tv CNN Newsroom With Alisyn Camerota and Victor Blackwell CNN November 10, 2021 11:00am-12:00pm PST
kenosha, wisconsin. it's been really an emotional day. at one point, rittenhouse sobbed on the witness stand. this happened as he described the moment before he started shooting. he shot three people, killed two of them. >> i was cornered from, they fronted me with mr. ziminski and there were -- there were -- people -- that's what i'm --
>> there were also fireworks from the judge directed at the prosecutor. >> you are already, you are -- i was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post arrest silence. that's basic law, has been for 40 years, 50 years. i have no idea why you would do something like that and it gives, well, i'll leave it at that. so i don't know what you're up to. just hours ago, i said i heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings. so why -- pardon me? >> that was before the testimony. >> don't get brazen with me. >> joining us now, we have jeffrey toobin. cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, joey jackson and shimon who is on the ground for us in kenosha. joey, how do you think the
defense has done at making kyle rittenhouse seem justified for using deadly force. >> don't get braizen. they've done excellent. putting aside this emotional piece, which was very powerful, people will debate was it real, the reality is i say they did well for the following reasons. number one, he explained himself with respect to why force was necessary. that when a gun was being raised at him, there was a witness who testified that lived and he came in and testified he shot him in the bicep. he said there was a gun pointed at me, i was in fear for my life. mr. rosenbaum, who grabbed his rifle, he explained the grabbing of the rifle. three, he explained how a skate board was being used as a bat to hit him. last point and that is that we
always talk about defendants with respect to conscious of guilt. they do something and run away. he actually turned himself into after the fact, there by negating that issue of guilt. talking about panic attacks, throwing up. the reality is that the jurors will render a verdict based upon all types of evidence but with regard to a defendant testifying, this couldn't have gone much better than it did and the cross couldn't touch him with respect to the prosecutor cross examining him to try to dis discredit him. >> two thoughts. one, what kind of idiot 17-year-old gets a giant gun and goes to a riot? he has no license. he has no training. he thinks he's going to scrub graffiti off with his ar-15? the stupidity of this. what could possibly go wrong? well, a lot. the good news for kyle rittenhouse is that he's not on
trial for being an idiot. he's on trial for homicide and in that respect, i mostly agree where joey that this is a tough case for the prosecution because it does seem like he has a plausible case of self-defense and you know, if it were illegal to be an idiot, the jails would be even more crowded than they are now. homicide's a different matter and you know, he may have a defense. >> before we go into the specifics in some of the really important poirnts of the cross-examination, what do you think of the case of what the lead prosecutor is doing right now? >> well, i don't think it's been ter ter terribly effective so far. i'd like to reserve judgment on that. it's going to go on for a while. he established that he intentionally shot. this wasn't some accident. this whole case comes down to self-defense and you know, the
recklessness with how he behaved. especially the second shot. the second victim i think is a stronger case because you know, he's saying well, people were attacking me. well since you just shot a kguy four times, maybe people were afraid of you. so i think there is the possibility for a different verdict on each of the two deaths. >> joey, one thing i wanted to bring up because you said basically that the prosecution hadn't been able to lay blame on him, but what about the depiction of him as sort of a want to be cop, a want to be fireman? vigilante? just before they broke for lunch, the prosecutor was saying so you don't know the difference mean ammo, bullets? you don't know whether you chambered the bullet in the gun. like basically showing he didn't know what he was doing with the ar-15 and showed up where he had no business being. >> that, you can argue is a
point, but not really. at the end of the day, what is this case about? self-defense. that's what you have to establish and the prosecution, to me, has to otherwise demonstrate why rittenhouse didn't do what he did properly. we can argue all day and all night, should we have been there? should have he have gotten the weapon in the first place? should he have asked his friend to get him the weapon? that's not the issue. the issue is when you were under attack, did you appropriately use force to preserve your life and if the jurors focus on that issue, i think they acquit, quite frankly. this is a very difficult case for the prosecution. >> the keywords there are under attack and that's what i would like to see the prosecutor focus on and the rest of the cross-examination, which is how much of a threat was he really under. because if the jury believes that he is fighting for his life, this is an acquittal and it should be, but if the prosecutor can show recklessness, which is part of one of the charges, then i think
