tv America Reports With John Roberts Sandra Smith FOX News November 15, 2021 10:00am-12:00pm PST
why didn't the governor do more? we are going to continue to watch it with you because we are going to continue our coverage of the closing arguments and let kyle rittenhouse "america repo." >> sandra: thank you peer fox news alert. the trial has broken for lunch for a few minutes. they're expected to resume her and 1:45 p.m. eastern time. the jury could begin deliberating as early as this afternoon. i'm sandra smith in new york. >> john: good to start a new weekly. i'm john roberts in washington. the jury will decide whether he acted in self-defense on that night or whether reckless actions of the then 17-year-old were the reasons that human are dead. he's facing life in prison if convicted on the most serious charges against him. all of this as this has wisconsin governor is putting
national guard on standby as at the state prepares for potential unrest. >> sandra: coverage begins now andy mccarthy is here to weigh in. >> john: first, alexis mcadam in kenosha, wisconsin, with the very latest that wrapping up from the trial. we have seen 30%-40% of prosecution. what we know so far? >> good afternoon. a lot unfolding here in kenosha. closing arguments have just started and they took a break. the jury went on for lunch and they will come back in about one hour or so. one of the important things to realize in this investigation in this trial is that the judge dismissed a weapons charge against carl rittenhouse. it was count six. they dropped it based off of the size of the weapon that was used under wisconsin law. that was account six for a dangerous weapon by person under 18 years old. just hours ago, the court ruling that the language in wisconsin law does not actually ban a 17-year-old from carrying a rifle with a long barrel. he was 17 when he shot three
men, killing two during the unrest following the police shooting of jacob lake. they replay the moments leading up to the shootings in kenosha. prosecution played close attention to the direction of his gun. >> and other things to keep in mind that when the defendant provokes the incident, he loses the right to self defense. you cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create. speak up both sides will have two and half hours for their closing arguments. judge allowing jurors to consider some lesser charges. legal experts tell us that trail could help get a conviction. last summer, they were hit hard during the unrest. you can see here. the business alliance told me the more than 100 businesses were either badly damaged or destroyed. as a trolley wraps up, business owners keep replaying the chaos from last summer. >> trading off evil for evil never helps. civil unrest did not solve
anything. maybe this year we can see things a little bit different. >> although business owners here and committee members in general are on edge, we have not seen any of those businesses boarding up. some of them never took down the boards because they never came back to those locations after the unrest. as we wait for the judge's decision, the sheriff's department tells me that they're not expecting any problem, but they're prepared and they have national guardsmen on standby. sandra and john. >> john: in kenosha, more to come throw the rest the afternoon. >> sandra: thank you. let's bring in andy mccarthy, former u.s. attorney for the district of new york and fox's conservator. and, you been taking service trial. where is this going? >> you can tell by the very fiery and somewhat demagogic arguments that the prosecutors making that it is usually a signal they are worried about the weakness of the case. we heard things in the first hour or so of the prosecutor's
statement about how rittenhouse did not belong in the street and he did not have any owner dominic on her. he was out after curfew at all sites at things that he is not charged with in the case. none of those things are crimes or charged as crimes in the case. he referred to rittenhouse a number of times as a murderer which is a provocative work. that's a thing that needs to be proved in a trial. it has not been proved that he has a murder in the sense of wisconsin law. there's a lot of that stuff that is objectionable that has gone on. he told them a big part of rittenhouse's defense is that the conduct of this guy, josh was in in ski who was a comforting the first guy who was shot, joseph rosenbaum. with the prosecutor said it was it do not worry about ziminski
because i'm going to prosecute him for arson come january. that's not really that relevant to the trial and he's not supposed to be testifying about what he's going to be doing is prosecutor. he is to deal with the facts of the case. that's not what he wants to get to. >> john: before the jury was brought in to receive the instructions, judge kroger said that if he was acting lawfully in self defense, "the ball game is over." amongst the prosecution's presentation on the death of joseph rosenbaum, you see the chase through the car parking lot and rittenhouse turns and fired the first shot. it appears before rosenbaum got him. does that constitute self-defense? they made the case that he did not have his hands on rittenhouse's weapon but he did seem to be reaching out for him. he was trying to corner him in the area as rittenhouse slow
down. what are your thoughts in that particular point. don't? >> it is a very controversial testimony and argument because it is based on a video that the prosecution has tried to blow up. whether it's a fair and accurate video is something that has been in dispute. there's a lot of testimony going on between the prosecutor about what he thinks he sees in the video. it will be for the jury to decide that. what the prosecutor is trying to do here is slow something down that happened in rapid-fire passion so that the prosecutor cannot just put his spin on with the images show, but even suggest that the firing which was done in a burst of firing was almost like a set of disconnected actions so that rittenhouse was performing with
intent and respect every bullet that was fired in sequence. i think the defense is going to dispute whether the video actually shows what the prosecutor contends it shows. >> sandra: the prosecution is going to resume their closing argument when the court reconvenes. we know that's expected as a judge stated around 1:45 p.m. eastern time. to go back to the earlier point on the prosecution, focusing in on rittenhouse's motive of being in kenosha. that's what we just heard before they broke. he said, "was he generally interested in helping people? "he ran around with an air of 15 all night and lied about being an emt." does that suggest to you that he is genuinely there to help? what you expect only come back one quarter to 2:00. take us to the day where you forecasting to be a very long one. >> you are going to the weakness
of the case he's not being charged whether he's there to help people or not or whether his motives were pure or authentic in the way he described them on a stand. there's very specific charges here. he is charged with killing people under circumstances where the issue in the case as it he the assailant was he the victim of other assailants and shot under circumstances where he was able, because it was natural right and legal right, to have . that's the trial. when you have all of the purple fiery rhetoric, it's indication that they do not want to deal with what is actually the facts of the case which is that he is not pursuing people. he is being pursued. that is how all of these different exchanges happen. what is happening now is that
the defense is going off of what it is. the prosecutor toward the jury at the beginning of the remarks that they are going to try to slam him when it's their turn. it will happen about an hour or so into the afternoon. that will go on for about two hours here at the prosecutor, because prosecution always has the burden of proof, they get to go lapsed. they get rebuttal. we will see if the judge sends them out to deliberate or not to pending on how late it gets and if the jury wants to go home or not. >> john: there is a very important ruling from the judges morning. disallowing that the additional charge of illegal possession of a firearm by a minor saying he has gone over the law and he cannot quite figure it out. it seemed down to bare links. if it had been a short barrel gone it might've been illegal for kyle rittenhouse to possess that. but it seemed to be a legal barrel length for him to possess at the time. i want to come back to the idea
of slowing down the video. as you are talking there an answer to sander's question, we are seeing it up on the screen. you believe that the prosecutor's strategy is to slit on the video in order to create a greater time gap, as it worked, between rosenbaum pursuing an closing in on rittenhouse and rittenhouse firing. slowing down to get a good look on it but you think he is trying to put together a time i cared to make things seem so they take longer than what they actually did? >> he said as much. in fact, he said once he starts shooting, it's not like just because you have a gun that is capable of firing fast you are at liberty to fire fast. he had to make up his mind with respect to each shot whether he was justified in making it or not. it's almost as if he formed a contained box of intent with regard to beach fighting when
what happened out there happen quickly in a burst of fire not in a bunch of disconnected shots. i do think he is trying to do the time lag and his point is to say that even if you think rittenhouse had a self-defense that was valid with respect to the first shot or the second shot, by the time he takes the third shot, rosenbaum is disabled and there's no reason for him to continue. that's what he's trying to say. i think that is a very artificial and misleading way to interpret what happened. speech i was reading through notes here and you see that one of the things they were arguing about was whether he should instruct the jury five separate times on the pimples of self-defense or just do it once and tell them it applies to all. didn't that point more because i think people have questions based on what they're hearing from the judge there as far as instructors to the jury. >> the instruction was a mess.
