Yeah, it was a good time. It was fun. I really like all those people. It’s a different way to watch a trial. There’s no question about it. And honestly, you know, they’re all, they’ve all been seeking some serious time in. So shout out to everybody over there. Philip Tate says the prosecutor is obviously politically charged. I agree with that as well. I think he’s been politically motivated since day one. He’s got a bone to pick and he wants us. Mark. Richard said this. Well, he said that they want his head. Kyle Rittenhouse has had on his wall, lava Java lava in the house as Kyle needs to send Nick Sandman his attorney to Sue the media for defamation.

First things first there lava Java lava. Don’t get excited. Don’t get too ahead of yourself on this one step at a time, Michael Smith says they could have called Zemlinsky and let him plead the fifth on the stand. Uh, they could have, I think that the defense could have, for some reason they didn’t, you know, they didn’t don’t know what happened with that. William TULO says normalize violence says Kraus. Cross is okay with just a little bit of a head meeting. That’s it just a little bit, not too much. If you’re getting your head beat in and you think you might die and everybody else thinks you might die and you call Jim Kraus and you say, Hey, I’m getting beaten in the head right now. Uh, I’m in Kenosha. If I shoot this guy, are you going to charge me with the crime? And he says, well, uh, did you run away first?

Uh, did you call, uh, yeah, I, I, I tried to run, um, nine one. One is not going to get here and calling you, can I shoot him? Maybe he’ll get the okay. On that one. But I doubt it. Let’s see, we’ve got Lee Lama. Brad says Krause’s tone spoke volumes about their case. Yeah, that’s a great point. So you can sort of hear it in his voice. He’s just defeated, which is why he’s so angry, which is why it’s sort of bubbling out of his pores. He can’t even take it because he’s so mad. His whole worldview is, is shattering. He’s gone from this prosecutor is supposed to be a hero doing justice to somebody who’s now trying to imprison a 17 year old kid. And his whole world is crumbling down and he doesn’t know what to do about it. John Frazier says being or needs to learn basic firearm safety after shouldering the rifle with his finger on the trigger and pointing it towards the jury.

Bigger has a lot to learn. Good to see you, John, thank you for that rag. Junior says you missed the part where cross does a skateboard. Isn’t a deadly weapon. Not like last year in Houston, a guy had his brain on the sidewalk from one. Yeah, there was a lot that I sort of didn’t include a shorter show because we got started so late tonight, Royal Wolf says Krauss stated the jury are in fact fact finders. My understanding is that the parties in the judge or the fact-finders presenters and the jurors are supposed to weigh the facts. Am I wrong? So, uh, so, so it’s sort of, we’re sort of conflating two different things. It’s the jurors are ultimately going to be the ones who decide all of this. So when you say finders, like they’re not going to go out there and investigate, right?

It’s not the fact finding activity that you might think that an investigator does or the police do, right? They’re going, and they’re all the technical witnesses. In the case, the police are witnesses. They watch what happened. They come here. This is what I saw, right? They’re not prosecutors. The prosecutors are supposed to be prosecuting it. The police are just the witnesses. So those are the people who were sort of technically, you know, investigating the facts and, and sort of finding the facts. And then they synthesize them. And then the defense disagrees with all of them and the jurors sort of get, decide what they think ultimately happened. And they can weigh. When you say way, they’re weighing the credibility of the speakers and so speak, you know, gauge gross. Crude said, this happened, Kyle Rittenhouse said, this happened. Both are our witnesses with opposing viewpoints.

And the jury is going to have to decide who’s more credible. The Kyle rerock the gun or not gage said that he did. Kyle said that he didn’t jurors are going to have to decide that fact right now they’re going to have to make a decision on that. And, you know, hopefully it goes the right way, but that’s, that’s sort of how it works. When you, when you, when you sort of conflate some of the words about fact-finders presenters, jurors weighing the facts, it’s all, it’s all sort of in the same hula hoop with some little nuance between the definitions. Great question. PJ makes music says, prosecutor sounds like Jonah hill. No. Yeah, he does. Actually. He does. That’s hilarious. Alex. Six says a future law student back again, shout out to law school. You have to think, realistically, if you think your life is in danger, you’re going to act, but four shots seems over the top.