they have a better chance and we really weren't that far along in the cross-examination, i think. we don't really know how long this is going to go, but i think the prosecutor has more to work with here. >> let's go to kenosha, wisconsin. shimon is there outside the courthouse. the moment that kyle rittenhouse broke down and sobbed there on the stand, what was the reaction from the jury? how did they respond? >> right. so victor, according to a full report, this is a reporter who was in the courtroom, there are only so many seats in the courtroom for reporters. so there's a pool reporter who said that the jury, as they were leaving when the judge broke for a short break after he broke down crying, after kyle rittenhouse broke down and started to cry, said that the jury seemed sympathetic to kyle rittenhouse. obviously a very significant moment. i can tell you having been inside the courtroom, the jury's
really been paying attention. a lot of them with clipboards, taking notes, listening to everything. so you know, that's the way this person certainly perceived, i don't know why this pool reporter felt that the jury was sympathetic. they don't really explain beyond that. but there were a lot of interesting moments on the direct examination. but also during the cross-examination. it would seem, jeffrey and joey would probably agree, this witness that rittenhouse has been well prepare. he's using keywords like he was ambushed. he was cornered. he was defending himself. listen to some of his responses to the prosecutor during the cross-examination. >> everybody that you shot at and intended to kill, correct? >> i didn't intend to kill them. i intended to stop the people who were attacking me. >> by killing them. >> i did what i had to do to stop the person who was
attacking me. >> by killing them. >> two of them passed away, but i stopped the threat from attacking me. >> by using deadly force. >> i used deadly force. >> that you knew was going to kill them. >> i didn't know if it was going to kill them, but i used deadly force to stop the threat that was attacking me. >> you intentionally used deadly force against joseph rosenbaum, correct? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against the man who came and tried to kick you in the face, right? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against anthony hubert? >> yes. >> against gauge. >> yes. >> with regard to joseph rosenbaum, you fired four shots at him, correct? >> yes. >> you intended to kill him, correct? >> i didn't intend to kill him. i intended to stop the person who was attacking me and trying to steal my gun. >> and one of the things when the jury, when this case is
finally done and the closing arguments are complete, the jurors are going to get instructions from the judge and they're going to have to consider, he's going to tell them, you need to consider what was going through the defendant's mind at the time. perception. other things. so that's why this testimony and the way kyle rittenhouse is explaining what he felt, what he saw, what he thought, that's why this is so important in all of this. >> we have to interrupt you. we're going to go back into the courtroom. this is judge bruce schroeder. >> does not preclude a retrial. i understand. there are exceptions to that, however. and the case that i am drawing this from is day versus state. it's 767588. it says an exception to this rule exists where defendant's motion is necessitated by prosecutorial impropriety designed to avoid an acquittal. now, what has happened in this,
this morning, was two times. the state had commented on mr. rittenhouse's right to remain silent. the first time he was admonished by the court. the second time, the court had the jury leave and readmonished him on that. prior to mr. rittenhouse testifying, this court addressed various things not only mr. rittenhouse, but the lawyers. you had cited various statues and asked if anything would be coming up, for example, one of the other things was 90404. you had said that based on the information that had come out of the trial, nothing had changed as it relates to your ruling. shortly there after, mr. binger stated and we looked it up. previously he said to mr.
rittenhouse, previously indicated that you wished to have your ar-15 to protect someone's property. clearly in violation not only of the prior ruling that you had made, but the rules that very day. that very morning. it appears to be that there are two really elements the court wants to consider when making a determination on a mistrial for what amounts to prosecutorial overreach and the first one is the prosecutor's actions must be intentional in the esense of a culpable state of mind and a nature of awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defense. i would argue to you that that's clearly where i'm at. you had warned him. you had told him prior to mr. rittenhouse testifying that things, certainly the 90404 was off limits. you had warned him on his right to remain silent. he did it again. the second one i think requires
some action by the court in terms of a finding. the second one says the prosecutor's actions was designed to allow another chance to convict. that is to provoke a mistrial in order to get another kick at the cat because the first trial is going badly or to prejudice the defendant's rights to successfully complete the criminal confrontation at the first trial. now, the case that i had cited is a kenosha case. state versus coping. >> copening. >> 100 with 200. yes, sir. in that case, the court didn't make findings. regarding the prosecutor's actions. so i don't know that it's my role to sit here and say who's winning. i don't think that's necessarily what i'm supposed to do.