i don't understand what they did here. they gave the jury the day off on friday and they had, was known in the business as a charging conference. in civil trials as well, the lawyers have an argument in which the judge presides over about what the jury is going to be instructed about the law at the end of the case. in fact, that is so important in federal tiles lake in the district of new york where i was prosecutor. that way everybody knows what is going to be sent to the jury at the end when they are making their arguments. if something comes up, as it always does when the lawyers are making their arguments, the judge can add that to the charge of what he's going to tell the jury at the hunt. it's a much more efficient process. they obviously did not work out
all of the nuances of the instructions including what he was going to say about self-defense and how often he was going to say it. you had this strange and disjointed part of the session this morning where in the middle of giving the instructions, the judge sends the jury out of the room and they have an argument about something that is not tangential and the main issue in the trial which is a self-defense charge. you would think that is something that would have been worked out over the weekend before they started rather than having to have a big argument this morning. >> sandra: andy mccarthy. if you could stand by with us, we appreciate you joining us. we are again in the lunch session of the day. we do expect they will resume there in the courtroom at 145 eastern time. andy, thank you. >> john: just a half-hour for now. criminal defense attorney mars eyeglass. the chips are all on the table now for the prosecution. the assistant district attorney
there for kenosha county makes the case. do you think so far of the case? strong, weak, somewhere in between? >> i like how he started. anyone who is being intellectually honest, regardless of what side you are on, what wonders why it was he there question what should he have been there? should he been there with that kind of weapon? it's a fair place to start. it is going to be once he is there, was he reasonably using deadly force? the answer is, i think, yes. >> sandra: interesting. i'm reading through jonathan turley's notes and it references back to what we were talking about andy mccarthy about the instructions at the jury was receiving. he said that rittenhouse is having a hard time with the mind-numbing jury instructions which is almost 40 pages keynotes. he's yawning which is never good for a defendant in front of a jury. his age may help, but the jury and yawning and i do expect some
jurors may be longing for caffeine as well. it's going to be a long day and a lot of this is the optics that we are taking in as we have an inside look at that courtroom. what did you make this morning of what you've seen so far and firm done in terms of the interaction with the judge i'm a prosecution, defense, and rittenhouse himself? >> there is a reason why never have you ever seen on any team he drama or every movie about the law the jury instructions being discussed and read to the jurors. it is the most boring part of the trial. i yawn during that part. i'm always trying to hit my clients and wake them up. they were yawning and they were confused. it's quite scary. it really is. the power of jurors is enormous and they have to understand what the law is. there is no way they understand what was read to them. it comes down to a visceral
decision. is it what he did justified? is it reasonable? the prosecution, they're going to pound provocation. it might've been reasonable. he should not of been there to begin with. those are the things that jurors can get their heads around. >> john: let me ask you about the topic of provocation, mark. one of the ideas of provocation got taken off the table this morning when the judge said that it appears as though he was in lawful possession of the weapon and there for the misdemeanor charge is going to be removed from the instructions of the jury. had he been illegally imposition of the firearm, that could have been seen as provocation which would negate the self-defense argument. now the prosecution have to make another case for provocation. when kyle rittenhouse raised his weapon at a couple of people who were on that car lot parking lot, that was the provocation that started off the whole scene where he was being chased the same parking lot.
it is not an effective argument, do you think, on the part of the prosecution question works because it needs to be made. it is a great argument. but the provocation starts way before that. if any of your loved ones was ever killed at the hands of someone like the scum of the first question would ask is why are they there? what are they doing there? why is a teenager whose frontal lobe of earning reason and judgment is not fully judge yet. what is he doing with the weapon? that is -- even if you or any a staunch supporter of an acquittal. that is the provocation. that is why is he there? he so determined to be there and he's claiming to be an emt when he's not just to be there. that said, just so we're clear, i still believe that once he is there, and human being intellectually honest would say that the use of force was necessary under those circumstances. and when being reasonable would have felt in genuine fear based on the circumstances that were confronting him. spam let me drill out on that
and a second, i'm sorry sandra. we have a different arguments here. you're saying there was a provocation from him being there, but in the chase began, he was legitimately in fear of his life. if there was a provocation, that negates a self-defense argument. speak out the argument can be made that there is provocation. i'm merely telling you with the prosecutors going to argue. i still don't believe that it rises to the level legally where the jurors are going to say that he brought this on himself to the extent going to take away self-defense claim. i still think it's going to be an acquittal. i still think he reasonably feared great bodily harm. however, it is fair for the prosecution to pound on that point. it is their only and best argument. he should not have been there to begin with. >> sandra: jonathan turley also said that prosecution clearly wants and it's still possible embracing the lesser offense. though still remain very serious accounts. tell us about that. >> i cannot stand when
prosecutors bring lesser included offense into a case like this. either he's guilty or he's not. either use reasonable force or he didn't. what ever other lesser charges you're going to bring and are clearly forgiving the jurors somewhere to go just to give both sides what they want. i cannot stand it and i hate it when they do it my trials. it's all or nothing. quite frankly, you either feel like it was reasonable to force them to use it or it wasn't. i don't think that the lesser should be in play. >> john: you would think that as a prosecutor if you believed in the case they brought to court, you would stick with that case and not try to modify it in the last closing moments of the case. mark eiglarsh was some food for thought. we appreciate you coming in. break in closing arguments and we will take you back to the courtroom as soon as that gets back underway. probably in about 25 minutes or so from now. >> sandra: plus two migrant caravans making the way from mexico getting ready to join forces. when will they meet and where
they had a next? we will be right back. this is an important mortgage rate watch alert for veteran home owners. mortgage rates are starting to climb nationally, but newday is holding the line at just two and a quarter percent, 2.48 apr, still the lowest in their history. if you're one of the thousands of homeowners with va loans who haven't yet refinanced, one call to newday is all it takes. there's no appraisal and no out of pocket costs. save an average of $3,000 a year. [engine humming] [clapping] “we will rock you” by queen ♪ the new gmc sierra with hands-free driving offers the most advanced and luxurious pick-up in its class. ♪
yeah, it rocks. ♪ my songs know what you did in the dark ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ i'm on fire ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ i'm on fire ♪ ♪ oh-oh-oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh-oohohh ♪ ♪ in the dark, dark ♪ new cheetos boneless wings. exclusively at applebee's.
>> sandra: president biden and chinese president xi jinping are set to hold their first summit later tonight and it will be held virtually. it will be amongst economic tensions of the countries in all of this including america's commit to defending taiwan. republican lawmakers are pushing biden to push beijing for transparency and cooperation in the covid origins probe. that will be happening on later on tonight but as things continue to go these days, it will be a virtual summit between these leaders.