All right. That’s a good perspective there, Alex six. Uh, and I can, I can understand your perspective on that. And I think the prosecution would agree with that. Now the opposite narrative response would be you’ve you’ve got to stop. You got to stop it and end it right then and there, you know? And so that’s why you, you ended a fire. Pixie says I’m sure abused women all over the world really appreciated that statement. Sometimes you just got to take a beating. That’s a great point. You know, he’s, he’s prosecuting a bunch of domestic violence cases. I’m sure I’m sure on his docket, he’s got a bunch of DV cases. And so if you’re a defense lawyer, you just go into his office the next day and say, listen, I want a good plea deal on this case. Sometimes people just have to take a beating.

Okay. You agreed with that yesterday. So I want a good deal. My guy didn’t beat her too much. Just a little bit. Just like you said, sometimes you have to deal with that. You know, not even a big deal. So I would like my charges dismissed. Thank you very much. It’s funny. Prosecution hates the truth. Sad that they represent our government. That’s from Ryan K. Miles. It is sad. Yeah. It’s sad. This is happening. This is all over the country. This is not an isolated incident. Friends take her what’s if he says and being her didn’t actually check the gun himself. That’s right. He had the detectives do that. He did. All right, let’s go back over to the locals and see what we’ve got. [inaudible] says he cowardly shoots a man rather than fighting back. If fighting back is warranted. Shooting is warranted. That’s from DDL. SPE who is, is nailing it details.

Be also says, by the way, Kraus clearly joined your Twitch chat. As don’t beam, don’t be a meme. It says don’t be a meme. It was a great entertainment to, to the exact talking points that Krauss argued with. At the end of a trial, don’t be a meme from James, James Kraus in the house. Let’s see, oh, it’s Jake from Oxford. Oh, he’s very smart. Jake from Oxford, much smarter than me, Jake Sullivan. You know, the, uh, the very famous, uh, very intelligent secretary of state spokesman. I think that’s who he is. Oh no. He’s the national security advisor. Jake Sullivan from Oxford is here. Here’s what he says. Uh, Rob. So one area of expertise I have is with AR and, and fours. One thing that has annoyed me to no end and something for you to keep pleasing your mental toolbox is this, of course you cannot say 100% of the time.

So let’s say 99.9% of the time. This is the case misfire. The Bulla was stuck by the firing pin, but did not fire. It was struck. This can easily be seen by just looking at the bullet and seeing a pinhole on the primer. The bullet will still be a live round. You can Google a picture of this. Yeah. So it’s a little dimple right on, right in the middle of that primer. And looks like it’s, you can see a difference sort of like when you look at a light bulb and the filament has broken, you can see it broken, replace it. Same thing with the bullet. It says here, the bullet will still be alive round jam. The bullet fired and the shell case did not object. This can also easily be seen because the shell casing will have some sort of trauma, usually a crinkle or a fold where the shell was caught by the bolt.

This could have been proven without a doubt. And under two minutes by looking at all eight rounds, five minutes, if you look at all 30, sorry, but this is inexcusable of the defense. Please remember this. If you have ever involving a case in the same thing, five day minutes, or to move a whole one-fourth of their argument. So it’s Jake. So they kind of did talk about this when they brought in that, um, that female police officer, what was her name? Brittany Bray. That’s where a lot of the fellows out there in the live chats. Every time we have a conversation about Brittany Bray, eyeballs perk up a little bit, huh? Officer Bray’s coming on. No, not on this show, but she came back and talked a lot about gathering the evidence. She had all of the rounds, all of the ammunition member, Mark Richards actually gave her, I think, eight different, uh, evidence bags and asked her to explain what was going on with them.

And so she sort of talked about not collecting that ninth bullet it’s Jake, even in your scenario, I think there would be a magic. There, there would be a missing. Somebody would have recovered some evidence of the rerock and it just didn’t happen. LA medic says, both of these prosecutors need to lose their job. They do not know the law. If they want to change the laws and become a lawmaker, they can do it. They are so awful. I cannot fully express it. It’s ed says, Rob, if he is found guilty, is there enough for an appeal? What grounds would they be able to argue the appeal? So basically on anything that was objected to that, that got in, right? That’s that’s easily appealable. That’s an easy way to place to start. If binger objected to something and the judge said, yeah, the well that can come in anyways, it’s a good place to start.