but i think the court has to make some findings as it relates to the bad faith on the part of the prosecution and if the court makes a finding that the actions that i had talked about were done in bad faith, then i think both elements for mistrial with prejudice have been met and i think under the circumstances based on what i've put forth on the record, i would certainly ask the court to consider those and i would ask that the court grant the motion with prejudice. thank you. >> thank you. state? >> your honor, i would like an opportunity to inform fully respond to this with a little bit of research. at first blush though, and i reserve the right to present the case law in additional sites to
the court. but i do want to point out for the record that the defendant has presented interviews to at least one media source and at least one online source since his arrest. and there have been questions about that night. there have been questions about what he did. things like that. he has cited on advice of counsel not to give a statement to the media about what happened, but he's talking about his family life. his friends. the circumstances, the case. he's talking about how this has affected him. my point in asking those questions was you have agreed to talk to media. you've agreed to talk about yourself. you've agreed to give interviews, but until now, this is the first time you're
explaining your actions and somehow that wasn't referring to his in custody statements. in fact, i never asked either detective about what the defendant told him. he actually starts to tell them some things then he says he wants a lawyer. then he starts to tell them some thing, i want to talk to my lawyer. we're done. i'm not referring to that. i didn't ask any questions to detectives about that, but since the defendant has spoken to the media, he has talked about his life, about circumstances related to this case. he just hasn't given his exact version of events that night. so his voluntary discussion to speak to the media has nothing to do with fifth amendment. that is his own decision. and if he's going to pick and choose what he wants to talk about in those voluntary interviews with the media, i think that's fair game. it doesn't implicate his miranda
rights, the fifth amendment. he's making his own choice. >> wait a minute. you don't think he could give an interview about his awards he won in high school or his drs that he got? and about his sports activities and his swimming and that? and decline to answer any questions about the incident in question and that's somehow a waiver to his right to silence? >> i think he's doing more than that, your honor. i think -- >> i don't know. i knew nothing about them. i never, you know, i haven't seen all of, i haven't seen probably 1% of all the evidence, which is pretty typical, as you know, so i have no way of knowing and you have some interviews that he gave to a media or to whatever? >> yeah. there's an interview we're looking at right now from "the washington post" where he talks to them. i know there's one, i think it's either "the new yorker" or the
gq magazine where he speaks to the reporters, also. and he doesn't go into specific details about what happened that night, but it's not like it's talking about school or swimming or things like that. >> no, no, no. he doesn't go into specific details. there could be a waiver, but a discussion about the activities of that night and if you're suggesting that occurred, that could make a big difference. >> even a small discussion on his part of the night in question might be a full waiver. i don't know and i won't know until i see it. why don't you make copies of it. >> can we have a few minutes? >> well, we don't do it right now. i agree with you this is not something that i would want to do sitting here without giving him an opportunity to respond.
although i'd be interested in your preliminary response to the excluded evidence that you touched on. >> this is a "washington post" article where the defendant says he did not regret having his gun because quote, i would have died that night if i didn't, end quote. that's a direct quote from the defendant to the media about that night. >> what about that? >> all i can say is the prior counsel representing him -- >> i don't care about that. >> and i believe it was a telephone interview. i don't know anything about the circumstances of that. i'd have to read the article. >> well that might make a difference.
what about the, your asking questions about excluded evidence? >> your honor, the, we went over this earlier and i don't want to repeat myself because i know you've heard me. i did hear you talk about that evidence this morning before testimony. the defendant then took the stand. he admitted that he had said to the person in the yellow pants that he had pointed the gun at that person. i have seen that video. it was actually introduced by the defense. i think it was in their opening statement. and there's this person who confronts the defendant and accuses him of this. frankly, to be honest, your honor, when i watched the video the first time, i didn't hear the defense reaction. i thought it was someone making an accusation and then the defendant walking away as if trying to avoid confrontation.