president biden has a lot to talk to him about. what is he going to say back? take a look at what china is doing militarily and economically, i think is a lot of leverage over the president. >> sandra: we hope to get a full read out of what happens appeared to your point, i don't know. where do you begin? >> john: you can start with covid and go right into nuclear weapons, i guess. then taiwan and some the other issues as well. the vaccine mandate suffering as well. the federal appeals court declining to lift its day on the requirement for large businesses. this happens as "washington post" abc shows that the president rating is at 41% in that survey. that could be bad news as he makes a big push for his agenda. peter doocy live on white house lawn with the very latest including a growing rift in the administration and the president's staff and vice presidents. as the west wing rushing to
harris as defense or? because they are. it's palace intrigue. reports of the vice president is unhappy with the portfolio she is been given by the biden team. it rose to the level of the rare jen psaki sunday night tweet. for anyone who needs to hear it, vp is not only a vital partner to potus but potus but both leaders taken key and important challenges saving the country from voting rights to root causes a migration to expanding broadband. 59% of those polled by "the washington post" and abc news say that they are concerned that the president's plan is going to make the government to bake. however, starting today come of already heard it. they are pushing to make the government bigger. they want the safety net, the social safety net, to be bigger. they want to spend a few trillion dollars on new
government programs and also expand existing ever meant programs. this morning, the deputy press secretary explained why they think that big government is the answer. >> if we want to lower cost for families, the build back better act is something that we are going to continue to push. your talk about elder care, child care. we're talking about universal pre-k for three and 4-year-olds. making sure the prescription drugs are affordable. >> 90 minutes from now, we expect to see the president and a group of elected officials. some lawmakers from capitol hill. we know that the governor of maryland is going be signing that and it's not until 8:00 tonight until he has at virtual meeting with president she about as late as anything on the schedule since he took office. spew and we know what part of the portfolio she is unhappy
with? is it the trip to france? >> i does site and ominous sources that they gave her the hard stuff. the root causes of migration. it's tough to make it politically when the facts of the situation are not great like they are at the border right now. it's things like that. >> john: they could've given her afghanistan. peter doocy for us at the white house. center. speak to a leader meanwhile leading a caravan of over a thousand central american migrants. expected to meet up with another caravan ten times larger before heading to the u.s.-mexico border. the two groups and to converge on thursday. that is the same date that president biden is set to meet with the leaders of canada and mexico to discuss pressing issues facing north america. john, that includes immigration.
since president biden took office, custom officials have encountered and that number is in a 1.4 million migrants at the southwest border. a new statement by the white house, north american leaders in the discussion will focus on reaffirming their tides and developing a regional vision for migration. what that tells us about management at the border, i don't know. >> john: and it's not just on northern triangle countries which is what the vice president has been focusing on. at south america and the caribbean. so me other places as well. closing arguments, sandra, in the kyle rittenhouse trial set to resume in 16 minutes or so. the jury could get the case as soon today. maybe tomorrow morning. have social media giants already convicted rittenhouse? how the trial played out online before one piece of evidence was even entered into the court
record. >> sandra: plus, inflation goes up and biden's poll numbers go down. the white house plan to spend more? ready to go on this one and will be joined live next. the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, now introducing ensure complete! with 30 grams of protein. do you struggle with occasional nerve aches
>> sandra: steve bannon expected to appear in court moments after surrendering to fbi. biden doj charged him with two counts of criminal contempt of congress. one for refusing to appear before the january 6th panel in the second to refuse it of. a giving documents. each count faces a maximum sentence of one year behind bars if convicted. >> john: fox news alert that the double murder trial against kyle rittenhouse and the short break expected to resume with closing arguments from the prosecutor in about 11 minutes
time. the defense will follow that. alexis mckinnon's live outside the courthouse and wisconsin and what we could see in the coming hours. >> good afternoon. those deliberations should be getting here after the closing arguments wrap up. the judge did it dismiss a charge against kyle rittenhouse as a misdemeanor against the teenager. it was for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor. it came down to the size of the weapon that was used in the shooting here in kenosha, wisconsin. the language in wisconsin does not actually ban a 17-year-old from karen rifle with a long barrel. rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three men killing to following the unrest of the police shooting of jacob blake. prosecutors replaying those moments here in wisconsin. kyle rittenhouse cannot claim the shootings were in self-defense. >> under wisconsin law, you are not allowed to run around and
point you're gonna people. this is a provocation. this is what starts the incident. the defendant rushes in and immediately points a gun. as you see, mr. rosenbaum does not take kindly to people pointing out's. >> and they play that video a couple of times for the jury. today, both sides have two and a half hours for the closing arguments. the judge told jurors he would stop deliberations tonight by 5:00. we'll see exactly how timing plays out in kenosha. in terms of heightened awareness, people being nervous here in the community as a trial wraps. the sheriff's department tells me that they're not expecting any issues and are keeping a-soaked on a close and social media to monitor that but there also very prepared. >> john: figures because nothing will happen in the wake of this. alexis, thanks. >> sandra: senate majority leader chuck schumer is pushing back on democrat spending bill
because it is still stuck on the health side. moderate democrats there say they still want to see a cbo score on the bills cost before they take a vote. all of this as a president biden continues to sink in the polls. just 41% of americans approving of his performance. dragged down by his handling of the economy and inflation. let's bring in fox business anchor, biden. >> the road try to sell it in several different ways. the bill back better plan is very popular with the public. you take individual parts of it and they say do you like the government paying for child care? okay. they always say that the bigger concern is inflation. right now, americans care about inflation and there is no way that you can spend all of the money that we have been spending and not have inflation.
that's what we have inflation. and we have numbers. if you don't mind, we'll put them up. there's something called the covid money tracker that takes a look at all of the money that has been allocated and spent on covid. this, by the way, does not include the $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan which is plast one week ago. it comes a $6.8 trillion and that's the $1.9 million rescue plan. you are close to $8 trillion and then you add 2-4 trillion dollars and you come to over $10 trillion. this is in addition to her regular budget. if you could put that back up on the screen, the last bar is what the federal reserve has been doing what we call monetizing the debt. that amounts to printing money to pay for all of this money that they don't have. >> sandra: and they are the ones that are not acknowledging that inflation exist because they do not look at food and
energy prices spiking because that does not play into their decision-making. "the wall street journal" editorial board completely cruise with your point and has this piece. how to make spending on popular. they write that the democrats take amount of the costs and benefits and they will catch the government checks but they do not feel better off because they know they are paying more at the grocery store and at the grass pump or to replace the old dishwasher if they can even fina dishwasher to buy. >> many of the present sing that they don't understand. that's his answer to the concern. they understand perfectly well. the government does not make anything for the only thing thing the government makes is inflation when they spend money they don't have a negative federal reserve to print the money to do that. to say that it is going to lower inflation by spending another 2-$4 trillion, people don't buy that because people have credit cards. they know that if they are in debt for one credit card, the
way out is not to go to max with another credit card. that is what the government is doing. we are paying the price of inflation for spending money that we don't have. they say that spending more money we don't have, by a large amount, will lower inflation. it doesn't work that way. at your cigarette a card. you don't max out one credit card to pay for another. >> sandra: i'm sure you saw the cover this morning. who's left? at has a picture of a president with his head down walking alone. even dems disliking biden and later polls. we look at the poll numbers and the approval ratings dropping to as low as 41%. as we look at that, we see the support for the spending plan when you pulled the american people. i want to ask you about this because 53% say that they support the three and a half trillion dollars spending plan. but when they asked about their
concern that the president will do too much to increase the role of government, a whopping 59% say they are more concerned. where does that leave us? >> as i said before, the individual items -- it depends. a lot of people depend on how you asked a question. would you like to have more of this? would you like a more of that? people say yes, generally they want. but if you're doing it at the cost of inflation and at the cost of doubling the price of gas at the pump in doubling food prices including meat and chicken and stuff that americans are lion, they don't want that. they also recognize that the government does not pay for it. this is all paid for and it's been a cause zero money. they don't buy that. they know that the government takes its money from the private sector. the government does not make money. it does when it prints money and that causes inflation. government takes everything that it has from the private sector. the more you try to tax the private sector, the more
problems are going to have in terms of growth. that is what they say they're going to be able to figure it all out, but after all of the mistakes of this administration is making come i don't think that the public believes in him anymore. >> sandra: an expensive turkey day. >> a hugely expensive turkey day. i'm glad that -- a juror number jen psaki came out over the summer with the barbecue thing saying you're paying less for barbecue. they tried to make things up. >> sandra: and they also promised that the middle class would not see their taxes go up. if you're paying more for cars and fuel and everything in the fuel. >> the worst taxes inflation. >> sandra: thank you for coming in. john. >> john: we are about 3 minutes away from the scheduled resumption of the kyle rittenhouse trout in kenosha, wisconsin. just looking at feed from the courthouse although no movement. in the meantime, let's bring back andy mccarthy. and he comes over we've seen the prosecution, thomas banger, on
the death of joseph rick to mike rosenbaum. senior moment. it is my birthday today. >> sandra: happy birthday, john. >> john: thank you. i appreciate that. so far, would see them focusing on joseph rosenbaum. also the wounding of gaige grosskreutz. where do you suspect that the prosecution is going to go with that when they continue their visitation of closing arguments? >> we saw them slow down things with the shooting of rosenbaum and i think that the later shooting was a tightly condensed package and what they have to sell it was in the provocation argument with respect to rosenbaum, that provocation carries through to the shooting of the other three individuals. to try to pull that off, i don't think they can. to try to pull that off, i think
what they will try to do is say those three shootings have to be understood as one neat little package which is provoked by what happened with rosenbaum. >> sandra: andy, for those who are unfamiliar with the process, what are we about to see when this resumes in a couple minutes? >> will have the conclusion of the prosecutors summation. we will have a two hour or so different summation. the government gets to make a brief closing summation. a lot of people think that's unfair because why should they get to go twice but they get spoke twice because they have the burden of proof. the defense does not have to prove everything so the government gets a brief rebuttal. why should the government get the last word cosmic the government is not. the jury does. in this case, the government's going to have a tough row to hoe. i'm worried. the jury is not sequestered.