Just to say, judge should not have allowed that that evidence would have been dispositive. It would have resulted in a different verdict. And because the judge let that in, that was clear error that justifies a new trial shouldn’t have happened. It tainted the jury and argue that way. So a lot of, really a lot that they could latch on to detail. SPI says they went over their time, but the judge did admit over the transition from prosecution to defense, he was just threatening it. Wasn’t going to stop people at time, regardless. It felt like the judge provoked longer closing arguments today. A lot of provocation happening here. All right. Back over to YouTube. Let’s see, we’ve got, mm, says, Hey, Robert Love your channel. But prime is a bit of a jerk and not welcoming. Maybe rethink the wrench. Oh, somebody, uh, okay. Best wishes. I really enjoy your commentary.

Well, uh, okay, well, uh, uh, uh, drama. All right. I love everybody. I love, I love all of you. Okay. I love everybody. Can we all just get along and just be peaceful? I love everything and everybody except Thomas binger and James Cross them. I don’t like Brian Dotson with a Superchat. No question, but some donations. Thank you. There. Another one from Brian. Kyle had the right to go unmolested. Not according to James Crouse and Thomas binger. Another donation from John Siena. Anthony, also with a donation. No question on either of those. Thank you, fellows not applicable says it’s not about winning them. It’s about the Mets. Let’s go. Mets, hit a home run, baby Mets, come on, Mets, love the Mets. That’s from not applicable, uh, which is not really applicable to this show. Curtis Bartel says, why was the FBI there in the first place?

And why does their footage stink? And the cops stand down. Sounds like a setup, just like January six. And in fact, many people are hinting at that. You know where the feds on the ground over there did they cause all this ruckus in the first place who knows, see Warren says I have no sympathy for someone who knowingly lies to put an innocent kid in jail for life. Think about that. Think about what’s going on right there. Now they go to bed. They sleep well at night. They go, oh no, I’m out there doing justice. Yeah. I’m fighting for the American way of life. I’m putting bad guys behind bars. Okay. Rust us. Android says according to sauerkraut. Where’d that one go?

I don’t know what I did with that one. Okay. Okay. There it is. Rust USA. According to sauerkraut, bare hands are not a weapon. And you should just take your beating. Yeah. We played that clip. Does he really believe that? Like, would he tell his wife that he’s married? Did you see his ring? He’s married when he tell his wife, honey, just take it. Just, just take it a little bit more. Salty says a salty shield. Maiden says I followed you since the New York time breakdown being a strong believer in law and order, it took life to teach me and you for me to respect defense. Well, that’s nice. That’s a big compliment. I appreciate that. You know, the, the defense bar gets a lot of, I think I’m bad characterizations for the work that we do, but I’ll tell you most people that we work with, the vast majority of them are very good people.

Just getting caught up in a bad situation. Not unlike Kyle Rittenhouse. This happens all the time and we’re just trying to help. Rob minion says defense did well, but as someone who has studied a ton of rules and law, I was bashing my head against the wall all over the missed arguments. I’m sure that’s true. I was also, uh, I wasn’t bashing my head against the wall. I was more like screaming at the wall, but you know, we’ll see, we still got some runway left to see how this whole thing wraps up. George McNair says Clark and Barden have had great weight lifted from their shoulders. From George McNair. We’ve got Rinzler says, is it a win at all cost, a common prosecutorial mindset is this how lawyers are trained? So, uh, lawyers, I was not trained like that. You know, and I I’ve never been a prosecutor.

I wanted to actually be a prosecutor. When I was a first year law school student, I wanted to be a prosecutor. I thought that that was the good guys that were, that was the side that they were on. They were putting up and locking away the bad guys. And so I actually went and worked at a criminal defense law firm. When I was a first year law school student. My theory was I was going to go work for the defense, see how those scumbag defense lawyers did it and then be a better prosecutor on the uptake. Because when you’re a one L when you’re a first year law school student here in Arizona, the Maricopa county attorney’s office, when I was coming up, they didn’t want you to go work there as a first-year student, but a private defense firm, they would take you all day.

So I went over to the private defense firm. Then I had to start dealing with prosecutors on a regular basis. And I’d say, Hey, my client is a, you know, Ashley Smith, somebody very nice. She needs a deal on this. She’s not a bad person. She’s going to lose this, going to lose that, going to lose this and that. And the prosecutor just says, I don’t care. What are you telling me for? I don’t care. We have charts that we follow and the chart looks like this. So don’t even send me an email, uh, send it to my superior. My superior is not going to read it. Their superior is not going to read it. And so it’s just injustice all the way down. And it’s very, very frustrating. So I would say, is it when it all costs? I would say that there are prosecutors that are of that mindset, that they will do anything they can to win because they want to work their way up to be a bureau chief, and then to run a division someday, you know, run a whole department.