i was surprised to hear the defendant admit in his testimony on direct by his attorney that yes, i did tell that person that i had pointed the gun at them. he explained then that he was joking when he said that. the jury can evaluate that. it goes to his credibility, telling the truth, to his decision making. that is again, an incident that occurred that night. presumably happened a few minutes before, but like i said, i was taken aback by the defendant admitting that he had said to this person, yes, i find it and i think it's fair to say that watching that video that that person, you know, believes strongly that this happened. the defendant is telling him that happened. now the def defendant today is
saying i was just joking, whatever. i'd like to probe that. i'd like to probe what he said to that person. i'd like to probe what his motivations were. i'd like to probe whether in fact he really did do that. and i think that that changes the equation with regard to the cbs video that was the subject of the other acts of motion because in my mind, it is very simple. i know we've disagreed on that, i'm not going to belabor the point. that was where i was coming from. there's been a change in the testimony of the defendant today that i think makes that evidence admissible and much more relevant than it already was and i thought it was already relevant and the court -- i do want to be clear -- >> i'm just here on the sidelines just to -- >> well -- >> i had made a ruling that that evidence wasn't coming in and you decided that it was. >> if i could just respond to that briefly, your honor, i was about to say i did not interpret
your ruling as an absolute -- we had three stay motions. there was one in which we asked the court to introduce evidence that the defendant was at pudgy's bar with proud boys. >> don't get into other subjects! come on, what's you're telling me, you're an experienced trial attorney and you're telling me that when the judge says i'm excluding this, you just take it upon yourself to put an end because you think that you've found a way around it? come on! >> if i can finish, you're ruyour ruling, there were some gradations there. you were clear that some things were absolutely out and you left the door open on other things. >> no. >> i saw that distinction and thought clearly i know this is out, but you left the door open on other things so i didn't interpret your ruling as this never coming in. i have practiced before here. i have filed other acts of
motions before you. your practice oftentimes is to reserve ruling on those until you see the evidence and i think you even said something to that effect. >> i did. i thought this is my good faith explanation to you and if you want to yell at me, you can. my good faith feeling this morning after watching this testimony was you had left the door open a little bit now we had something new and i was going to probe it. >> i don't believe you. there better not be another incident. i'll take the motion under advisement. and you can respond. when you say that you were acting in good faith. i don't believe that. okay? let's proceed. everybody in good faith. all right. >> your honor. >> i do have another item that i want to raise. before the jury comes in. and raise it with you.
there was another motion being at pudgy's bar in which he poses for selfies wearing a shirt that says, free as -- i would like to ask the defendant if he posed for selfies after a court appearance with members of the public wearing that shirt. i do not intend to talk about who those people were, what groups they were affiliated with, anything along those lines, but i believe it is relevant when the defendant goes to bar after a court appearance and poses for selfies like that. i think it is relevant. for example, his remorse or lack of remorse. his utter disregard for human life. those are things that i think it comes into play because i think that behavior is not consistent with someone who has a regard for human life. the jury's already watched him break down on the stand with emotion. i'd like to probe.
how heartfelt and sincere these emotions are when you go to a bar and you pose for selfies with people. when you're out on bond in a first degree intentional homicide trial wearing a free as -- shirt. i want to use the photograph. i'm not going to talk about any of the people or who they were from. in fact, photograph i'm going to use has their faces blocked out so we won't see any of the people in the crowd. we'll just see the defendant standing with a group of people for a selfie with that shirt on. that's as far as i want to go. >> this issue -- >> nobody got an -- first of all, you made a ruling on it and it was clear prior to him testifying. so part of this is would we have raised it, would we have brought it up if where he would have known it was going to be coming in? there's been nothing to open this door, judge. nothing that has been said to open the door about what happened four months after this
is relevant in any way to what happened that evening. that is part of what the court had ruled. you had said four months after. i don't see how that goes to any 90404 type of admissible evidence. so my argument is a, you ruled on it previous to him testifying. you confirmed your ruling, which you had made previously where mr. binger just said you had shut the door on it. so apparently, he doesn't believe a door that is shut should stay shut. however, now, he's asking that something be admitted that, to fair, this should have been brought up sooner. this jury, i would have. i did the voi deer. whether they heard it, saw it or were aware of it. how they felt about it. how it it had an impact.