the judge is talking about letting them go home. they still need to be intense publicity and there has been intense publicity about this case. you have to wonder and worry that if they go home and there is tremendous publicity, the first thing that's going to happen tomorrow morning when they come back and said getting right to deliberation is it we will have arguments and motions made about whether they were exposed to this or that publicity and should we bring the jurors and one at a time and ask them if they saw it and if it affects their ability to be fair. i think they are playing with fire here letting the jury go home rather than sequester them. >> john: meet bounce something off of you that mark eiglarsh brought up earlier in the hour. competing thoughts regarding provocation. he suggested that prosecutors are going to try to make the case that just by being there with the weapon was a provocation on the part of kyle rittenhouse. but he also thought that when he was being chased by joseph rosenbaum and turned around to
see rosenbaum closing in on him, he did act in self-defense. but if there is provocation self-defense argument goes away. how do you square that circle? >> you don't. what you hear in the way that mark analyze it is the two competing visions of what happened here. the prosecution will of the jury to think that there is provocation and the fact that rittenhouse showed up with a rifle and a place where they say he did not belong and that was provocative and caused everything that happened. the legal analysis of this is that whether you think he should've been there or not, he was a legally allowed to be there. he was a legally allowed to be carrying that gun. as a matter of law, for it to be provocation such that he loses his natural and statutory right to defend himself, he has to have done something that was so threatening to the people that
he confronted along the way that he is deemed to lose his right to self-defense. it cannot be that he shows up and has a gun. you are allowed to show up and have a gun. that cannot be a legal provocation. >> sandra: i'm looking for the words. as we know, rittenhouse testified, "i didn't do anything wrong. i defended myself." as we take everyone back to the cross examination, rittenhouse said that he pointed his rifle at rosenbaum and attempted to turn him. he knew that pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous. rittenhouse testified that he pointed at him because he kept a running at me and i did not want him to chase me. >> the other thing that is when he turned around is one ziminski
fired the shot in the air. when he turned around and sees rosenbaum running at him, there's artie been a shot fired. he can't have known where that came from. he had a guy that threatened to kill him, but according to his testimony, rushing at him and grabs his gun and tries to get it away from him. that's a self-defense claim. >> john: the defense is going to come back and contest the timeline of events in the video we see playing over and over as you are giving your file analysis here. the prosecutor, as we pointed out before, they have slow that down extensively so that the jury could get a better look at the progression of events. as rosenbaum is rushing toward rittenhouse there, as rittenhouse get slowed up by running towards old cars, it see video is being shown to the
video. it was only milliseconds as rosenbaum was rushing toward him. the prosecutor has made a big deal by saying look how far away, and you can see it zooming in. look how far away rosenbaum is from rittenhouse when the first shot is fired. if you have a still frame, it does look like is at least 3 feet away. but if that is run at full speed, the closing between rosenbaum and rittenhouse is much quicker than it appears on that video. couldn't rittenhouse live intimately have been fearing that rosenbaum was a most on hie trigger? >> and that's a point paired what you are focusing on is a real challenge for the defense. we have 20/20 hindsight on a very controversial circumstance. put ourselves exactly in the
shoes of the people acting under the circumstances which they were acting. they did not have a luxurious amount of time to analyze each moment of this confrontation as if it was a free frame. this all happened very fast and it's going to be the challenge of the defense to remind the jurors that this did not happen the way that the prosecutor, mr. binger, senate did. it happened in milliseconds. the other advantage, and this is important for the defense, this does not start on an even keel. the prosecution has the burden of proof. they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt once rittenhouse has put his self-defense and play, they have to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. it's not good enough if you're a
juror and think that i think that the prosecution stories is better than rittenhouse's. i don't think that, but even if you did, that's not enough to convict. they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not legitimately act in self-defense. >> john: will find out what the prosecution and defense has to say soon. we are about 6 minutes behind schedule but i'm sure will be back soon. standby. thank you. >> sandra: will be watching for that resume. thank you for your analysis. we are getting a heads up that the white house briefing could be starting shortly's we are monitoring that as well. heather hansen is a trial attorney and we will bring you in here as we await the trial to resume her. your thoughts on what could be happening next when they come back in the room. speak to everyone that spoken today has made good points. something that john is pointed out is the idea of provocation. the idea that they want to back it up and say that rittenhouse was provoking from the moment he arrived with a rifle.
one of the things we have to remember is you can provoke and then withdraw. for example, if i come in at some place with a gun and say that i'm good to shoot everyone and then i say i drop my gun and say never mind, i'm not going to shoot you and i say it verbally and the other person shoots me, it changes the situation. there's going to be arguments from the defense that there were moments of withdraw and moments where rittenhouse was on the defense. we also have to remember that the prosecutor is spinning everything the best possible way for them. that's how trials work. everybody swears to tell the truth and then tells totally different stories. it is going to be really interesting to hear from the defense as they counter each of the points that the prosecutor is making out. we have an interesting afternoon hunt of us in the next few hours. >> john: we should point out that the judge is now back in the courtroom. we don't think that the proceedings are back underway just yet, but there's a life picture. let's listen for second.
nothing happening just yet. let me ask about the point where talking to eddie about. the case that jos and rosenbaum was at least an arm's length away when the first shots were fired. rittenhouse continued to fire and as andy was pointing out, the prosecution was in each one was a deliberate decision in terms of i fire one shot, going to fire another, good to fire another. a burst of repeated gunfire. the conscious act of pulling the trigger multiple times. >> he's doing the best he can. as you pointed out a little earlier, he slowed down the video on purpose. i have my psychology degree and so much of trial work is to to tomy psychology. it looks much different to the
jury. that is incredible. to me, he loses credibility when he tries to slow things down. it was not slow that night and in fact, there was arson going on in shootings going on. this was utter chaos. the defense attorney, and i believe he will, this was not as slow as the prosecution would lead you to believe just as it's not all these other things. but it is the prosecutor's job to tell the story in the most effective way that he can and he does not have as much to work within these videos. he's doing what he can. >> sandra: we are going to go back into the courtroom there in kenosha, wisconsin. it sounds like the judge is speaking again. let's listen. beco i had been talking about the murder of jos and rosenbaum and as you can tell, trying to go in chronological order and going through the way that makee most sense.