So that’s their mindset. There are also many prosecutors who are just, you know, they want to work there for five years, 10 years get their student loans paid off. They don’t really care one way or the other. Then they’re probably going to go be a defense attorney. And then they’re going to scream out on billboards all over the place. I used to be a prosecutor and they’re going to use that as a calling card, even though I think that’s a little bit disingenuous. It’s like, why would you want a prosecutor? Somebody who for 10 years was putting people in prison to represent you. They’re on the wrong side of the moral equation there. But anyways, a lot of people like that, they think it’s kind of a clever slogan. So just like anything, you’re going to get a whole range of prosecutors, a whole range of defense lawyers.

And we, we always place them on a spectrum and I try not to be overly critical, even, you know, even if I disagree with tactics, you know, there are, there are reasons to do things differently. So it’s, it’s always fun to study it. And it’s why they call it a practice. There’s no real right or wrong way to do it. There’s a number of ways people do it. And then you can judge them on the backend. So I disagree with the win at all costs prosecutorial mindset. I think that prosecutors a duty to justice before they have a duty to convictions, but unfortunately many of them just don’t play that way. We have another one from Beth Cottington in the house. Good to see you bet says, Hey, Robert, and all, as a former cheese head, I thought they put on a Munster defense. Oh, that’s cheese and Munster cheese is some of my most favorite cheese.

I love that cheese. It’s really good. And so Beth Cottington and I kind of kindred spirits on the cheese we’ve got, Jacob says, how could a prosecutor not know that there are left-handed guns? I’m right-handed and use a left-handed gun because I’m left eye dominant because they’re scared to death of the guns. Like just having a gun, according to them is like illegal. And you’re a terrorist. I think Matthew self says, I appreciate your coverage on the trial. Love seeing you on ricotta stream. Looking forward to the conversation on the verdict. Yeah. I’m looking forward to that too. Hopefully it comes tomorrow. Hopefully it’s quick, Sean. O’Halloran over on local says everyone just has to take a beating sometimes. Pretty sure that’s what Lee little binger told cross before he sent them up there for a rebuttal it’s weird strategy, but okay. Monster one says, did you see when Richard said Kyle had the right to not be molested by Rosenbalm?

Did he say that word molested? I didn’t catch that one. Former Leo says I didn’t hear the defense point out to the jury that gross, whatever admitted under oath that Rittenhouse didn’t fire until he aimed his Glock at him. I think he, I think Richard’s talked about that, uh, on the, on the backend because he went through all of them. I think I might’ve even had a clip to that effect. Okay. Let’s see here. We’ve got, uh, no, no name here. It says I, it was great seeing you on Makeda street. And I felt like we knew each other. I was like, oh, hi, Robert. I think it’s great for you to pop up there a few days during the trial, he’s getting a lot of attention. Hopefully it helps increase your channel during the breaks. They advertise their channels. There I’m mute that part, but I’m sure it doesn’t hurt LOL.

So yeah, it’s, it’s all, it’s all good. Honestly. I want to go there to, to help the cause. Like that’s what I’m most excited about when I go on Nick stream, it’s like, cool. Let’s let’s see if we can. I’d love to see that stream go up over a hundred thousand live viewers like that. That would make me so happy to see that because it’s, it’s eyeballs on this case and it’s an important case. It’s awesome that our channels growing it’s awesome that we’re grading, you know, getting a lot of eyeballs it’s, you know, we’ve, we, we haven’t had this many people on a stream in a long time, really, since the elections and I’m grateful for it and all the eyeballs and the attention, but I’m happy our channels growing, but it’s about the case. And it’s about sort of shattering this it’s this David versus Goliath story.

It’s this Kyle Rittenhouse 17 year old kid versus everybody, the white house and all of the people in the media. And it’s just, it’s like, it’s like America is on trial right now and self-defense is on trial right now. So it’s like, I watch, want to see eyeballs on it. And I want us, you know, I want to see a victory in this case because we’ve been following it for a long time here, but thank you for that comment. All right. And, and I’ll be back over on Nick’s stream. Cause that was fun. Monster one says the prosecution closing was so disgusting. I couldn’t watch it. Do you think anyone bought there? There is so that there is no such thing as a left-handed gun shouldn’t Richards have objected? Uh, well he explained it. I think he explained it. Well, uh, John Dolores says, I didn’t like Richard’s closing.