we never went there because of your prior ruling. so there's nothing that's opened this door and i don't think it's relevant to something that happened four months later. you talked about indifference to human life. that night. not four months later. there's nothing, nothing that's relevant about that. you've already made your ruling. i ask that you stick with it. >> i'm strucggling with why it would be relevant to any of the issues in this case. you know, if you were on trial for using exquisitely bad judgment. if he were on trial for behaving in a very offensive way, then i could see the purpose. but an incident that occurred four months after, i don't see how the jury can work with that
about the issues in this case. >> first of all, your honor, we have introduced evidence that the defendant had a slogan on his tiktok page, just trying to be famous. this case has made him famous and he's posing for selfies as a result. one of our theories on this case is his behavior that night was to gain attention. to be famous and he's reaped the benefits of that. second of all, he is on trial in my opinion for exquisitely poor decision making. taking a done that he's not legally entitled to have, coming down disregarding curfew, trying to be a police officer when he's not. confronting protesters that he knows are hostile and all those behaviors are exquisitely bad judgment. the jury can make that decision. they can give what weight they want to this evidence, but it's moments after he has a court appearance here. he's on, out on bond in this
case when he decides to do this behavior and nobody made him do it. nobody forced him to go to the bar. nobody forced him to wear the shirt. nobody forced him to pose for selfies. it's his own decision making. >> you know, when i made reference to exquisitely poor judgment, i was talking about at the incident when he was wearing the shirt because look, everybody in all of humanity at one time or another displays bad judgment. sometimes exquisitely bad judgment. and we don't let it into people's trials. so i wasn't referring to his having had good or bad judgment on the day in question. that's a legitimate inquiry and you're being allowed to present a lot of evidence on that subject and the jury is going to be instructed in some of the element of some of the crimes that are charged here is going to deal with the caliber of his
judgment. but you're talking about an incident that occurred four months later. so i'm not seeing it. i don't want to waste any more time with it. i -- i've ruled before it's not admissible and i have heard nothing to change my mind about. >> it was sought to be admitted earlier for a different purpose than it is today. this court has ruled it can't be admitted for the prior purpose, but i've seen you introduce it for a different purpose today. >> and that question is denied. >> thank you. >> okay. are w are we ready to go? >> as they bring in the jurors, jury, we can talk a moment, i think. >> yeah. >> what did you just hear there, joey? z >> a number of things.
a prosecutor who made motions in lemonade. it means what are we going to do during the course of trial? what's going to be admissible, what's not? prosecutor wants to ask him and c confront him about various things the defendant did. he made ref terence to two specific incidents. the judge apparently excluded those in a prior motion. what the prosecutor is saying is that the defendant has opened the door, exactly. the judge shot that down. before that, we heard the defense ask for a mistrial with prejudice meaning in the event the judge declared a mistrial, this is over, we're done. and that would be relying on the bad faith of the prosecutor in his cross-examination in which he ran afoul of the judge's rules and if that were to happen, and it may still happen. the judge said i will take that under advisement. >> all right, i think the
prosecutor has resumed his cross-examination of kyle rittenhouse. let's listen. no audio yet. the motion for a mistrial with prejudice went specifically to the line of questioning. specifically the right to remain silent. the right to not comment on the trial over the time of the last year. >> right. most of the time when there's a mistrial, it just means everybody starts over then there's a new trial. there are certain circumstances when the prosecution, according to the judge, believes that it's losing and wants to start over and they somehow just intentionally blow up the case. in those circumstances, the judge can say, we're stopping and you can't come back again. >> let's go back into the courtroom.
good afternoon, mr. rittenhouse. >> good afternoon. >> you testified earlier that there were times that evening when mr. rosenbaum had threatened you. is that right? >> yes. >> and you described him as wearing a red shirt with a blue bandanna. is that correct? >> at certain times. >> yeah. when he threatened you, that's what he was wearing? >> i believe the first time he threatened me, he was wearing a red shirt with a blue bandanna. the second time, he had it wrapped around his face. >> had what wrapped around his face? >> his t-shirt. >> so he wasn't wearing a shirt
the second time around. >> correct. >> and you indicated at one point, you thought he had a chain in his hand. >> i believe so. >> when he made the threat to you with the red shirt on, blue bandanna, did he have a chain in his hand? >> i think one of the times he did. >> okay. so which of the times was it? >> i can't recall. off the top of my head. i think it was the time when he was threatening to cut people's hearts out. >> i don't need to know the threat. just which time it was. the first time or the second time. >> second time. the second time. >> what was he wearing the second time? >> he was masked, well, the shirt wrapped around his face. >> and he didn't have -- he didn't have a shirt on his torso. >> correct. >> and you could see when he didn't have a shirt on his torso, that he didn't have any gun tucked in his waistband, correct?