count one is with regard to joseph rosenbaum. the second count pertains to richard mcginnis who her testify. he testified that he was in the line of fire behind joseph rosenbaum as kyle rittenhouse fired his ar-15 loaded with full metal jacket ammunition. and i'll talk more about that ammunition and a little bit. but you've heard testimony that it's a type of admonition that is capable of going through bodg through a squad car. it is designed to go through the target and continue flying on for up to 550 yards. richard mcginnis testified that when those shots went off, he thought he had been hit. he thought his life was in danger. one of the rules that most people who are familiar with firearms know is always check your background. meaning, not what is around your
target and know what is behind your target. this is true when you were hunting, it's true in your target shooting, and obviously, it is true when you have an ar-15 in downtown kenosha in the middle of protests with houses and people nearby. but there's no indication that the defendant cared one bit about his background. cared one bit about where those bullets were going to go. as i said, it he put richard mcginnis in danger. richard mcginnis, after this incident you've seen in videos, goes to try and help joseph rosenbaum. he has his own video and as he shows when he first gets there, he finds mr. rosenbaum's body facedown on the ground. i'm going to play this exhibit 15 for you.
[inaudible] >> if you want to talk about medics and talk about people who care coming want to talk about people who were there trying to help. you just heard them and you just saw them. people who did not know joseph rosenbaum and they just knew that somebody needed help. while that is going on, the defendant flees. callously disregarding the body
he pulled a gun. that statement, he pulled a gun, was a lie. it is not true. the defendant knew it was not true. he is lying to the crowd as he is running away. joseph rosenbaum did not have a gun and the defendant knew he did not have a gun. the defendant is lying to save his own skin. instead of going and trying to help the person that he has you shot and killed. in exhibit number 3, gaige grosskreutz's facebook live video, he tells a similar lie. as they are running, he asks did you just shoot someone and the defendant says something about the police and says i did not
shoot anyone. this is similar to the light that he told at exactly the same time as he passes. he says he did not shoot anyone. and that was established in testimony. and i think it's worth emphasizing at this point that jason witkowski had just met the defendant may be one hour ago. this is at 11:30 at night and he got there at 1045. speak out this is gaige grosskreutz running toward danger is and help. this is exhibit number three.
>> you shot somebody? who did you shoot? who was shot? what are you doing? did you shoot somebody? who was shot? who was shot? speak out listen to the second thing he says. >> you shot somebody? who was shot? who is shot? what are you doing? you shot somebody? who is shot? >> it's hard to tell what is exacts are. i hear the word not pretty clearly as in i did not shoot anyone and i did not do
anything. jason witkowski, he lies to the crowd. she lies to gaige grosskreutz. at this point, the crowded is dealing with what they'd proceed to be an active shooter. someone who is just shot someone and is still in possession of the gun who is fleeing the scene and how are we supposed to know where he's going next? all night that night, the crowd is been hearing the sound of gunshot and they been hearing fireworks, firecrackers. but now, someone actually has been shot. the crowd sees the defendant running with the gun. he is lying to them. he still has the gun and he shot someone. this is provocation to them. this is someone who is committed a criminal act and is putting someone in danger. it is entirely reasonable for
that crowd to believe at that moment that he is a threat to kill again. the defendant could have made it unequivocally clear what he was doing. he could have stayed at the body and help protect him and preserve his or her life. call 911. as he is running, he could've announced what he was doing. he could've fired warning shots to keep them away. he could've dropped the gun or race his hand and surrendered. he could've signaled to the crowds that he did not pose a threat anymore. everything he does is indicative of someone who is still a threat. the defendant is going to tell you he wasn't. from the crowd's perspective, how are they supposed to know any different? he does nothing to demonstrate to the crowd that he is not a threat to kill again. and it turns out, he does.
it turns out that within a few seconds, he does kill again. i submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that in this situation, the crowd has the right to try and stop an active shooter. they have a right to protect themselves. the defendant is not the only one in the world who has the right to self-defense. but what does the crowd do to try and stop the defendant? i submit to you, and this is not a criticism of them, but they use almost the least minimal and least intrusive means possible. they could have used deadly force against him. they could have shot at him. but in static, someday comes up behind him and knocked his hat off. anthony huber comes up with a skateboard and the defendant blocks him with them his arm and the defendant falls to the ground on his own.
no one knocked him down. he has no weapons, no guns, no knife, nothing. comes and tries to kick the defendant in the face. anthony huber comes back and tries to grab. to try and disarm the defendant. gaige grosskreutz had his own gun in his own hand. he could've named it and fired at the defendant, but he did not. and you heard him testify about that. about how that is a decision that he was not prepared to make at that point in time. he is not the type of person who is willing to take someone's
life in an instant. unlike the defendant who took two lives at night. very quickly and seemingly very easily. there is a video, exhibit 5, which is the bg on the scene video which traces this entire incident which we call the second event. this is going to show you mr. huber, mr. grosskreutz, and other individuals trying to stop an active shooter with what i would describe his least intrusive means possible. >> someone knocks his hand to my calf. anthony huber comes in with a skateboard.
in just a few seconds, the defendant kills one person an attempt to kill two more and blows off gaige grosskreutz's arm. that fast. this is someone who has no remorse and no regard for life. only cares about himself. these folks that are coming at him, the jump to command, anthony huber, they aren't arme. they are not a credible threat to his life. they are trying to stop an active shooter. they have a right to do so. imagine if the crowd could not do that and imagine if they were not allowed to try and stop someone in that situation. after killing anthony huber and
severely wounding gaige grosskreutz, the defendant walks away. like he has some sort of hero and a western. without a care in the world for anything he has just done. it's interesting. this occurs one block away from police line. right down the road. if the defendant is so concerned about his safety, the police are right there. in fact, they pull up to the scene almost instantly. the defendant has his medic bag on and he proclaims himself medic. he does not know if anthony huber is dead or alive are capable of being saved. and yet, he offers no assistance and makes no attempt to try and help anyone else. all he cares about is himself. we have taken that video and we have broken it down into
individual frames. i want to take you through, frame by frame, the incident with gaige grosskreutz. a lot has been made about mr. grosskreutz's emotions and what he does and where he goes and things like that. it's help of rust to take a look at this prayer this is exhibit 80 beginning with theme stomach. you can see anthony huber staggering off after being shot in the chest. it is entered in his rib cage and has exited near his right shoulder. it is ripped through his ribs, his heart, his aorta. he may not technically be daddy, but he is going to be dead within a few seconds. the defendant has a weapon pointed towards gaige grosskreutz who is cowering. hovering, hiding, covering his head and trying to stay out of the way. i'm going to go frame by frame here slowly. we see the movement. now we see that the gun is
moving down towards gaige grosskreutz. it is pointed directly at him from a distance of a couple of feet. gaige grosskreutz has his right leg planted as if he is pushing backwards trying to get away. the gun is still pointed toward him. the defendant year is going to adjust the gun, turn it over as if he is making some sot of adjustment on it. gaige grosskreutz testified that this was a movement he interpreted as the defendant preparing that gun as if it was going to fire again as if clearing a jammed around so that he could shoot it at mr. grosskreutz. he is, probably, thinking to himself if i can get away, i will. until he realizes that the defendant is getting ready to fire again.
you can see mr. grosskreutz is backing up with his right leg. let me go back a couple of frames here. you can see his right foot is on the ground but it's starting to move back. and frames at 447, his right leg has moved back. this is someone who is about to retreat. he is backing away from the defendant until, as he testified, he sees the defendant start to manipulate the gun in such a way that it makes mr. grosskreutz feel like he's about to be shot. only then does he take action. what action does he take? does he hold that gun with both hands? the glock that he has come and pointed at the defendant? no. never. does he even take it with one hand and pointed? never.