He seemed a bit flaky, not aggressive or concrete enough felt like he was unsure of himself. A little disappointed. It’s a good take. Interesting take grouchy. Old cat lady says, can the jury asked for clarifying explanation of provocation from the judge? Yeah. So the jury can ask a bunch of questions and they probably will. We’ll probably get a couple jury questions if they do come up with a question that means they’re thinking about it. And it’s probably going to be the over. It’s going to be a lot longer than two hours and 45 minutes, but we’ll see, I’m still holding out for a quick verdict. A Chinese name says, so if Rosenbaum was running backwards towards Kyle and Kyle shot him, is that not self-defense because he got shot in the back? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t think anything. I think I don’t even think anything is self-defense anymore.

If you’re in Kenosha, we’ve got a no name on that one. Law medics, as I was laughing at the defense calling out Joe Scarborough today, this weekend, he said that Kyle spent 60 rounds that night. It was crazy. Then funny after the close, it also went all over Twitter. Yeah. Joe Scarborough, retweeted, Nick ricotta, who called them out on it? Rational gay says when the prosecution first rested their case, I was 95%. Sure. Kyle would be acquitted. Now I think it’s more like 55 to 65. Do you think they should have asked for a regular mistrial without prejudice then taking a different tactic at the second trial, including not have Kyle testify? So I, you know, ultimately I don’t think that Kyle’s testimony was useful or helpful. I don’t think it was a real great decision, but they went with that decision and Kyle did very well considering the facts.

You know, I think that, uh, he, he, he testified and he did an outstanding job for a young man. Who’s got no training or experience in this. He did very, very well. And it was a little bit of a risk. I don’t think it’s set the back ultimately, but I think that it, it really allowed them to conflate a bunch of additional issues that didn’t even need to be brought up at all. But, uh, that’s, that’s beside the point now I still am higher than I would say 55 to 65% on acquittal. I think I’m still close. I said 80 earlier. I think I’m probably still in that, in that wheelhouse. And I don’t think that a regular mistrial would have been granted without prejudice. I don’t think a judge would have granted that either. Uh, if the judge wants us to go to the jury, cause it’s a, it’s a case of national importance.

And so I don’t think anything, if anything would have gone differently, the judge would have done everything possible to stop it from being dismissed. He wants it to go to the jury. Okay. Jack soul yea says I’m surprised that binger has good, not really triggered discipline. I just realized that they could have asked about the brass when the gun was jammed. I’m pretty sure the brass would have had Densen it. I had a gun jam on me a few times in the brass has dents in them. And I think that confirms what a Jake from Oxford told us. So that matches former Leo says during the riots, a skateboard is a weapon of choice because they should have showed the highlights of every 20, 20 riot stomping. A down victim is assault with a deadly weapon. Good to see you former couple more here. Patriot minute says T a B K T treat every firearm as if it was loaded.

AE, always point the muscle in a safe direction, be, be sure of your target and what’s beyond it. And K, keep your finger off the trigger and the trigger guard until you’re ready to fire. Yeah, he pretty much broke every rule today. T a B K that’s from Patriot minute with some good advice on there. Thunder seven says, according to Kraus, Kyle did not have the right to shoot the attackers. He should’ve placed his gun down to fight them with FIS. So now does that apply to police? If they are attacked, do they have to put down their weapons and fight them with their bare knuckles? Their rebuttal was so ridiculous. It is laughable that’s from thunder seven. And Kyle says that the member who said that the four shots were excessive, know that it happened within one second and only shot to stop a lunatic from grabbing my gun.

And he was on a suicidal. Oh, I see. I see. So it’s Kyle, Kyle Rittenhouse is, uh, on the street. The Antica says, okay, listen, uh, if you guys will allow me to get on a soapbox for a minute, I want to look at the situation differently. We’re dealing with a case where the narrative is that people shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves out of fear of at the very least cases like this happening it’s as if we’re supposed to let things happen and let the police come in. After the fact and the justice system decide who they like and dislike, let’s rewind a few decades. A lot of anti-gun legislation came along with Jim Crow thought process. How much was the same narrative, the same thing so long ago, but for black people. So back in that time, when people wait for the justice system to decide who to prosecute the standards of how much effort to prosecute would be based on skin color.