>> i wasn't paying attention to that. i was behind joanne. somewhere over there. >> so how far away were you from mr. rosenbaum when he made the second threat? >> i -- 15, ten, 15 feet. i'm not really certain. >> but you were close enough to hear the words out of his mouth. >> yes. >> and you took that as a threat to you, personally? >> the first one, where he said if i catch you alone, i'm going to kill you. the second time, i took it as a threat to the group. >> can we have that photo, exhibit 138, up on the screen, please?
do you see mr. rosenbaum in this picture? >> i do. >> and he's in the middle wearing the red shirt with the blue bandanna carrying the plastic bag, correct? >> yes. >> is that the way he looked when he made the first threat to you? >> when he said if i catch you alone, yes. >> and he was carrying that plastic bag. >> correct. >> how close was he when he made the first threat to you? >> close. i couldn't give you an exact estimate, but he was close. less than 5 feet. >> so closer than madam court reporter is to you now? >> i'd say about the same if not a little bit closer. >> and you were next to mr. vulch? >> correct. >> was anyone else there besides you, mr. vulch and mr. rosenbaum? >> i believe there were other demonstrators around. >> and you've seen in this trial there's been a lot of video
footage of that night, correct? >> yes. >> and you've seen in this trial that there's a lot of video footage of you that night, correct? >> yes. >> you'd agree with me there's no video of either one of these ath threats, correct? >> i don't know if somebody filmed it that i'm aware of right now. >> you're not aware of any, are you? >> i'm not. >> so mr. rosenbaum looked like that at the time of the first threat, then looked different at the time of the second threat. is that right? >> yes. >> did you say he was carrying the chain when he made the first or second threat? >> the second. >> and still carrying the plastic bag sfl. >> yes. >> it has a clear side to it that allows you to see inside of it, right? >> sort of. i didn't really look into the bag. >> so you didn't know what was in the bag at all? >> i didn't. >> did he swing the chain at you when he made the second threat sfl. >> he did not. >> did he physically touch you
when he made the second threat? >> ino, he didn't. >> in fact, that entire evening, he never once touched your body. >> he grabbed my gun when he attacked me. >> that's why i asked the question the way i did. he never touched your body that night, correct? >> he didn't touch me physically. >> and neither the first or second time did he run or charge at you. >> he didn't chase me. >> he didn't even do anything physically to you, did he? >> no. >> he just said some words. >> yes. >> and that chain that he had in his hand, he never did anything to physically threaten you with that chain, correct? >> yes. >> is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and other than the chain that you described, at no point in the evening did you ever see joseph rosenbaum with any other
type of weapon, correct? >> not that i saw. >> never saw him with a gun? >> correct. >> a bat? >> correct. >> club. >> correct. >> how far apart in time were these two threats that you say mr. rosenbaum made to you? i can't give you a definite time. i wasn't looking at my clock. within the same hour. >> and both occurred while you were on the 59 street property? >> the second threat happened at the corner and the first threat happened at towards ruther central high school. >> could you use that laser pointer and point out on that map where the first threat occurred? >> the first threat happened
right here in front of the building. >> so you're pointing at a location that is by the 59th street car source on the south side of that property along the building and sheridan road, on the west side of the road. would that be accurate? >> yes. >> you said there was a second threat within an hour after that. correct? >> yes. >> where was that threat at? >> it was somewhere over here i remember. on the other side of the property. towards ruther central. >> more towards the northeast corner of that same property. >> correct. >> but you were still on the car source property when that second threat was allegedly made, correct? >> yes. >> did you remember what mr. rosenbaum had said to you later on when he's confronting you at
the 63rd street car source? >> i took a mental picture of his face when he said those threats, i recognized he said that when he started chasing me. >> so when you are running away from him at the 63rd street car source, you're thinking to yourself, this is the guy who had made a threat to me earlier. is that fair to say? >> i was thinking this is the guy that said if he catches me alone, he'll kill me, as i'm running away from him. >> the reason i ask, mr. rittenhouse, is how did you know it was the same guy when he's changed the way he looks? >> his appearance. the shorts, his height. >> but in both of those instances, he's got something covering his face. either the blue bandanna or the red shirt in a different instance. >> he was wearing the red shirt when he chased me, around his head. >> so you remember that from the