instead only you can see them start to lunge in with his left arm forward. the gun is not in this hand. the gun is in his right hand. he is lunging forward reaching for the defendant. probably reaching for the gun. probably trying to block the gun. you can see now that he is going to take a step with his right leg across the defendant's body. not directly toward the defendant, but across his body as he is reaching him almost swiping away at that gun with his left arm. he has ablated his body and such a way to try and present as minimal of a target as possible which is probably what saved his life. his right leg is about to hit the ground here. the ar-15 is pointed directly at him from to, maybe 3 feet away. he is trying to shield himself with his left arm. as we approach frame 500, the
gun goes off. at no point in this process is mr. grosskreutz pointing his gun at the defendant. frame 499, the gun has just fired. frame 500, you see the puff of smoke. 501, the bullet has hit mr. grosskreutz right bicep, severing it. going to can you forward because you can see that his right arm, this is an interesting frame right here. 504. you can see the gun, and i'll go back even more. you can see mr. grosskreutz 'us arm was the right arm and pointed off to the side. what pulls that closer to the defendant is the fact that he just had his right bicep suffered. it is not a voluntary action. it is an involuntary action. the muscle is severed. frame 502. watch his right hand. 503, 504, 505, 506, 507.
508. at this point, yes. absolutely. that right arm is dangling toward the defendant. it is not going to be able to pull the trigger without a working bicep muscle and it is not a voluntary thing. it is done because the defendant just blew them off. but yes, this is the time, after the shooting when a gun happens to be pointed at the defendant. and i have to stop here for a moment and highlight the hypocrisy of the defense. according to the defense, if someone has a gun, they are a threat. if someone points a gun, they are the threat. there's only one exception to that. the defendant. by their logic, he gets to run on with a gun all night. but we are not supposed to take him as a threat. he gets the point a gun at everyone. we're not supposed to point stomach take him as a threat. it does not work that way. the same rules apply to the defendant as everyone else.
there is no exception to the law for kyle rittenhouse. there is no exception that says anyone else has a gun, your major comics for kyle rittenhouse. there's no exception in the law that says i can kill you, except for kyle rittenhouse. i can do it all night long. the same rules apply to him as anyone else and everyone else has a right to defend themselves also. not just the defendant. we have shown you photos and
>> it's hard to look at. but this is what we are dealing with. when you fire and ar-15 at someone from close range, this is what it looks like. i guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen, the defendant had no clue what his gun was capable of. he did not even bother to pay attention to it. did not concern himself with what he would be doing to other people. but this is what happened. let's not flinch away from this. it's important that we understand what that gun was capable of that night. it killed two people and it did this to mr. grosskreutz's arm.
when those shootings occurred that i just played for you, what would a reasonable person in the defendant's position at the time think? the good news is, ladies and gentlemen, you are going to tell us. as part of your decision in this case, you will represent the reasonable person of ordinary and prudent person and he will put yourself in the defendant'ss that night. i submit to you than at the time of the shootings, reasonable person in the defendant shoes would have known that he had provoked joseph rosenbaum by pointing his gun at someone else. the defendant but someone else at risk of dying by doing that. the defendant should have known that the crowd was aware of the fact that he just shot someone and they felt their lives were in danger. that is reasonable. it's also reasonable to
understand that at that point, gaige grosskreutz just witnessed all of us. he heard the defendant shot someone and he ordered the defendant lie about it. he saw the defendant shoot at jump kick man in close range and miss. he saw the defendant kill anthony huber. gaige grosskreutz believed his life was in danger at that moment. and he was proven correct. the defendant shot him two. too. when you consider what's reasonable in this case, consider whether or not it's reasonable for a criminal to be able to shoot himself out of a crime scene. when a bank robber robs a bank and runs away and a crowd comes after them, can he just shoot anybody and claim self-defense? if somebody comes up to that person tries to stop them and disarm them like anthony huber dead, do they forfeit their
life? did he forfeit his life by trying to be a hero and stop an active shooter and protect others? is not justified? and the defendant just kill him? in this case, the crowd was right. the crowd knew that the defendant had shot someone. when they're coming after him, they know he has just shot and killed joseph rosenbaum. but not every active shooter situation does the crowd have perfect knowledge. when they are told that person running up the street to shot someone, we don't have time in the moment to go back and take a look at the body and replay the video and make a decision before going off to the person with the gun. we've had police officers testify in an active shooter instinct, their first instinct is to go in and stop the threat. they don't sit there and think maybe it was self-defense. i don't know. i'm going to wait and see. every day, we read about heroes stop active shooters.
that's what was going on here. the crowd is right in the crowd was full of heroes. that crowd did something that, honestly, i don't know of i would've had the courage to do. i see a guy running up the street with an ar-15 and i hear he to shot somebody come up my first instinct is not to approach. anthony huber was different. jump kick man was different. gaige grosskreutz was different. that does not make them a threat to the defendant's life. that does not make their lives worthless. they do not give up their right to defend themselves. they have just as much right as the defendant. i told you i wanted to begin by talking about the murders
committed by the defendant. now, i want to go back and put it on context. the context starts with, "i'm just try to be famous." the defendant's tiktok video. a picture of him up in ladysmith in early may proudly holding his new ar-15. up until august 25th, this was the only time he had ever fired back on. maybe put 100 rounds through it up there with dominic black. they purchased back on that same trick. the defendant admitted it. he knew it was a matter of law. he could not buy that gun because he was only 17. yet, he wants to tell you that he thought legally he could possess it which does not make sense to me. we don't have defendants come in and say i possess cocaine, i
couldn't buy it, but i didn't know i couldn't possess it. that's not the way it works. dominic black conducted straw purchase for the defendant. he purchased for someone who is not legally allowed to purchase for themselves. i am prosecuting dominant black for that, as you know, just like i am asking joshua ziminski. what dominic black did was wrong and we don't tolerate that. he was going to keep that gun until the defendant turned 18. it was his gun and legally hits. the defendant knew that it was going to be held onto until she turned 18 and he was not going to have it until that birthday. i would like to focus a little but on this air 15 because i think it's important, when you consider the recklessness of the content, how much he knew, cared, or did not know.
about this deadly weapon. he had only fired at one time and maybe 100 rounds through it. he loaded with full millet jacket ammunition which i will talk about a little more. he wanted it because he said it looks cool. didn't seem to know or care about the type of ammunition for the type of gun. a couple of witnesses told us in this trial, and i cannot believe it, a gun is a gun is a gun. don't even start with that. a bullet is a bullet. no, it is not. it is not. anybody who says that is ignorant and reckless because there are some important distinctions here. full metal jacket ammunition is capable of piercing body armor and squad cars. you heard officer krieger testify that when they heard someone is running around with a rifle, he went and got his plate
armor out of the back because the regular body armor it was not going to stop those rounds. ryan bulge talked about how full metal jacket ammunition is by designed to go through a target like a deer or a person and continue on. he says it can hit a target 550 yards away. that is five and half football fields. he explained that he had a handgun that night which he put hollow-point ammunition on and that is what he was planning on using for self-defense. hollow-point ammunition acts differently. it is going to hit its target, but it's not designed to continue on and go through and hit other targets. you will hit which you hit, but you are not going to put the rest of the community at risk. especially on a night when there are hundreds of people on the streets and a heavy residential area. we can see on that map the car
source. their houses, churches, day cares, schools nearby. you are firing full metal ammunition around. i submit you that ar-15 had no lawful or legitimate purpose that night. the second amendment allows people to carry guns. that is true. there are people who cannot carry guns. convicted felons, for example. for generally generally speakin5 did not accomplish any of the goals that these folks said it was going to. for example, ryan bulge says that the handgun was what he was going to use for self-defense. several witnesses agree that you cannot point this gun or should this gun at people to protect property. if you're going to protect the car source building, how is this gun going to help with that?