When I was a kid, I’ve always said that black people were just the testing grounds for that, for stuff that would be imposed on everyone else one day. And in my mind, situations like this or evidence of that, just want to put that out there for people to ruminate on the antique is prime with that thought thought. They’re interesting. Yeah. It’s an interesting one. VNC kiss. I, I think it’s interesting to always put the hat on sort of the other, the other perspective. And so I, I think if, if, if I’m gathering what you’re saying correctly, it’s sort of like the, the, the withering away of self-defense rights. And you might, I think you’re implying that, that there was also that fervor back during the Jim Crow era and the era of sort of civil rights, you know, developments, which is interesting. Cora says, it’s always amazing to see you on the panel.

The diversity of lawyers on this dream brings a rich in-depth analysis of this polarizing case. Tucker Carlson brought up YouTube censorship of independent channels, coverage of the trial. The word is getting out. Yeah. They actually, I think booted Nick in the middle of his stream, they said it was a copyright problem. A bunch of small streams got booted, but I think, you know, CBS stays up, Fox stays up, PBS stays up, but all the small channels go by. Bye. And then if you, if you want to look for it, your sort of shadow bands so that the channels are also, and you know, not showing up in the searches and a lot of that, I know how that goes over here. So, uh, not a surprise. Let’s see what else we’ve got on YouTube. We’ve got K w N Y upstate says, why doesn’t someone fire these crooked prosecutors in the da for unethical behavior?

Or can they just prosecute anyone for anything at all? Well, they’re prosecutors. So they just kind of, they get to decide on that and you know, malicious prosecution or prosecutorial misconduct or any bar complaints that go against prosecutors. Those are mostly just sort of dismissed because they’re prosecutors and they get a lot of complaints. And so they don’t even need to really be investigated. Many of them, Tara Rainer says praying for Kyle binger and Krauss overplayed, everything. They insulted the jury’s intelligence media did a disservice to the public, but Antifa won’t right. And cold weather. Yeah. They’re home. They’re going to be bundled up with their long pajama PJ’s and their cup. Just sitting around the fire, talking about fascism on their iPhones. Got it. We have a, God says was bingers are you okay? Do you need a tissue officer, Brittany?

If so, that was very unprofessional. Did he say that? I didn’t see him say that, but if he said that that’s cause officer Brittany was, uh, she wasn’t crying. Was she? Trey Wyatt says my favorite YouTube channel right here, but I’m shocked. You don’t have way more subscribers. You and me, both. Trey, thank you for saying that. We’re getting we’ll get there. Hey, you know, it’s a younger channel and you know, we’ve had some, uh, some, uh, interactions with YouTube and I think they have their finger on the scale a little bit. Tara Rainer says zoom Minsky is rumored to be an FBI, CIA confidential informant. He’s scheduled for trial. And it sounds like that trial is moving forward. So I’m not so sure about that, but interesting. Maybe why wouldn’t they be Clyde blasts and Gail with no question, but a nice donation. Thank you, Clyde. We have a Russ stringer also says, if Tom is bigger, we’re on fire in front of me. I would not urinate to put them out.

Why can’t endorse or, or, or, or support that. But rusty USA, Android says YouTube strikes the stream of a bunch of lawyers. How stupid is that? Well, look, YouTube knows that, that you agree to their terms of service. It’s their playground. They’re in charge. That’s why nobody sues them. Everybody talks a big game, but you know, most people aren’t going to put their money where their mouth is. Phillip Tate says, do you honestly think the prosecutor believes Kyle is a murderer? Do you think they’re just doing their job? No, I, I do believe that they think that, yeah, I believe that they’re through and through thinking it probably been thinking it for the last 18 months since it happened. And this is, you know, this is it. They go to bed. This is a murderer. This guy is a murderer cause a murderer. And, uh, you can see it. I mean, that’s why Krauss gets so upset because he’s emotionally attached to this case. All of his identity and values wrapped up in this prosecution and his role as a prosecutor is why he’s so angry. What else do we have? Are you following Simpson’s case Simpkins case he shot for and out within 24 hours on bond? Yeah. So that was the, that was the school shooter. I think that, uh, got $25,000 bond, each shooting $75,000 bond. I think Kyle Rittenhouse is, was what? 2 million? Yeah.