second time you say he threatened you. >> yes. >> and you thought to yourself, this is the same guy. >> yes. >> so when you eventually were getting to the point where you were going down the 63rd street car source, right before the shooting, you recognized him as you were following him down the street, didn't you? >> i didn't follow mr. rosenbaum down the street. >> he was in front of you, you know that now. >> i know that now. >> but you didn't see him ahead of you as you were walking down there that night? >> no, it was dark out. >> but you start running towards that lot. right? >> towards the fire in the duramax. >> and mr. rosenbaum is running ahead of you, isn't he? >> i don't believe so. >> but you decided you needed to run because of the fire in the duramax? >> yes. >> why? what was so urgent. >> it was a fire. >> there's fires all over the
place. so? >> i was get to the fire to put it out. >> we'll get back to that in a second. you indicated that while you were at the 59th street car source, you said you put out a fire at the church next door. is that right? >> yes. >> did you hear joanne's testimony yesterday that when you guys went over there, somebody had put some sort of flammable liquid on the door? did you hear that? >> i believe that was referring to the ruther central high school. >> o kay, so you think she was getting it confused? >> yes. >> so whatever happened with this flammable liquid on the door, the point is some other group, some other people, put that out before you even got there. >> correct. >> why did you feel that you
should go around off the 59th street car source property and put out fires? >> to make sure my community didn't get burnt down and help. >> when you say your community. you mean kenosha? >> yes. >> again, you're from antioch. you're not living in kenosha when this happened. >> my dad lives in kenosha. >> lots of people live in kenosha, but you didn't. >> my residence was in antioch. >> but you felt like you wanted to do things to protect this community. fair? >> the community that i was part of, yes. >> and you felt like it was appropriate for you to take matters into your own hands to put out fires, for example. >> to put out firings by using a fire extinguisher, yes.
>> even though they weren't on the 59th street property. >> correct. >> were there other things you decided it would appropriate for you to go out there and take care of off the 59th street property that night? >> i was walking around asking people if they needed medical help. >> so you felt you wanted to go out, help people, help protect people, help people feel better, even off the 59 street. >> provide first aid. >> normally in our regular society, that's something that we call 911 for, right? >> normally, yes. >> where we headed? >> i think that the defendant's decisions to go off that property and involve himself in other matters are relevant, your honor. >> well i'll let you pursue it,
but -- >> that's exactly how these shootings happen. so. >> that's what the trial is about. >> which is why -- >> go ahead. i -- go ahead. >> normally, we would, if there's a fire, if there's somebody in a crime, they call 911. >> normally, yes. >> you didn't feel like you could do that that night, correct? >> i don't think -- i saw from the nights prior that the fire department wasn't responding to put out fires. >> well, the nights before there were businesses on fire along 22nd avenue. there was the car source. large scale property fires on the prior nights, correct? >> yes. >> on the night of august 25th, didn't have any fires like that. just a couple of dumpsters,
smaller things, right? >> that i saw, yes. >> can't hear you, sir. >> that i saw, yes. >> but regardless of how big the fire is, you felt that night that you calling 911 was not an option, correct? >> i didn't feel that if i called 911, anyone would show up. >> which is why you decided to take care of it yourself, correct? >> to provide first aid and put out fires. >> to do the things that normally we would expect the police or the fire department to do. correct? >> to help people, yes. >> could you please move that microphone a little closer so we can make sure we can hear everything you say?
thank you. >> going to interrupt. how's the temperature, how many are comfortable the way things are? okay. i won't even ask this. see you, ice cubes, there's nothing to worry about. must be blowing differently here. go ahead, mister. >> you came to kenosha that night armed with the ar-15 and no other ways to physically defend yourself. correct? >> i had an ar-15, yes. >> other than that, you had no other weapons or devices that you could use to defend yourself that night, correct? >> yes. >> and there's an interview in which you say you're not carrying anything non-lethal. do you recall that? >> i do. >> you indicated in response to one of your attorney's questions
that there was no friction with the protesters that night. did i understand you correctly? >> by friction, you mean -- >> well, i'm using your words, using your words sir, i heard you say in response to your attorney's question there was no friction with the protesters that night, did i hear you correctly? >> yes. >> and you're describing what you observed when you were at the 59th streetcar source, fair enough? >> yes. >> so based on your several hours at that location, it seemed to you as though the crowd of however you want to describe them, they have been call rioters, protesters, demonstrators, and you, things were fine, no tension, no friction, no nothing, fair to say? >> for the most part, other than mr. rosenbaum. >> he was the only one. >> that threatened, yes. >> that you saw. >> yes.