the defendant has admitted that the gun was useless when he was going to treat people as a medic because i got in the way. he had to take it off and handed to someone. you cannot use it as a medic and you cannot use it to protect the building. what is it therefore? well, it looks imposing and it has some deterrence value. jason makowski, dominant black, and ryan bulge said that they never intended to use their guns. why is that there christian at the defendant was wearing a sling that night. he purchased that sling that afternoon. the purpose of the sling was that the gun would not be taken away. it would not fall off and it cannot be taken away. it was designed to help them retain possession of the gun and he loaded it with 31 backgrounds. capable of killing 30 people or more. why do you need 30 rounds of full metal jacket armor to protect building russian mark
this ar-15 is incompatible with the role of a medic. richard mcginnis has been to demonstrations in seattle, portland, washington, d.c., new york, minneapolis. he has never seen anyone walking around claiming to be a medic with an air 15. when you see someone like that, it does not send a warm fuzzy message. come to me, i'm here to help. the defendant acknowledged he had to take off his air 15 to treat people. no serious credible medic wears an ar-15 slung around their body. that is because the defendant was a fraud. he was not an emt. he lied. he lied to the press. he is being entered be measured mcginnis who he hears as a member of the media and he says he is a certified emt. he is lying. absolutely lying.
they said that the defendant had to borrow his medical supplies from us. this is an emergency situation and everybody's in to spitting violence. everyone is prepared for people to be hurt, harm, injured. and people are going around claiming to be a medic. he's a quack doctor practicing without a license. the put lives at risk. one of the things i had joseph rosenbaum mx gaige grosskreutz testify about which said first do no harm. it is one of the fundamental penitence of the practice of medicine. first, do no harm. how do we evaluate his performance of a medic? and one arm stomach hand, he wept up in ankle and help someone who had a
cut spirit on the other hand, he killed two people come up, up gaige grosskreutz's arm, and put more lives in jeopardy. we rebalance your role of a medic that night, i don't give you any credit. he showed no remorse for his victims. never try to help anybody that he hurt and even on the witness stand when he testified on wednesday, he broke down crying about himself. not about anybody he hurt. no remorse and no concern for anyone else. for him to call himself a medic is an insult to anyone like gaige grosskreutz who spent hundreds of hours training and working hard to become an emt. it's an insult. the defendant made a series of reckless decisions that night. going armed with a ar-15 at 17 years old when he knew he should
not have done so. that gun is normally locked in a safe that he does not have access to and it is not legally hits. he is out after citywide curfew and he is intentionally, knowingly entering into a dangerous situation and he expects that because he brings along his ar-15 and somebody armor. don't tell me you did not know. he brings along no nonlethal means of defense which means his only option is to kill. i don't know about a lot of you, but i remember that night. i didn't come down here. i don't think most reasonable people dead. in part because we all knew it was going to be violent and dangerous. most regional people to the extent they came out, they were gone by then. you do not willingly put yourself in the situation. unless you wanted.
unless you are looking for it. unless you want trouble. to put this in perspective, at this time here in our community, they were people who were scared. there are people who are worried about themselves, their homes, their families, their business. that is understandable. this is different. there are also people out there who are executing their first i'm at right to and have free speech for whatever they believe in and they have that right as well but that's not what we're talking about. the curfew, the riots, the larson, the looting we seen. close exits on the interstates. all of this was sending a message to reasonable people, go away. do not come down here.
who was last at 1145 at night? most reasonable people went home before the curfew. or never came at all. the defendant down there he says, because he wants you to believe he is protecting car source. he had no actual ties or genuine concern for this building. you have a caravan of people from west bend coming down from some other community having no idea what was going on here in kenosha and no idea what businesses there are. having never dealt with car source before. just injecting themselves in this situation. car source that night was empty. the owners testified that they moved all the cars off of the lot. they took the tools out from inside. they did not feel the need to protect the building. so, who is there?
these guys with their ar-15s. want to be soldiers trying to manufacture a personal connection to this event and in furthering their own personal agenda. a small part of the deluge of chaos tourists we saw here in kenosha trying to feed off of what we were going through. despite everything we did to try and tell them go away and stay out. did those owners asked anyone to protect the business? i called them to the stand because i wanted you to hear from them. i had their statement, but i wanted you to hear from them. i'm sure you formed your own impressions about them. i'm not here to tell you that i believe what they said on the witness stand. i don't think it matters much except i wanted you to have a flavor of who these people were and what was going on at that building. what was interesting to me is
that text message from the defendant asking for the address of car sores even though the defendant says he's artie been there. doesn't make sense to me. it's not hard to find. kenosha is one of the easiest cities in wisconsin to navigate. it's out east-west north, south. how hard is it to find this place? but the agreement was that the defendant was was to state the 59th location pair there's another group at 63rd. it was their responsibility. the defendant testified that when the shootings occurred at 1145 at night, he did not know if that group was there or if they had left. crucially, you heard the testimony of christiane harris who is out there reporting for his run down live and he's making is video. he tells the defendant to stay on your property and don't go in the streets and engage of these protesters because you're making it worse and you're escalating the situation. he tells the defendant specifically that. just 20 minutes before the
shootings. he probably said that because he knows this is a crowd that is feeling threatened by the defendant and his group. richard mcginnis testified that when hayes left the stella hotel and immediately ran over to 59th street, he saw guys on the roof and he felt threatened. the guns were what changed the dynamic for him. drew hernandez, up we show video of drew hernandez having laser sights pointed at him. some he was pointing the gun from the roof and putting his life in jeopardy. these are people who are veterans. they've been to protests in seattle, portland, washington, d.c., new york. they've been through this before. here, and little kenosha, the defendant's group made them fear for their lives. that's the impact thesis be toes had. the crowd is yelling stop pointing the gun shadows and supporting the laser pointers.
he's well aware that the crowd on the street is hostile and they don't react well to him. this crowd is all the way down south of 60f. that is where they are at. i need to expect that these folks are not on my side. joseph rosenbaum. he's dead. we don't know what he was thinking and we don't know what was going on in his mind. that makes him an easy target for the defense today because they can pile on him and destroy his reputation and he can't speak for himself. that happens a lot in homicide trials. blame the victim. the lack who can't themselves. i went to lee about joseph rosenbaum and you've heard testimony about him. he'd been in the hospital.
had a clear plastic bag with his possession. toiletries, a water bottle. you get it in the hospital. it's common. he's walking around like it is his only possession in the world. he visits his girlfriend and happens to wandered downtown into the middle of civil unrest. no indication he planned to be there and no indication he is part of any movement. he just happened to stumble into it. what does he do that night? let me tell you. he tipped over porta potty that had no one in it. he swung a chain. he lit a metal garbage dumpster on fire. and there is an empty wooden flatbed trailer that they pulled out in the middle-of-the-road and they tipped it over to stop from bearcats and they lit it on fire. and he said some bad words. he said the n-word.
if you were alive today like josh was immensely, i try to prosecute him for arson but i can't because the defendant killed him. we don't execute you in the street. i'm not here to say that the things that joseph rosenbaum did were good or i condone that kind of behavior. not at all. but he did not deserve to die for it. you cannot kill someone what he sings. he is 5'4" and 150 pounds. characterized as a babbling idiot. witkowski said he turned his back and walked away because the guy wasn't a threat. somebody like joseph rosenbaum with a napoleon complex. the little guy who just wants to chatter. when it comes down to it, it's all bark and no bite. like a little dog. bark, bark, bark, bark.
not going to do anything. there is no dispute ns record that at no point that night did joseph rosenbaum hurt anyone. never had a gun, and a bread knife, never had a bat, never had a club. in the drew hernandez video, that fight and ultimate gas and we showed you, he is being shoved around by the crowd like a rag doll. he is mouthing off and he's talking a lot. but he doesn't threaten anybody. doesn't hurt anybody. they are pushing them around like he is a tiny little person which, frankly, he was. in the back on of this video, you will hear somebody say when your gun at me or something like
that. that is it joseph rosenbaum. he's upset because somebody pointed a gun and that triggers him. it's understandable. i think most of us would be triggered by that sort of thing. that is what is upsetting to him. he gets right in the face of people with the ar-15s and never reaches for their guns and never respect to punch anyone. never even lays hands on anyone. you're going to watch as confrontation here at ultimate gas and i want you to keep in mind there's a group of people on one side with ar-15s and a group on the other side. none of the people the ar-15s feel that their life is in danger. none of them shoot their guns. they can handle themselves. the defendant cannot.