Yeah. John Paul McMahon says binger quote, everyone that ignored curfew or were unreasonable. Therefore also binger Rosenbalm and the other victims were also unreasonable. It’s a good point. John major, double standards, terror Rainer says informants start out usually as criminals, AKA star witnesses against assigns. Thank you, Tara. And our last one over here from Cole Cooper says, is it going to ruin bingers chances of playing inspector Gordon in the future Batman movies? You know, I mean, he’s, he’s not a very good actor, but maybe in a B movie, maybe like a remake, you know, or like a one of those. Remember, remember they used to have those VHS tapes that you just get in the bin at the grocery store. What’s the, what’s the modern analog of that. It’s probably like a Netflix, something like a dub Netflix series. Yeah. Maybe, maybe being here could play Batman in a foreign Netflix film.

Maybe he’ll do well there. All right. And so those were great questions and thoughts over from watchingthewatchers.locals.com grouchy old cat lady says, then the liberal media it’s screaming white privilege all over this trial. Go figure. I’m sure there’s going to be a lot more of that. Lot of whining. Grouchy says, does the reasonable person mean reasonable person at age 65 or a reasonable person at age 17, 17? It’s that re a reasonable person of a similar make and model as the defendant right then and there. So it’s what a reasonable person in their shoes would have done under the same circumstances. Law medic says someone pulled up a record of Rosenbaum’s prison record 40 charges while inside nine or more assault on the staff guy was more than willing to hurt Kyle. I think he got charged in Arizona. Actually. Greg Murat says, would be interesting to study the juxtaposition of individualism versus collectivism on the position of self-defense.

It’s a great, that’s a great question, Greg. Great question. And I think, you know what? I think you can see it playing out in real time. I mean, I think the prosecution is collectivist. It’s their argument. It’s you don’t defend yourself. Society will defend you. The police should handle everything for you, and you need to think about society and their needs more than your own needs. That’s the government’s argument here should a run should have called nine one. One should have, I guess, you know, asked him if he wanted to thumb, wrestle instead, sit down and have a conversation about it. Talk, you know, politics versus individualism. Not going to wait for the government to get here, to save my life. I don’t know, wait for Rosenbalm to start killing me before I actually use self-defense. That’s insane. That’s the individualist approach. And I think in America, it’s still a lot more of the individualist and the collectivist at the root.

Now, hopefully that’s not changing anytime soon, but we’ll see, we are in the middle of an epic battle. I think for that, for the soul of that debates, collectivists versus individualists. It’s a great question there, Greg. And we’re going to continue to dive into that. And more of my friends, those were all the questions from watchingthewatchers.locals.com. If I missed you, I apologize. Cause my Chrome crashed and I picked back up where I remembered. But if I missed your question, I apologize. Make sure you get it to us over tomorrow. Tomorrow’s going to be another interesting day. My friends don’t know what the schedule is going to be looking like. Of course the jury is going to be out. They’re going to come in tomorrow and they’re going to pick a four person and they’re going to go through all of the instructions or, you know, get their binders and packets and all this stuff.

And they’re going to go and sit in the panel, then they’ll start deliberating. And from there we don’t know what it’s going to be. It could be two hours, could be two weeks who knows probably going to be sooner rather than later. If I had to guess hopeful that we get a verdict tomorrow and then we’re probably going to be over on Nick’s channel if he has room for us in order to, uh, receive the verdict and see what it says so that we can all sort of react to it in real time. Hopefully it’s good news if we don’t get it concluded tomorrow. Well, we’re just going to do it again on Wednesday and the day after that and the day after that. But I am expecting, I don’t think that this is going to take too long. We’ll either have a hung jury relatively, uh, by the end of the week or we’ll get a, a verdict I think hopefully tomorrow, but we’ll see.

And so I hope you stick around and join us for that process. Uh, make sure that you subscribe. If you have not already subscribed to our channel, I’d really appreciate a, like a thumbs up before you head on outta here. And that my friends is it for me for the day long show, late show, but we’re wrapping up the Rittenhouse trial and we’re going to be back tomorrow with a whole lot more of it. So join us over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. Keep an eye out on posts over there. I’ll let you know what the schedule looks like tomorrow. Make sure that you’re subscribed to our channel. Go check out Nick’s channel as well. Make sure you’re subscribed over there. I’ll make sure that I, uh, very likely we’ll hop on his stream tomorrow. Uh, other than that, my friends, I want to thank you all for being here. I will see everybody at the same time, same place tomorrow, whenever that happens to be. So thank you so much for being a part of the show today. Have a tremendous evening sleep very well. My friends I’ll see you right back here or on Nick’s channel or elsewhere tomorrow. Have a great night. My friends be well, bye.