>> hey, hey, hey. reel it in. don't cause problems when there's none here. >> that's true, just stay on your property. >> protect your property. >> there's way too many of them. >> protect your property, not the streets. protect your property, not the streets. protect your property, not the streets. protect your property, not the streets. protect your property, not the streets. protect your property, not the streets. >> i have to agree with her, you shouldn't be on the street. >> they're just protecting their property. >> i thought they were yelling. why? >> one of the guy's is losing his patience. you should go inside. >> that's what we're about to do! just switch them out. somebody is a loose canyon, he's got a lot of rage, he says wrong
thing, and. >> protect your property. they're respecting that. just keep it there. >> let's keep moving guys. >> we're not the enemies. >> dude, he's just trying to protect hi s property. you have problems right now. >> do you think that looks like friction? >> a little bit. >> and you witnessed that, didn't you? >> i didn't witness what mr.
collette did, i didn't see that. >> you saw the reaction from the crowd? >> i wasn't paying much attention to that. >> would you agree it seems that the crowd was reacting to members of your group going out in the street and trying to interfere with what was going on off your property? >> i don't think they were happy about it. >> and in fact, chrison harris, specifically told you to stay on your property and not go out on the street and try and put out fires or interfere with any of that stuff, just protect your property. isn't that what he told you? >> i believe so. i was just going to grab the garbage can, the dumpster that belonged to the car source that was on the car source property. >> this is before you headed south towards the 63rd streetcar
source, right? >> yes. >> this is before you decided to go down there with a fire extinguisher, correct? >> yes. >> this is before you shot mr. rosenbaum, mr. huber, mr. grosskreutz and the person that was jumping over you, correct? >> yes. >> so you knew that this was a crowd that would not react very favorably to you going out there and trying to put out fires and interfere with that stuffer, you knew that, didn't you? >> i didn't. >> even after that incident, you still didn't have any idea that this is a crowd that's not going to take it very well? >> it seems like they were more mad at the part of him screaming what he screamed after, not putting out the fire. that's what it seemed like to me. >> and he screams to them, fuck around and find out. >> that's what he screamed to them. >> after they had just tried to light a dumpster on fire, right? >> yes.
so. >> what did you interpret that to mean? >> i don't know. i didn't witness in the time. i just grabbed the dumpster a minute after and tried to pull it on to the property. >> because it seems to me he's saying you light stuff on fire, and i'm going to use my gun. >> your honor, that's a total mischaracterization. >> i'll withdraw the question. >> what it seems to you, you can ask your questions, that's fine, go ahead. >> it was shortly after that incident that we just watched where you were interviewed by ritchie mcginniss correct, you've never heard of him, never dealt with him before this night? >> i have not. >> why did you talk to him? >> he seemed like a nice guy. >> did he introduce himself as
from the media? >> he didn't specifically said, hey, i'm from the media, he was like hey, do you want to do an interview? >> and when you heard him ask you to do an interview, you didn't think that meant he's from the media. >> no, that's not what i said. i said he didn't specifically say he was from the media. >> but you assumed when he says i'm going to interview you that he's from the media, right? >> yes. >> and did he tell you he's from the daily caller. >> he did not. >> so you didn't know what media company he worked for? >> correct. >> but you agreed to have him interview you on camera, correct? >> yes. can we please play exhibit number 16? .
>> what are you doing out here, obviously you're armed and you're in front of this business last night, so what's up? >> i got to press secretary -- [ inaudible ] >> and then what about these guys up on the roof? got you. >> in that video, you indicate that you have your ar-15 to protect yourself, correct? >> yes. >> and you indicate that you're going to run out there and treat anyone who needs medical help, correct? >> yes.
>> were you going to bring the gun along when you did that? >> yes. >> to defend yourself while you're treating someone? >> if i needed to defend myself while treating somebody, yes. >> if you didn't think there was friction with the crowd and you're out there trying to help, why did you expect there to be any danger? >> from the previous nights when i saw people being assaulted. >> were they medics being assaulted? >> i don't know who they were. i know one of them was just trying to put out a fire at his business. >> so you saw someone who was trying to put out a fire who got assaulted? >> yes. >> but if you're going to help people, why would you expect anyone would try and hurt you? >> i don't know. somebody did try to hurt me, and i was helping people. >> well, that came -- you're talking about on