[yelling] that sound you heard was nobody throwing some sort of plastic te expansions underneath the gas station. it makes a sound that almost sounds like a gunshot. at that into the mix. you have loud voices chemically hostility, and something that sounds come out to me, like a gunshot. everybody keeps her cool and nobody hurts anybody and nobody fires a gun. watch how they pushed joseph rosenbaum around like a rag doll. [yelling]
>> watch the sky and yellow. he is going to shove joseph rosenbaum about 8 feet away. i guess it was a different guy that did that. but they are shoving him around like a rag doll feels threatened by joseph rosenbaum. he's not reaching for anybody's gun. he is healthy little guy. he's a little dog that barks. you know he's going to do now? he's going to say i've go grab my bag. i don't have my bag. they let him through. there he is about to reach down and grabbed his bag off of the ground. that is joseph rosenbaum.
you've heard testimony that he tells people, "shoot me." asking them to shoot him curious how that is a threat to anyone else. he is triggered, and that video, by people pointing guns at other people. which is reasonable. most people would feel that same way. then we get to the crux of the defense. this threat that he supposedly makes the defendant. the defense with love to be able to play you a video of this threat. they would love for you to see it and hear it yourself. this is a night in which there are dozens of people out there. reporters and regular folks who are recording with their cell phones and with the cameras all night long. we have shown you video of
almost every minute of the defendants night. from multiple different angles. yet, you have not been shown a single video with this threat. nowhere. it is not out there. ryan bulge testified and we have his transcript. we have his testimony and what he says is that there was an incident in which dustin and colette put out a dumpster fire and said something to the extent of sleep and find out. right in front of my face is yelling and screaming and i tell him to back up. and he says if i catch any of
you guys. that's the timing. right after the dumpster fire. he was there physically right next to ryan. not only was either during the dumpster fire, but he stays and/or the defendant the next six or 7 minutes recording everything. i've played this video for you. it is exhibit 18 and i played it for you a period of times from one hour 22 minutes and one hour 28 minutes. i asked chris on harris. i called to the stand and someone ask you two questions. do you independently remember seeing joseph rosenbaum and hearing this threat? he said no. i said maybe you missed it because there's a lot going on. we don't actually rewrite your video and tell me if it's in there?
he said no. this video captures the entire video and there is no threat. there is no mr. rosenbaum. it did not happen. the defense desperately wants us because they have to give you a reason why it is okay to kill joseph rosenbaum. this threat is critical to their case. but it's not there. in exhibit number are 3, and i will play it for you here as i'm talking, joseph rosenbaum isn't even visible. i submit to you that even if -- i'm sorry, this is exhibit 18. even if there was a threat made, it is still not enough. joseph rosenbaum is unarmed and you cannot kill him. the defense has penned a lot of
crowd being warded off by gas. they want to tear gas that defendant, ryan bulge and this all alongside the car source. at no point in the video to hear any threat. the defense had it. they played it for you. they want you to believe that the threat is made and they also want you to believe that it was something to take in account when the defendant took in to account when he killed joseph rosenbaum. how the defendant even know who that guy it's?
joseph rosenbaum is wearing a red shirt and a blue bandanna. by the time he is killed, he has no shirt on and no blue bandanna. this is someone the defendant has never met before. he has one of hundreds of people in the crowd and yet, we are expected to believe in a split second the defendant remembers the sky? i don't believe so. the video i just showed you leads off at 11:35 p.m. the police have moved the protesters south of 60th street. dave teargas to crowd and there is no protesters left. 59th street is no longer in any danger. there wasn't anything there to protect, but by this point, there is no more danger. as law-enforcement comes through, you've heard this view where they tell the defendant to
make sure we appreciate you and are handing out bottles of water. as long as you stand that private private property, yes. no one is saying you don't have the right to stay on private property and protect property. with the crowd is saying is stay there. do not go out looking for trouble. the defendant hears this message from the police and takes it the wrong way. he thanks now i am a junior policeman and i can run around stopping crime. i asked him and i asked other witnesses if the police are there on the scene in the protesters are gone, go home. what are you still here? you shouldn't of been here in the first place, but where are you sticking around? what is the end game here? one is a screw going to be done and decide it's time to leave? right after the defendant kills joseph rosenbaum, anthony huber,
and come back, they all flee like rats off of the sinking ship. but it's boring and 59th street. there is no protesters. there is no action. the defendant decides at 11:35 p.m. to cross the police line and go looking for trouble. he knows that he is entering a hostile crowd. he seen this crowd and he knows what they're like. he is immediately confronted by the man with a yellow pants who says you pointed your gun at me. and the defendant says yes, i did. he admits that. they want to believe it never happened and the guy in the yellow pants made up or is lying. but he standing there but that's out of the road minding his own
business when the defendant happens to walk up to them. do you think he walked up and sound and make up a lie about this guy in the spur of the moment? did it really happen and is it consistent with everything of we've seen about the defendant question right does like the kind of guy point a gun at a guy for standing on a car? does he strike you as a kind of guy that would threaten deadly part to lack force to protect property? that's what happened. the man in the yellow pants says it happens and the defendant agrees. he comes in the trial and says being sarcastic like he's a little 17-year-old and he wants to get out of shortly after that, he loses track of ryan balch. so now he's in a position that he's surrounded by people that consider him a threat. he knows that he's not supposed to go anywhere without ryan balch. he knows that he's supposed to go back to 59th street and he does. he tries. hi walks up to the police line.
he says i work there, that's my business, which isn't true. whatever and they won't let him throw. ryan balch makes it through shortly thereafter. the defendant gives up. he can go one block in either direction and make it back easily if he wants to but he decides he's going to stay here and see what happens. so when he talks to these people with fire extinguishers. he's going to 63rd street and he asks them to come along. they say no. at this point, he doesn't have ryan balch. he knows he's supposed to go back. he knows he's supposed to have a buddy but decides to go alone. he walks down to 63rd street. doesn't know if he's needed but he can't wait to take this opportunity to go down and confront people because he thinks he's some sort of cop, a
junior cadet out there with the responsibility to fight crime. nobody asked him to do that. nobody gave him the right. nobody deputized him. ryan balch says the police told me the crowd, we're going to push them down by you. you deal with them. the bearcats hand out water and say he's appreciated. as he crosses the police line, he's warned about throwing rocks. what message does he take? the wrong message. i have the gun, i'm going to confront these bad guys. i'm going to stick my nose in things. what does he do when he gets to 63rd street? what does he do? he grabs the gun and points it at the ziminskis, why? they're about to mess with some sort of fire? they're not threatening anybody's lives. he doesn't need to protect